When I was in public school in the 1950's we had voluntary religious education. The class visited local churches, temples and religious schools where one of their personnel gave a lecture on some aspect of that denomination's beliefs, rituals, etc. It was presented strictly as information -- no discussion, role playing or asking us how we "felt" about our and other people's religions. This was without a doubt one of the most useful and informative classes I ever took in secondary school. I learned a lot and have often been able to amaze my friends by knowing more about their religions than they do.
It's the public skoolz, I would be afraid they would screw it up.
Example: the scholarship coming out at the university level on the origins of the New Testament where "scholars" try to divine (no pun intended) the exact words of Jesus based on what little real evidence we have. How can they say definitively? And this is at the university level, not high school.
Vouchers: the only solution.
"They'll ask her why 'your people' killed Jesus. Or if she knows that Jesus is her savior," Newman said.
I don't believe him, because in all my Southern life I have never heard anyone use the 'Christ-killer' term except Jewish Americans claiming to be persecuted. Never in any private church group or non-Jewish conservations have I ever heard that term.
It's possible that some misguided soul asked her about Jesus, but it's no problem to say, "I'm Jewish, why don't we talk about Moses or David instead? Wanna go to synagogue with me?" She might be amazed just how interested her classmates would be to attend as guests a Jewish service. I like visiting synagogues, the rabbis sound so much like Protestant pastors when they get into fund-raising and all that.:)
Yeah, sure, Newman (/Seinfeld).
Let's hear from you first about all the MANDATORY "multi-cultural" (ie., anti-American culture) and "tolerance" (ie., Kevin has two daddies) and condom-on-the-banana classes that are infecting the government schools and THEN somebody might give a rat's behind that you don't like ELECTIVE classes that might discuss decency, morality, and faith.
I'll bet it does, Mr. College English Perfesser.
Lemme see if I've got this straight...
Publik skolz can teach mandatory sex education (with empasis on "alternative" sexual lifestyles) to second graders and this is not proselytizing, but shouldn't offer an elective Bible study (light on theology, heavy on culture and art) to high schoolers because it is proselytizing?
On which side do I get off of this sinking ship, the far left or the even farther left?
George Will wrote recently that if all the atheists got together in one state it would be second only to California.
I can understand why California doesn't want the bible read
in public schools would disrupt the doings in Sodom(oops
Freudian slip- I meant San Francisco ) and LA ( opps there's
another one es verdad LA is now Mexico del Norte.)And as reminded by an earlier post -it would be cultural education-not unlike teaching the little buggers Islam as
they did Johnny Walker Lindh.
The Monterey Herald is a Communist newspaper...
It is no coincidence Islamist pagans hate Israel, Jews, Christians and Western Civilization. The entire basis of Western Civilization is Mosaic Law; something both the Neo-Pagan Left and the pagan Islamist thugs cannot abide and wish to destroy.
Whatever happened to communities controlling the curriculum?
I think public school children should have a basic understanding of the Bible and its contents, because of its historical importance and as an important work of literature that has greatly influenced Western civilization. Proslytizing in the public schools should of course not be allowed. I also think children should be taught some basic points about what all the major religions of humanity teaches. This should be basic knowledge for a cultured and educated citizen.
When I attended the University of Washington in the 1970s, I took a course called the "History of Christianity." It was taught by Professor Treadgold, the then Chariman of the History Department.
At our first class session, he announced that this was a course on the HISTORY of Christianity and that, other than for a session or two at the beginning of the course on the theology of the faith (necessary so that you would understand the basis for events that followed), it would concentrate on the religion as a historical pheonomena.
He invited those who had wanted something else to come down to the front and get their withdrawal cards signed. About half a dozen students did.
We then spent the remainder of the term examining Christianity as implemented through the centuries, warts and all. Other than Professsor Treadgold's annoying habit of putting up quotations in various languages (Latin, Greek, French, German, and Chinese) on the overhead projector and providing no translation, it was some of the best instruction I have ever received.
If this curricula follows the same path as my college course, it would greatly benefit Christians and non-Christians to know more about the faith as a historical influence. The same, of course, can be said for other major religions as well.
Would one of the advocates for the Separation of Church and State position please show me where the "line" is drawn.
They had best learn to fear God instead of government...
Does that mean they can't teach any government courses?
Untruth in advertising should be outlawed. Wait a minute, I think it is already.