Then you aren't a catholic or a christian. I find it disturbing that so many people can call themselves christians when they believe they ahve the authority to decide which parts of the bible are literal and which are metaphorical.

Hey Johnson do some research before you post. The Catholic Church is accepting of both the Big Bang theory and Evolution. Both are seen as possible manifestations of God's will.

I assume you are speaking for whatever splinter Christian group you belong to...born again or whatever. I respect your beliefs, but only a fool would deny the reality of Evolution or the Big Bang, IMHO.

And please, don't accuse me of "not being Christian". I'm a Catholic, buddy, we're the original Christians.

If this discussion is going to degenerate into childish name-calling then I'm out of it.

-SC

__________________
Do you come here often?

if this dicussion is going to degenerate into childish name-calling, then I will be deleting it.

__________________
"I am so smart! S-M-R-T!" - Homer Simpson

The sun is gone, but I have a light - Kurt Cobain

~I love Nikki~

I thought the "original" Christians were Jewish?????????????? Sorry, could not help myself!!!!

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

whats the saying about keeping politics and religion out of discussions if you want it to remain civil.

People are always going to have very strong opinions and take exception to contrary views that they find upsetting because it challenges their core values.

I reckon it would be a good idea to leave this one alone.

In my opinion if you want to live in a multicultural environment you must have a clear seperation of church and the state. Otherwise religion in the schools just serves to assimilate children who are quite gullible and suggestive.

I agree to a point, Donkey, but sometimes the whole humanist/leftist PC agenda is force-fed to kids just as rabidly as the religious right's agenda.

I think a balanced approach needs to be struck. No indoctrinating young people about religious views, but also no teaching second-graders about the evils of capitalism, the crimes of the founding fathers, etc.

I favor a "just the facts" brand of education. Parents and the children themselves are supposed to develop their attitudes, beliefs, and preferences.

-SC

__________________
Do you come here often?

I was brought up in a;super religious;Catholic household.I don't
follow the Catholic religion;anymore;because; there's too many;
teachings that I disagree with.Basically;I don't believe in religions
You don't have to be a certain religion;to believe;or talk;to God!
I'm not going to get into the;in school;debate.Everyone has their
own views;depending on what suits them.Their way is right;every
one elses;is wrong.In my opinion;we need a little more of the-
"Live and let live." side here. Irish
P.S.Not that explanitory;but my $.02.If you treat people right;that
is all that counts.

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

This is an interesting debate. I have put a lot of thought into the existence of God over the years, and I have even written a paper on the subject that I will include in this post. Something many people don't realize is that the separation of Church and state was made to protect the Church from the state and not the other way around, so that the government could not control religion. The word religion according to the dictionary (or at least the one I have) means "A system of beliefs and practices." Interestingly enough atheism actually fits in that description. So to remove God from schools would be forcing a system of belief on people. Since adding or removing God would be forcing someone else's beliefs on others, it would seem that no matter what you do it would be infringing on people's rights. So the only thing to do at this point, besides getting rid of public schooling, is to leave God in school since most Americans believe in Him, until the point most people in America are atheist, then system would have to be switched over. Ok that is my thoughts on that now here is that paper I wrote:
Concerning the Existence of God
Quite a few years ago I noticed discrepancies between my religion and science. Since I agreed with science and religion I needed to find which was right or find a reason for the discrepancies. From a religious point a view there should be no discrepancies between religion and science, because if God created the universe, He also created science. After some thought, I ran across something which seems to have been over looked by both scientists and theologians. This brought me to an interesting conclusion concerning the discrepancies between science and religion and to the existence of God.
For nearly the first millennia and a half AD, religion dictated science. Theologians used the Bible as their "all in one" book of science and religion. Since theologians were some of the only people considered to have enough knowledge to understand these things most people listen to them. But after the invention of the printing press ideas could be transmitted and stored much more easily than before. People began to study the world in a way that hadn't been done since Aristotle's time. When these people said things that didn't seem to go with exactly what was in the Bible, the Church considered them blasphemers and executed them.
Soon science and religion became separate entities in the minds of people, and eventually science, which seemed to have logical conclusions to everything, gained the upper hand. After science had been widely accepted by every one, the Church started trying to prove that the depiction of what happened in the Bible was true. This set up a system where one side would try to prove the other side's arguments wrong.
Ironically the Church has tried to use science to prove that the Bible is right. They have found it very hard to conclusively prove anything. While at the same time science just seems to stumble into things that seem to disprove the Bible. After nearly 500 years, science seems to be winning. On almost all points science has shown that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of God. Science has seemed to disprove the idea that the world and the universe were created five and a half thousand years ago. Even beyond that it seems to have been proven that humans evolved from apes. It now looks like religion will dwindle away, but there is something that allows religion and science to co-exist.
The argument that scientists have made that there is no direct proof of the existence of God is true, and so it should be. It has been said that all you need is faith in God. From the focus on faith in the Bible and by the Church it can be seen that God wants us to use faith to believe in Him. It is also said that God can see all of time. That he knows exactly what will happen from the beginning of the universe till the end. If God can see all of time, then he knew that we would create this advanced technology. Then if he wanted us to only use faith to believe in him then he would make the world in such a way where we could not prove the He created the it or the universe, because if we could we would need not faith to believe in Him since there would be direct proof of his existence.
God hid His own existence from us then He is deceptive. Though God does want us to believe in Him, He just doesn't want us to put no effort into it. Non-the less, this still destroys Descartes' argument that God is not deceptive. But if Descartes was alive today and tried the same philosophical exercises he did before he would probably not bring God into the equation at all, because the fact that he could not prove that God did exist, since that would now be in doubt. It is quite possible that he would still get stuck on "a deceptive spirit," because of my argument, since he would not be able to prove that God didn't exist. Also according to my argument if God did exist then he would have to be in some way deceptive to keep the proof of his existence from us.
This is an interesting paradox, which might push Descartes to atheism, because only then could he continue beyond that point. Although Descartes might choose to go the other way, and try to find at least in part some circumstantial proof for God's existence. Interestingly enough some can be found in mathematics and biology. The human hands contain both of God's numbers: three, which is the number of the trinity, and seven, which is the number of completion and perfection. If you add these two numbers together you get 10, which is the number of fingers we have. In mathematics the first prime number is three. The prime number of prime numbers, that is the third prime number is seven. As it was said this proof is circumstantial, but it might be enough for Descartes to make a decision. If he did decide to go this way he could say that God isn't deceptive because He does provide this evidence for his existence, albeit weak evidence.
There is an argument to the contrary of this evidence. It could be argued that these numbers are associated with God because of their relevance to us. We might have put these numbers in religion because we see them and subconsciously associate them. This argument is equally weak as the evidence that He does exist, so they balance one another out.
There is the question of the devil. If the devil existed what would stop him from going around showing himself, just to spite God. If we saw that the devil existed then there would be almost no doubt that God existed, but there is a balancing argument for this as well. The devil wouldn't want us to believe in God, and it would be safe to assume if we saw the devil we would believe that God exists, which is something that the devil wouldn't want.
So this brings my argument full circle; that it is impossible to prove that God exists, and equally impossible to prove that he does not exist. So then one can believe that God exists or doesn't exist, there is no, and cannot be conclusive proof either way. People I have talked to on both sides of the fence don't like this idea, but no one I have talked to about this has been able to refute it. For me this argument fills its purpose; it allows me to follow my scientific ideas and my religion both at the same time without any discrepancies.

__________________
Man who go through turnstile sidesways is going to Bangkok.

Thinker....have you looked at all into Agnosticism.....in general they follow the neither theory ......human minds and science can neither prove or disprove....so they focus on today, reality...just another view.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Yes I have heard of Agnosticism. I am not agnostic, although I tend to write my papers from a neutral point of view, that is only so people from all sides of thought can understand it, and are willing to understand it.

__________________
Man who go through turnstile sidesways is going to Bangkok.

Not in an answer to your question, but in the answer to mine. I have found this thread so intriguing I mentioned it to a close friend that studies religion at a university. We have shared many personal thoughts and I know that their answer would state my thoughts and feelings better than I would. And I was right. Besides it would wound my image by being so thorough and eloquent.
------------------

You asked if religion ought to be taught in the schools. As an academic in a religious studies department, I spend my days studying religions from around the world, and teaching other learners of all ages about them. Let me be clear: I am NOT a seminarian, and my own religious convictions are not at question here; the question is whether I believe that religion should be taught in the public school system. My answer to that question has to be a qualified yes.

I say "qualified" because I do not agree that elements such as the Lord’s Prayer ought to be incorporated into publicly-funded classrooms. There is a key difference between PREACHING and TEACHING religion. Yes, we ought to TEACH religion to our youth, but public education is not the forum for PREACHING it. In other words, we ought to expose young learners to the idea of religion, and present to them as fair and even an image of each of the major religions as possible.

But I am overshooting the question. The point is not HOW to study religion; we need to ask WHY include the study of religion at all? The answer to this is very simple. Culture is very much grounded in religion? Even in a supposedly secular society, such as that in Australia, North America, or western Europe, our values are very much defined by the religious heritage of our countries. Our legal systems, our basic morality, and our social structure are all inextricably linked to our Christian history. Other countries' systems are entwined to an equal extent in their own religious histories. We need, as citizens of a global village (though I cringe to use that over-worked term), to be able to recognize each others' cultural viewpoints, and without a basic understanding of religion such a recognition is impossible.

This brings me back to my original point about preaching versus teaching religion. One of the most profoundly religious people I know, a young Catholic, was asked to moderate an interfaith discussion between Catholics and Muslims at a recent youth event in my city. Though she is a highly educated young woman, her upbringing was so sheltered that she knew essentially nothing whatsoever about Islam, and came to me at the last minute to learn some rudiments in order to conduct her discussion. Considering the state of current affairs globally, an understanding of what Islam is and is NOT, seems essential. How else are we, as citizens, to make informed decisions about international affairs? This young woman’s religious education has consisted solely of preaching, in other words, of devotional literature and orator, and she has had no teaching whatsoever, no chance to explore the beliefs of others, no chance to understand cultures other than her own.

Obviously, then, I feel that teaching religion is extremely necessary and relevant in today’s world. One might ask, however, why a system combining both teaching and preaching is unsuitable? My answer. It is perfectly suitable in denominational schools. In publicly-funded schools, however, it is insensitive to students of anything but the religion of majority (Christianity). Yes, I said above that the moral and social structure of this society is rooted in a Christian past, but this does not mean that Christianity is the only religion present TODAY or in the future. Young people of all religions need some understanding of Christianity to function in this culture, true; but they no more need to practice Christianity (through public acts of prayer, such as the Lord’s Prayer) than Christian students need to participate in comparable acts of devotion in other religions to achieve that understanding. It is a wonderful thing to observe a religious ceremony as a guest, to be allowed to watch and learn about another faith in that way. Being forced to daily take part in (or even observe) a religious ceremony which is not one’s own, however, tends only to heighten tension and frustration, and to decrease respect for that other religion.

In conclusion then, I believe that religion does have an integral role to play in the school system. The common practices of today, which say in effect either "This is what we believe, and it is the truth" or "This is what they believe, and it is wrong", do nothing to foster understanding or global citizenship. We need to teach our students about religions (in the plural), rather than preaching religion (the singular).

There are, of course, many questions remaining: what religions should constitute the "major religions" about which students will learn? How best to teach these religions? How can we best cater to those who want
denominational education, and how ought those programs be funded? Those, however, are questions for another time...



SO THERE.

__________________

Thank you Pantyfanatic

That is the real answer to the quandry of religion in school, the teaching not the preaching (claps with standing ovation) Your freind has put that very well.

__________________

Hey PF, you have great taste in friends

It echos my views but expresses it far more profoundly than I could could myself.

Having had similar discussions with this same mutual friend, I originally thought religous studies was theology and was educated into the exact point made above, the difference was our friend was studying religions and the effect on cultures wheras theology is studying a particular religion and how to preach it.

In my mind theology is the study of a higher power in all various forms, allah, christ, the goddess, lord and lady, manifestation with muhammed......loki, everything. in highschool, we had "Theology 1, 2, 3, and 4" only theology IV was true to name. we studied aboriginal beliefs, navajo, orthodox jewish, various christian sects, zoroastrians, and a few others. too bad we didn't study Rastafarianism..... heheheheh! anyway, I loved that class, I passed that one, but the others I was miserable in, I didn't really care that Saint Bede was the 7th statue in our abbey, or that Saint Bernard(patron saint of the school) had a twin sister Scholastica who was the patron saint of schools in general. but learning about the rest of the world, Shiva, Kali, that was great!

Kyttn

__________________
-Seems we got here just in the nick of time. Whats that make us?
--Big damn heros Sir.
-Ain't we just.

Young children are very impressionable and have the view that what the teacher says is true. So if they are introduced to religion at an early age, it might not be in accordance with the parents wishes. You can't possible expect to teach young children about all the major religions. So my suggestion is to wait until these children become adolescents and more capable of understanding. Even then I believe they should only learn the basics of the religions and not a "study" (and only if the parents/student agree).

__________________
"I am so smart! S-M-R-T!" - Homer Simpson

The sun is gone, but I have a light - Kurt Cobain

~I love Nikki~