Who should decide what a citizen is taught?

Did i say anything about not protecting atheists or agnostics?

Maybe we have a different opinion on what 'freedom from religion' means. I dont take freedom from religion as being the right to be an atheist. People cant expect religion to be shut away and done only in their house. towns should be able to put up christmas trees and menorahs, mangers and whatever. No one should have the right to deny people the right to celebrate like that. Atheists need to learn to deal with the horror of seeing a christmas tree or a menorah. Really, it will be ok. Its not that scary of an experience.

I fully believe that our founding fathers had np with setting up mangers on public property etc, heck, its only recently become a problem. You didnt have thomas jefferson(the father of 'separation of church and state') complaining about mangers and and the word christmas! Atheists/agnostics and everyone for that matter need to learn to deal with religion in life. No one should try to force anyone to believe something, at the same time, no one should try and force their atheistic views on the rest of us.

I think you misunderstood. You are basing that i believe in ID because i am defending it. Thats just a bad assumption.

I think it is wrong to shut out the idea completely.

No one said life was fair.

How many theories have been disproven over the time? They are not infallible. I never said they werent backed up with lots of evidence. But in the next 50 years we could uncover new evidence and the whole big bang could go away. Science changes as we learn more. Theories are either abandoned or modified as new evidence comes in. I think it would be wrong to say "ok, this is a theory, this is how it MUST BE!"

I agree, religion shouldnt be taught in Science class. But i dont see ID as religion. I see creationism as religion.

You are playing with the numbers a bit. If you include agnostics with atheists(fundamentally wrong) then you get 7%. If you include agnostics with believers, its 27%. A high jump. either way, the real number is somewhere between 7 and 27%. Not a very convincing amount of believers, but still a very fair share if agnostics are included.

It belongs in an astronomy book. Ultimately i wont change your mind that it belongs there, and you wont convince me it doesnt. So we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

However, I think it would be wrong to mandate that ID must be put in science books. I also believe that certain things must be taught, i.e. big bang and evolution. I think it should be up to the author of the book to decide if they want to put ID in. If someone does include it, it should be up to a vote by the school board to allow it or not. If that bothers the parents, well, keep your kids out of school for the day, have them skip the class, or whatever. Forced indoctrination by either including or excluding something is scary, and not something i want in our schools.

 

thought this was appropriate


HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- High school students heard about "intelligent design" for the first time Tuesday in the Pennsylvania school district that attracted national attention by requiring students to be made aware of it as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Administrators in the Dover Area School District read a statement to three biology classes Tuesday and were expected to read it to other classes on Wednesday, according to a statement from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which was speaking on the district's behalf.

The district is believed to be the only one in the nation to require students to hear about intelligent design -- a concept that holds that the universe is so complex, it had to be created by an unspecified guiding force.

"The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson, the law center's president and chief counsel. "This is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems."

The case represents the newest chapter in a history of evolution lawsuits dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. In Georgia, a suburban Atlanta school district plans to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

The law center is defending the Dover district against a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of eight families by two civil-liberties groups that alleged intelligent design is merely a secular variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. They maintain that the Dover district's curriculum mandate may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said although she was able to make a smooth transition to her evolution lesson after the statement was read, some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.

"They were told that if you have any questions, to take it home," Miller said.

The district allowed students whose parents objected to the policy to be excused from hearing the statement at the beginning of class and science teachers who opposed the requirement to be exempted from reading the statement. About 15 of 170 ninth-graders asked to be excused from class, Thompson said.

A federal judge has scheduled a trial in the lawsuit for September 26.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

 

**

I often come on a bit strong to cause a reaction and to stimulate debate and therefore thought, with Meg it seems to have caused such a rage that he has lost the ability to think clearly. I wish he would try and calm down and ponder what’s being said rather than just re-acting in such a blind guttural way.

If he had read my post a little more carefully he would realise that I’m saying that to some extent or other we are all the product of our environment, we learn from what we see, hear and what we are taught. What does indoctrinate mean-

The Concise oxford dictionary – teach instruct, imbue with, a doctrine, idea or opinion.

To some extent we have all been indoctrinated, the trick is to not be blind to the fact and not just accept that indoctrination, to realise that it exists and then to question it. It is very much involved in the theme of this thread, which isn’t actually about creationism, intelligent design and Darwinism, but education.

The question posed was Who should decide what a citizen is taught?

What I was wondering about is what people see as the goal of education. Should formal education be there to give the pupil the tools and the information to make an informed choice and a forum in which to question the prejudices and mores of their society or is it about reinforcing prejudice? Meg and others make it clear from earlier posts that they would be happy to see indoctrination go unchallenged. Although they often seem confused, claiming that people should be allowed to think for themselves but they seem to believe that people should not necessarily be given the tools with which to challenge the dominate view. They then compound this confusion by saying that in some circumstances people should be given information to challenge the a dominate view. But then go on to say that people can be shielded from being taught the alternatives. It is confusing.

**

Meg

As to the other points raised if you wish we can discuss them elsewhere. But here are a few things to think about, are you comparing the anti-Communists authoritarian and undemocratic regimes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco with that of the US in the 1940’s? In the democracies of Europe, before the rise and after the fall of the third Reich, and definitely at the time of McCarthyism, socialism of may types often flourished in Europe.

The supposed self-sacrifice of the US has to be weighed up against the self interest of those that might benefit. Was the US’s protection of Europe completely altruistic or was it protecting itself from what problems a Europe dominated by Russia could mean to its own position?

As to the American Dream or American exceptionalism I’ve been involved with many debates if you want another start a thread or just wait for one on the subject to come along because I’m sure one will.

**

Turning to the question of western tradition and ideals I’m not saying that the US or France aren’t part of it the same thing, but that the influences which manifest themselves in a peoples beliefs can be different. So that if the influences were different the outcome could be different for example the US could be more socialist and the French not.

“America has always been instilled with ideas like that. Europe, well, hasn’t.

But where did those ideas that have “always been instilled” in American thought come from if it wasn’t Europe? Are they purely those of the US and if so what are the origins.

You say that Europe and the US are “instilled with the same belief about democracy, freed, etc”. I presume that is Democracy and Freedom (I don’t know what the etc is) but the fact is that democracy is a pretty new achievement in many places, and many argue that it only really came to the US in the mid 1960’s. Also it must always be remembered that just as it can come into being it can also go. The other thing is that it is dependent on education of the people to be effective otherwise it is possible that people will vote in a party that is bent on getting rid of elections.

What I’m trying to express is the central roll that education can hold in moulding people’s thoughts. Which is central to the main question Who should decide what a citizen is taught?

**

 

I hope the district's defense will include the testimony of Michael Ruse, who recently conceded the atheistic philosophical bias inherent in Darwinism:

http://www.origins.org/articles/woodward_rusestore.html

 

I didn't read the whole thread because it is too damn long. Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents really quickly, which I'm sure has already been brought up by someone else. And I really don't care if you agree with me or not, I just wanted to throw another pov out there, I'm not looking for validation.

Why not just home school? If I don't find a school that I believe is suitable for my child to attend, that allows me to be part of decisions that are being made (PTA) then I will not send my child there, and I will take my time and teach my child what I want them to know. I do understand that everyone is not able to home school his or her children. But if it is really a big deal to these people, then I think they should consider it.

But to answer the initial question, I really am not sure who should dictate what children are taught. I mean we learn from everything that we do. There are so many things that I even had to teach myself as I was not allowed to read the classics in school and my parents didn't force me to read them. I just wanted to, because I sought out knowledge and found this type of literature to be interesting. I also learned many lessons by living in the world, while growing up, as a young adult, and I hope that I learn more and more as I grow older. If one limits himself simply to what someone forces you to learn, then you don't deserve to be taught further. I thank my parents for raising me with such high standards and such a love for learning. They are the ones who should be getting the credit. If you parent raises you to settle for mediocrity, well then that is all you will attain in life.

On another note I think that it is imperative that a multicultural course or courses be taught to high school students. One cannot make an informed decision on a religion without information. Every aspect of every philosophy and religion should be presented or available to learn about. In this country, although they claim that we have a freedom of religion, it is pretty much one sided. Or two if you consider it this way: you are either for us (Christians) or against us (evil). Sure other religions might be represented in society, but not in the public school system. I mean I have never heard of any other religion having such ridiculous debates. They just go to school, learn what they are taught, and still hold their beliefs, which they either learn on their own or are taught at home. You mean to tell me that Christians are not able to believe something, even though someone disagrees with them?

Also, I don't think children at all should be taught any religions. To me that is brainwashing. Especially when you teach someone to believe in something by telling them that they will die and burn in hell if they don't. Children are not able to differentiate between a truth and a belief. Hell, they can't even tie their damn shoes and you expect them to choose a religion? When an adolescent is ready, they will seek out the knowledge and decide for oneself.

Personally, I would rather raise a well rounded informed individual who can think for him or her self rather than some cog in the machine that is know as this government.

P.S. for those of you who don't know I went to Christian school for most of my life,(until 11th grade), so I am familiar with what Christians believe and wish to teach others.

 

i'm not sure what you mean by religion being 'one sided' in this country. Yes, the overwhelming majority of people in this country are Christian so that is why you will be exposed to far more Christian symbols and history than say islamic symbols/history. We are part of a western culture. Christianity has been the dominant force behind western culture for nearly 2000 years. We cannot deny this simple truth and people need to accept that.

 

Christianity has been the dominant force behind western culture for nearly 2000 years.

That is not exactly true. Meg likes to present an accepted viewpoint uncritically, again one of the reasons why I believe he does not question his views enough.

Was it “the dominant force behind western culture for nearly 2000 years”? Did it dominate from the moment of Christ’s birth? No and even by the time of Constantine the Great some three hundred years later it was still vying for position with other influences. In fact it often borrowed off its rivals to try and increase its influence and so became closer to resemble the structures and outlook of the dominant powers that it borrowed off. Remember the pope is still the Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of the Roman Empire, a useful office to hold when trying to supplant a previous religion, just as the English monarchy became “defenders of the faith’ and head of the Anglican church when they wished to supplant the Pope.

Outside of urban areas the influence of the early church was very often very weak, the term ‘pagan’ comes from the word for countryside, pagan was a derogatory term for ‘hicks’ or ‘peasants’ the people of the countryside who were untouched by ‘Christian’ enlightenment. Later large areas of the west were then lost to Christianity with the influx of non-Christian immigrants into the collapsing Roman Empire. Later still there was the advance of Islam (In Spain in the West and Greece and the Balkans in the east). More recently we have had the rise of secularist viewpoints.

This leads me on to the other point about the statement “Christianity has been the dominant force behind western culture for nearly 2000 years”

Has there always been one type of Christianity? The way Meg seems to present is that there has been, that one ‘Christian’ force has exerted it’s influence on western culture. But that is far from correct. Was the faith of Christ the same as the faith of the Christians of the 4th century? Was Arianism, Manichaeism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, or those Christians with Gnostics beliefs all the same? Is the Catholicism or Orthodoxy or the many Protestant sects all the same?

Which again leads on to the next point, what has been the influence that ‘Christianity’ has had on western political thought? There is no doubt its has had an influence but has it been a force mainly for good or bad?

Which once more brings me back to the issue. It would be easy to construct a teaching programme that would show that Christianity was detrimental, to the development of European thought. By holding back and even suffocating intellectual thought and by causing war and oppression. The programme would acknowledge the dominant influence of the religion on western culture, but see it as a mainly malign rather than a positive force. Just as there are those that teach just the positive aspects of Christian teaching.

That is what I’m getting at, it is not a matter of being part of something but of how that is viewed from what has been leant about it. So it is important to understand who is deciding what we learn?

**

 

**

Time and again we come back to the idea that parents should be those most involved in deciding what a child is taught. I should say that in principle I agree.

However the question of if the parents are the best people to teach their children is still not being addressed in any depth?

I have already pointed out that home teaching is a matter of the time and resources available to the parents and that the parent’s ability to teach objectively might be curtailed by prejudice and that selective teaching can also stifle a child’s ability to learn.

So if these things lead to children not fulfilling their potential have we a common duty to educate the children of our community?

Should there be a common curriculum with a minimum standard of achievement that all children should learn and who should be to blame if a child doesn’t achieve the standard? And what should be the objective of the curriculum?

Some people have touched on this already and there can be different arguments. For example there is an economic argument that an educated workforce is needed for a modern economy to work, or there is the cultural argument that says that the glue that holds a people together is their shared cultural identity. There are others that see it in an evolutionary way that progress is the only noble human goal and only through education can it be achieved. On the other hand others see education as dangerous, in fact the same arguments put forward can be turned on their heads. An educated workforce can question the very economy it has supposedly been educated to serve. The educated can question the values of its culture and has human progress been a boon or a bane?


**

 

And I hope they will include the testimony of the other 99.9% of scientists who disagree with him.

 

i should decide...