|
On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:07 ghrur wrote:On August 17 2009 23:03 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions. If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha. It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective.
Well, that's where it's arguable.
See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular.
However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious.
Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students.
And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
|
I can't believe I read this entire thread instead of doing my MATLAB assignment. I must say (going back to a point which was brought up on pages 1-3 or something) that there is nothing more ridiculous than religious people calling evolution "a theory". Or mostly, when they try to use this to justify their own beliefs in creationism or whatever. PLEASE realize that this argument only holds if your opinion is that everything that is not an infallible, perfectly provable truth should be regarded as theories and everyone can believe whatever they want about it. These theories include, religion, evolution, the theory of the moon being a cheese and many others. Most rational people usually ranks theories from bad to good, where usually evolution happens to be quite a good one, along with the standard model etc, while creationism and "moon is a cheese" are pretty bad. Also this thread needs a little more http://xkcd.com/386/.
|
On August 17 2009 23:07 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:03 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha. It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective. Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/
So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world.
|
On August 17 2009 23:18 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:07 ghrur wrote:On August 17 2009 23:03 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha. It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective. Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/ So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world.
What? That's not what I said. If we were to teach about religion, we could at least be less biased about it. Christianity is one religion out of many major ones. To include it and only it would of course be dealing with one specific religion. I didn't say we had to teach every other one, but we should at least teach the major ones such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism along with them because all 5 have profound impacts upon the world. Only teaching Christianity gimps our children's education and view of the world much more so because we would be omitting the effects of religion upon places such as Asia. This, however, is aside the point completely, as my point was that teaching only about Christianity is arguably non-secular due to it being specifically religious and arguably advancing Christianity.
|
|
|
On August 17 2009 23:24 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 23:07 ghrur wrote:On August 17 2009 23:03 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha. It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective. Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/ So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world. What? That's not what I said. If we were to teach about religion, we could at least be less biased about it. Christianity is one religion out of many major ones. To include it and only it would of course be dealing with one specific religion. I didn't say we had to teach every other one, but we should at least teach the major ones such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism along with them because all 5 have profound impacts upon the world. Only teaching Christianity gimps our children's education and view of the world much more so because we would be omitting the effects of religion upon places such as Asia. This, however, is aside the point completely, as my point was that teaching only about Christianity is arguably non-secular due to it being specifically religious and arguably advancing Christianity.
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same.
Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact.
I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint.
I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning. I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
What's wrong with teaching the Bible? It's one of the most important and influential works of Western (and world) literature. You can't understand much of Western lit or intellectual history without familiarity with what's in the Bible.
|
On August 17 2009 23:37 HnR)hT wrote:
What's wrong with teaching the Bible? It's one of the most important and influential works of Western (and world) literature. You can't understand much of Western lit or intellectual history without familiarity with what's in the Bible.
Apparently it's a giant conspiracy.
|
On August 17 2009 23:32 NExUS1g wrote:
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same.
Mkay.
Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact.
Yup.
I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint.
Arguable. I'd say teaching about the historical contexts of Judaism and Islam are more important because of the history behind them and the conflicts they cause even in modern day.
I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning.
It's been proven wrong in certain parts such as the Jewish slaves in Egypt or the creation in 7 days, but that's another argument. The thing is though, if we were to teach everything that hasn't been proven wrong, we might as well teach about aliens and the likes building the pyramids, the Great wall of China, and so on. There are a lot of things that haven't been proven wrong yet, but it doesn't mean we should teach them.
I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity.
You do bring up a very good point here. You might be right in the implication that Christianity receives a lot of controversy in the states, and a lot of bias against it. I believe that's the cause from so many cases of these religious events happening due to Christianity so we are more focused about that religion being promoted in school. =/
Of course, throughout all this, we still haven't established that the law is:
Secular
Does not advance Christianity
Does not cause excessive government entanglement.
|
On August 17 2009 23:50 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:32 NExUS1g wrote:
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same. Mkay. Show nested quote +Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact. Yup. Show nested quote +I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint. Arguable. I'd say teaching about the historical contexts of Judaism and Islam are more important because of the history behind them and the conflicts they cause even in modern day. Show nested quote +I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning. It's been proven wrong in certain parts such as the Jewish slaves in Egypt or the creation in 7 days, but that's another argument. The thing is though, if we were to teach everything that hasn't been proven wrong, we might as well teach about aliens and the likes building the pyramids, the Great wall of China, and so on. There are a lot of things that haven't been proven wrong yet, but it doesn't mean we should teach them. Show nested quote +I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity. You do bring up a very good point here. You might be right in the implication that Christianity receives a lot of controversy in the states, and a lot of bias against it. I believe that's the cause from so many cases of these religious events happening due to Christianity so we are more focused about that religion being promoted in school. =/ Of course, throughout all this, we still haven't established that the law is: Secular Does not advance Christianity Does not cause excessive government entanglement.
Dude, why not teach about SG-1? Apophis is the shit.
|
Everything Stargate, after the movie, sucked.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On August 17 2009 23:24 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 23:07 ghrur wrote:On August 17 2009 23:03 NExUS1g wrote:On August 17 2009 22:34 NExUS1g wrote:
Bias is not against the Constitution. I argue law, but not opinions.
If you argued law, you'd know about the lemon test, which *arguably* prohibits this law due to it *possibly* violating all three aspects. Of course, I lol at the third aspect of the lemon test because "excessive government entanglement with religion" is so subjective, haha. It's secular. It does not advance or inhibit religion any more than teaching Babylonian history does. Entanglement... like you said, subjective. Well, that's where it's arguable. See, we can argue that the law itself is dealing with history and the like, so it's secular. However, we can also argue that it only deals with Christianity in which it wouldn't be secular as it would be specifically religious. Also, we can see that while the primary objective of the law is not to promote Christinianity, we can also see that it does advance the religion a bit toward the students. And as always, an entanglement case can be made. =/ So we should teach Social Studies bereft of the mention of religion unless it mentions every single religion and sect in existence? Society the world round is based on religion and is talked about quite a bit in textbooks. Christianity is by and large the primary religion of the entire world. To not directly focus on the studies of it gimps our children's education and view of the world. What? That's not what I said. If we were to teach about religion, we could at least be less biased about it. Christianity is one religion out of many major ones. To include it and only it would of course be dealing with one specific religion. I didn't say we had to teach every other one, but we should at least teach the major ones such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism along with them because all 5 have profound impacts upon the world. Only teaching Christianity gimps our children's education and view of the world much more so because we would be omitting the effects of religion upon places such as Asia. This, however, is aside the point completely, as my point was that teaching only about Christianity is arguably non-secular due to it being specifically religious and arguably advancing Christianity.
There is nothing wrong with studying other cultures, but it's senseless if you don't learn about your own first. As for Islam, it's essentially a plagiarism of Judaism (with Muhammad instead of Moses, Hijra instead of the Exodus, Mecca instead of Jersualem, Kaaba instead of the Holy of Holies), distorted by a misunderstanding of early rabbinic commentaries and diluted by pagan Arab superstition...
Oh, and the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with the specific contents of Judaism. If Jewish beliefs were instantly replaced by Buddhist beliefs tomorrow, it would be exactly the same.
|
On August 17 2009 23:50 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 23:32 NExUS1g wrote:
I didn't say that's what you said, I'm showing you how social studies parallels having a scholarly Biblical study -- that they are essentially the same. Mkay. Show nested quote +Christianity is one religion of many, but it is the one religion that most people in the world follow. I think about 1/3 of the world's population in fact. Yup. Show nested quote +I said the other religions are covered in textbooks, but that Christianity is the most important of these religions from a global, historical standpoint. Arguable. I'd say teaching about the historical contexts of Judaism and Islam are more important because of the history behind them and the conflicts they cause even in modern day. Show nested quote +I don't think that a historical text that has yet to be proven wrong in its factual accounts is hardly worthy of banning. It's been proven wrong in certain parts such as the Jewish slaves in Egypt or the creation in 7 days, but that's another argument. The thing is though, if we were to teach everything that hasn't been proven wrong, we might as well teach about aliens and the likes building the pyramids, the Great wall of China, and so on. There are a lot of things that haven't been proven wrong yet, but it doesn't mean we should teach them. Show nested quote +I learned about the Greek and Roman pantheons in school because it is a part of history. Did anyone question that? No. And why didn't they? Because it's NOT Christianity. You do bring up a very good point here. You might be right in the implication that Christianity receives a lot of controversy in the states, and a lot of bias against it. I believe that's the cause from so many cases of these religious events happening due to Christianity so we are more focused about that religion being promoted in school. =/ Of course, throughout all this, we still haven't established that the law is: Secular Does not advance Christianity Does not cause excessive government entanglement.
You state that the Isrealites having been in slavery in Egypt has been proven false? There is no evidence one way or another.
If we cannot allow a law to exist that allows schools, at their discretion, to provide an elective course around the Bible, then we might as well remove all other mention of religions in the entire texts of books on history and social studies.
The fact that we need such a law to ALLOW it is preposterous.
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible. Islam is an Arbahamic religion.
|
On August 18 2009 00:10 NExUS1g wrote:
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible.
hmm?
|
On August 18 2009 00:15 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 00:10 NExUS1g wrote:
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible. hmm?
They're Jews. Jews were what the Bible was about you know.
|
On August 18 2009 00:16 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 00:15 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 00:10 NExUS1g wrote:
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible. hmm? They're Jews. Jews were what the Bible was about you know.
And this means that Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible how?
|
On August 18 2009 00:22 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 00:16 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 00:15 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 00:10 NExUS1g wrote:
Edit: Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible. hmm? They're Jews. Jews were what the Bible was about you know. And this means that Judaism is birthed directly from the Bible how?
They both use the Hebrew scriptures?
|
|
|
On August 18 2009 00:25 Mindcrime wrote:
wat
You do know something about religion right?
|
Again, how is Judaism birthed directly from the Bible? Your answer to that question is that It is, because the first books of the Bible were written in Hebrew? How does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
