Should the Bible be allowed in school? I thinks so I mean it's not like I'm forcing my friends to read it (I wish they would tho)
I just want to know some other thoughts on the matter.
Wasn't this nation founded on the principles of the holy book?
One Nation under GOD.........

For historical purposes, it would have to be shown alongside other religious texts. Comparing the historical roots of Judaism and Christianity (and the whole Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox split), plus that of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism...the major ones, basically. It would have to be a course at least 10th grade or above, due to the sensitive nature of the material. It would have to be a primarily historical subject, with views of how religious doctrines were used for positive and negative means.

kiwi i missed you where did you go

Also I think schools shouldn't enforce the bible as a must read, but rather Christianity should be taught in RE along with other religions. The different religion's holy books or other teachings could be available to those who want to know more.

I think people should be allowed to weigh up the points every religion has and decide for themselves which to beleive in (if they decide to beleive in any), rather than being pushed into it by upbringing or whatever.

What about the other religions? Should they be forced to read the bible when they don't beleive it?

Trudi Speed wrote:
What about the other religions? Should they be forced to read the bible when they don't beleive it?

well I have to learn about the evolution theory that man evolved form monkeys. I don't belive that but it is, FORCED on me at school

Yeah and I don't beleive in all of the teachings of the bible and I won't like that forced on me either. I'm agnostic. Neutral.

See what happens? There's no winning side.

Also you need to remember that evolution is just a theory, abeit a quite plausable one. You don't need to beleive it and no-one can push you to change your mind if you're set enough on it. Just like making people read the bible isn't going to make them suddenly devout christian. Well... it might sometimes.

Your teachers aren't out to get you you know.

Yea but im not talking about teaching it like im not aloud to take a bible to school thats not right..
I want to read a scripture i should be able to.

Oh you should be allowed to take your own. I mean as long as you're not declaring different quotes from the bible in the middle of class then you're not bothering anyone with it o.o

Now ideally, you could teach Christianity as well as other religions to kids in the high school setting(within the same class)...

However, practically who will teach it? Next to no teachers have the background to give a fair shake to all the major religions. Furthermore, how are you going to cover the major sects within each religion? Most Philosophy professors and Theology professors couldn't give a fair take on all the major world religions because of lack of knowledge or because of personal bias.

I guess one way is to get people who work in local religious places such as churches or temples to come in. They can talk about their religion one week then someone from another religion the next. A teacher will be present as well of course to give out work and such. I don't know how practical that would be though.

personally i think if more people had some religions background some sort of hope schools and the earth would be alot safer

No religious or non-religious ideologies should be forced on students, but all should be available for their studies, and if they choose to study them. Science should be taught first and foremost, specifically scientific methods and reason, so they can question things and search for themselves.

Religious teachings should really be an awareness thing, help people understand the differences, the dos and don'ts, the mythology, and so forth, so at the very least we understand them and can treat people better despite different beliefs.

I'd argue my education was pretty crap on the subject, I took great interest but I was annoyed at the use of Christianity and Islam, not because of their specifics but the reason they were used was due to them being very similar. I wanted to learn more about Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and all the other off shoots and histories they had, but it wasn't to be.

Still, I've researched on my own and had many good friends of varying faiths, so I've managed to make up for it to a degree.

Basically, religion in schools should be treated as History, Social, and Cultural studies, and then students can use reason to determine their validity to determine which, if any, is a good thing for them.

You have a social studies class. That's were religions and other cultural things are studied. Evolution, like Gravity, Theory of Relativity, Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy, etc are Scientific Theory and should be studied in science classes. Saying you don't believe in evolution is the same as saying you don't believe in gravity.

And yes, you should be able to bring whatever book you want to class as long as you aren't disrupting classes with it. As long as you're not sitting in class reading it and ignoring the lecture I don't see why they would say you couldn't bring whatever holy book you want in.

~Tobe

personally i think if more people had some religions background some sort of hope schools and the earth would be alot safer

Really? When was the last time a war was declared in the name of atheism or scientific research?

Matt, thats the old "religion created morality" thing. Some people seriously believe you have to be religious to be moral. Same people that believe gays are evil.

EDIT: It should be noted that furries ARE evil. I'm 75% evil and I'm only 45% furry according to an online poll I took.

~Tobe

well, i somehow doubt that many 10 year olds run around wanting to read the bible themselves. its generally their parents who want them to do it, and if they want the kids to be taught the bible, we have christian schools they can send their children to. in public schools, however, i think that they could, but if they did, they would have to teach all major religions and most small religions in part. Cutting out any religion would be showing a bias, and even if they did cover all of them, there would be problems with parents not wanting their kids to study certain religions. Its a rather difficult subject for schools to deal with, so they avoid it as much as possible by cutting out details involving religion in our educations. I myself am hindu and i admit i would be pleased to see something taught about it in school, but i just don't see that happening anytime soon. so no, i guess i don't think it should.

I don't see any issue with people bringing bibles into schools. I don't know anything about the American school system, being British, and I know my Muslim classmates were allowed to pray and observe their religious activities in the school, so my general assumption would be that in England it's all hunky dory.

So. Is it a rule in American schools all together or just whichever state/district Kiwi is from?

Actually religions are beliefs, not theories.

~Tobe

Indeed, theories have to be peer reviewed before they can be taught.

^ The Bible was peer-reviewed by Jesus fans before it was sold to the masses. j/k

Matt, thats the old "religion created morality" thing. Some people seriously believe you have to be religious to be moral. Same people that believe gays are evil.

EDIT: It should be noted that furries ARE evil. I'm 75% evil and I'm only 45% furry according to an online poll I took.

~Tobe

Oh don't worry, I'm well aware of the argument. I just highly doubt the OP is.

Religious teachings should really be an awareness thing, help people understand the differences, the dos and don'ts, the mythology, and so forth, so at the very least we understand them and can treat people better despite different beliefs.

This. So many problems stem from ignorance of others' beliefs it's sickening. You don't have to agree with something to understand the idea behind it.

However, practically who will teach it? Next to no teachers have the background to give a fair shake to all the major religions. Furthermore, how are you going to cover the major sects within each religion? Most Philosophy professors and Theology professors couldn't give a fair take on all the major world religions because of lack of knowledge or because of personal bias.

Really? While the class I took was college-level World Religion, we had an excellent professor. He not only taught the facts and history but also perspective - showing the context and background for all kinds of beliefs. It was a great class, and I feel such knowledge should be more widespread. There's far too much misconception and inaccurate info spread around that only lead to misunderstanding, distrust and prejudice.

There's far too much misconception and inaccurate info spread around that only lead to misunderstanding, distrust and prejudice.

QFT.

No religious or non-religious ideologies should be forced on students, but all should be available for their studies, and if they choose to study them. Science should be taught first and foremost, specifically scientific methods and reason, so they can question things and search for themselves.

Religious teachings should really be an awareness thing, help people understand the differences, the dos and don'ts, the mythology, and so forth, so at the very least we understand them and can treat people better despite different beliefs.

I'd argue my education was pretty crap on the subject, I took great interest but I was annoyed at the use of Christianity and Islam, not because of their specifics but the reason they were used was due to them being very similar. I wanted to learn more about Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and all the other off shoots and histories they had, but it wasn't to be.

Still, I've researched on my own and had many good friends of varying faiths, so I've managed to make up for it to a degree.

Basically, religion in schools should be treated as History, Social, and Cultural studies, and then students can use reason to determine their validity to determine which, if any, is a good thing for them.

Guess the education system where you live is a bit different from mine then; I recall learning about the major religions of the world (including the specific 4 you listed) in one part of grade 8 social studies, though I don't remember it very well. They also had whole courses in religious studies in high school, though I never bothered to take any of them... probably should've, oh well. And I think they also told bible stories a bit in elementary school, without telling Quran stories or the like; that kind of Christianity-centric favoritism doesn't sound very appealing to me. Anyway, I pretty much agree with you on the idea of tying religion in with cultural studies; there's something I'd like to point out though. You say science should be taught first so they can question things, and I agree that looking at things scientifically can make one much more independent-minded; however, I have to question that at the elementary level they necessarily want that kind of independent-mindedness. I don't know about where you live, but I recall in elementary school their "education" would actually be rather distorted, such as with exaggerations of how dangerous drugs like cannabis can be. I wonder, then, if they realize how much scientific thinking can protect them from propaganda and more so want to get their own propaganda in there before that happens. Just a thought.

...

Oh, and overlordkiwi, how are they "forcing" evolution on you? You're required to learn it, but that doesn't mean forced to accept it. Let's say someone who believed in homeopathy was doing solution stoichiometry in chemistry, and when learning about how dissolved substances are more effective at higher concentrations, said they don't believe that, because they think that dissolved substances are more effective at lower concentrations. Even if they want to maintain their personal beliefs, it's still up to them to learn what they're there to learn.

I don't believe in the teachings of the Bible, but I certainly think it needs to be taught in school. It's always annoying when I'm in a literature class and I'm trying to explain a Biblical connection but then I realize that none of my classmates have any clue of what I'm talking about when I mention Lazarus from the parable as opposed to Jesus' friend Lazarus, and I've been in Catholic schools my whole life.

I mean, the Bible is an important document (well, collection of documents, really) form literary, historical, cultural, and artistic perspectives, and it's important (to a liberal arts education at least) that students get an understanding of what's in the Bible, who wrote it, and under what circumstances it was written.

I don't believe in the teachings of the Bible, but I certainly think it needs to be taught in school. It's always annoying when I'm in a literature class and I'm trying to explain a Biblical connection but then I realize that none of my classmates have any clue of what I'm talking about when I mention Lazarus from the parable as opposed to Jesus' friend Lazarus, and I've been in Catholic schools my whole life.

I mean, the Bible is an important document (well, collection of documents, really) form literary, historical, cultural, and artistic perspectives, and it's important (to a liberal arts education at least) that students get an understanding of what's in the Bible, who wrote it, and under what circumstances it was written.

Well, I still think that if you're going to look at the bible for its influence on society, I think they should look at other major influential religious books as well, for consistency, though I get the point that one doesn't have to agree with the bible to want it to be taught about. Why would people in a literature class need to recognize certain names from the bible though?

Well, I still think that if you're going to look at the bible for its influence on society, I think they should look at other major influential religious books as well, for consistency, though I get the point that one doesn't have to agree with the bible to want it to be taught about. Why would people in a literature class need to recognize certain names from the bible though?

I'm not sure you're understanding what I was attempting to say. It's not just names but passages and references and specific language. The reason is that the vast majority of Western literature of any importance was written by folks who had the Bible as a major influence on their worldview, whether because it was central to their spiritual lives or because they were rebelling against it. It would be rather difficult to have a serious discussion about Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost or Shakespeare's plays or Goethe's Faust or any of the major works of literary canon unless you had a firm grounding in Judeo-Christian tradition, and an understanding of the Bible is one of the cornerstones of that tradition. Also, the Bible is itself an important work of literature that has a rich symbolic lexicon that has influenced the minds of many thinkers.

To put it simply: Literature is about people's lives, and religion is a major part of most people's lives. Therefore one must at least be willing to discuss religious ideas in order to discuss literature or, for that matter, philosophy or history or sociology or art.

Of course, you're right that other religious and spiritual sources should be taught, but I think that in the history of western civilization, none of them have had as much influence as the Bible. Now, it's probably a fault of our education that it's so west-centric and usually includes eastern thought in a comparatively smaller role. I would like to hope that in the coming decades that will change. However, for the time being, I think the Bible in particular is more important than most other religious texts. To conclude with another literary example, Shakespeare was a Christian and he wrote for Christians, so an understanding of Christian texts is more essential than, say, the Q'uran, to Shakespeare study.

Well, I still think that if you're going to look at the bible for its influence on society, I think they should look at other major influential religious books as well, for consistency, though I get the point that one doesn't have to agree with the bible to want it to be taught about. Why would people in a literature class need to recognize certain names from the bible though?

I'm not sure you're understanding what I was attempting to say. It's not just names but passages and references and specific language. The reason is that the vast majority of Western literature of any importance was written by folks who had the Bible as a major influence on their worldview, whether because it was central to their spiritual lives or because they were rebelling against it. It would be rather difficult to have a serious discussion about Dante's Divine Comedy or Milton's Paradise Lost or Shakespeare's plays or Goethe's Faust or any of the major works of literary canon unless you had a firm grounding in Judeo-Christian tradition, and an understanding of the Bible is one of the cornerstones of that tradition. Also, the Bible is itself an important work of literature that has a rich symbolic lexicon that has influenced the minds of many thinkers.

To put it simply: Literature is about people's lives, and religion is a major part of most people's lives. Therefore one must at least be willing to discuss religious ideas in order to discuss literature or, for that matter, philosophy or history or sociology or art.

Of course, you're right that other religious and spiritual sources should be taught, but I think that in the history of western civilization, none of them have had as much influence as the Bible. Now, it's probably a fault of our education that it's so west-centric and usually includes eastern thought in a comparatively smaller role. I would like to hope that in the coming decades that will change. However, for the time being, I think the Bible in particular is more important than most other religious texts. To conclude with another literary example, Shakespeare was a Christian and he wrote for Christians, so an understanding of Christian texts is more essential than, say, the Q'uran, to Shakespeare study.

True enough, though I personally don't agree with the emphasis on Shakespeare in high school English either; I don't see why it's so necessary in a high school cirriculum on the same level as grammar and essay writing. But yeah, that's a good point, it isn't necessarily pro-bible to teach ABOUT the bible; I find I learn bible verses watching The Virus of Faith...