[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

I don't know that it would be very plausible that we teach the Quran in High schools. I think that American society has put a lot of negative bias on the Muslim faith. I think to often we blame terrorism on them.

Reading the Quran doesn't exactly do much to combat the stereotype of Muslim terrorists ... seeing as it's essentially an exhortation to violence and intolerance towards unbelievers on nearly every page.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'd like to see the Bible, and Quran, and DaoDeChing included in school. They should be treated as literature, and as the foundation for cultures. I don't know how feasable it is at a pre-college level.

What is the DaoDeChing? Wikipedia didn't know

[JerryLove]

Might be spelling it with "T" (Tao Te Ching)

[LefseRae]

{

Originally Posted by Lightknight

For nonbelievers and believers alike, the Bible is a piece of literature that has had a larger impact on the world than any other book. The only difference is that believers believe in it as true.

I personally find it ridiculous that we would consider and have banned the teaching of such a book from public schools. None of the authors I was forced to read in school were as poetic as the Old Testament or as influencial as the Bible.

And Qingu, let's face it, a Christian teacher espousing his or her beliefs would be no worse than an Athiest espousing his or her beliefs in school to children. It's a give or take, we shouldn't censor everything specific to teachers. If a teacher wants to talk about the Bible as a true book, let him or her. Just as long as they teach the curriculum.

How can a person come out of the school system well-rounded if they haven't studied such a book as this?

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Teaching can't possibly be bias-free anyway.

Originally Posted by Lightknight

And if it is going to be taught with a bias, it might as well be taught with the bias in the majority. Christianity is in the vast majority and Atheism is but a spec. I personally found it remarkable that the majority of Americans let the minority tell them what to do. I'm all for giving everyone a voice, but I'm also all for democracy. And that's where majority rules.

Amen, and me too! }
{

Originally Posted by Qingu

Edit: HOWEVER. The Bible and the Quran—as well as many philosophers—actually do make many testable claims about the world. Such as "the world was created in six days" and "semen comes from between the ribs and kidney" and "there are four elements, earth, wind water and fire."

And honestly, I'm not sure how a class on philosophy or religion should deal with these claims. The best way, I think, would be to discuss them within their cultural context and explain why the claims seemed convincing at the time.

Er, I presume that that was from the Koran?}
{

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

I don't know that it would be very plausible that we teach the Quran in High schools. I think that American society has put a lot of negative bias on the Muslim faith. I think to often we blame terrorism on them. I don't know that any of my High School friends would take a course on the Quran just because it is not familiar to them - whereas everyone in America knows Christian and is familiar with the presence of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Reading the Quran doesn't exactly do much to combat the stereotype of Muslim terrorists ... seeing as it's essentially an exhortation to violence and intolerance towards unbelievers on nearly every page.

You're dead right on this one, Q. The Muslims who AREN'T for Jihad, and all that, aren't good Muslims!}

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

Er, I presume that that was from the Koran?

Yep.

You're dead right on this one, Q. The Muslims who AREN'T for Jihad, and all that, aren't good Muslims!

Careful there, tiger. The Christians who aren't for stoning unbelievers to death aren't good Christians.

Both of your books say terrible and morally disgusting things about how we are supposed to treat people. This is why I think it's important to treat them the same way we treat the Illiad, Plato's philosophy, or the Code of Hammurabi. All the moreso in public school classes.

[LefseRae]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Careful there, tiger. The Christians who aren't for stoning unbelievers to death aren't good Christians.

Tiger am I? I'm sorry, but we've been through this already. That was the OT Law, Christians are not under that law. ANY of it.

Both of your books say terrible and morally disgusting things about how we are supposed to treat people.

'Nother thread, 'nother time. [/muttering]

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

Tiger am I?

You know, I honestly don't know where that came from.

I'm sorry, but we've been through this already. That was the OT Law, Christians are not under that law. ANY of it.

To bring this in line with topic, imagine a class on the Bible studying the OT law. I am sure many students would be morally disgusted with the laws, as you apparently are, and as we both are with Shariah law in the Quran.

How would a public school teacher address the question of whether or not believers are expected to follow these laws? Obviously, for most of history Christians have believed that apostates and heretics should be tortured/executed, and unbelievers subjugated, all based on the OT (Aquinas and Augustine both believed this).

Should the teacher take a completely objective stance and say "some Christians have interpreted them that way, others believe they no longer have to follow the laws, still others believe that they should not follow the laws even if they could? That's a theological question that I'm not qualified to answer."

I guess my question is, to what extent should the Bible be interpreted in such classes? Obviously, you need to interpret it a little, just to get your bearings on the writing style and history. But where do you draw the line between superficial textual interpretation and in-depth, sectarian theological interpretation?

[LefseRae]

Originally Posted by Qingu

You know, I honestly don't know where that came from.

*grin* It sure couldn't have come from my s/n or avatar! (I'm still wondering if that was sort of a compliment, or an insult.)

To bring this in line with topic, imagine a class on the Bible studying the OT law. I am sure many students would be morally disgusted with the laws, as you apparently are, and as we both are with Shariah law in the Quran.

I am disgusted with some of those laws, but I'm not sure I ought to be. I'll start a new thread for this discussion, though.

How would a public school teacher address the question of whether or not believers are expected to follow these laws? Obviously, for most of history Christians have believed that apostates and heretics should be tortured/executed, and unbelievers subjugated, all based on the OT (Aquinas and Augustine both believed this).

Good question. I'm not sure. (And I haven't read any of the old church fathers other than what's in the NT yet, so thanks for the info.)

Should the teacher take a completely objective stance and say "some Christians have interpreted them that way, others believe they no longer have to follow the laws, still others believe that they should not follow the laws even if they could? That's a theological question that I'm not qualified to answer."

That might be the best approach...*thinking*

I guess my question is, to what extent should the Bible be interpreted in such classes? Obviously, you need to interpret it a little, just to get your bearings on the writing style and history. But where do you draw the line between superficial textual interpretation and in-depth, sectarian theological interpretation?

I'm not sure where you draw the line.

However, I really don't think that, say, a Hindu could properly teach the Bible. It takes someone who actually believes what it says to do it any sort of justice. However, that person needs to be sure not to proselytize. Perhaps we should just leave it out of the rules and let individual teachers make the decision!


EDIT: Re-reading your post again: are you saying that the NT has morally disgusting rules about how people ought to be treated, or are you referring to the Bible and the Koran?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

However, I really don't think that, say, a Hindu could properly teach the Bible. It takes someone who actually believes what it says to do it any sort of justice. However, that person needs to be sure not to proselytize. Perhaps we should just leave it out of the rules and let individual teachers make the decision!

I think atheists are in the best position to teach religion without bias, actually.

Would you rather take a public school class about Hinduism from a devout Hindu, or from me? (Edit: would you rather want your impressionable young child to take a class from a Hindu or from me?)

EDIT: Re-reading your post again: are you saying that the NT has morally disgusting rules about how people ought to be treated, or are you referring to the Bible and the Koran?

The NT has some pretty horrible stuff too, I think. In particular, Revelation, with its gleeful torture and mass-killings of unbelievers, would be another touchy subject in such a class.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think atheists are in the best position to teach religion without bias, actually.

Would you rather take a public school class about Hinduism from a devout Hindu, or from me?

Im sure this question was rhetorical but -
While I think that a class on Hinduism from a Hindu may be more insightful, because you are Qingu, I'd rather take any class from you.

The NT has some pretty horrible stuff too, I think. In particular, Revelation, with its gleeful torture and mass-killings of unbelievers, would be another touchy subject in such a class.

It seems to me that a Non-Christian student wouldn't believe Revelation - and because it isn't encouraging persecution now - and It wouldn't be a touchy subject.

[JerryLove]

While I think that a class on Hinduism from a Hindu may be more insightful, because you are Qingu, I'd rather take any class from you.

I think it depends on the goal, and suspect that's why Qingu ammended to "who would you want your impressionable child".

His assertion, and I agree with him, is that athiests are generally the most likely to create a neutral presentation of information regarding religion.

[tlj009]

I think it depends on the goal, and suspect that's why Qingu ammended to "who would you want your impressionable child".

His assertion, and I agree with him, is that athiests are generally the most likely to create a neutral presentation of information regarding religion.

I disagree. An athiest would be more likely to degrade the Bible or point to "myths" in it. Either way it doesn't matter. I hope that the religion of any teacher, teaching anything subject is never questioned.

[Role Modlin]

The Constitution doesn't ban it one way or the other.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think it depends on the goal, and suspect that's why Qingu ammended to "who would you want your impressionable child".

His assertion, and I agree with him, is that athiests are generally the most likely to create a neutral presentation of information regarding religion.

Assuming there is such a thing as neutral, I responded by pointing out that if his model of neutrality is secular college classes then you're not exactly sitting pretty. I already mentioned the example of a fairly reputable professor of mine who was engaged in nothing but passionate, truth-spinning proselytization in his class. And, considering that my favorite professor was a gay man who got called names like "humanist" and "liberal" in his own class, I wouldn't say that my judgment of this particular professor is based on mere personal prejudice. (I also mentioned that this judgment of the professor was independently confirmed by his colleagues.)

The fact is that basically nobody who cares enough about the Bible to make the class worthwhile will be able to offer a "neutral" perspective. But this is the basic problem with America's system -- in order to maintain "neutrality," the view of the State must be called the "neutral" view. But certainly nobody with any degree of wisdom thinks that reinforcing American State doctrine is a particularly "neutral" way to go about things.

[tlj009]

His assertion, and I agree with him, is that athiests are generally the most likely to create a neutral presentation of information regarding religion.

I just realized how ironic it is for atheists in a Christian forum (whose purpose seems to be to turn people away from Christianity) to argue that atheists are more likely to teach the Bible from a "neutral" perspective.