I'm not sure what evolutionary advantage the jews who became christians had over the jews who stayed jewish. Or for that matter the christians who became protestant had over the christians who stayed catholic.
Current thinking - teach all religions. I say abolish it all
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
The concept of teaching comparative religion sounds great, but in practice I fear it is so deeply flawed that it should be dropped.
Should government-sponsored schools get into the business of examining religion? We know that they will not dare teach anything critical about islam. The islamist pressure groups will be all over them with accusations of islamaphobia, etc. So the kids will get the sort of dumbed-down make-believe view of islam that many of our leaders exhibit.
I would rather they teach nothing than teach lies.
With Christianity, we have the opposite problem. Kids will be taught that the Obama version of the Crusades, ie a brutal attempt at subjugating peace-loving muslims. How muslims came to take control of Christian and Jewish Holy Lands will be glossed over, as will the persecution that prompted the Crusades.
So again, PC lies will be presented as history.
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court would have stayed out of religion in schools disputes, and kids could be instructed in the faiths that created this country. Since that is not going to happen, it is better the schools just stay out of it altogether. They have enough problems without fomenting religious disputes.
Should government-sponsored schools get into the business of examining religion? We know that they will not dare teach anything critical about islam. The islamist pressure groups will be all over them with accusations of islamaphobia, etc. So the kids will get the sort of dumbed-down make-believe view of islam that many of our leaders exhibit.
I would rather they teach nothing than teach lies.
With Christianity, we have the opposite problem. Kids will be taught that the Obama version of the Crusades, ie a brutal attempt at subjugating peace-loving muslims. How muslims came to take control of Christian and Jewish Holy Lands will be glossed over, as will the persecution that prompted the Crusades.
So again, PC lies will be presented as history.
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court would have stayed out of religion in schools disputes, and kids could be instructed in the faiths that created this country. Since that is not going to happen, it is better the schools just stay out of it altogether. They have enough problems without fomenting religious disputes.
Don't forget early Greek and Roman history, before the Crusades, when those empires went and took control of Arabic holy lands.
aw heck, just let the kids watch the History Channel, that's where I get all my knowledge.
my first thought.... yeah right good idea... why would anyone wish to learn stuff about other cultures in schools.
but having 4 kids in public schools right now, I promise you cant can't trust public schools to teach comparative religions properly with equal time, introspection and spin...
The information they present about the crusades is annoyingly misleading. Its very carefully crafted to avoid teaching the fact that Islam had been the aggressor staging wars and battles against the west.
So AAA is 100% correct.
but having 4 kids in public schools right now, I promise you cant can't trust public schools to teach comparative religions properly with equal time, introspection and spin...
The information they present about the crusades is annoyingly misleading. Its very carefully crafted to avoid teaching the fact that Islam had been the aggressor staging wars and battles against the west.
So AAA is 100% correct.
wow man, you went way off topic on that one. The topic was considering teaching comparative religion which most agree would be a good idea. And then you come back and say we can't do what most agree is good because our schools are so bad. So the solution is to just not do what most agree is good?
A better description would be - the teaching of comparative superstitions and you're right, it is better the schools just stay out of it.
"The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning." Voltaire
so tell me Stu, why do the Jews not like Moslems? And why do the Muslims not like infidels? And why do the protestant Irish not like the Catholic Irish? How many churches do I have to go to to learn what is going on? What is your answer? In hushed tones, (we don't teach that in school, but if you are interested I know somebody you can talk to. Here's his number, press 1 for IRA and 2 for ISIS.)
Would you allow it if they called it Comparative Superstitions?
"Teacher, why is everyone dressed up in costumes today?"
we can't talk about it, something to do with Pumkins
The best way to revitalize the Church is to make it illegal (or at least frowned upon) to talk about it.
Last edited:
You're asking me why people with one type of irrational belief system arising from ignorance or fear, do not get along with other people holding a different irrational belief system arising from ignorance or fear.
Rather than teach the detail of how each form of religion is being the more preposterous, the time might be better spent on understanding history itself and some of the historical events brought about directly through those politics of ignorance and fear.
It's not illegal to talk of religion in public school or to teach about it.
It is and rightly so, unconstitutional and illegal to teach religion in public school.
I trust you appreciate the distinction.
Teaching comparative religion may have the effect of turning more away from religion altogether. It may help students use their critical and rational thinking, which is always a good idea.
But I agree with AAA though for different reasons. It is and has always been far better to keep the ridiculous and tribal nonsense that is religion, completely out of school altogether.
Religion should go the way of bloodletting. It has already caused enough bloodshed.
Promoting understanding is one thing, but perpetuating mythology is another. Where to draw the line...
Promoting understanding is one thing, but perpetuating mythology is another. Where to draw the line...
Last edited: