E-N: Study shows Texas high school Bible courses as sectarian, not academic

[Spurminator]

Extra Stout,

I think you laid out your argument very well in the previous post (minus the namecalling of course) and I would tend to side and agree with pretty much every thing you advocated...

There is one tiny problem that is concerning for someone like myself though. I don't mind that curriculae in public schools challenges our growing beliefs (from the perspective of the student) and forces the student to question why it is he/she believes what they do. In fact, I feel it is a great test of our faith and allows for us to actually know more of GOD and an opportunity to understand His nature - should we seek Him.

The dilemma arises from school systems that indirectly undermine the validity of religious beliefs. To students of faith, this is just another challenge. To those with atheistic propensities it encourages them to falsely accuse the religious establishment of being ignorant brainwashed fodder. Either way, it is a sentiment they are rightly en led to have and should be of no consequence to us.

The problem then surrounds religiously fringed students; those with little understanding of their own beliefs or those with no religious beliefs at all. Many of them grow up thinking that the science they were taught in school disproved the existence of GOD. These classes fortify the sentiment because they fail to establish that the prevailing theories are not full-proof or that they don't really address the question of GOD. They were never meant to address His existence.

Science should just be science; the naturalistic study of everything around us. But being that science is bound by naturalistic constraints, people shouldn't automatically assume that there is no room for the supernatural. Many unfortunately do; at least 90% of my advanced high-school courses failed to draw that distinction. Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of GOD anymore than it can be used to prove Him. Sure, it can clear things up... but our understanding of the Naturalistic attributes of GOD will be minimal... at best. GOD was meant to be experienced on a spiritual level at the proper venues (home, church, or through quiet meditation).

The question then arises; how should this be addressed, can it be resolved, should it? And that's where it gets really really gray.

In my opinion, this responsibility falls mainly upon pastors and parents. Instead of spending so much time fighting scientific education out of fear that it will undermine their beliefs, they should explain how God and Science are compatable. It would be great if teachers could do this as well, but I don't think the responsibility is theirs.

I never found Science threatening when I was in school.

[Mr. Peabody]

Extra Stout,

Science should just be science; the naturalistic study of everything around us. But being that science is bound by naturalistic constraints, people shouldn't automatically assume that there is no room for the supernatural. Many unfortunately do; at least 90% of my advanced high-school courses failed to draw that distinction. Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of GOD anymore than it can be used to prove Him. Sure, it can clear things up... but our understanding of the Naturalistic attributes of GOD will be minimal... at best. GOD was meant to be experienced on a spiritual level at the proper venues (home, church, or through quiet meditation).

The question then arises; how should this be addressed, can it be resolved, should it? And that's where it gets really really gray.

Wow. I have never heard any science teacher say that science disproves God's existence nor have I ever seen that statement in a science textbook. Now if want you want is some kind of disclaimer or statement by a teacher to the effect of "Now students it is important for you to realize that science does not necessarily disprove the existence of God," then I think you are being unreasonable.

[boutons_]

"high-school courses failed to draw that distinction"

Why should these courses say ANYTHING about the super-natural at all, either pro-God or anti-God? both types of statements are illegitimate from public school teachers.

Teaching "evolution" DOES NOT EQUAL "God doesn't exist"

[Phenomanul]

In my opinion, this responsibility falls mainly upon pastors and parents. Instead of spending so much time fighting scientific education out of fear that it will undermine their beliefs, they should explain how God and Science are compatable. It would be great if teachers could do this as well, but I don't think the responsibility is theirs.

I never found Science threatening when I was in school.

I agree.... again though, the issue is not with Christians. They should know why they believe what they believe. 'Weak' Christians... well that's another issue.

The real issue however, is with creating a mass generation of people who assume that the Truth of Christianity has somehow been defeated by science -- an invalid statement and conclusion on many fronts. It is this generation that will soon shape the moral fabric of our future... it is a runaway train that will not be stopped nor am I clamoring for emergency brakes... I'm simply noting the fallacy of thinking that because Religion is not being addressed in schools that somehow this is solving all the issues...

The lack of discernment of what cons ues religious teaching and what is demarcated by the bounds of science has been missing for a while.

[boutons_]

"creating a mass generation of people who assume that the Truth of Christianity has somehow been defeated by science"

is this happening? who or what is doing it?

"Religion is not being addressed in schools that somehow this is solving all the issues..."

... so your/evangelicals solution IS to address religion is schools? illegal

Just worry about YOUR kids, and quit worrying about the religiosity of everybody else's kids, because everybody else doesn't buy your flavor of religiosity.

[Phenomanul]

"high-school courses failed to draw that distinction"

Why should these courses say ANYTHING about the super-natural at all, either pro-God or anti-God? both types of statements are illegitimate from public school teachers.

Teaching "evolution" DOES NOT EQUAL "God doesn't exist"

I agree... but you fail to see the linearity of that subject... what happens when the issue of origins is brought up. Evolution had to start somewhere no? Otherwise it has existed forever. And I'm pretty sure a student always brings it up.... Gray Gray Gray...

Or in physics class, what existed before the Big Bang? Gray Gray Gray...

Somehow telling the students, "I'm not allowed to address that question" would not suffice. My teacher instead went on to say that simple organic molecules gave rise to bigger ones until they formed DNA and then made the jump to micro cellular organisms. I was like whoaaa whooa whoaaaa. The textbook only suggests that as a possible path it doesn't state it as fact as it cannot be proven. He then answered, "that is the only route."

I knew where I stood. The rest of the class however took that as a given. Again no demarcation is made, and if taken to its source more than confusing people it makes it seem as if science were absolute truth.

[Phenomanul]

Just worry about YOUR kids, and quit worrying about the religiosity of everybody else's kids, because everybody else doesn't buy your flavor of religiosity.

Don't worry, I will.

But ahemm.... don't worry about what I believe OK. Thanks.

[Phenomanul]

Wow. I have never heard any science teacher say that science disproves God's existence nor have I ever seen that statement in a science textbook. Now if want you want is some kind of disclaimer or statement by a teacher to the effect of "Now students it is important for you to realize that science does not necessarily disprove the existence of God," then I think you are being unreasonable.

It doesn't need to be stated explicitly... don't let that technicality slip away.

[boutons_]

"don't worry about what I believe OK"

I've said that many times here. Mix your own kool-aid and I'll mix mine. But neither of us has any right to pass out that kool-aid in a public school.

[Phenomanul]

"don't worry about what I believe OK"

I've said that many times here. Mix your own kool-aid and I'll mix mine. But neither of us has any right to pass out that kool-aid in a public school.

I'm actually advocating for the laws that are in place now to admonish the brand of athiesm that is being taught in many of our public schools. Am I not en led to that lobbying right? You are? Why should I be stripped of this right?

[johnsmith]

I'm actually advocating for the laws that are in place now to admonish the brand of athiesm that is being taught in many of our public schools. Am I not en led to that lobbying right? You are? Why should I be stripped of this right?

Oooh, good point. What is wrong with lobbying that issue?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm actually advocating for the laws that are in place now to admonish the brand of athiesm that is being taught in many of our public schools. Am I not en led to that lobbying right? You are? Why should I be stripped of this right?

Then the fair thing for you to do would be to lobby to teach all religions in public school. No one know's for sure who's religion is right.. Can't just lobby for one in order to be fair .. I don't get the impression your interested in being fair anyways..

[Mr. Peabody]

I agree... but you fail to see the linearity of that subject... what happens when the issue of origins is brought up. Evolution had to start somewhere no? Otherwise it has existed forever. And I'm pretty sure a student always brings it up.... Gray Gray Gray...

Or in physics class, what existed before the Big Bang? Gray Gray Gray...

Somehow telling the students, "I'm not allowed to address that question" would not suffice.

How about stating "We don't know."? Because the truth is that we don't. Why is any further explanation needed?

[johnsmith]

Then the fair thing for you to do would be to lobby to teach all religions in public school. No one know's for sure who's religion is right.. Can't just lobby for one in order to be fair .. I don't get the impression your interested in being fair anyways..

At least you threw an unnecessary cheap shot into that one.

[Phenomanul]

How about stating "We don't know."? Because the truth is that we don't. Why is any further explanation needed?

That would be the perfect answer, and what would address my concern.

When the teacher attempts to address the question any other way, he's asking for trouble.

[Phenomanul]

Then the fair thing for you to do would be to lobby to teach all religions in public school. No one know's for sure who's religion is right.. Can't just lobby for one in order to be fair .. I don't get the impression your interested in being fair anyways..

You would have had to read this thread from the start to know what my stance is. Your assesment in no way summarizes my line of thinking.

[Mr. Peabody]

That would be the perfect answer, and what would address my concern.

When the teacher attempts to address the question any other way, he's asking for trouble.

I completely agree. Plus, he does a disservice to the student by giving the impression that these matters are settled when they most certainly are not.

[smeagol]

The "Christian" taxpayers wouldn't be figting so hard, nor be so unconcerned, to hire and pay teachers of Muslim, of even "Christian" FDLS, or Catholicism.

Catholics are Christians, in case you were not aware.

[johnsmith]

Where are the equal-opportunity elective courses Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, Catholicism?

The post above me, and the quote above me here, offer further proof that Boutons has absolutely no ing idea what to talk about when an article doesn't do his thinking for him. Two examples of his not knowing the fact that Catholics are Christians. That seems like common sense to me.

[smeagol]

To boutons credit, some fringe Portestant denominations don't consider Cathiolics as Christians.

[boutons_]

"Catholics are Christians"

But I don't see Protestant Bible-thumpers fighting for Catholic doctrines to be taught in public schols (nor do I see Catholics, Hindus, Jews, etc fighting to install their specific doctrines in public schools).

Christian is a useless definition. How many flavors of just Baptist "Christians" are there?

Then there is FLDS and LDS, "Christian" LDS itself being dreamt by a murderer, just the "Christian" Church of England was.

Christian? WHICH "Christian"?

[Spurminator]

Protestantism vs. Catholicism would be irrelevant in a class on the Bible. They use the same one.

[johnsmith]

Protestantism vs. Catholicism would be irrelevant in a class on the Bible. They use the same one.

[boutons_]

"the Bible. They use the same one."

false, the Bible-thumping "Christians" would insist on literal 6-day Creationism/ID which is not Catholic doctrine.

[Extra Stout]

Protestantism vs. Catholicism would be irrelevant in a class on the Bible. They use the same one.

Ummm... actually, they don't. The Catholic Bible includes the Apocryphal books.