EPTOn August 17 2009 15:26 FragKrag wrote:
God wills it.
God wills it.
Oh god I laughed so hard at this.
Bible Required Curriculum - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
Oh god I laughed so hard at this. | ||
Aesop
Hungary11291 Posts
"The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say. It is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government," said Keeling. If that is the case, they are perfectly right in teaching this. If you should enrol in any subject concerned with the humanities in your later life, knowledge about the bible is essential to understand what's going on. It's a part of very basic education to know what the bible says. | ||
|
joewest
United States167 Posts
There is the actual law that is about to take effect. I read through a good portion of it, and the apparent intention of the bill is to teach students about the influence of the bible on other aspects of learning and life, i.e. its importance in literature and history. While the bill is written to avoid criticism relating to religious indoctrination, I fear that such a course could be too easily abused by individual teachers. A separate course devoted to the bible's effects on society etc. seems unneeded. Its effects on literature could easily be taught in a literature class. The bible should have some focus in school, its an important book in western culture. Many works of literature have allusions to the bible (even Harry Potter), elevating certain symbols and stories from the bible to meme-like status. Despite my support for teaching the bible's importance in history and literature, the courts should overturn this bill. The bible's importance is not so great that is warrants a separate class for its study. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:18 Aesop wrote: I think the OP has it exactly right, from the spoilered post: If that is the case, they are perfectly right in teaching this. If you should enrol in any subject concerned with the humanities in your later life, knowledge about the bible is essential to understand what's going on. It's a part of very basic education to know what the bible says. Ah, but the difference is the required part. | ||
micronesia
United States24682 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:18 Aesop wrote: I think the OP has it exactly right, from the spoilered post: If that is the case, they are perfectly right in teaching this. If you should enrol in any subject concerned with the humanities in your later life, knowledge about the bible is essential to understand what's going on. It's a part of very basic education to know what the bible says. For a sensitive topic like this... it really needs to be better planned. The state should publish a very specific course outline detailing all of the standards for parents to read prior to their kids taking the course. | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9374 Posts
I used to be a christian-Catholic, but I don't what I am right now, I'm in disagreement with a lot of things the Church does and..well, I'm just not up to their...things?. | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
Books are a common sight in classrooms around the nation, but the Bible is one book that is not. This sentence is sweet. | ||
|
ForTenPoints
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
| ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
As many people have said, it is indeed a grey area in terms of teaching the Bible, but we're still required to know distinct references that are just so integrated into society. The Bible is a book that has been sold and distributed the most, so the impact of it can't be ignored by educators. I am Christian, and I do believe teaching Biblical morals should be saved for the church, but for literary purposes the allusions numerous classical works make to the Bible say something about its impact in human history. Also I hated English so either way, I feel bad for those kids =P | ||
|
EGLzGaMeR
United States1867 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. In any event, the courts should strike this down. I just hope one day we can move away from Government run education, then things like this aren't a problem and free-choice and competition would allow differing institutions as you see in Colleges. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote: if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible. ...? | ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
| ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: As long as Education remains a Government run system, I am opposed to the introduction of any religious and secular classes, courses, and bias. If, however you allow secular bias, course, and other such of that nature, therefore you must then also allow religious. I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. In any event, the courts should strike this down. I just hope one day we can move away from Government run education, then things like this aren't a problem and free-choice and competition would allow differing institutions as you see in Colleges. listen man, it's very simple: evolution is a fact when it describes what happened, it's a theory when it describes how it happened | ||
|
micronesia
United States24682 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:42 Aegraen wrote: If you study evolution from the perspective of common/modern biology, then you realize it's way too complicated for us to avoid finding any holes or counter-evidence that won't immediately be disproven. Nothing wrong with making evolution prove itself... but when it fails to have a defense to some apparent loophole, don't consider it an anti-evolution victory.I think the hot topic button on this is still evolution. There are still many pervasive holes, and contradictions with evolution; see sharks in the devonian period which contradicts the theory of evolution. I am all for teaching it as a theory, but I can attest the school system teaches it as though it is fact. Many of the things taught in public school (things that are not at all controversial) are much less verifiable/verified theories than evolution despite the fact that they are also taught as 'fact' as you say. People don't complain about them because they don't oppose the beliefs of some religious groups. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
Well, lets just say it's up to the kids to decide if they will be bias or not but I believe that most of them wouldn't be like that. And I for one even though I question some Church teachings, still know that is somehow uplifts the spirit of those people who believe, and of course if the professor is liberal in teaching, we shouldn't be worry about what they are teaching.. Please don't bash me! | ||
|
micronesia
United States24682 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:55 Licmyobelisk wrote: I think most of you are afraid that the children will be religiously bias and wouldn't have an open mind when it comes to other people's religion especially to atheist, that's why you don't like this law to be passed to public schools. Well, lets just say it's up to the kids to decide if they will be bias or not but I believe that most of them wouldn't be like that. And I for one even though I question some Church teachings, still know that is somehow uplifts the spirit of those people who believe, and of course if the professor is liberal in teaching, we shouldn't be worry about what they are teaching.. Please don't bash me! I'm hoping that the language barrier here is the reason why I can't imagine you were seriously trying to defend the law with some kind of justification in this post... | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On August 17 2009 16:47 benjammin wrote: listen man, it's very simple: evolution is a fact when it describes what happened, it's a theory when it describes how it happened Microevolution (within a species) has been proved with fruit flies. Same with chickens. Same with cows. Same with horses. Same with dogs. There is no debate about whether random mutations happen or whether mutations can effect liklihood of survival and whether survival helps genes get passed on. The mechanism of evolution has been proved. The only debate is on macroevolution, ie evolution from one species to another, and tbh that's a no brainer. We know that over time animals evolve, it seems obvious that over a longer period they'd evolve more significantly. | ||
| ||
