Re; our religious heritage
Dave Haynie
>
>>This whole mess came up when someone (I think Ray Frank) complained that
>>school children were not being taught enough about christianity.
>
> If this means teaching religious doctrines, I strongly disagree.
> If this means teaching the role of religion in history, I agree with
> (whoever-it-was).
The Christian religion certainly had its role in the settlement of this
country, that being the settling of New England by the English Puritans.
A history class should certainly discuss the conflicts within Christianity
in England at the time that drove these settlers to Plymouth, and the
continuing conflicts within the group that drove the many splinter factions
out to settle much of the North East. That's the religious part of the
country's heritage, but it should be represented as common personal
heritage. And the non religious settling of the South East should be
similarly discussed. MY ancestors left Ireland for Virginai, not for any
kind of religious freedom, but because the King of England at the time
owed the family lots of money, and offered them land instead. That's my
personal heritage, and as well a piece of the country's heritage not based
in any way on religion.
>>What I was opposed to
>>was teaching ABOUT christianity WITHOUT teaching about other religions
>
> Replace "Christianity" with "evolution" and "other religions" with
> "Creationism" and what do you get? A claim that you should be able
> to modify a particular subject matter to suit your own desires.
>
Bull and bunk! Christianity certainly should be mentioned for its role in
the settlement of the Northeast in a history class, whereas something like
Hinduism would obviously be left out, since it didn't play a part in that
area of American history. This wouldn't be teaching the religion, but
the effects of that religion, and likely the conflicts in English
Christianity that led to the split. A class on religious philosophy,
however, must treat religions equally. And a class on science should teach
Evolution, the theory of Natural Selection, and any other scientific
theories. It should not, however, teach religious dribble thinly disguised
as science, which is exactly what Creationism is.
>
> |Dan|
> "Rome was not destroyed in one day"
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh
"I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and
for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment."
-Gotama Buddha
These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Dan Hydar
->>>This whole mess came up when someone (I think Ray Frank) complained that
->>>school children were not being taught enough about christianity.
->> If this means teaching religious doctrines, I strongly disagree.
->> If this means teaching the role of religion in history, I agree with
->> (whoever-it-was).
->The Christian religion certainly had its role in the settlement of this
->country, that being the settling of New England by the English Puritans.
->A history class should certainly discuss the conflicts within Christianity
->in England at the time that drove these settlers to Plymouth, and the
->continuing conflicts within the group that drove the many splinter factions
->out to settle much of the North East. That's the religious part of the
->country's heritage, but it should be represented as common personal
->heritage.
One of the MAJOR mistakes people on BOTH sides of this dicussion are
making is assuming that "heritage" began and ended with the settlers : it
did not. You'd be hard pressed (as a random example) to talk in any detail
about the elections of 1928, 1960 or (feh) 1980 without discussing the role
of religion in US history.
->And the non religious settling of the South East should be similarly discussed.
No argument here.
->>>What I was opposed to was teaching ABOUT christianity WITHOUT teaching
->>>about other religions
->> Replace "Christianity" with "evolution" and "other religions" with
->> "Creationism" and what do you get? A claim that you should be able
->> to modify a particular subject matter to suit your own desires.
[Note: Context was that of a HISTORY class]
->Bull and bunk! Christianity certainly should be mentioned for its role in
->the settlement of the Northeast in a history class, whereas something like
->Hinduism would obviously be left out, since it didn't play a part in that
->area of American history. This wouldn't be teaching the religion, but
->the effects of that religion, and likely the conflicts in English
->Christianity that led to the split.
->Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh
Hah? I think you misunderstood me: I get the feeling that we agree.
My position was that it was silly to demand that various shapes and sizes
of Pagans be mentioned in US history just because Christians are mentioned.
If any religion is mentioned, it should be because it had some effect on
history. You could mention doctrines and beliefs as apropriate but NOT as
dogmas. Beliefs would be described as "what they believed then".
To add some other religion out of misplaced "fairness" whould be the
same as Fundementalloids demanding (ack, barf) "Creation Science" be
taught alongside evolution theory.
|Dan|
"Just browsing in the K-mart of ideas"