Tennessee Banning teaching of Religious Doctrine in Public Schools until 10th Grade

[buck008]

I don't think there's an issue if you teach some Christian literature in, for example, an English class if it's made it explicitly clear that these stories are, as everything covered in the class, fictional. That said, the only reason I even consider this concession is because most classic European literature is steeped in some form of, or at least references some form of, biblical literature.

This is also, partially, in reference to the several other folks who quoted me.

I have no problem using religion as an example. Nor do I have a problem with teaching what religion is. I'm currently a substitute teacher, but what I want to teach is history. There's no possible way to do that without understanding religion as that factors into the entire history of mankind in one flavor or another. I got caught up in the doctrine part. I think there's a pretty big difference in teaching kids that a Christian generally believes x, y, and z and going into the dogma of the religion.

[Merkava]

I'm not talking about "time spent", I'm talking about the delay this law is trying to inflict. Not equal time, equal application of the debated law.

I think I understand. You're raising the concern that in reality, the only religion that doesn't get taught until the 10th grade or later would be Islam, or some other minority religion? Is that correct?

[Xisa]

I don't see any particular reason these kids can't get a firm understand of something like the Pillar of Islam. I mean actual muslim children learn them long before middle school. I doubt christian children are any less intelligent.

I find it odd I'm farther to the left than you on this.

I don't really support Public Education focusing on any deep aspects of a particular religion. I'm Catholic, but if I found out the school my kids were going to was teaching the Stations of the Cross, I'd be pretty upset.

[Endus]

I think I understand. You're raising the concern that in reality, the only religion that doesn't get taught until the 10th grade or later would be Islam, or some other minority religion? Is that correct?

It's more that, in a predominantly Christian society, leaving comparative religious studies out until the late teens is an attempt to give churches the opportunity to "set their hooks" without contest from competing viewpoints. It would grant the same capacity to other religious groups, but their relative prevalence means they'll have significantly less success, particularly since the cultural components tend to bleed through into greater society; see how widespread Christmas celebrations are in Western countries, even in atheist or agnostic families.

[Merkava]

Because that's a tacit enforcement of it by the state. Sure teach how it's influenced policies, but don't teach the dogma of it more than others.

Dogma just means core principles. There's nothing wrong with teaching that, in a class teaching about religion. As long as they're not teaching that one belief is preferred over another.

- - - Updated - - -

And on the matter of "equal time", I can see a pretty solid argument for spending less time on Christianity, as children in Tennessee I imagine already have quite a bit of exposure to it. Maybe better to focus on teaching them about things they're less likely to already know.

Well, an equal case could be made under that reasoning, for spending less time on English, or American History or Literature. But, your point isn't lost on me.

[Wells]

I agree to an extent, but I don't kids need to be learning Ave Maria or Dua Ahad until they're developed to the extent they can discern it academically.

Yeah I mean teach the younger kids about the Pillars of Islam, Protestant Reformation etc and leave the more complex stuff to the older kids. But really, what subject gets taught entirely in one year? I think I went over the Revolutionary War in probably 3 different years.

I think I understand. You're raising the concern that in reality, the only religion that doesn't get taught until the 10th grade or later would be Islam, or some other minority religion? Is that correct?

More or less. My concern is that this will just mean everything that isn't Christianity is left out in practice. I think there might also be a chilling effect on any education about non christian religions as well.

I find it odd I'm farther to the left than you on this.

I don't really support Public Education focusing on any deep aspects of a particular religion. I'm Catholic, but if I found out the school my kids were going to was teaching the Stations of the Cross, I'd be pretty upset.

I'm really not that left wing. This board is just trending right wing reactionary these last 18 months or so.

But religious history and doctrine is world history. The world makes no sense if we don't teach about people like Muhammad and Martin Luther. Kids just end up piecing it together from bits and scraps they pick up or some up with all kinds of wild fantasies. And can you imagine what kinds of bits and scraps a about Islam a kid in Tennessee picks up? Ugh.

I don't know about any particular piece of religious dogma as part of the curriculum, re: stations of the cross, but I think knowing what your fellow humans get up to on their particular holy days can instill a little bit of humanity. Fear and bigotry only breed in ignorance.

[Merkava]

It's more that, in a predominantly Christian society, leaving comparative religious studies out until the late teens is an attempt to give churches the opportunity to "set their hooks" without contest from competing viewpoints. It would grant the same capacity to other religious groups, but their relative prevalence means they'll have significantly less success, particularly since the cultural components tend to bleed through into greater society; see how widespread Christmas celebrations are in Western countries, even in atheist or agnostic families.

As probably one of the most militant atheists on here, my reply is, so what? I mean even if that was the case, as you describe it, assuming public schools delay all study of religion until 10th grade, why should public schools become sort of defacto bulwarks against the recruiting efforts of religious groups?

[Wells]

As probably one of the most militant atheists on here, my reply is, so what? I mean even if that was the case, as you describe it, assuming public schools delay all study of religion until 10th grade, why should public schools become sort of defacto bulwarks against the recruiting efforts of religious groups?

If an education doesn't exist in part to challenge the ideas we'd otherwise fall in to what kind of education is it really?

[Merkava]

If an education doesn't exist in part to challenge the ideas we'd otherwise fall in to what kind of education is it really?

That's not at all what I said. What I referred to was Endus' apparent belief that public school's should serve as some type of leveling agent, ensuring that every religion has equal access to children.

[Wells]

That's not at all what I said. What I referred to was Endus' apparent belief that public school's should serve as some type of leveling agent, ensuring that every religion has equal access to children.

No, I think that's entirely relevant though. These kids are, I think we can fairly assume, going to be getting a constant stream of christian dogma and belief in their lives. Shouldn't an education push back against that? The same as it should push back against any preconceived notions students will end up carrying?

Bear in mind the idea isn't to disprove Christianity or turn students away from it, but to give them a more nuanced and balanced view. Aggressively. So that they'll be better able to make their own decision with a clearer picture.

[Nyoken]

Good thing they stopped that crap. Hurray for Tennessee!

[Xisa]

It's more that, in a predominantly Christian society, leaving comparative religious studies out until the late teens is an attempt to give churches the opportunity to "set their hooks" without contest from competing viewpoints. It would grant the same capacity to other religious groups, but their relative prevalence means they'll have significantly less success, particularly since the cultural components tend to bleed through into greater society; see how widespread Christmas celebrations are in Western countries, even in atheist or agnostic families.

I don't view that as reason enough to teach religious principle in Public schools.

[ttak82]

It's more that, in a predominantly Christian society, leaving comparative religious studies out until the late teens is an attempt to give churches the opportunity to "set their hooks" without contest from competing viewpoints. It would grant the same capacity to other religious groups, but their relative prevalence means they'll have significantly less success, particularly since the cultural components tend to bleed through into greater society; see how widespread Christmas celebrations are in Western countries, even in atheist or agnostic families.

If that is true, parents (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) will have to be more proactve about what they teach their children (to counter the "hooks").

[Merkava]

No, I think that's entirely relevant though. These kids are, I think we can fairly assume, going to be getting a constant stream of christian dogma and belief in their lives. Shouldn't an education push back against that? The same as it should push back against any preconceived notions students will end up carrying?

No. Sorry, I don't see pushing Judaism or Islam as the antidote to that.

Bear in mind the idea isn't to disprove Christianity or turn students away, but to give them a more nuanced and balanced view. Aggressively.

No, I don't really see that either. And that's not what Endus position was.

[Sliske]

Maybe someday you might want to have a deeper understanding of Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Steinbeck, CS Lewis, etc. Or maybe not.

Probably not. Not my thing.

[buck008]

No, I think that's entirely relevant though. These kids are, I think we can fairly assume, going to be getting a constant stream of christian dogma and belief in their lives. Shouldn't an education push back against that? The same as it should push back against any preconceived notions students will end up carrying?

Bear in mind the idea isn't to disprove Christianity or turn students away from it, but to give them a more nuanced and balanced view. Aggressively. So that they'll be better able to make their own decision with a clearer picture.

No. At early education levels, the goal is just to give kids the basic skills they need to build on. At later education, the idea is to teach critical thinking and logic without being partial to any particular way of thinking. Some teachers will do that by playing devil's advocate and challenging every notion a student has, but that's certainly not the only way.

I don't think public schools are the venue in which kids should be deciding on their religious affiliations anyway.

[Wells]

No. Sorry, I don't see pushing Judaism or Islam as the antidote to that.

I think that wording is...inaccurate. Pushing information I think is more reasonable. I'm not advocating they be taught "do this, its Allah's will". Just teaching them what other people really believe and their history and why they believe it. Consider, who meaningful is a choice like "I'm a christian" if the only exposure you ever got to other faiths was from the shit that trickles down to you through your Christian community? That's a choice that should be meaningful.

- - - Updated - - -

No. At early education levels, the goal is just to give kids the basic skills they need to build on. At later education, the idea is to teach critical thinking and logic without being partial to any particular way of thinking. Some teachers will do that by playing devil's advocate and challenging every notion a student has, but that's certainly not the only way.

I see no reason to wait until kids are half way through puberty to teach them reason and critical thought. That sounds dangerously late.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably not. Not my thing.

World history isn't all dead politicians and long gone wars. Its faiths, and art, and literature. Its what people thought and why they thought it, not just what they did.

[belfpala]

Some teachers will do that by playing devil's advocate and challenging every notion a student has, but that's certainly not the only way.

That's called the Socratic Method. It should be used from day 1 in schools. Obviously facts should be taught. No problem with that. But opinions should always be challenged.

[Independent voter]

Sheila Butt, no way she's named that.

[Endus]

As probably one of the most militant atheists on here, my reply is, so what? I mean even if that was the case, as you describe it, assuming public schools delay all study of religion until 10th grade, why should public schools become sort of defacto bulwarks against the recruiting efforts of religious groups?

I wasn't saying they should act as bulwarks, I was saying that the purpose of public education is to educate, and instilling critical thought and self-reflection is a big part of that.

My prior comment was about the motivations of those pushing for this bill, not a statement on the purpose of public education.