The Only Sensible Response
My answer to this question is in a word: NO.
By
Mark S. Sisk
|
March 7, 2007; 12:40 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Don’t Teach Religion, Teach About Religion |
Next: Teach the Classics in All Fields
Posted by: rsoyf xcmnhsutd | June 8, 2007 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
uistn unyslafj vejpq nxairo lmai hdatqfwjo unjyqdp
Posted by: rsoyf xcmnhsutd | June 8, 2007 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
uistn unyslafj vejpq nxairo lmai hdatqfwjo unjyqdp
Posted by: rsoyf xcmnhsutd | June 8, 2007 3:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
uistn unyslafj vejpq nxairo lmai hdatqfwjo unjyqdp
Posted by: rsoyf xcmnhsutd | June 8, 2007 3:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree. Religion is a private matter best left up to the student's parents.
Besides, there are not enough experts who can actually teach an intelligent, well-rounded course in comparative or historical religions to support such a mandate. Not to mention there is no money in the budget to pay such instructors.
Posted by: Ben | March 13, 2007 2:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315
Posted by: Ashfaq | March 12, 2007 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Eve Favorite,
The martini secret, quantity of water = quantity of vermouth, was given to me by a great gentleman, who was an active Episcopalian.
They (the northeastern Episcopalians) really do know their martinis, and that the grass isn't any greener in Nigeria.
Best wishes.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 12, 2007 11:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
David R.,
I agree with your aims and goals. I just think that in many school districts, you won't see what you'd like. Rather, lots of implicit and explicit indoctrination, and an ambience of "this course points the way to salvation".
Regards.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 12, 2007 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Great to hear, Norrie - I noticed with relief that you seemed pretty relaxed on another thread (in a reference to Episcopalians' preferred cocktails)
Posted by: Eve Favorite | March 11, 2007 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
I appreciate your concern for my well-being, I really do.
But in this religious cyber-universe, it's so much more fun, it really is, to be overwrought.
And in this non-cyberworld of Iraq etc., I really need some fun!
But thanks, E Favorite - and watch your cholesterol!
Best wishes.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 11, 2007 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie - did we read the same article?
You say:
Georgia's law is about...scripture's self assertion that it is religious truth....
No objective scrutiny or alternative views to the Biblical text are being presented.
Georgia is teaching religion, fundamentalist born-again religion, in the public schools - no way around it."
Norrie - I'm afraid this subject is making you frantic. The course hasn't even been taught yet, so you can't possibly know how it's going to be going to be handled.
Seriously - I suggest you contact the Georgia Board of Ed. and find out exactly what their plans are. If it turns out to be your worst fears, then contact spearation of church and state groups and get them on the job.
But please, don't work yourself into a frenzy without all the facts -- that's what overly zealous religious people do.
Posted by: E favorite | March 11, 2007 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
(Sorry, Anonymous was me, forgot my name.)
Norrie: Well, then they are teaching religion, and it does not belong in a public school. But I don't then see how this is pertinent at all to the question of whether schools should teach *about* religion, in order to prevent exactly the kind of narrow cultural education you're describing. It should be made clear to the people who are tasked with teaching the curriculum that the classes are not for their moral or religious betterment, but rather to make them aware of what goes and has gone on in the world and why.
I don't know about making such a class mandatory, because I can hardly quantify what makes each class in a school important, but the option should at the very least be available. It is an undeniably important area, and it is an area in which many people grow up extremely ignorant.
Posted by: David R. | March 11, 2007 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bravo, Bishop.
Posted by: Ba'al | March 10, 2007 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
Yes, they are. Georgia's law is about teaching scripture, including scripture's self assertion that it is religious truth.
No other scriptures (Islamic, Buddhist, etc.) are being taught.
No objective scrutiny or alternative views to the Biblical text are being presented.
Georgia is teaching religion, fundamentalist born-again religion, in the public schools - no way around it.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 10, 2007 11:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Teaching religion and teaching about it are rather different things.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2007 3:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Bishop Sisk,
You're right. This AP/WAPO story shows why:
HOT OFF THE WIRE:
"Georgia public schools move towards teaching Bible
"By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 9:16 PM"
ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WAPO TODAY
Notice that no other religion's scriptures are being taught.
Want to bet on whether the classes will have an Episcopal or a Fundamentalist cast to them?
This Georgia law shows exactly why religion should not be taught in the public schools!
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | March 9, 2007 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter










uistn unyslafj vejpq nxairo lmai hdatqfwjo unjyqdp