Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 07-06-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Carol Massey

My answer to your question would be this: If the information is presented in a clear and concise manner that is understandable to young people, without judgement, without it being directed toward 'conversion', then it is, pure and simple, knowledge.

Okay, but what does this knowledge tell us?

Quote:

To ignore it, to simply say it isn't real, that it's a lie, and shouldn't be taught, is to relegate it to the unconscious in the minds of the young people, or worse still, to have their only exposure to it come from family, friends, or church, whose primary goal may very well be to brainwash with their own kind of hypnotic, trance- induced, borderline, psychotic neurosis.

Good grief. My total lack of mandatory religion instruction in school did not appear to cause any of this to happen to myself or anyone I knew.

Quote:

I don't see it as being any different than teaching sex education in schools.

Well, I think an intellectual knowledge of sex is a tremendous boon when the hormones and emotions emerge. I don't see how this parallels religion.

Quote:

The more information a young person is exposed to regarding these systems of belief, the greater their own light-gathering potential (ability to understand and think creatively), and the more clearly they can 'see' and make determinations for themselves as they get on in life.

Is this really the case? As far as I can tell, religion is man's way of making up comfortable answers to the really tough questions. I'm not sure how much better off I would be intellectually had I learned at a young age how to make up answers for myself.

Ronin · 07-06-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

I think I have sufficientlly stated my reasons for the inclusion of comparative religions, although I might add that it would it may also be beneficial to include mysticism, alchemy, and mythology.

Mandatory, no. I do, however, feel that students would benefit from these courses being offered as electives in their cirriculum.

I have no issue with an elective studying the mythology and legends of all world cultures.

The 'mythological umbrella' would include the assorted religions and the fables that represent them.

Would you agree with this classification?

I am very glad to know that you do not favor the mandatory religious education expressed in the OP.

As you can probably tell it is an issue I feel strongly about...thanks for your clarification.

Quote:

If you were my teacher, and you answered the above questions without imparting any further information to stimulate my thinking function, as a child, I would instantly classify you in the same category as parents who say, "Because, I said so", or "That's just the way it is."

That dog won't hunt, Ronin.

Your hypothetical questions appeared directed toward the internal motivations causing a swarm of bees/school of fish to co-arise and interact within nature and not simply the physiology of the bee and fish.

I gathered this perspective from your promotion of the ultimately contemplative 'mysterious' nature of nature and the possible need for 'religion' to address the issue...which, as I have said, really does not.

Physical examination and the respective sciences are, of course, the superior avenues for addressing the questions posed by your hypothetical student to my zen-oriented teacher if the student is truly interested in learning the 'hows' and not the 'whys' of these events.

As any perpetual 'whys' ultimately end with even the most wisened sage replying "That's just the way it is".

Quote:

If natural curiousity cannot be engaged in the learning process, then there is no discovery.

I totally agree and take this further to identify religion as a divergent path to engaging in learning critical thought processes that truly examine and respect the beauty of the universe in plain view.

Quote:

Thank you Ronin, for acknowledging me as a worthy fellow human.

I had a wonderful exchange regarding Socrates with a robber I arrested the other night, Carol...he was a desparate transient trying to get back to the only family he knew by pushing an old man to the ground and taking $19.00.

I have rarely met anyone that had such an astute impromptu knowledge of the philosopher.

I suppose my point is that all who seek are worthy, imho...those that pretend to know are usually beyond help.

The robber went to jail and faces severe jail time due to his criminal history for theft.

Still, his knowledge of Socrates inspires me.

Tony · 07-06-2003, 04:20 PM

Mandatory religious education is psychological and emotional molesting of helpless kids.

I think that Spain government wants to copy American government - all these "under somebody" things.

Why free people want to be �under� somebody?

Why children have to be �under god�?

When children are molested by priests � they are considered �under god�? Literary?

Carol Massey · 07-06-2003, 05:46 PM

Ronin and Philosoft,

I will respectfully bow out of this discussion, as I perceive that we are talking about different issues regarding a study of comparative religion.

On a last note, the basis of my position that young people need to be informed of the history of all religions, tenets of faith, dogmas, etc., is not to reinforce the neurotic nature of many of these 'beliefs', but that they may come to see that many of the woes of the world today arise from these pathological religous mindsets.

Thank you both for your responses.

agnawstick · 07-06-2003, 07:00 PM

I actually think religious education is a marvelous thing. If it is taught by a skeptic. For mostly worse, religion has been a driving force in the history of the planet, and to ignore it in public education out of fear of crossing the church/state line has been destructive.

Think of how many more atheist/agnostics there would be if public schools had a free ranging debate on the ethics and the science of the flood. People sort of treat their faith as this other thing, without applying the moral lessons imparted.

Having teens discuss if it was right to kill all the infants and pregnant women and bambi, and how to fit every thing in the ark etc might be illuminating for many children.

Jayjay · 07-06-2003, 07:34 PM

I can't think of many things more pointless to teach children than the application of modern ethics to a particular flood mythology. Gee. Should the kids also consider the ethical justification of Odin & co to tie Loki in his son's bowels until the end of the world because of some drunk talk? Or Zeus' promiscuity adjusted to his superhuman life span and social mores of the time? Or whether James T. Kirk did the right thing when he travelled back in time in Star Trek IV?

Ronin · 07-06-2003, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Ronin and Philosoft,

I will respectfully bow out of this discussion, as I perceive that we are talking about different issues regarding a study of comparative religion.

That is the same perception I got from your posts as well, Carol.

Another time, perhaps.

Quote:

On a last note, the basis of my position that young people need to be informed of the history of all religions, tenets of faith, dogmas, etc., is not to reinforce the neurotic nature of many of these 'beliefs', but that they may come to see that many of the woes of the world today arise from these pathological religous mindsets.

Then we were not so far adrift from one another after all.

Quote:

Thank you both for your responses.

You're welcome and thank you.

Strelnieks · 07-07-2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Harpy
I read about it this week on the National Secular Society's site National Secular Society Scroll down to Spain's church-state separation under attack as forced religion is reintroduced into schools
[/I]

I was unable to find this article, unfortunately. Perhaps I am too dense. Be that as it may, the impression I got from the article I did see in the German paper was that it would be CATHOLIC religion taught by priests - that is not the same as a religious studies class or a comparative religion course.

Strel

dangin · 07-07-2003, 06:57 AM

Actually, I think if comparative religion was taught as a survey type course, and it covered as many mythologies as possible, including those that are still considered "true" by people it would lead to an increase in secularism. You can't learn about the history of religions without learning that the current ones are just as flawed and useless as all the failed ones.

But forced sectarian religion indoctrination is a waste of valuable classroom time.

Vylo · 07-07-2003, 09:40 AM

Religious study should be voluntary IMO.

07-06-2003, 04:20 PM	#23
Tony Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 197	When children are molested by priests � they are considered �under god�? Literary? Mandatory religious education is psychological and emotional molesting of helpless kids. I think that Spain government wants to copy American government - all these "under somebody" things. Why free people want to be �under� somebody? Why children have to be �under god�? When children are molested by priests � they are considered �under god�? Literary?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-06-2003, 05:46 PM	#24
Carol Massey Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Springfield Missouri Posts: 86	Ronin and Philosoft, I will respectfully bow out of this discussion, as I perceive that we are talking about different issues regarding a study of comparative religion. On a last note, the basis of my position that young people need to be informed of the history of all religions, tenets of faith, dogmas, etc., is not to reinforce the neurotic nature of many of these 'beliefs', but that they may come to see that many of the woes of the world today arise from these pathological religous mindsets. Thank you both for your responses.

07-06-2003, 07:00 PM	#25
agnawstick Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: arcadia California Posts: 65	I actually think religious education is a marvelous thing. If it is taught by a skeptic. For mostly worse, religion has been a driving force in the history of the planet, and to ignore it in public education out of fear of crossing the church/state line has been destructive. Think of how many more atheist/agnostics there would be if public schools had a free ranging debate on the ethics and the science of the flood. People sort of treat their faith as this other thing, without applying the moral lessons imparted. Having teens discuss if it was right to kill all the infants and pregnant women and bambi, and how to fit every thing in the ark etc might be illuminating for many children.

07-06-2003, 07:34 PM	#26
Jayjay Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Finland Posts: 6,261	I can't think of many things more pointless to teach children than the application of modern ethics to a particular flood mythology. Gee. Should the kids also consider the ethical justification of Odin & co to tie Loki in his son's bowels until the end of the world because of some drunk talk? Or Zeus' promiscuity adjusted to his superhuman life span and social mores of the time? Or whether James T. Kirk did the right thing when he travelled back in time in Star Trek IV?

07-07-2003, 06:57 AM	#29
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Actually, I think if comparative religion was taught as a survey type course, and it covered as many mythologies as possible, including those that are still considered "true" by people it would lead to an increase in secularism. You can't learn about the history of religions without learning that the current ones are just as flawed and useless as all the failed ones. But forced sectarian religion indoctrination is a waste of valuable classroom time.

07-07-2003, 09:40 AM	#30
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	Religious study should be voluntary IMO.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.