Ben Stein's new movie about Intelligent Design

I would argue it weakens the religion being supported as well.
I have a lot of friends who grew up Catholic but claim they changed religions because they went to Catholic school.
Haven't really made up my mind on comparitive religion courses yet. That seems like a slippery slope.

 

Well ... depends on what you're looking for. I loved my comparative religion classes ... but my family probably has quite a different opinion because of the effect they (et al) had on me.

I think my religious background is not unusual, in that I wasn't exposed to any other faiths in my childhood except the one in which I was raised. It wasn't that I wasn't satisfied with my faith, because at that time I was. And it wasn't that I wasn't interested in other faiths. It's just that my Catholic parents (and other laypeople to whom I asked these questions) never understood why I wanted to learn about other religions ... about Judaism ... and Islam ... and Buddhism. ... I distinctly remember a conversation in eighth grade when I was trying to tell my mom something cool about this Malcolm X biography that I was reading. She kind of dismissed the story, and rhetorically asked me why I was interested in the book anyway. One of those moments when you realize your parents might not approve of everything you do, and that's OK.

Taking two comparative religion classes (one Eastern, one Western) in college really opened my eyes. For the better, I'd say, because I gained a lot of respect for the history and traditions of these faiths. It definitely wasn't partial to any one religion -- to the contrary, it was a very academic study of them all. A lot of vocabulary, a lot of facts and figures, a lot of history and geography. And just enough spirituality to whet my appetite.

I began reading more and more, especially about Zen Buddhism, met some new friends who were interested in the same things and who also opened my eyes, and it really flipped my religious views around. (Which is another story for another time.)

The thing I love about comparative religion classes is that it exposes you to other faiths, other cultures -- and you're not going to get that from within your own church, generally. Religious instruction is usually intrinsic: you learn more about your own faith. Comparative religion classes force you to open your mind, and I think that can only be a good thing. Especially for the youth. (What's a yuuu-te?, he says.)

If I had never been exposed to that, I might still be Catholic. So from that perspective ... you can judge whether it's good or bad. From my point of view, I'm at peace more now than I ever was then. My family, of course, would prefer that I remained in the faith (or come back to it later). ... But I'm the one who has to look in the mirror every morning.

 

I love the study and debate of different religions. I'm all for that. And comparative religion courses in a college setting I'm all for.
The problem with bringing it into K-12 education I see is in some of the communities where there would be no oversight and you could end up with some teacher who becomes preacher.
By the time a student hits college, I think that's pretty unlikely and wouldn't have a major effect anyway, but it worries me with the yutes.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/14/atheism_masquerading_as_science

 

That is my concern as well. I have tremendous respect for teachers at all levels. I have a few friends who are teachers and I have sat in on a few classes. Even did some substitute work just to see if I liked it.

With that respect in mind, I would still be very concerned about some teachers abusing the right to teach religion in the classroom. I just don't trust them to give a fair and balanced view of all religions. Somebody is going to be left out and that is one of the places trouble starts.

I enjoyed my religious studies courses in college as well. It didn't change my faith. I have issues with faith and religion that have nothing to do with any class. But I do believe such studies can be helpful in understanding other people, and perhaps help lessen the divisions among people of different faiths. I just think it is best studied at the college level.

 

So this is the new wedge strategy, now that "Intelligent Design" has failed? To claim that the teaching of evolution is somehow tantamount to the teaching of "atheism"?

 

Oh, so you acknowledge that a private school can provide a comparable education, in a backward sort of way.

I spoke to a friend in Oklahoma today and he said his kids' fifth grade world history book in a public school had a chapter plus on Judeo Christian era, Moses, then the arrival of Jesus on the scene. You would not find that in San Francisco, and that's why the country is and should have differences. Remember, you are the ones that cry for diversity. That's Middle America diversity. Deal with it. And we'll let you have your San Fransisco approach where San Francisco is embraced.

 

Ginning up the base, da duh duh daaaaaa . . .


Town Hall, where you check your brains at the door.

 

When did I ever say I had a problem with private schools?

If you want that for your child, go for it. Just understand that in general private schools, particularly Catholic schools, have inferior teachers. Public schools pay better so they get the better, more experienced teachers.

Private schools also often have lower standards for teachers. The New York State Department of Education, for example., requires that public schools have a master's degree and get certified. Most private schools do not. So you will often see people teach in private school while they get their degrees, then move on to public schools.

And if I read it right, that school in Oklahoma is violating the separation of church and state and is one pissed off set of parents away from a lawsuit.

 

Heabutt, no disrespect meant to your friend. As I said, this is in general. There are fantastic teachers in private schools and terrible ones in public schools.

But this is the case in many states. The standards for teachers are higher and the money and benefits are better in the public schools. And, in general, if the standards are tougher and the money is better, the quality of teaching is going to be better.

It surprised the heck out of me to find that out, but it is true.

 

I don't see how you can teach something like world history and not touch on religion in some form or fashion. The church was the dominant force in western civilization for about a millenium, and things like the Crusades, the Muslim advances in the eighth century, and the scientific advances of the Muslim world in the first 1000 years greatly shaped the course of human events. Muslim fanaticism is still shaping the world today. You can skim around the edges of the religious aspect, but a good education would at least spend a day or two mentioning why these people acted like they did.
It is, of course, a fine line. You can't push any particular religion. But I believe you can talk about religion in a historical context without getting into the theology of it.

As for creationism, I'll agree it shouldn't be taught in schools. Let kids seek that out on their own, and their parent or church teach it to them. That said, from a logic point of view, I always run into a roadblock when I start to ask, "What caused that?"
Life evolved from primordial ooze? OK, but how did the ooze get there? How did the lightning come about?
The earth, moon and stars came from the big bang? Sounds good, but what caused the big bang? And what was here before that? You always get to that one point in the chain of events where, for now, there are no clear-cut answers except some form of divine intervention.