Know-Nothing Nation: Flunking Religion Too

You're on the mark in my humble opinion.

You're on the mark in my humble opinion.

Would love to get a ling to the statistic poll you are referring to. :-)

I read in the mission statement: "even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful," and I scratch the back of my head. Who do these people think they are? "Ferocious" atheists? What a parochial and utterly narcissistic perspective - one must be an American to think that way or have nothing else to do.

Ms. Jacoby, and most of the rest of the bloggers here, have missed the greatest point concerning this: people do not know the Bible, Christian/Jewish history, and ethics any better than they do because, outside authoritarian sects (and some facets of Roman Catholicism), THE CULTURE GIVES THEM NO INCENTIVE TO DO SO. If there were true persecution in this country of "Christians" (and there really never has been, save for groups like the Mormons), attitudes would be much different. This is in fact an unfortunate by-product of our nation's foreswearing of any established church; and, as we can surmise, the cure for the ailment would be worse than the disease. So-called "education" is not going to alter that one iota.

So we who believe, and we who do not, must accept this reality and get on with the business of life--let other people wallow in their slop if they insist. After all, why did God give people the ingenuity to invent the modern-day pig sty, the blog?

MSNBC just ran this trailer across the bottom of its screen:

50% OF AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS THINK SODOM AND GOMORRAH WERE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER

I wonder if the students think S & G are straight or gay?

If gay, they probably think they live in Massachusetts.

Almost makes me want to rethink my opposition to the schools' teaching the Bible. But not quite.

Yes indeed, Rudolf Bultmann's books should be required.

"Reading the Bible is insufficient. One must look deeper and read the latest conclusions of contemporary NT and OT exegetes."

How about some writings from one of the greatest New Testament scholars of the 20th Century then?

Rudolf Bultmann's "New Testament and Mythology" can be found here in two parts:
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=431&C=292
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=431&C=293

More required reading for Bible studies can be found at: http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

ME notes: "Oh, that those who claim Christ would realize it."

Reading the Bible is insufficient. One must look deeper and read the latest conclusions of contemporary NT and OT exegetes.

The references cited at the following websites should be required reading for any Bible study:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html and http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

What an excellent analysis of the state of education and faith in America!

I particularly track with the following quotes:

==="I regard American religious illiteracy as simply one more manifestation of a broader cultural illiteracy, evinced by our equally deficient knowledge of American and world history. Furthermore, American high school students consistently rank near the bottom in international tests designed to compare the scientific knowledge of teenagers....We are doing a poor job of teaching our children what they need to know about history, literature, science, and mathematics. Why should we think that public schools can do a better job of teaching religious history?"===

This is so true. Education was done so much better when it was done by predominantly private communities of faith. Public education will soon eclipse slavery as this nation's worst blight.

==="There is something truly out of kilter in a society in which Christian fundamentalists take up arms in the culture wars in order to install the Ten Commandments in courthouses and ignore the fact that so many Americans (including politicians who have supported these efforts) do not know exactly what the commandments say. Perhaps the push for more religious symbols in public life is really a confession of the private failures of families, and the institutional failure of churches, to educate their young in religious traditions."===

Again, the author nails the sad state of affairs in this country's culture war. If Christians were doing a better job at making disciples as is their charge, they would not have to be having these ridiculous discussions about meaningless ten commandment displays. The last sentence in the above paragraph says it all. How true!

==="The real problem is that we are an increasingly ignorant people, in thrall to endless infotainment and unwilling to devote time to the serious reading required to transmit any aspect of culture--including religion. How pathetic it is that we are talking about classes to summarize the role of the Bible in culture as a substitute for actually reading the Bible."===

This is unbelievable. Even this atheist author knows that reading the Bible is an important and eye-opening endeavor. Oh, that those who claim Christ would realize it.

Peter, for clarification, the last sentence of my post on March 12 at 8:49 a.m. was a quote from the Slate article. I agree with you about using one's judgment when reading any scripture.

Please do not preach to us about atrocities. Muslims are butchering people all over the world. If that were not true there would be no need for soldiers in Iraq.

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

Mike K,

The bush you are hiding behind does not exist anymore.

Pablo

Peter Jackson

To Tonio March 12, 2007 8:49 AM

You are quite right to be worried about what authority figures might do and so keep an eye on them. Of course Christianity is based almost entirely on Jesus and the New Testament.

Whether you think mankind was created by God or is a result of evolution or some of both, it is certain that mankind has been around for many thousands of years in a basically unchanged condition with the same body and mind.

Science is doing a tremendous job of helping us to determine the best way to act and live here on earth in a physically way. The personal, inner subjective mind of man has also developed in certain ways over many thousands of years – what are the best ways to handle the many situations that occur in our inner life including our values, attitudes, ideals etc

The famous scientist, Roger Sperry who jointly won the Nobel Prize for split brain work in 1981 went on to develop the science of consciousness which recognizes free will, mental entities, values, etc. The science of consciousness is a very hot topic around the world now.

There is a tremendous amount of learning still to be done in the area our inner life by studying the organization and working of our inner thoughts, feelings, and behavior.

You say you have been reading the Bible lately and find parts very interesting. There is much great work in the Bible but use your judgment.

Exactly.

Eduardo:)

You're right there. But I love to read on arguments about the UNKNOWABLE to see what we think we know, what we don't know, what we pretend to know, and what we don't know can't be there or known.

There are those who said there are no unknowns.

There are those who said there are the known knowns.

There are those who said the unknown will eventually be known by scientific proof.

And there are those who said there is the ultimate UNKNOWABLE.

And Donald Rumsfeld is the master of the known knowns and what is not known.

Arguing about the UNKNOWABLE is not insane for some. They call it philosophising.

Believing in the UNKNOWABLE is called faith by some.

I will take you advise to go outside and enjoy life.

Want to go snorkeling or jungle trekking?:)

Eduardo,

Is it the UNKNOWABLE or is it simply the UNKNOWN?

Regards.

Some of you folks have WAY too much time on your hands.

Go outside and enjoy life.

Arguing about the UNKNOWABLE is insane.

"My quest could be expressed as, we find ourselves here on earth what does God expect of us and what is the best way of doing it? The universe, the earth, nature, and mankind have been developed in a certain way - what is the best way to act and live here?"

I appreciate your reply, Peter.

In my view, "what does God expect of us" and "what is the best way to act and live here" are two unrelated questions. The first is purely about submission to authority, especially since the Abrahamic religions define God as an authority figure. Pleasing or placating authority has nothing to do with enlightenment or achieving happiness or treating other people with kindness, regardless of the authority's intentions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2160890/entry/2160902/

"One of the revelations I've had reading the Bible is that its most famous passages are almost always its gentlest and most loving parts. While there are certainly famous Bible stories that are disturbing—Noah, Ten Plagues, etc.—the celebrated bits are far milder than the book as a whole. Psalm 23 is a perfect example of this whitewashing, presenting a God who is loving, mild, forgiving, openhearted—even though the God of the psalms, and of the Hebrew Bible generally, is usually quick to anger, furious, and unforgiving. The Psalm 23 God is certainly better for marketing."

...and we should also include atheism as a religion of disbelief to be taught in schools and colleges as well. This would include studying their their dogmas too - there is no God and all religions are myths. And their organized congregations in Freethinkers, Hoaxbuster, etc.

Not to mention to study the various schools of thoughts, including the fine differences between atheism, agnoticism, and secular humanism in the broader church of atheism.

And oh, we should not forget the NTs of Atheism according to Richard (Dawkins), Paul (Gray) etc. And to determine if scientists are the clergy of atheists for the theology of proof that there is no God.

I'd love to read up on the atheist's gods and goddesses, including Oppenheimer the God of Destruction, Pol Pot the God of Death, Hitler the God of Genocide, Mao the God of the Long March, Castro the God of Filisbuster, Tina Turner the Goddess of Rock, Sagan the God of the Cosmos.

Believers of the world unite! We have to support atheism to be included to be taught in schools and colleges. We don't want to be accused of discrimination against unbelievers for their beliefs. Not believing in God and religion is a belief too.

Sorry sober minder atheists, this is my leg-pulling of Bgone.

LEPIDOPTERYX March 9, 2007 12:37 PM

Re: People being FREE and RESPONSIBLE Wherein you say:

ALLTHIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY INDIVIDUALS OF ANY SPIRITUAL PATH, INCLUDING THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO BLAZE THEIR OWN.

Your statement can be right but depends on the nature and quality of the spirit.

Here is how I see the spirit: The Spirit is vast and deep. We all know only a part.
The experts in each culture seek to contact the spirit mostly in an intense way through the mystic route. Most succeed to a degree. There are many books on the subject wherein each explains the nature and depth OF THEIR EXPERIENCE. They all give a different experience and yet there are strong similarities among most of them. After all they are talking about the same spirit.

However there are no standard words to express their experience. In any case each has to try to explain their experience to their own countrymen in their own thought forms and culture and stage of civilization. So it is only natural they all differ considerably and thence in the religion resulting therefrom. And even people from the same culture will have a different experience and different explanation, ALSO AN EXPLANATION AT ONE STAGE OF A CULTURE WILL BECOME OBSOLUTE FOR ANOTHER STAGE.

For example the core values of Christianity may be quite similar but the social expression in 300 A. D. is quite different from 1500 A. D., from Victorian England and from 1950 A.D. In fact we are now desperately in need of an expression adequate for the present time.

Pablo. And my making a statement about one thing being true for all or most societies is not the same thing as thinking that universal morality exists. Don't make the mistake of assuming that.

Pablo, you asked, "Thing are wrong when are dysfunctional for a society."

Is this statement true for all societies"

Yes.

"If so who decides what is dysfunctional? I think that divorce, adultery, drunkenness, drug abuse, premarital sex, abortion, gambling are dysfunctional for society. Is that all okay with you?"

Divorce, drunkenness, premarital sex, abortion and gambling, no. I don't think those are disfunctional for most societies.

Mike,

"Thing are wrong when are dysfunctional for a society."

Is this statement true for all societies?

If so who decides what is dysfunctional? I think that divorce, adultery, drunkenness, drug abuse, premarital sex, abortion, gambling are dysfunctional for society. Is that all okay with you?

Pablo

Pablo, you wrote "Do you think the following statement applies to all people? "There exists no universal morality." That all people should believe, "There exists no universal morality." If not why are you making a universal statement? You do not see that you have defeated yourself? "

No, I don't think it applies to all people. Obviously you disagree. Whether I think all people *should* believe it or not is beside the point. My making a statement about the lack of universal ideas without defeating the idea that there is no such thing.

You asked "On what basis would you say any things where wrong?"

Thing are wrong when are disfunctional for a society.

Again I ask, what moral position do you think is universally held? If you cannot provide even one example, then you cannot argue that universal morality exists.

Mike,

Do you think the following statement applies to all people? "There exists no universal morality." That all people should believe, "There exists no universal morality." If not why are you making a universal statement? You do not see that you have defeated yourself?

Do you think rape is good if it is the consensus of a society? Do you believe that genital mutilation is okay because it is the consensus of a society? Do you think that cannibalism is okay if it is the accepted practice in a society? On what basis would you say any things where wrong?

Pablo

Peter Jackson

To Tonio of March 9 8:33 AM
I spoke in terms of Christianity because that is what I know something about. I have read a few books summarizing most religions and I have a great respect for all religions. I feel they are all trying to follow the will of the same God, Spirit or enlightenment, each in their own way.

You say...In my view, the core of religion is asking why we are here and what is the purpose of life? ...It would be interesting to hear a summary answer to that question.

My quest could be expressed as, we find ourselves here on earth what does God expect of us and what is the best way of doing it? The universe, the earth, nature, and mankind have been developed in a certain way - what is the best way to act and live here? Science is doing a tremendous job helping us in this. The personal, inner subjective mind of man has also developed in certain ways over hundreds of thousands of years – what are the best ways to handle the many situations that occur in our inner life including our values, attitudes, hopes,

Pablo, maybe we can get to the heart of the matter. I'm contending that there does not exist a moral position that is universally held. That is what I mean by "there exists no universal morality".

If you're arguing to the contrary, what moral position do you think is universally held?

Pablo et al:

In your efforts to debunk evolution by pointing to real (eugenics) and specious (Nazi race theory) applications of its findings, you fail to recognize that immoral uses of scientifically-derived truth do not reflect upon the truth of the science. Although many find that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were morally questionable applications of nuclear physics, the fact that there were "applications" that are now subject to debate at all is testament to the "truthfulness" of the science itself.

Pablo, you stated "You made a universal moral judgment when you said:
"There exists no universal morality." When you wrote that you defeated yourself. I do not need to say anything else on the issue."

I'm not seeing your point there. I don't see how I "defeat" myself by stating an opinion that's not contrary to any other point I've made.

Also, I didn't make a "universal moral judgement", I made a statement reflecting my observations. There's a great difference between the two.

Can you expand on why you think I defeated myself?

Chip -- Regarding Susan's belief that "the line between teaching and preaching is too fine for the average public school" - perhaps that's the place to start. That is, instead of jumping in trying to introduce religion courses, start by teaching the difference between teaching and preaching - not only to teachers, but to the American public.

Reading through these discussions, it becomes increasingly obvious that people of all persuasions are not clear on the distinction between education and indoctrination – at least when it comes to religion. My guess is it’s because most people have experienced religious indoctrination only, misrepresented as education. Also, many people have been traumatized by the way religion has been handled in the US the past few years. No wonder we’re confused. Time to start clearing things up.

The Discovery Institute is a fundamentalist Christian think tank that provided much of the impetus for the ID movement. The group produced the book "Of Pandas and People" that was at the center of the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board case in PA, in which ID was exposed as creationism in different clothing. For those more interested in the workings of the ID effort, as well as its apparent lack of explanatory merit, I suggest reviewing Judge John E. Jones III ruling in that case. A Republican appointed by George W. Bush, Judge Jones had the following to say regarding the basis of the of the Court's ruling:

"1. ID violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; 2. the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flaws and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's, and;3. ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

The Discovery Foundation also produced what has come to be known as the "Wedge Document," in which the disingenous "strategy" of denying ID's theistic foundation in secular settings while simultaneously touting it's Biblical ties in religio-centric settings was laid out.

RE "the religion of evolution taught in schools." I suggest you expand your sources of information beyond the Discovery Institute and Worldnet Daily - two organizations that have no credibility whatsoever. You can find more accurate information about science by reading tea leaves with your eyes closed than you'll get from either of them.

That's a good point, E. Given a choice between having it not taught, and having kids proselytized to (which I think would be an inevitability) I think I'd choose the latter, though. In the hands of the wrong teachers I think it might do more harm than good, requiring much unlearning later on. I agree with Susan pretty completely here, particularly that "the line between teaching and preaching is too fine for the average public school." The intent is good, but I think the potential problems likely outweigh the benefits.

Chip says, "I think the teaching of comparative religion and history of religion should wait until college."

Problem is, Chip, that not everyone goes to college and not everyone in college would choose to take religion, assuming it would be an elective.

I agree that even less controversial history courses can be sugar coated in high school, but I bet you wouldn't consider holding off teaching history til college if it meant some kids wouldn't be exposed to history at all.

It's a big mess, but perpetuating ignorance is not the answer.

More scientists express doubts on Darwin
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory

More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.

All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.'

The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

I think the teaching of comparative religion and history of religion should wait until college. It's not until then that most kids have the critical thinking skills to determine whether or not they're being sold a crate of snake oil. It wasn't until much later in life that I realized (thanks to my own reading) what a sanitized crock of excrement disguised as American history I had foisted on me in middle school and high school. I can't imagine that the religious education kids would get would be any better, less dishonest, and less idealized.

Mike,

You made a universal moral judgment when you said:
"There exists no universal morality." When you wrote that you defeated yourself. I do not need to say anything else on the issue. Are you ready to embrace the Islamic State if it becomes the consensus of our society? Based on what you said you should accept it as okay.

Pablo

AMBROSE BIERCE wrote in his Dictionary:

CHRISTIAN,n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

Canyon, please take note.

Canyon Shearer wrote (supplemented by a bunch of codswallop):

"I'll leave you with this final thought;

"No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Well, Canyon... here's another final thought, which takes your final thought to the next level:

"A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism” ~ Donald Morgan

Pablo, you stated "Hitler and all that followed him would disagree with you. They were working for a perfect society of super humans based on the theory of evolution."

Hitler's theories have no basis on the validity of evolution.

You then asked "What makes your opinion better than theirs? Are you the arbiter of what is good and right? "

I'm not the arbiter of what's good or right. Morality is based on what is functional for a society.

"Are you sure that truth is relative?"

I've never stated that truth is relative, only that morality is.

"Does that include the moral conviction that, "There exists no universal morality." ???"

What moral conviction is universal?

"Do you want to live under sharia law? If not, why not? "

Because I don't live in that society.

"Are you asserting that nature created the universe? "

No I'm not. I haven't addressed the creation of the universe.

"Are you contending that nature is the source of morality?"

No. As I stated, societies create what is functional or disfunctional for that society and thus what is moral or immoral.

"Does nature think? Does nature care about right and wrong?"

Not at all.

Mike,

Does that include the moral conviction that, "There exists no universal morality." ???

Pablo

Does that include the moral conviction that, "There exists no universal morality." ???

Pablo

Mike,

Are you sure that truth is relative?

Pablo

Terra,

That quote was from Darwin not me. Anyway you miss the point.

Pablo

Mike,

Hitler and all that followed him would disagree with you. They were working for a perfect society of super humans based on the theory of evolution. What makes your opinion better than theirs? Are you the arbiter of what is good and right? Currently, there are many different views of right and wrong in the world. For example, the Muslim world contends that Islam should rule the world. The Muslim world is working towards that goal right now. Do you want to live under sharia law? If not, why not? Most of the Middle East believes that an Islamic State should rule the whole world.

Are you asserting that nature created the universe? Are you contending that nature is the source of morality? Does nature have creative power? Does nature think? Does nature care about right and wrong?

Pablo

Pablo, you stated "If there is no God morality is based on opinion and Hitler’s view of morality is equal to yours and mine."

No, morality is not based on opinion but rather on the basis of what is functional for a particular society. Hitler's views were cleary not functional for society. Morality is both situational and based on society.

Consider the god of the Christian Bible which was responsible, according to that text, of over 2 million deaths. Is taking the life of individuals always wrong, always right or situational? Consider that god's treatment of Job in the same context. Is torture always bad, always good or situational?

There exists no universal morality.

Terra,

I notice how you did not address any of the points made. The tiger is still a tiger and the man is still a man. Science is anything that can be observed and measured in a repeatable experiment. Molecules to man evolution have not been observed. Change within the kind like Tigers does not prove evolution. Questioning whether I know what religion and evolution are does not prove anything. At best I guess it makes you feel better about yourself because you are treating me as though I am stupid. I know that I know very little compared to all the knowledge in the world but I do know when someone has constructed a good argument and when something that I have said has been refuted. You have not built a good case for your position nor have you refuted anything point that has been laid out above.

Pablo

Pablo,
I hate to break it to you, but a good portion of the known world was over run by the Turks...

Dr. Pence,
I agree, as a faithful person, it is all faith, my personal faith that I do not call to others to believe. Faith is personal....and should not be sold like some snake oi, by some zebra print wearing shysrer. I go down the street and see bill boards about Jesus...something that reminds me of greenstamps (Jesus saves).Good Gods...what kind of reverence is that?

But anyway...thanks for your thoughts..

Terra, I don't take any particular exception to your post except for your definition of evolution. In terms of biology, it is defined as a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. It is not always gradual, as you suggest, evidenced by the six-toed cats that are believed to have originated at Hemingway's place in Key West. They didn't evolve with a sixth half-toe. Evolution can cause sudden changes.

pablo,
It seems you do not know what racism is, or what evolution is.

yes the strong will survive where the weak will not...the stronger male sperm gets to inpregnate the female egg. The weaker sperm falls out of the running on the trip there. The resulting offspring of the stronger male sperm will be stronger and have a better chance to survive.

It has nothing to do with race of the sperm, only with who wins the race.

The female lion will let the bigger, stronger male lion mate with her...the bigger lion will fight off the weaker ones...the cubs of the stronger lion has a better chance to survive. Again it has nothing to do with race...

200 years ago it was rare to find a man of 6 ft. or a woman over 5'5". That is evolution...ever sit down hard on the base of your spine? Hurts umm? Coccyx bone- the tail bone..what is left over from a TAIL. Also our pinky toes are getting smaller..and we have less body hair...why?we do not need the pinky toes, like when we were climbing trees...and we do not need a covering of hair. If you don't need it you lose it...evolution.

And evolution is not a religion. It is not a faith, it is science. Provable...where religion is not.

Racism is the belief that one race is better then another...bigotry.

Evolution- the gradual process of development or change...progress (maybe), (sometimes).

And as far as Political Correctness...it is another way of not unneccessarily hurting others. Some times people will claim that others are just being politically correct, when it's just their view of truth. I wonder Pablo, do you now what religion means?

Why is it that so many that are fundamentalists are afraid of Darwin...it reminds me of the Church and Copernicus, or Galileo...or anyone that takes a step ahead for humanity that disproves the backward beliefs of the organized religion or person in power.

Like so many Fundamentalists you seem to mistake science and religion...

And Pablo, Christianity is not the alternative to evolution...ignorance is.

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!

While it is quite understandable that any topic that touches on religion would spark debate and/or fervor, to get this blog back to the original question:

I say yes, religion should be taught about in public school. It is an essential part of life for most people of the world, and should certainly be included in any course of study; I can foresee some problems with it, but it is something people should be more knowledgeable about.

Back to the fervor: Any individual who wishes to be treated as an intelligent, rational person, needs to remove themselves from the notion that the world, or universe, if you will, was created by the Judeo-Christian god. I do not hold a complete nontheistic viewpoint, and I acknowledge the mystery that surrounds and infuses much of the known universe, but my rational mind knows that my actions, and by extension, the actions of my fellow man, are my own, and their, responsibility, respectively.

Anyone who reads the Bible and tries to coax from it anything more than allegorical reference or semi-interesting fiction may as well try to pull daisies from a pig's hindquarters. Why do we assume that even the most educated persons of cultures long since vanished had a greater understanding of the universe than we do?

Religion, in and of itself, is a tool created for the purpose of enslavement through the fear that comes from the unknown. Faith is another thing entirely.

Peter Jackson: "The indwelling Spirit will enable a nation to have wealth and power and build a much greater civilization. This is because a greater free, democratic, equal, progressive , scientific, technological, nation, WHERE EVERYONE IS FREE AND EQUAL can only work where everyone is MATURE, RESPONSIBLE, FAIR, REASONABLE, and Works and Votes for the good of the whole at all levels of government and society. Also where everyone is honest - with no corruption or cheating - where everyone works hard and where there is creative, progressive zeal throughout society.

Also everyone needs peace and harmony within, with others, with society, with the universe and eternity."

All this can be accomplished by individuals of any spiritual path, including those who choose to blaze their own.

Peter Jackson
ON FAITH Susan Jacoby Know Nothing Nation: Flunking Religion Too

To Pablo March 9 2007 9:02 AM
Quote: The Fathers of science did not think that science was possible without God.

This is quite correct. Science and God - religion, Jesus, the Spirit - are complementary. Here is why!

The indwelling Spirit will enable a nation to have wealth and power and build a much greater civilization. This is because a greater free, democratic, equal, progressive , scientific, technological, nation, WHERE EVERYONE IS FREE AND EQUAL can only work where everyone is MATURE, RESPONSIBLE, FAIR, REASONABLE, and Works and Votes for the good of the whole at all levels of government and society. Also where everyone is honest - with no corruption or cheating - where everyone works hard and where there is creative, progressive zeal throughout society.

Also everyone needs peace and harmony within, with others, with society, with the universe and eternity.

The United States, to a considerable extent, used to be seeking this route and prospered greatly. But now so many are seeking only self interest, and pleasure. Great energy, zeal, and desire are wasted on seeking drugs, permissive sex, random violence and destruction, in an ever more degenerate society where there is internal violence in the soul.

Tonio - "Maybe it's better to use the word "religion" to refer specifically to doctrines and organized worship."

To make things even more complex - I'd say the study of religion is more than that - it's about core beliefs, origins, growth, number and % of believers, practices, it's role in major historical events, its creation story, etc. All of this could be taught in a comparative religion course without getting into doctrine and worship.

I have never laughed so hard or felt so sad after reading your article and most of the comments. It is regrettable in our society that we as human beings have evolved to such a low ebb. One thing everyone needs to understand is that any religion is based on faith. If you have no faith, you have no religion. I don't know of any devout religious prophet or scholar throughout history who ever taught that intolerance, inhumanity and immorality were behavioral norms. The concept that something has always been and will always be, is not well received by the uneducated, intolerant and illogical. It would be my hope for humanity that we evolve into something more humane. It is a not a real tragedy to debate minuta, it is a tragedy when a loved one or dear friend is told that he or she has terminal cancer and only 6 months to live. It is quite interesting to see how philosophies and priorities change when "truly" tragic events occur as we travel the road of life. It often makes me wonder what people think as they travel the road. I wasn't aware that all roads of life were dead ends. After all, one of the thermodynamic laws of physics, basically says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed; It only changes form. But I guess one would have to have some faith in modern physics, if that law had any chance of being accepted as "gospel".

"I would add that those questions can also be addressed without religion - through philosophy, spirituality and plain old human curiosity."

Yes! Exactly my point. Maybe it's better to use the word "religion" to refer specifically to doctrines and organized worship.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

Hello Maurie,

What about those who have a different view of morality than you and I? What about Hitler? On what basis does one say that they hold a better view of morality? If there is no God morality is based on opinion and Hitler’s view of morality is equal to yours and mine.

"A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called 'humaneness' of individuals, in order to make place for the true 'humaneness of nature,' which destroys the weak to make place for the strong'" (Adolph Hitler).

Notice that what Hitler said flows right out of what Darwin taught.

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world" (Darwin).

You cannot tell the difference between the two. Again:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm)

I guess you would have to divorce those kids of statements from your theory in 21st century but this is the foundation of evolution. Only the strong survive to make a better human race.

I pray that you would see this truth. The academic institutions in the West have done a great job of indoctrinating the intelligencia of today. I pray that all the brilliant people in the West would analyze this theory apart from the grid of naturalism. The fathers of science did not think that science was possible without God. They knew that they could not expect to predict anything or expect anything to act in an ordered way in a chance universe.

Pablo

Tonio: "In my view, the core of religion is asking why are we here and what is the purpose of life."

I would add that those questions can also be addressed without religion - through philosphy, spirituality and plain old human curiousity.

Maurie Beck -- thanks for your excellent post on evolutionary biology.

Everyone - go back and read Maurie's long post - it's well worth it.

Dear Maurie Beck,

The foundation of evolution is racist and anti-human. It has been sanitized to make it fit the prevailing worldview but it still teaches that the stronger will survive and the weaker will be done away with. Evolution has no empirical proof thus it is not science but a philosophy. Yes there have been observed changes within specific kinds of organisms but those organisms still retain their identity and have not changed into different kinds. For example, there are different kinds of horses but they are still horses. God has placed in organisms the ability to change to adapt to changing environments so that they may survive. These kinds of changes have been observed and are much different than molecules to man evolution which has never been observed but has instead been put forth as a belief starting with Darwin and continuing up to today. Therefore, it is a belief system and not science. Yes, all the zealots of the religion evolution use scientific language but that does not make it science.

Pablo

"What our society desperately needs is the teaching of the essential core of religion: Thy Will Be Done on Earth as it is in Heaven."

Peter, while that idea may be the core of the Christian religion, it is not the core of all religion. Some religions such as Confucianism do not even have deities. In my view, the core of religion is asking why are we here and what is the purpose of life.

Peter Jackson
ON FAITH March 8, 2007 ...teaching ABOUT religion mandatory in public schools: in colleges and universities? Susan Jacoby author of ...Know-Nothing Nation: Flunking Religion Too....

I speak of Christianity because that is the only religion I know well enough to talk about.

The essence of Christianity can be explained as having Jesus Christ live in you and you in him and he guiding your every emotion, feeling, and ideal, your every action, and behavior, your every thought and thinking, all day , every day.

For this to happen, of course you have to know a fair amount of the core experiences of Jesus and build a relationship with him.

Every Christian denomination of course teaches a fantastic amount more than that and most people wanted more than that. Much of the additional material taught is similar in all denominations but much of your expected actions, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings vary with each denomination and each are believed strongly.

Now since the 1950’s our society and culture have changed tremendously with most people putting their faith in the promise of science to fulfill their needs and desires and take the place of religion. The result has been that people turned away from religion in droves. Their culture has changed completely. People now think in terms of science, reason, and the intellect: no longer are they thinking in terms of the past to justify their actions and how they have built on the past. Everything has to be explained in terms of today’s knowledge and in terms of the intellect.

Many main-line churches have tried to adjust by adopting psychology and today’s ideas and discarding former key beliefs. God is now dead. Jesus is now just a human being. Such religion has lost its meaning and its power to help us in our troubles.

People can now see clearly that the essential core of Christianity has often been buried and hidden by a mass of creeds, rituals, symbols, music, saint days, detailed agreements listing exactly what is allowed to be done and believed and what is heresy.

In the midst of this great disavowal and disbelief of, so much of true but non-vital, facts of the history of a fatally fading force, top educators and writers are trying to start a great movement to resurrect a dead past .

What our society desperately needs is the teaching of the essential core of religion: Thy Will Be Done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Then we can build a truly great civilization.

By pjackson82

Ba'al wrote, “There is nothing in modern evolutionary biology that supports racism, ESPECIALLY in light of population genetic studies on humans.”

I am addressing this as an evolutionary biologist and not in a non-value laden way. In other words, I am not addressing racism as either good or bad (from a value laden perspective I reject it), just as a scientific phenomena.

There is actually a large body of evidence on among group interactions in humans. In general, throughout our evolutionary history, groups and people within a group feared the “Other”. This sort of antagonistic response would obviously have fitness value, at least in terms of a first response, because wariness would protect group A from group B until group B’s intentions were known. I would speculate that the more differences between one group and another, the higher the distrust.

As far as ethnic or racial differences, there are genetic differences that correspond to geographic location due to isolation by distance and many kinds of barriers (e.g. physical such as crossing oceans, cultural such as territory occupancy). When genetic studies were first conducted, it was found that there was far more within group variation than among group variation. This initially suggested that there were not an consistent ethnic differences. However, Richard Lewontin pointed out that this analysis was flawed. Though there is, overall, greater variation within groups, in general, members within groups share alleles (genetic code variations at a specific position) due to shared evolutionary history. It is because of this shared evolutionary history with alleles specific to certain groups that we have been able to track human migration patterns since modern humans first arose (~ 150 kya) and subsequently left Africa (~ 60 – 100 kya). These shared allele patterns are often associated with geography. For example, there are shared alleles that are only found in Native Americans. These shared alleles are due to mutations that occurred after humans arrived in North America from East Asia (Siberia). In addition, Native Americans and groups in Siberia share alleles that are not shared with other human populations, so there is evidence that these groups in Siberia migrated into the Americas (~15 kya). These same kind of shared genetic differences correspond to different ethnic groups. There are obviously instances of gene flow between groups from different geographic locations. For example, there is evidence of a genetic melting pot in the U.S. Many African Americans have alleles that originally arose in Europe and many Caucasians have alleles that originated in Africa.

I see from reading further posts, that Pablo and others are trying to assert that Darwinian evolution is inherently racist. First of all, the moral zeitgeist (cultural beliefs of a certain era) of the mid 1800’s was very different from today. Judging from Darwin’s writings, on could brand him a racist, though at this time, almost all European’s were racist. This was especially true of Christians, who used the bible to justify slavery and bigotry. However, in terms of evolution, Evolutionary theory says nothing about values of good or bad. Like any other branch of science, all it does is to describe the biological world as it is and makes specific predictions. When we talk about chemistry, we don’t say that Hydrogen is “better” than Helium, or that Titanium is “good” and Cadmium is “bad”. Evolutionary biology treats biological systems in the same way. Evolutionary theory certainly addresses how moral systems might have originated and evolved, but it does not say one moral system is better than another moral system. Of course, Pablo will take this statement as evidence that evolutionists are amoral or moral relativists. This is foolishness. I’m sure Pablo and I probably consider the same kinds of behavior good or bad, depending on the moral zeitgeist of our times. However, he thinks his morals come from the bible, while I think we share morals because of both a similar environment and because what we consider good moral behavior has been shaped by evolutionary history, especially within group human interactions. It is one thing for one group to try to destroy another. However, within group dynamics are often governed across groups by an epigenetic golden rule.

Terra m,

Hear the words of your religious leader for yourself:

Further on in his Descent, Darwin elaborates on this theme describing his dream of a future for mankind when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will hopefully become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm)

And:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world (Darwin).

Darwin taught that the strong would do away with the weak. That is part of his theory. I know very well what evolution is and its natural conclusion is racism.

Pablo

Lisa R,

You have just put up the biggest straw man I have ever seen. You have been well indoctrinated by our anti-God anti-Christian educational system. I put Darwin's own words before you all and you all continue to justify your religion of evolution. There is not one shred of empirical proof for this theorytale.

Pablo

Pablo,

Do you know what evolution is? If you do could you explain to me what race has to do with it...? Better yet, do you know what racism is?

Man has used every reason under the sun to look down on others. Religion, color, gender, greed...anything and everything has been used to enable man to do what he wants...to kill and gain power.

As far as god...whose god? Whose idea and view of god? Your's? what makes your's more true then any other's?

Why is it that so many Christians put on the persecution hat? I mean really...just because you can not force people to listen, does not mean you are persecuted.

Tell you what..I am Wiccan, I will trade you persecutions. But heck...except for our fallen soldiers not having the same right to have their emplem of belief on their headstones, I guess we can deal with all the rest of the ignorance.

We will save the whining for you put upon Christians...I still want to know what persecution?

Andrew,

What rock have you been living under?
There are many atheist groups around the USA (if you are in the USA) that have regular meetings.
Check out the Atheist Alliance Intl., American Atheists, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Richard Dawkins's site, and countless others for listings of groups you can contact. You are correct that atheists disagree on many things, but when it comes to religion and church/state separation there's a lot to talk about, and hopefully, get active in battling.

Pablo,

If you were to actually study the subject you would know that there is no scientific support for the concept of race amongst humans. Race is a social construct and nothing more.

As for your quotes re Darwin. Please take a look at the impact of Christian missionaries in places such as India as they attempt to "spread the word" and "save the non-believers". The common result of the actions of these groups is a breakdown in the societal structure of communities often leading to violence.

Tonio,

Evolution is a racist only the strong will survive philosophy. You have ignored the issue. I transistor has nothing to do with the ideology of the inventor. Racism flows from evolution because the natural conclusion is that some in society are less advanced in the evolutionary scale. Darwin made this clear with his own words.

It is amazing to me that our educational institutions would rail against racism but then teach it in our class rooms. They claim to be tolerant but they do not tolerate Christians. What hypocrisy. This shows me that people can be presented clear evidence and still chose not to believe it because they have a worldview that will not allow them to see truth even if it slapped them in the face. Darwin's theory says that the strong will survive and that the weak will be done away with. Listen to his words and consider the theory tale of evolution:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm)

If you cannot see this it is only because you are in denial. Most who embrace evolution do not want to let go because they love their sin more than God. They do not want to be accountable to God.

Pablo

Would religious instruction narrow the differences between people of faith and those who do not believe, or would it turn our public schools into an ideological battleground?

These blogs lead me to believe the battleground scenario is more likely. Atheists, incensed because God does not submit to scientific examination, spend too much time trying to convince Christians they are delusional. Christians are up in arms, trying to explain not only their faith, but the need for faith, to an increasinly hostile secular audience that demands measurable proof. Both sides say they want to talk, but since the goal in their hearts is to convert the other side, neither group wants to listen.

This is not to say that learning about any religion is a waste of time. Studying about the Reformation has given me a better understanding and appreciation for the positions and traditions of my own church. The articles and books I have read about Islam have helped me to understand some of what is going on in the Middle East.

I'm not sure how many people are non-judgmental enough to benefit from a secular education in religion. I'm not even sure if a secular examination of any religion can capture the essence of that faith.

At its core, the conflict over teaching religion in a secular environment comes from a clash of value systems. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, "Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them." Think about it, would you trust the teachings of a class on the 'Democratic Party' if it were taught only by Republicans?

So:
Can public schools (i.e. government) teach religious values it may not agree with in an impartial manner? - or is this a contest religion will always loose? (we all know our government is never, ever wrong)

If we avoid teaching the controversial parts of any religion,, have we taught anything worth knowing? - or is a secular critique of the religion being discussed inevitable?

Are the public schools (and our children's minds) the correct forum for discussions like this? I think not.

Ms. Jacoby,

How you stated your beliefs in your article is a excellent reason why religion should not be taught in our schools. Your article appears to be the same old thing that I hear from the "many on the left and many atheists". That religion and God are bad. And please don't misunderstand me either. It would be just as bad if far right individual tried to cram religion down my throat. You refer to yourself as a "free thinker". Free imples that one is not tied to any particular belief syetem. That ones beliefs are fluid. Not concrete. I am not saying my belief is the "right belief". Religion like so many other issues is nuetral. It cannot harm anyone, nor help anyone. The individual person actions dictate which of those two opposing actions he or she will take when acting from a belief in religion, politics, etcc.. It is only when I want and demand that another person believes the way I do when problems arise.

fools

There is nothing in modern evolutionary biology that supports racism, ESPECIALLY in light of population genetic studies on humans. The fact that some people tried to do that in the past does not make a cogent argument. People have carried out genocides on the basis of scripture too -- see Croatia in the 1940s for a recent example -- indeed most of the book of Joshua is a glorification of genocide (fortunately one that never actually happened).

As for Christians who prefer creation as it is described in Genesis, which of the 2-3 versions in that book is the right one?

Thank you, Ms. Jacoby, for your intelligent addition to the religious debate raging in our country today. There are on one extreme shrill voices claiming that religion is the source of all evil in the world, and on the other, those claiming that all who do not accept their version of religion are all going to their idea of hell. I firmly believe that both are wrong, that each of us is a valuable, beloved son or daughter of a loving God, who knows how to teach us to live happy, successful lives.

Every real religion has a code of conduct which, if followed would greatly reduce or eradicate human suffering caused by the actions of others. For example, if people merely believed in and followed the commandment to treat each other the way that they wished to be treated, most of our modern problems would evaporate.

As to religion being the source of all evil, there is an easy answer to that lie. Almost all evil perpetrated in the name of religion is, in fact, the actions of people being absolutely untrue to their own church's established teachings - think of the rare Christian leaders who prey on helpless, innocent victims, and Al Qaida members who brutalize and murder in the name of Islam. Members of those religions who truly live their beliefs are shocked and disgusted by those aberrations. Then contrast that with enormous good accomplished by billions of people who try to live the best that they know how, aided in that effort by their religious convictions.

Unfortunately, too many in charge of curriculum choices are basing their decisions on faulty pretexts, usually fear or prejudice. American education at all levels, including collegiate, should be enlightening students about religion. Study of world religions should be a required subject. Religious education should not be left to those who adhere to the Humanist, Evolutionist, Socialist or other "ist" religions, as it is today. Respect for others' beliefs should be taught at all times, and any intolerance, even (especially!) in the name of political correctness, should be discarded. Everyone will benefit, even those who fear and despise religion.

Pablo,

--You cannot tell the difference between Hitler and Darwin.--

Hitler is the one with the little moustache.

I'm not necessarily trying to defend evolution itself. I'm trying to defend the idea of studying evidence in nature and making one's own conclusions from that evidence. That means I oppose the idea of scripture literalism, the idea of "because God says so." Even if evidence surfaced that indisputably proved evolution false, that would still not prove the accuracy of the Genesis accounts of creation, or the accuracy of any other religion's creation story. This issue is not an either-or, with evolution on one side and Christian doctrine on the other.

Pablo, Darwin's beliefs about nonwhites are not necessarily the issue. William Bradford Shockley believed in racist dysgenicis, but his invention of the transistor has greatly benefited the human race. My point is that the Nazis found racism in evolution because they chose to do so - they imposed their own beliefs onto the hypothesis. That can happen with anything. Both racists and antiracists have used the Bible to support their beliefs.

Tonio,

Please read the statements above and think. Nazism and racism are the natural conclusion of evolution. You cannot tell the difference between Hitler and Darwin.

Pablo

How many Christians read Genesis literally? Surely a Christian can read Genesis allegorically and still believe in Christ. I see nothing about evolution that contradicts the idea of a supreme being. I suspect that some religious people are simply choosing to view evolution that way.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm)

Who made the statements below?

"A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called 'humaneness' of individuals, in order to make place for the true 'humaneness of nature,' which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.'"

"Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

Pablo

Maurie,

Respectfully, you are speculating. There is no empirical proof in what you are saying. Therefore, it belongs in the realm of faith. I think it is more reasonable to believe that order comes from a God of order. Science is limited, for example, it cannot account for the abstract world only that which can be observed and measured. It seems you are limiting yourself to the empirical method. The problem with this as it applies to evolution is that most modern day scientists use the language of empirical proof when speaking of evolution when there is no empirical proof. The average person simply accepts what the scientific community is teaching about evolution without critical analyzing the theory; after all scientists are supposed to be the "experts."

Pablo

Carl S., it would probably be wrong for a school principal to give that statement, but I believe the objective is a good one.

Jihadist,

Sorry I missed you on your lunch break.

Is there anything in the world you don't know about? I was astonished that you knew that Vermonters traditionally had a reputation for being taciturn, as in "Silent Cal" (Coolidge, not Thomas).

Do you know how amazing that is? When I call someone out west and say I'm from Vermont, a frequent response is: "Vermont - what is that? -is that a state?"

If you'll indulge me in my irrelevancy to these threads for another moment, I'd like to continue playing the Vermont patriot.

Vermont's Constitution was adopted on July 8, 1777. It outlawed slavery, becoming simultaneously on that date the first country in the world in modern times (remember Vermont was an independent Republic) and the first American state to do so.

SECESSION: I commented earlier that many Vermonters today wish that Vermont had not joined the Union.

In 1991, the 200th anniversary of Vermont's joining the Union, a University of Vermont professor and one of our Supreme Court Justices debated each other seven times in seven towns on whether Vermont should leave the Union. The audience in each town voted by large majorities after each debate that Vermont should leave the Union. Coincidence: the issue was redebated this evening in Burlington.

I'm sure the Congress will never let us go, though - what would the U.S. be without Vermont? The fundamentalist Christians would love to be rid of us, though - the first state to grant equal legal rights to gay couples (civil unions - the term was coined by our legislature).

Yesterday was Vermont's annual Town Meeting Day, a state holiday. At this counting, over thirty towns have voted to impeach President Bush "for high crimes and misdemeanors." Unlikely to happen, I'm afraid.

Well, enough of VT for now. I just wanted to make you the person in your country who knows the most about Vermont - but you were that already, weren't you?

Now I have to get back to bashing me some Christians and once again become relevant to these threads.

Would that be the illiterate side, or the ignorant side James?

Every knee shall and Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!!!

Be still and Know that I am God!!!
Enough said

Pablo

I am on your side.

The evident fact that you are a semi-illterate should not be considered a detriment to the validity of your arguments.

At least you are proud of it.

Love you. Bye.

Terra Gazelle

The ancient Egyptians, from their beliefs of First Time to their myriad gods and goddesess are believers too. Like the Babylonians. I was invoking on the three universities (Oxford, Sorbonne and Al-Azhar) most familiar to those of the Abrahamic faiths. But, then again, perhaps not, much less the famed library of Alexandria and Mouseion.

The library of Alexandria was the greatest in the world, and Carl Sagan was also speculating no, of what the contents were in that library. All the knowledge was burned down so.... what was really there?

Must be structural engineering too, with the impressive precision of the structures the ancient Egyptians build for their dead kings, queens, pyramids, and, horror of horrors, temples for their gods and goddesses. Isis is my favourite. She said - I am who I am etc. Go figure.

And whatever gives anyone the notion that believers can't be called scientists too if they pursue organised knowlege by observations and testing about the physical world, the natural world and society. Has it now become a requirement that all scientists must not believe in God to prove their personal credibility instead of what their work prove or otherwise?

It is wonderful that Carl Sagan speculated about the Alexandria Library and the Mouseion. An excellent writer, and a most evocative one too for a scientist. Still love his fiction, "Contact", especially the part about ants crawling around in the picnic our heroine had with a friend - ants the lower beings we are indifferent of. In that book, Carl Sagan speculated there are other beings in the universe. Or it would be a waste of space. And the heroine finally found faith and belief. The end. Fin.

Lunch break over.

Regards

Mauri Beck,

"The world and universe that we live in is truly wondrous, yet you do it the greatest injustice in your description of it. The universe created and described in the bible is like a stick-figure compared to Michelangelo’s fresco (based on Genesis no less) on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. By denying the universe as it truly is in its beauty and complexity and substituting an incredibly poor approximation written down by a pre-scientific society, you are doing nothing more than insulting god."

I agree.

"When religious scholars and theologians do a portrait of God, it's like a stick figure...kind of cute, so God puts it on the fridge. When Astronomers, Physicists and Biologists paint an atomically correct masterpiece, that God frames and hangs in the livingroom."

Jihadist,
"Believers/religious scholars did start the first universities in the world, including Sorbonne, Oxford and Al-Azhar."

I don't know exactly what you meant by believers...I take it to mean Christian or one of the three desert religions.

When I think of the first places of higher learning, I think of the Mouseion, the Ancient University of Alexandria, Egypt.The place that was torn down and destroyed by early Christians. They took the Mathematician/Philosopher Hypatia, daughter of Theon, the last Director of Mouseion...useing clam shells stripped the skin off of her, cut her body into pieces and dumped the parts in a garbage heap. Then they set fire to the Library/University and burned a thousand years of knowledge.

Actually, fans of Carl Sagan, the late American astrophysicist who hosted a popular educational series, Cosmos, may be at least familiar with his idea of the Mouseion. The edifice that he strolled through was no space ship, but his reconstruction of the Mouseion. "This legendary library was the mind and glory of the greatest city on earth, and was the first center for scientific research in the history of the world," he told the audience. "In this Mouseion lived a community of scientists who discovered the sciences of physics, linguistics, medicine, astronomy, geography, philosophy, mathematics, biology and geology. Here scientific studies reached adulthood. Here genius flourished. Here in the Library of Alexandria were the first serious trials to understand the world."

But like I said, I don't know what you meant by "believers".

susan, another great essay.

Pablo wrote, "Please give me some empirical evidence for molecules to man evolution."

All life on this planet, from bacteria to humans shares the same genetic code and biochemical pathways, as would be predicted if there was a single common ancestral life form from which all other life subsequently arose. If you want to ascribe this evolutionary process that led to such diversity to god, be my guest; I have colleagues and friends who believe in god and hold this view without forfeiting either their belief or their reason. Of course, I have friends and colleagues who do not believe in god, rely strictly on their reason, and still fall over in transcendental amazement at this wondrous universe we live in, especially as new things are discovered that are even more astonishing.

Carl S-

Enjoyed your post, but 'atheist meeting'? That's sort of an oxymoron, isn't it? I was raised as an atheist, and I'm now 60 and still an atheist, but I've never attended or even heard of an 'atheist meeting'.

There are 15 million of us in the U.S. today, but the only thing that we actually have in common is the fact of our unbelief. There are atheist leftists, liberals, libertarians (a lot of atheists are libertarians) centrists and conservatives. We haven't had meetings, because there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

I can see a time coming, however, where atheists of all stripes will begin working together to pursue the religious freedom we've been promised our entire lives but have never experienced.

Carl S.,

Your imagined school principal's statement is good, but it shouldn't be delivered by a school official. None of what he says is any business of a government agent's to say.

I also wouldn't say to a kid that he should go along with his parents on their wish that he attend religious observances. That's family business, between parent and child. Again, none of the state's business.

Religious belief or non-belief is like sexual orientation. Many kids know where the're at long before parents or schools realize they're even thinking about the subject. And it's just as useless to try to change a child's religious oientation, even at a very young age, as it is to try to modify his sexual inclinations.

Kids are going to think and do what they want long before they turn eighteen. Admonishing them to obey their parents until they reach that age will only earn their scorn.

Now that I've parsed the statement, I'm not sure it's quite as good as I first thought.

Regards.

Maurie Beck,

Please give me some empirical evidence for molecules to man evolution.

Pablo

Maurie Beck,

Well I guess you have defeated me because I miss spelled a word. I feel so beneath you.

Pablo

For me, I'd be satisfied if, two or three times during their school careers, each child were to hear the school principal say,

"Kids, there are a lot of different religions out there. Your parents might be teaching you a particular religion, several religions, or no religion at all. And that is their right. You don't have to believe or disbelieve what they are teaching you. It's up to you, as long as you cooperate with them if they want you to go to [church, temple, mosque, atheist meeting, whatever]. But when you turn 18 you can decide what religion--if any--you want to practice, and your parent can not force you to do things their way. So, just hang in there for a few more years and you'll eventually be able to do what makes sense to YOU."

That kind of statement would be fair and truthful, but how many Christians would be apoplectic if their kids were told that?

Pablo wrote,"Our schools are already teaching the religions of Political Correcness and Evolution."

They are obviously not teaching students how to spell, even with spell check.

Frankly, I'm hurt by your characterization. I'm a politically incorrect evolutionist.

The world and universe that we live in is truly wondrous, yet you do it the greatest injustice in your description of it. The universe created and described in the bible is like a stick-figure compared to Michelangelo’s fresco (based on Genesis no less) on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. By denying the universe as it truly is in its beauty and complexity and substituting an incredibly poor approximation written down by a pre-scientific society, you are doing nothing more than insulting god.

All the problems of every war and violence perpetrated upon this earth is because of one thing: the immature masculine consciousness. The immature masculine consists of both benevolent tyranny and malignant tyranny. The difference is that one is a wolf in sheep's clothing while the other is overt and conspicuous. The Catholic Church has alot of the former throughout history; Hitler is an example of the latter. This immature consciousness exists in every race, skin color, ethnicity, culture, religion, political affiliation, educational and economic strata, therefore, there is no prejudice to its holder. It is profoundly pervasive in the fundamentalism, the radical and extremist beliefs, within Christianity, Islam and Judaism; neither is it totally absent in atheists and agnostics. The one common denominator with the religious extremists is their belief in an anthropomorphic God, hence, the conviction of divine revelation that man is superior to woman. When speaking of the religious spectrum, this immature masculine consciousness is found, on balance, in lesser numbers amongst Reformed Jews, Jewish Kabbalists, progressive and moderate Christians, Christian Gnostics, moderate Muslims, Sufis, Hindu mystics, Buddhists and Taoists. Outside the “religious spectrum”, however, are also peace-loving agnostics and atheists as well. The one common denominator that, by far, most of the people who fall in the latter religious sects have is their rejection of an anthropomorphic God. Thus, most of these latter people have a proclivity to reject both the deification of males and the devaluation of women. Furthermore, most find the war and the glorification of war and aggression as outdated and irrelevant in addition to perceiving them as unpleasant, unsophisticated, boorish and immature means to resolve conflicts.
This immature masculine consciousness is prominent in positions of power today from the West to the Middle East to Asia. In the mental health field, we refer to it as a spectrum of pathology from narcissistic personality disorder to the more severe sociopathy to the most severe, psychopathy. Research indicates 75% of persons diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder are males. The females who are diagnosed with this pathology have an appreciable masculine cognitive and emotional presentation, i.e., they are competitive and aggressive. Without reliable statistical data, a very conservative estimate of male sociopaths is 90% and I feel confident in my estimate that 99.99999% of psychopaths are males. Males also are the perpetrators of virtually all rapes, domestic violence and murders and 99.9% of all paraphilias including pedophilia, voyeurism, sadism, and masochism. Males comprise the vast and overwhelming psychologically disturbed who are addicted to child pornography. While there are females who commit rape, domestic violence and pedophilia, their numbers are negligible from a statistical standpoint. With the current state of violence in the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa, it is painfully obvious that masculine aggression and violence is egregiously out of control.
The hallmarks of this narcissistic pathology are its obsession with control, power and perfection. You could say they have an uncontrollable desire to control and dominate, especially, but not exclusively, those perceived as weaker and more vulnerable. The sense of omnipotence, grandiosity and entitlement in the narcissist pose a substantial and almost indefatigable inability for this consciousness to change so entrenched it is in its fantasy of superiority and sense that his ideas/opinions/beliefs are correct and “right”. Pervasive and chronic intrapsychic defenses are projection (attributing an undesirable and unwanted trait in one’s self onto another person), idealization of self and those who mirror self, denial of imperfection, an inability to be vulnerable, defensive autonomy, impulsivity and anxiety when a threat to self is perceived, externalization of blame and, the most primitive of defenses, splitting. Splitting is an alternating projection of idealization and devaluation and the immature masculine has a pervasive pattern of psychological splitting. The narcissist split is a type of “I am good, perfect and right and if you disagree with me, you are bad, wrong and evil” whenever he perceives a threat to his control, power or perfection. He is unable to simply agree to disagree and maintain peace. There is little ability to see the substantial amount of grey in life, rather life is perceived as rigid black/white or right/wrong issues. Believing himself to be infallible and his views/beliefs to be “right”, compromise is untenable because it threatens his omnipotence. The more severe types manifest a “Master/Slave” mentality and actually manifest this through control and domination of others. His superiority usually manifests through four layers: religion, gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Verbal attacks on this person only serve to create and magnify more rigid defenses, thus, his symptomatology becomes more salient and entrenched. So great is the conundrum of this pathology, the psychological defenses which need changing the most in the immature masculine consciousness are the very psychological defenses which prevent him from changing. For someone who has a pervasive pattern of externalizing blame, who considers himself entitled, who is unable to self-reflect and unwilling to change because he perceives himself not in need of change, how is it possible for this person to ever change? Because of his intrapsychic conflicts and unassailable defenses, he rarely, if ever, pursues treatment. As a result, for those rare few who do pursue therapy, the prognosis is highly unfavorable.
The clinical term is called narcissistic personality disorder, but it has been called malignant self-love. Narcissism is both benevolent and maligant as stated above. These pathologies exist rampantly in business, politics, religion, media, academia, law, medicine and science, along with every other arena of human life. The former presents to the world an external benevolent facade and is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. The best example is religious patriarchy throughout history in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, proclaiming narcissistic statements such as “I am God’s chosen people” or “I am good and we must love one another” while, covertly and hypocritically, participating in discriminatory, despicable, sometimes heinous, acts from the devaluation and subjugation of women to pedophilia to beheadings and torture as exampled by the “Holy Crusades” of the Middle Ages and the “Holy Wars” (an oxymoron) of today. The malevolent pathology is far more overtly insidious, malicious and dangerous. Hitler and his heinous holocaust along with psychopathic serial killers such as Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Daumer are perhaps the best notorious examples.

It would be difficult to overstate the fact that the prognosis of masculine world leadership, on balance, is highly unfavorable. As blatantly exampled by five millennia of patriarchal leadership, particularly as it pertains to war, the masculine psyche sadly resists psychological maturation and, as a consequence, vigorously resists learning from his predecessors. Were this to limit consequences to himself only and exclude any unfavorable costs to females and children, to a collective society historically dependent upon his guidance and the planet as a whole, it would be less lamentable. That it has reached the stage in the evolution of the human species where its development is correlational to the progeny of the entire species and the sustenance of the planet, demands that we all pay close attention.

The epidemiology of the immature masculine consciousness (narcissistic personality disorder) is substantial, particularly in world leadership, and has been so for thousands of years with patriarchy at the helm. While this pathology, paradoxically, can be credited for saving the species from annihilation 10,000 years ago when the brutal competition for food, water and safety was at a lower level Maslowian necessity for everyone on the planet, the pathology is anachronistic today because humankind has evolved to the point where we have all the resources at our disposal and only need the psychological maturity, scientific and technical knowledge, collaboration, creativity, compassion and goodwill to develop a strategy to see to its most equitable and just distribution to all people. Alas, the immature masculine would rather see that we all die if he, alone, cannot control and dominate.

This pathology exists in politics today in every country, however, it is nowhere more salient today than in leaders in America, Britain, China, North Korea, Somalia, Darfur, Chad, Congo and in Al-Quaeda and the Taliban as they all vie for domination and control. Its goals cannot be achieved by peace, rather only by nurturing and maintaining a vitriolic schism between the “common masses” of different countries, religions, ethnicities and cultures, so our eyes are diverted from the narcissistic, sociopathic and psychopathic leaders who have power over us. This pathology of abusive power is a pervasive cancer in the world. Indeed, it would be extremely difficult to overstate its profound danger in our leaders in the current era of nuclear technology, biological and chemical weaponry. That America, Britain, the Middle East is a beacon, to both allies and foes, of this immature masculine consciousness, this malignancy of hate, arrogance, deception, avarice and gross abuse of power both saddens and alarms me. It portends nothing but sorrow and tragedy for the progeny of humankind and for this planet. Woe unto us if we cannot learn to peacefully disagree and share our resources equitably and justly. If the immature masculine consciousness continues to be obscenely avaricious and fails to restore us to a path of Goodwill towards "the All" and to what is in the best interest of every human being on this planet, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, education or socioeconomic status, we will all be sliding down the global warming path of destruction such that, in the end, none of our hate or anger will matter anymore because there will be no one nor anything left on this planet to hate or kill.

Norrie,

What? Parka and boots? You went to the White House to meet the President after tapping maple syrup? He gave you a Monica cigar to smoke but not to inhale?

Vermont can always secede from the Union and become the 193rd member of the UN. Especially now that most US troops are overseas. Vermont has its own nukes? That would help. And have a new dictionary of the English too - say to spell psychology as saikologi. You'll be on you way as an independent sovereign nation with its own language. Let's call it the Republic of Vermont and to be clear in its Constitution that no religion be taught in state schools and people to practice their faith in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms only.

Vermonters are mythically taciturn. But you're not. Well there goes stereotyping and conformity:)

Regards as always and singing out. Got to prepare to go to work. Different time zone here for me. And don't drop too many names. It will clutter your floor and you will have to sweep them away.

Jihadist,

You mentioned the etiquette of dining at the White House. I've never done that but I did go to the White House to shake hands and get my picture taken with Jimmy Carter. I wore my LL Bean bright red winter parka and my oversize Vermont snow boots. One or two fellow handshakers commented on my attire but no one else did.

My son accompanied my wife to the White House for an evening reception with Bill Clinton. Mike wore a tuxedo. I declined to go because I'd be damned if I'd put on a monkey suit for anyone, be he President or Pope.

Mike was underage at the time for drinking alcohol, but the White House butlers take no notice of such things, so he had downed several glasses of champagne by the time he shook hands with the President.

Bill Clinton noted Mike's glass, and winked.

All of this, of course has nothing to do with your post or this thread. I simply mention them because I like to name-drop, and to show that my independence extends beyond religion to what I wear.

By the way, Jihadist, did you know that Vermont was an independent sovereign Republic with its own foreign relations until 1791 when it joined the United States? Many Vermonters today wish it hadn't.

..sorry for the previous post but both believers non-believers with no sense of humour really terrifies me for obvious reasons.

Teaching religion in schools is slippery slope.

Teaching other religions is easy as there are many books on the fundamentals of many faiths - including the ..... For Dummies series. However, a non-adherent of a religion teaching it would be hard pressed to elaborate on specific questions posed by smart students.

When I growing up, all my teachers on Islam has a different take on Islam. The only thing they, and all Muslims agreed on are the Five Pillars of Islam. The rest is disputed, even on Islamic history. Which is as it should be but very confusing for non-Muslims. For religion is really too much hair-splitting on the interpretion of the religion itself. Which is good to sort out the silly and preposterous from the sublime and transcendent.

Happy International Woman's Day.

Roy wrote:

"Would you include Paganism, Satanism etc or only those religions you approve of."

Include them all; the more the merrier. Education is a Good thing...

Norrie wrote:

"My fear is that in some communities there might be teachers who would say, metaphorically if not literally, that Jews do indeed have horns."

My dad used to tell me that when he was in the Army some of the guys actually looked for his horns!

Oh, the stories some of us could tell...

Right after the Book of Mormon, the Bible is the most confusing, contradictory and boring thing I have ever read (I couldn't finish the Koran). How do you propose we teach religion equally? Would you include Paganism, Satanism etc or only those religions you approve of. Keep you religions in your churches and out of our bedrooms and schools.

Ms. Jacoby wrote:

"The fact that Jews reject the idea of Jesus as the Messiah is a central fact of western history. It is the basis of anti-Semitism in western culture. Theology and history are inseparable in this regard. There are many Christians today--many fewer than there used to be, thankfully--who still deny the fundamental role of Christianity in historial anti-Semitism. How are you going to deal with this at the high school level without enraging a fair number of parents?"

By simply presenting the facts. You and others in this discussion insist that teaching about other religions would HAVE to include debate, analysis of right and wrong, effects on other religions, etc. It isn't necessary, or proper to include that in a public school introduction to religions of the world. That should be left for the philosophy or theology class. There's no reason why the basic facts cannot be presented without expanding on the belief systems. The point is not to teach them religions, but to teach them "about" religions.

Amen.

Lisa R.,

Thanks for your 4:18 P.M. post.

I undersatnd your wanting all young people to develop a knowledge of religions and of the people who practice them. I agree.

My fear is that in some communities there might be teachers who would say, metaphorically if not literally, that Jews do indeed have horns.

Neither of us would be happy with that.

Best wishes.

We want to be educated on everything now but on our own religion and other religions?

Believers/religious scholars did start the first universities in the world, including Sorbonne, Oxford and Al-Azhar. All secular subjects emanated from what was taught in those universities into the many disciplines taught now at schools and colleges.

There is not question that the study of religion, comparative religion and religious discourses in universities be pursued. Let religion be argued, think and rethink till the cows come home.

As for primary and secondary schools, the basic understanding of other religions would be helpul. Muslims need to know and understand the fundamentals of Buddhism and its branches of thoughts, including Mahayana and Theravada. Muslims need to know of the differences between the Latter Day Saints, Unitarians and the Catholic Church. And God knows I don't know the difference between Orthodox and Conservative Jews.

If for nothing else to be socially correct - like not serving beef to a Hindu Brahmin or a Buddhist monk. Not serving meat to a Catholic on Lent. Life is too short to commit faux pas construed as insensitivity and unnecessary embarrassment for oneself over small, small things.

And don't any atheist give me flak on that. Come on, surely some of you are vegetarians, non-smokers have specific allergies or just hate broccolis, and I have to take you self-imposed taboos and dislikes into consideration in my dinner parties, brunches, lunches and high teas.

And there are those of you who don't wear white shoes after Labour Day, religiously complied to the dress code for a day at the races, a night at the opera, and to have dinner with the President in the White House.

Great article Ms Jacoby. Nothing to dispute there, that is why I'm meandering here. Just can't resist pulling the leg of some atheists in On Faith threads who can't see their own inconsistencies on what is personal behavior and quirks, and what is belief.

Our schools are already teaching the religions of Political Correcness and Evolution.

Pablo

Susan Jacoby wrote, "Three-quarters of Americans even hold the erroneous belief that the Bible says, 'God helps those who help themselves'."

You could construe the saying the way you did. I always use it as a justification for acquiring new knowledge and not relying on tradition. Without such a view, we wouldn't have the knowledge we have about the universe around us, nor, from a practical point of view, would we have modern medicine that has increased our general health and life expectancy from 40 to 75 years old.

I like to point out to fundamentalists who rely on a literal interpretation of the bible, that without this accumulation of knowledge by helping themselves outside of "biblical learning" (an oxymoron), they would probably not be here because most would have died during childhood.

To Norrie --

"Pre-Cana" is a term that Catholics use to describe the classes/workshops that couples who are about to be married in the Church take.

Robert B.,

Please excuse my ignorance and tell me what a "pre-Cana" is.

Thanks.

Erik de Koster,

I think your experience of a comparative religion class at age fourteen was great. I'd love for all kids to have the same experience, BUT NOT IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE U.S.

I gather that in Europe, except among Islamic immigrants, there are not too many raging religious fanatics roaming the streets. The situation is different in this country, as several of the posts have indicated. The association of religion with government in any form is a highly combustible mixture here.

I hope you understand that my opposition is not to the teaching, but involves questions of the setting and how things are taught, and by whom, and with what end in mind.

Regards.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:
"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."

Not in today's job market it isn't.

To Norrie --

Most of the Jesuits I've met have had that quirky sense of humor. The one who ran my pre-Cana introduced himself as a "professional virgin". :)

“It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”

Robert B.,

I attended a prep school in Massachusetts where morning chapel was mandatory. A good majority of the students were Protestant.

One day a Jesuit had been invited (perhaps unaccountably, perhaps not) to speak at chapel

The first thing he did when he went to the podium was to raise his hands to his temples, wiggle his fingers, and say: "See, no horns!"

Fun, and a good lesson in tolerance.

One of the most revealing experiences I've had in my life was when, in the seventies, at the age of fourteen, in the history class at high school, we had a ten week course on comparative religions. It was an eye-opener to see that other religions had the same claims to the Truth as the religion of my parents (christianism), and that they used very similar instruments to convince their followers of their having the exclusive Truth: one sacred book that claimed to be written under the direct influence of god, miracles, identification of the outgroup as Evil, etc... I'm still grateful to my history teacher for that course, and to the wisdom of the people responsible for deciding the content of what we had to learn. Incidentally, these people (I now know) were atheists...
So I can only agree with Susan Jacoby.

erik de koster
brussels belgium

"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."

To Lisa R. --

Yeah, I see what you mean. Still, I don't think it's too much to ask teachers to be honest when they don't know something. That is, according to Socrates, the essence of wisdom, after all.

I'd really like to know what communities still believe Jews have horns...

Ba'al
From you comment about Jesus possible not being a historical figure, I may assume that you have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy.
If not, it's a must read for those of us of the same bent.

I'd recommend this book to everyone on this post.

Susan Jacoby,

I'm glad you liked what I wrote in this thread.

I have to correct you on one thing, though: I'm a guy! - not a gal.

I gather that some posters think "Norrie" has a feminine quality to it. It may well. That's fine with me. I admire and appreciate the feminine qualities in the universe. I wish feminine qualities were dominant in our leading religions.

As for my name, "Norrie" is a nickname for a rather sharp-sounding name which is said to mean "man from the north." That name is principally used as a last name. I'm from a WASP family (not too many of us around now). When I was born it was common for WASP families to give last names to their children as first names.

Best wishes to you, Susan. I enjoy all of your essays, which are very compatible with my thinking.

Robert B.,

As a follow-up to my previous post. My sister attended university in the States. During her course of study she took a comparative religions course. When discussing Judaism one of the students asked why some of the graves in the Jewish cemetary were so short. The professor's response was that she believed that Jews bury the dead standing then asked my sister to confirm this. My sister went on to explain that it's our tradition to bury children who've passed away on the outer edges of cemetaries.

So no, it's not only at a high school level, it's when anyone not of the religion attempts to teach about others. This brings me back to my remarks than any material used to teach about religions must be VERY well researched and teachers can't make guesses when they don't know the answers.

Norrie Hoyt,

It would be very VERY difficult to teach about religions in public schools, the material would have to be very well researched and teachers would have to understand that when questioned they can't guess the answers (I have some horror stories on that at a university level.). You'd also have to find teachers who could step back from their personal beliefs and relay only fact.

However, we're also dealing with a reality where Jews going to communities in certain US states are asked straight out where their horns are. Even some basic education is better than nothing.

Canyon falls into Logical Fallacies, as with all weak debaters, lacking a factual basis on which to defend her position, she reaches into the old wives' "Well, so and so, says so". Appeal to Authority is the classic standby for weak minded Christians, as is Argument to the Person (ad hominem).

Fool for Wizdom

I am not the hoax buster guy.

I find scripture fascinating. There is serious debate amongst Biblical scholars as to the provenance of some of the epistles attributed to Paul, as well as a number of verses scattered through the New Testament that may be later interpolations. Of course, many of the books in the New Testament were written for different early Christian communities with different theological agendas, and considerably after the events they portra. The differences between the gospels are quite interesting and obvious to an outside reader. To be honest, I am not convinced that Jesus is a historical figure.

I think religion is a really important part of the world we live in (although I am on the atheist side of the agnostic spectrum).

As important and interesting as it is, I just feel sorry for any teacher that is given the thankless task of trying to wander through that minefield at the K-12 level!

One wonders what words of Judaism, Buddhism and Christian wisdom are taught in Islamic "public" schools run/controlled by the crazy mullahs of Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Pakistan?

By the way, I am undecided as to whether instruction in comparative religions should be mandatory. I'm simply arguing for what I see are the instruction's merits.

To Norrie --

You said, "What public school teacher can teach accurately and in depth about a single religion, let alone several?"

Personally, I think your criticism should be directed more towards the quality of teachers in our public high schools than towards the complexity of the topic. And before anyone snaps at me, I am a high school teacher...

Jon:

I swear, I totally agree with you...

"Writing starts with a W and Arithmatic starts with an A."

Spelling starts with an "S".

Arithmetic

Just remember; A Rat In The House May Eat The Ice Cream.

The fact that so many respondents became so incensed about Ms. Jacoby's article -- and that all of those so exercised clearly missed the point -- shows two things: that she was right in her thesis about lack of education in general, and that there are a great many people out there who are clearly afraid that, if they do not immediately set thing straight, something terrible might happen.

One wonders what they're afraid of. If they're right, they're right. The only thing to fear is that they might not be.

"As for your third paragraph, I'm not quite sure what your point is. Every teaching about religion I've ever been subjected to turned me against that religion."

Was the teaching done with the objective of converting you to that religion? If so, I don't blame you for rejecting that evangelical push.

My point is that many religions try to give their adherents very negative views of their competitors. So many believers grow up accepting the party line that members of other religions are wicked and doomed to hell. One way to break down the barriers of hatred is by showing students that people around the world have many different religious beliefs. They learn that people have found many different answers to life's questions throughout history.

By the way Susan. Great article. Our kids need to have the knowledge of all the major, and some minor, world religions. I can see where there would be some monumental challenges to getting that to be part of the public education system. However, getting kids to think about religions from an educated, unbiased standpoint can only benefit them and our societies future.

Even with an anti-Christian agenda, I still find myself on Norrie's side of this argument. (For different reasons, of course).

Jon,

Amazingly enough, as a college educated professional, I do know how to spell common words. I'll assume you've recently arrived from another country and have never heard the expression. And believe me - I don't make up stories like the cucumber condom. I wish I did. You can thank the local left-wing school boards for that. Apparently, they're too scared of the ACLU (Atheists, Communists, Liberals, Union) to do what is right.

Norrie Hoyt:
"If I were an adherent of any religion I wouldn't it taught in the public schools. The teacher, if not of my faith, wouldn't get it right."

I'm pagan, and I agree with you 100%. Not to mention that, teachers being human beings, it would be extrremely difficult to not allow the teacher's own beliefs to color the instruction, no matter how conscientiously s/he tried to avoid bias.
Also, there is so much variation even within the same faith, that it would be difficult, if not impossible to cover even one properly.

Anonymous,

If public school religion courses do become widespread, I would hope, contrary to your position, that there would be active debate and argument in the classes.

Without debate, what the teacher presents as a tenet of a religion implicitly becomes indoctrination, because it can't be challenged in class. And the teacher may not have gotten the supposed religious tenet right, either mistakenly or deliberately.

Much better to have a child be able to challenge the teacher with "That's not what they say at my church!"

Lisa R.,

Your post, with its correction of erroneous statements about religion, is the perfect argument against teaching about religion in the public schools

What public school teacher can teach accurately and in depth about a single religion, let alone several?

Canyon,

"No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible."
-Theodore Roosevelt

You fall into the trap of quoting a famous person who makes a statement that appears to support your argument. Thomas Jefferson gets quoted like this more that most notables.

While I wasn't there to discuss TR's reasoning behind this statement, just knowing what I do about the man's reputation, I don't think this was a statment made in support of your type of views on the Bible.

You unknowingly provided a good example though of what this whole conversation is about. To be truely educated, one must be knowledgable of the many and varied aspects of world societies and the drivers that make them what they are, which includes their religions. To not know the Bible would diminsh one's abiltiy to understand those societies that have been "brought up" in the Christian religion. The same holds true with knowing the Koran, Torah, and a host of others.

The Christain religion has had too much of an impact on history, both positive and negative for one to "not know the Bible" and really understand those impacts.

Better stick with quoting your own fundamentalist leaders who may truely support your position than to twist the words of those who most likley do not.

I completely agree with Ms. Hoyt. Religion is a vital part of the social setting for "The Crucible," and that is where the religious background should be taught. And so should the background against which the play was written--the postwar hunt for Communists.

I would not be opposed to courses "about" religion in the best of all possible worlds--a world in which schools had all of the resources they need to make this work. In this world, however, resources are limited. If I had to choose between in-service teacher training to improve the teaching of high school history and the introduction of new courses in comparative religion and/or religious history, I would choose the former. Indeed, as Ms. Hoyt points out, religion is a part of history and should be included in history classes.

When all American children are learning to read at grade level, when Americans are performing at the same level as Europeans in science and math, then talk to me about devoting resources to a religious history curriculum.

The comment from "Anonymous"--about such classes not being "theology" courses--illustrates precisely the point I was making about the impossibility of devising a worthwhile curriculum. The fact that Jews reject the idea of Jesus as the Messiah is a central fact of western history. It is the basis of anti-Semitism in western culture. Theology and history are inseparable in this regard. There are many Christians today--many fewer than there used to be, thankfully--who still deny the fundamental role of Christianity in historial anti-Semitism. How are you going to deal with this at the high school level without enraging a fair number of parents?

Tonio,

If you try to get a school board to approve a religion course in a public school, you'll find that in many, if not most, places in this country the followers of Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter will be packing the school board meetings to lobby for their version of the course.

They are likely to prevail and this will give them a public-funded, mandatory school course that will feed their demagogic views to the students.

The answer to your valid point (your second paragraph) is for teachers to provide the religious background of specific literary or historical points as they naturally arise in the study of those subjects (see my post above to Greg).

As for your third paragraph, I'm not quite sure what your point is. Every teaching about religion I've ever been subjected to turned me against that religion. Except for Buddhism, which is not really a religion but a psychology and a cosmology. And I didn't learn about Buddhism in school - I did that on my own.

Yes, it is a good idea to teach about religions in school. Having children learn that there are different paths in the world helps in interraction between groups. However, we have to be incredibly careful in how this is taught. Susan's article itself has a few errors itself. A major one is the claim that Jews might concider JC to have been a prophet when according to Jewish teachings the time of prophecy had ended over 2100 years ago with no prophets since. Additionally, the Christian 10 Commandments are not the same as the Jewish 10 Utterances (better translation from the hebrew). There is no prohibition against killing, it's a prohibition against murder. Or how about the fact that the Christian Old Testament is no the same as the Tanach (Jewish Bible) or even the fact that the Jewish Bible is called the Tanach.

To Norrie --

You wrote: "English and history teachers should teach about religion as it relates to their subjects when religion relates to a particular literary work or historical happening."

OK, so your main problem is with dedicated religion courses prior to college. That position is far more understandable. Sorry for the confusion on my part.

Ms. Jacoby writes:

"...because the line between teaching and preaching is too fine for the average public school. To take just one straightforward example, Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah--the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy--and Jews believe that Jesus was, well, just another Jew. An interesting Jew, perhaps a Jewish prophet, but a Jewish man and no more. I would love to hear the average high school teacher explain this "straightforward" fact of religious history, and its relationship to historical anti-Semitism, to a class of 16-year-olds."

I don't think that anyone is suggesting theology classes, just that sometime during school the very basic beliefs of various religions are presented. Not debated, not reported on, not analyzed, just presented. I don't see what would be hard about that, and I don't think 16 year-olds would have a problem with it either.

Greg,

The answer to your valid point is to teach the religious background and setting of "The Crucible" when you teach the play.

A student who has had a survey of religion course is unlikely to have gained enough specific information about the religious situation at Salem to help him with the play.

The student will probably not even see that there is a connection between his religion course and the play.

Religion courses in public schools are nothing but trouble for everyone.

Brambleton,

Speaking of absurd last paragraphs, your's might take the cake. The three R's? Condoms on cucumbers?

There is only one R.

Writing starts with a W and Arithmatic starts with an A.

Next week when we have finished the Letter People we can move on to clay. But no pointy scissors for you.

Norrie, the Pat Robertsons and Ann Coulters are already convinced that there is a war on Christianity in this country. If public schools refused to teach even about religion (as opposed to inculcating a specific doctrine), wouldn't that provide the demagogues with more ammunition for their demented ramblings?

Plus, schools cannot ignore the important role that religion has played in human history and culture. England went though a series of civil wars in the 1600s over religious differences.

Finally, a side benefit of courses in comparative religions is that some students may naturally form their own opinions about religious doctrines. That isn't the same as flatly rejecting doctrine, of course.

You can't effectivly teach if your students have no foundation on the world's major religions and their beliefs. It's harder for students to really understand 'The Crucible' if they don't get the underlying currents surrounding the Salem Witch hunts. They can't properly understand the Crusades if they don't understand Islam and Christianity and their place in the world. You can't truly understand how this country was founded if you don't have a knowledge of the Prodestant reformation and persecution. Heck you can't get the whole picture of the slavery issue without understanding the role religion played on both sides of the issue.

Ms. Jacoby's writing would mean much more to me if she actually gave us more information about these "reliable polls" she uses as reference. Who conducted these "reliable polls", where were they conducted, how many people were polled, how did they ensure that they were made up of a valid representation of groups being cited? And why haven't I ever been included in one of these "reliable polls"?

Tonio,

All the more reason to not give the truth hijackers (here, religious pirates) one more ship to try to take over. No religion in the public schools, please.

Regards.

Robert B.,

English and history teachers should teach about religion as it relates to their subjects when religion relates to a particular literary work or historical happening.

My concern is that you won't get objective presentations of religion in a purely religious course.

Also, in the United States, the Big Three religions (C., J., and maybe I.) will be the only ones that will get much attention. This means that the government will be implying that all other belief (and non-belief) systems are marginal and don't really matter.

In this way, if by no other, government will be promoting three religions to the exclusion of all others.

Mavaddat,

I think what you have in mind when you suggest a "government-enforced curriculum" is probably a federal government mandate. If it were local or state goverment, we're back to the small town Georgia school board problem.

With George Bush as President, however, a federal government mandate would certainly be heavily slanted toward presenting Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant doctrines in a favorable light. Liberal Anglicans, Unitarians, Buddhists, Cathars, etc. would go unmentioned in the curriculum.

Fortunately, even with President Bush's appointees on board, the Supreme Court would probably strike down such a federally-mandated curriculum.

What's wrong with leaving religious teaching to parents and religious institutions until students have finished high school?

Norrie Hoyt, there's always the possibility of one or more religious groups hijacking comparative religion classes in public schools. That can happen with subjects such as history and science as well, often with secular groups doing the hijacking. James Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" shows how history instruction has been corrupted by nationalistic mythmakers and pro-Confederate revisionists. As long as there are public schools, there will always be groups attempting to use the schools to push their own ideologies.

Mr. Mark, your reverse-Pascal's-Wager reminded me of an incident from my childhood when my family attended a Lutheran church. One day after Sunday school, I came back to the regular service and found a guest preacher talking to a small group. The preacher was telling a first-person story about standing up for one's faith under persecution. The subject for the story was either Job or early Christians. He had a boy and a girl standing next to him, serving as his children. The preacher talked about how the persecutors put his son's eye out, and had the boy cover his eye with his hand. And then he said his persecutors cut out his daughter's tongue, and had the girl cover her mouth with her hand. I was terrified, because I kept imagining myself without an eye or a tongue.

I understand your worry, Norrie. That is a problem indeed.

I'm not sure how anything short of a government-enforced curriculum could prevent such exclusivistic methods. That is probably why no one wants to touch this issue.

To Norrie --

You said, "I urge you to consider the social discord and antagonism that teaching "about" religion will generate in the United States."

How are our children supposed to understand authors like Shakespeare, Milton, Hawthorne, and others without understanding the Christian ideas within their works? How are they to understand their own civilization without an understanding of the force that helped to shape that civilization?

Prostyltizing in the classroom is certainly unacceptable, but giving children a basic historical background in religious beliefs is critical to producing a well-rounded, critical student. If we "wait until college", as you recommend, we'll have freshman who don't even comprehend their own culture, let alone anyone else...

Brambleton wrote:
"Mr. Mark,

"Do you actually read any of these posts? I ask only because the last paragraph in your own post is so absurd, it's comical. Nonetheless, it is your opinion, as silly as it may be."

Maybe you didn't read my post closely enough to notice the smiley face :) after the word "unbiased." Sorry if it wasn't clear that I was being purposefully over the top. Next time, I'll use Winky ;) or "Mr Rolling Eyes" :roll: instead.

Geez. We atheists can't even poke fun at our own smugness here.

Mavaddat,

I agree that some teachers can get many things right about religion, but some can't, and others won't want to - they'd rather promote their own sect at the expense of others.

At the college level, you see Air Force Chaplains
at the Air Force Academy illegally promoting a Born Again Fundamentalist Christianity at the expense of all other religions, and actually punishing Catholic and Jewish cadets who won't come around to their point of view.

Do you think a small town Protestant school board in Georgia is going to allow teaching about atheistic Buddhism, Wicca, Unitarianism, etc. Their religous classes will turn into government funded P.R. for fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.

I urge you to consider the social discord and antagonism that teaching "about" religion will generate in the United States.

Regards.

victoria wrote:
"interesting mr mark- so if the same robber demanded that you accept jesus as your personal lord and savior i assume you would do it without compunction-"

Well, you're back at Pascal's Wager, aren't you? I don't have a "faith" to renounce as an atheist. The theist does. That's the difference between an atheist in the situation and a theist. The theist is being asked to give up his bedrock faith. The atheist is being asked to embrace a belief, not to give up their faith.

In the broader sense, I probably could tell the gunman that I accepted Jesus, for no other reason than I did it before and could do it again. The difference this time would be that I would now be lying (ie: the only way Pascal's Wager can work for non-believers) whereas earlier in my life I believed the mind games were real.

"actually job was never asked to renounce his faith- and was never at the point of death either"

Yes, I wasn't clear enough there. He did lose his family, though. Other believers have gone to their deaths defending their faith.

Mr. Mark,

Do you actually read any of these posts? I ask only because the last paragraph in your own post is so absurd, it's comical. Nonetheless, it is your opinion, as silly as it may be.

Ms. Jacoby,

I would agree that the time constraints on our public schools would not allow the proper introduction of different world religions. I think it would be completely inefficient and ineffective to do so. Also, my child would have to "unlearn" everything that was presented inaccurately or out of context.

As an aside, it would be a nice change to see the public school boards focusing on the 3R's instead of topics such as loving your transgender neighbor and putting a condom on a cucumber.

To Mr. Mark --

You wrote, "There are always exceptions to the rule, and you are one of those exceptions, along with many others who post on this blog. I assume you're one of the Xians who can identify at least one of the 4 Gospels."

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (though I'd be hard pressed to name all the disciples...) :)

Seriously, thanks for the compliment!

You wrote, "Been there, done that back in my days as a true believer. It might an interesting exercise to re-read it now from my perspective as an atheist after lo, these many years."

Given that Lewis wrote the book after years of being an atheist, your point of view on it would be most interesting. I only recently picked it up because of my interest in his *The Abolition of Man*.

As for *The God Delusion*, I'll a look at it. After all, one should never refuse to read something that challenges one's preconceptions...

Canyon et al.,

I think we can all agree that religion should be taught (about) in public schools. What we do not agree about is what effect that will have. Atheists say it will turn children away from God. Christians say it will turn children on to morality.

So we all agree that education is valuable, but we all (also) believe that education will lead the children to accept the truth of what we believe. Personally, I see this as a perfectly reasonable result. In fact, I would be WORRIED if anybody (religious or not) promoted ignorance as a solution.

As I said in my post above, I think we can all also come to agree about what should be taught. I don't think there is a fundamental disagreement between the atheist and the believer about what the believer believes. Who are atheists to say what Christians believe?! It is not up to us (atheists) to say what a "true Christian" believes, but merely that there are people who call themselves 'Christian' who believe such-and-such. Then it becomes a simple matter of fact open to surveying, etc.. Christians should present their beliefs right next to Muslims and Jews (supposing that only those three were taught in one class).

Canyon, my only question for you is this: If the teaching of religion does in fact lead more people to atheism, will you then come to resent education? In other words, if Susan is right that teaching children about the (whole) Bible actually makes them doubtful, will you then fear public education of religion?

Robert B. wrote:
"To Mr. Mark --

You said, " Is ignorance truly bliss in the theist's world, or does a lack of curiosity - even about that which they supposedly hold most important in their lives, ie: their faith - come with their territory?"

"...I believe that most Christians do have the "healthy curiosity" that you advocate."

My statement was made based on the statistics that Ms Jacoby provided in her article. There are always exceptions to the rule, and you are one of those exceptions, along with many others who post on this blog. I assume you're one of the Xians who can identify at least one of the 4 Gospels.

"For a more balanced (indeed rational) view of Christianity, may I suggest that you read C.S. Lewis's *Mere Christianity*? Though it is a apologetical work, it is not obnoxious or even all that preachy."

Been there, done that back in my days as a true believer. It might an interesting exercise to re-read it now from my perspective as an atheist after lo, these many years. I'd probably give it less of a chance than I did before. Thanks for the suggestion. As long as we're recommending reading material, have you read "The God Delusion?"

Mr. Mark,

You could test your inch deep - mile wide ignorance analogy and the faith waivering theory at the same time.

The robber would offer the person an alternative similar to this: I’m going to off your family unless you renounce the Jesus who was crucified by Nero, your church’s formal Sunday dress code, and the Gospel of Phillip.

Norrie,

As a former religious person, I disagree with your point that teachers cannot "get it right" when teaching children about religion. If someone is interested in presenting facts about what people believe, they do not have to misrepresent other's views. For example, my Western religions professor (albeit in community college) was Catholic and she taught us about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam from the perspective of the believers of those religions. She even had various Jews, Christians, and Muslims come in and talk to us about their respective beliefs. It was all honest and out there on the table.

How hard is it to say, "Some people who call themselves 'Christian' believe in such-and-such"? Isn't that a sufficient way of conveying what such people believe in the way that they would want it conveyed?

To Mr. Mark --

You said, " Is ignorance truly bliss in the theist's world, or does a lack of curiosity - even about that which they supposedly hold most important in their lives, ie: their faith - come with their territory?"

I think your predisposition against theists has colored your perceptions of their arguments on this blog. Here, I have found both ignorance and intelligence on both sides of the religious divide.

Plus, I believe that most Christians do have the "healthy curiosity" that you advocate. In our cases, however, it has led us remain firm in our beliefs, which is probably not what you had in mind. Unfortunately the "uncurious" Christians (the Falwells, Dobsons, and Robertsons) tend to speak the loudest and thus get the most attention. That is probably why atheists like yourself and Ms. Jacoby tend to lump us all together in a single pile of "non-freethinkers".

For a more balanced (indeed rational) view of Christianity, may I suggest that you read C.S. Lewis's *Mere Christianity*? Though it is a apologetical work, it is not obnoxious or even all that preachy.

interesting mr mark- so if the same robber demanded that you accept jesus as your personal lord and savior i assume you would do it without compunction-

actually job was never asked to renounce his faith- and was never at the point of death either-

he was harrassed to "curse god", it was never suggested he renounce his faith-

it was the issue of obedience to and submission to the will of god- and belief that god had a reason and higher purpose- which was the case.

actually you kind of made my point-

as i had stated- reading without comprehension or just reading half of a story (as in the case of ms. jacoby) only leads to confusion and dissemination of misinformation-

anyway- she sure is an in the box thinker-

liberated- when you get into subjectives like the influence of religion- you are straying from the subject- and injecting personal judgements-

teach children how to be critical thinkers-
present infromation and facts that are representative of the practice-
let children decide for themselves-

without anxiety or excitement from the teacher theyll likely treat it as any other lesson-

even if you try to present a positive and negative to balance each other youll still be subject to unequal values ascribed to the opposites and creating false dichotomies and associations-

leave the knowledge to the knowledgeable

Ms. Jacoby --

For once, you and I are in complete agreement. As a teacher of Western civilization in a high school, I must address issues regarding Christianity almost constantly. However, there is a fundamental difference between portraying Christianity as a cultural force and portraying Christianity as the "one true faith".

I also agree that our country's degree of religious literacy is generally very poor. Most Christians (including those of my own Catholic faith) really don't understand the "whys" of their belief, which is a shame.

Mr Mark asked: "why is it that the atheists on this blog make the most-knowledgeable and most-compelling arguments? The atheists seem to know their Bible much better than the true believers, ... "

I would say it's because we, largely, were raised in some sort of a religious environment and came to our atheism through a relatively rigorous examination of the evidence. We've actually read the Christian Bible from a neutral standpoint and compared/contrasted it with/to the tenets and stories of other religions.

I also think that we've developed better arguments because we've had to defend our positions from frequently.

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

I couldn't agree more! Too bad this does not happen in families more often.

Well-written and referenced American and World History books should suffice for public middle and high school teachings about religion.

Families add the rest through discussion, practices, books, magazines, example and "exposure" materials to include access to the Internet and the educational TV e.g. the History Channel. The recent History Channel review of the Dark Ages was excellent especially the coveveage of the influence of religion in those difficult times.

Re: my previous post. My 4th paragraph contains wording that suggests that Job was a Xian. Sorry about that. "Xian" should have read "believers."

Why do these things jump out at one only AFTER they've been posted and are beyond editing?

Another great column. Thanks, Susan.

I have long held that religious belief in American is a mile wide and an inch deep. The statistics you quote support this: people believe, they just don't know what they believe in!

I have a test for religious Americans that goes to the question of the deepness of one's religious convictions, sort of a reverse Pascal's wager, as it were. Here it is:

If a criminal invaded your home, held your family at gunpoint and threatened to kill them one-by-one in front of your eyes unless you renounced Jesus, Christianity and the Bible, what would you do?

I think that most Xians today would, sensibly, jump at the chance to renounce all they "believe in" to save their family. That sits in sharp contrast to the many Xians in the Bible and throughout history who have elected to not renounce their faith, even when it meant the loss of everything they held dear (Job comes to mind), and in some cases, to go to their deaths. Maybe the defenders of Xianity on this blog would like to weigh in on my wager...or not???

If I could make one last totally unbiased :) observation: why is it that the atheists on this blog make the most-knowledgeable and most-compelling arguments? The atheists seem to know their Bible much better than the true believers, and when it comes to scientific and historical data, it's not even a contest. Is ignorance truly bliss in the theist's world, or does a lack of curiosity - even about that which they supposedly hold most important in their lives, ie: their faith - come with their territory?

Sex education and now religious education? Why? Because some want to implant their political agenda on the minds of our children. Welcome to 1984. You can not teach it without having some bias. I don't like the sexual bias my kids get at school and would not appreciate the religious spin. Until we can successfully teach the basics (reading, writing and arithmetic), address the racial inequalities, provide as good an education for poor as wealthy, and compete with Japan, then why all the waste resources on sex and religion? Don't our superintendents have enough to do without being held responsible for sex and religion? Most of the time we parents just end up deprogramming our kids when they come home so it is really just a big waste of time. I say no.

Susan Jacoby:

I agree with all that you say, but you don't answer the question. Should courses on religion be mandatory?

I think the answer to that is "no," since few schools can put together the resources necessary to properly teach such a course or have the will to do so. Thus, any requirement that they teach a religion course would be a disaster for education and would result in a spasm of expensive litigation.

I sadly say all this believing, as you do, that teaching about religion would be beneficial.

A course (or courses) that presented a neutral and historical view of the world's prominent religions throughout history would be of great benefit.

However, many Christians might be surprised at the similarities between Christian mythology and the stories of Mithra, which predate the Jesus stories by at least 300 years. The fact that most people have no idea of the astounding similarities between Christian mythology and that of other ancient religions stands to support Susan's point.

If I were an adherent of any religion I wouldn't it taught in the public schools. The teacher, if not of my faith, wouldn't get it right.

Think of the poor teachers. Every sect will be after them incessantly and vociferously to have their faith taught about in a certain way. And probably to have other faiths presented in a derogatory way.

If you think the religio-cultural wars are bad now, just wait until the public schools teach "about" religion, and the kids fight each other over religion on the way home.

All this stuff can perfectly well wait until college.

James Buchanan,

Religion has been responsible for both tremendous good and tremendous evil throughout human history. Any discussion about religion has to include the good that has been done.

Having said that, I see the problem as not religion itself, but religion-based literalism and absolutism. How much of the problem is the doctrine of divine command, especially the idea of afterlife as reward or punishment? When people believe to their core that they are fulfilling the will of deity, does that lead them to see themselves as unaccountable to their fellow humans? Or is this simply a matter of personality, with people finding justification in scripture for their actions and not the other way around? I know that I am probably being unfair to religious people, and I apologize for any offense.

Fool of Wizdom said;

"If I were a teacher, it would be difficult for me to teach you that the koran is the inspired word of God"

You would and should not teach that. You can teach that MEMBERS OF THAT FAITH believe that the Koran is the inspired word of God.

I think this is at the center of what Susan is trying to say.

As a Catholic I resent Evangelicals demanding that public discourse in the US defer to their belief that the Bible is the literal word of God.

I don't resent that they believe that way. I think that is an interesting nuance and difference between them and me, but I would not dream of asking them to change it.

I think religions should be taught about in schools. They are a huge part of our world's history; why should they be left out of teachings? During one year of history, students are expected to learn and memorize all of the gods of greek mythology, what they did, stories written about them, etc. That was a religion in those times; why should our students not spend ample time learning about the others?

Of course, that might lead people to believe that just as the theory of evolution is taught in schools, ample time should also be given to the theory of creation...

Mr. Shearer closes with: "No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible." - Theodore Roosevelt

I agree with Mr. Rooselvelt. It is ignorance of the (Bible's, Koran's, Torah's, etc.) authorship and validity that fuels much of what is wrong in our world today.

Victoria's Open Secret

Miss Vicki,
you are entirely right.

In schools
students should be taught
What religions believe,
how they are organized,
and what effect they have on history and culture.

Students SHOULD NOT be taught
that Catholicism (or Islam or Mormonism)
is either
True or Not True.

They can be taught the arguments that people have used both for and against belief, for example.
(The Ontological Argument, St Auguestine, Nietache).

But the teaching should be aimed at knowledge AND information,
not proving religion and God right OR wrong.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with this as regards American PUBLIC Schools.

Jacoby MAY be right that this will foster skepticism. But that should not be the aim.

Susan,

Well put, and thank you.

Thank you to Canyon Shearer for getting your comment in so quickly to prove Susan's point!

Excellent quote:

"No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Susan says, as an athiest, that she feels sorry for anyone who has not read it.

She refers to the quote:
"God helps those who help themselves."
-Benjamin Franklin.

It brings to mind an appropriate quote by yet another great American:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln

frankly i think it is actually close minded to present any subject from a purely negative perspective- look at her example of job- if you teach that story youd have to teach the subsequent reward at the end where he was blessed with 10 times his original wealth- in recognition of his patience-

how can one make an intelligent synopsis with half information?

teaching about the different beliefs and cultural practices would help broaden the perspectives of young minds- without the subjective interference of judgemental teachers pushing for or AGAINST belief-

theyre oppposite sides of the same coin of bias.

James Buchanan is a PERFECT example of why religion should be taught in schools. It is a great myth that religion is the cause of all that is bad in the world. People are the root of all evil.

Men have committed atrocities in the name of God, in the name of Christ, in the name of gods, in the name of country, in the name of kings, in the name of nature, in the name of women, in the name of evolution, in the name of atheism...

There is only one commonality here, and that commonality is man.

Only when you realize the fallen and despicable nature of man, can you understand the religion of Christianity. Amazingly, all of the other religions don't approach this issue; especially humanism.

Ba'al,

I'm not sure how you pulled that out of my reply. I am not an advocate of ID...although the Universe is intelligently designed, ID is a bastardization of Creation and Evolution.

ms jacoby states-

As a freethinker and an atheist, my second reason for wanting Americans to know more about religion is that knowledge fosters skepticism about faith--

there needs to be a distinction between knowledge and information- he deeper gnosis that comes from contemplation has not fostered enough skepticism in me to reject god- skepticism can also lead one to a stronger belief rather than away from belief- as it is based on a rounded and complete- an atheists who has never investigated the other side of the equation- (as a mature and comprehending adult) is only aware of half of the truth- which is no truth at all-

as a free-thinker her thinking seems to be severely limited to a christian perspective-

personally i have no use for football- so i learned all about it- now i can tell a fan exactly WHY i dont care for it- without insulting or criticizing it or them for their own choice to enjoy it-

information without knowledge is enough to teach a subject in a practical sense- not everyone comes to the same conclusion when using their higher criticisms-

Thanks for the link, Ba'al. I have always seen intelligent design as a Trojan horse for Christian creationism. Evolution may conflict with a literal reading of Genesis, but that does not mean that evolution negates the idea of deity or religion in general. Why should any scripture be read literally?

Intelligent Design is a Travesty

ID has been overwhelmingly deemed to be scientifically baseless by the scientific community.

Those few scientist who continue to embrace it embarrass themselves more and more every day.

And a number of courts have decided that teaching ID in the schools is IN FACT teaching Religious Views and not teaching science.

Intelligent Design Isn't.

attn: Baal, even though I am persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, and that He did in fact raise on the third day, I agree with you fully about the fact that most "evangelical Christians" are ignorant of the foundation in which they construct their house of belief on. (although I dont agree with you about the forgeries and such, you sound intelligent, please do not tell me you arent another staunch advocate of that hoax buster page) I am a member of a "mega" church, and I agree that more than half, when asked for concrete apologetics for their belief, would draw a blank...........I thinik it would be great to teach about all religions/beliefs. But how reliable will the source be for not only christianity, but also islam, buddism, etc.? (If I were a teacher, it would be difficult for me to teach you that the koran is the inspired word of God) You want to talk about the errors in the Bible! just take a look at a freshman's biology book. And on top of that I believe that it could be argued that religion is already taught in the teaching of evolution. If evolution/big bang is true, then the Bible is false. (come on dude, my grandpa aint a monkey) All of the facts should be presented equally on all religions and let the students, under their own volition, choose for THEMSELVES what is truth. I believe that Christianity will fend for itself, and stand as the truth. But we are free to believe what we may. It is your right to disagree. In matters of opionion, debate is futile.

Canyon Shearer writes that "huge body of scientists refute macroevolution in absolute" [sic]

I see this kind of thing a lot. In response to this silly claim by advocates of Intelligent Design and Creationism, there has been a systematic study that can be seen here:

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/teach-controversy.html

I am one of the research university biological sciences chairs/deans quoted in this survey.

If you want to deny evolution on the basis of scripture, that is your right. But do not misrepresent the views of serious scientists on this subject.

Jacoby is absolutely correct about the literary merit of the KJV, as well as the important roles that the various religions have played in history and culture.

"The line between teaching and preaching is too fine for the average public school."

If true, I suspect the cause is schools' fear of being sued by the ACLU and/or Focus on the Family. To me the solution would seem simple - teachers can say "Christians believe X, Buddhists believe Y, Jews believe Z, etc." and lead discussions about the commonalities and differences between the doctrines, without saying any of the doctrines are true or false. Is this solution too idealistic? At the high school level, students might even be ready for an introduction to "The Masks of God."

In response to Ba'al's quote - "She also seemed upset when I further noted that none of the Bible was originally written in English" - please tell me that was a joke.

Teach the reality of religion. Teach them about religion as a source of cultural hatred, about children screaming behind locked doors when a priest's penis enters their body, about those priests being hidden by the clergy, about honor killings, and girls having their clitorises removed, and about deliberate ignorance for the sake of ensuring reliance on faith, about indoctrination, and brainwashing, about corruption, and elitism.

If you want to give them the beautiful allegories and imagery, you pull the curtain back and show them the whole works. Don't salad pick their education. Lets see the whole monster for what it is.

It's been a long time since an On-Faith article got under my skin. I congratulate Ms. Jacoby for that feat. I realize from her religious background and agenda it is necessary to promote ones own beliefs, but what really hurts is when someone promotes their own beliefs which are clearly hypereligious and I'm not ashamed to say, evil.

I agree wholeheartedly that religion should be taught (about) in school. In the 1909 New England Priory Book it listed the chief role of man to, "Glorify God and enjoy Him forever." You'll be hard pressed to find any Christian to say that religious history should be mandated in schools and that prayer is an unalienable right; it's become too taboo and they're afraid of offending someone. Well you've found one, I feel that knowledge is the opposite of what Susan is promoting; knowledge only points at God and only backs up the Bible.

Currently we have not removed religion from schools, we have replaced it with the religion of naturalism, the religion of evolution, and the religion of hedonism. It is mankinds 'hardwired' nature to believe and seek out his origins, purpose, and destination. While naturalism and atheism have pathetic answers for these questions, they answer them none-the-less.

The belief that pervades our public schools today is no more founded on science than that the moon is made of cheese. This is why it is imperative that our schools reveal the statistic to our students that 60% of Americans don't believe that men came from monkeys, and that a huge body of scientists refute macroevolution in absolute. Once science is allowed back into our teachings of origins, then we can inform our students that, IF the Bible is true, God considers the unregenerate sinner His enemy. How many students do you think know that? It is written throughout the Bible, and goes so far as to call anyone not born(again) into the family of God is a child of wrath, of the devil, of disobedience, separated from God, and doomed to Hell. That's an important piece of religion, don't you think? Whether or not it is true is where the debate should be, but hiding the Bible from our students is not the proper way to 'enlighten' them.

I'll leave you with this final thought;

"No educated man can afford to be ignorant of the Bible."
-Theodore Roosevelt

My secretary is a self-avowed fundamentalist Christian. She is a nice lady but she was shocked and offended when I noted to her that Paul was not one of the Twelve and that he never met Jesus face to face before the "resurrection". She also seemed upset when I further noted that none of the Bible was originally written in English. It didn't seem like a good idea to tell her about the actual texts include forgeries and scribal additions.

It may be that some people in the high reaches of our government now know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis (or at least that there is a difference, but not its basis). They still say things sometimes that make you wonder.

I agree wholeheartedly with your vision for education. Teach the kids everything there is to know. As for fundemantalists, why are you so anxious? Given all the facts, the truth should prevail, right?
peace