RELIGION IN SCHOOL

What do you consider "pure" religion. It's nothing but teachings of different points of view regarding ideas that are made up of stories handed down through the centuries. These views cause more problems in the world than we need our children to hear about. What makes one religion better than the other, what makes one right over the other. Don't you know my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend. Personally I think religious training should be kept away from children and let them make up their own minds AFTER the age of 21. I've seen young people crushed because of what their parents have made them believe different from others. There is no God in my world and I'm better for having come to that decision after hearing about "him" since I was five. At 18 I made my own decision and rejected everything I had been taught because I now believe it all to be crap. Old books are only the ideas of those who wrote them thousands of years ago about what was going on in their little world. Sorry, but no religious anything in our schools for this lady.

I send my children to Catholic school to teach them the basics on how to be a good, moral, responsible person. When they grow up they can choose which religion they want to be. I am a lunch mom now at their school and those kids are so respectful it's amazing. Thanks for the article, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Sondi: I'm sorry to hear that you do not believe in God, so there really isn't anything I can say to you. To one who does believe in God, I would say that when I talk about religion I am referring to that which was taught by the founders, those Divine Teachers such as Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, Baha'u'llah, and others, all of whom basically taught the same thing. I am definitely not talking about religion as it is practiced today; I don't consider that religion at all - but some man-made dogma. Religion is a beautiful thing when viewed in the light of morality, unity and peace.

Danielle: May God bless you. You are a good and wise mother. I would like to think that your child's teachers are teaching them the morality and wisdom of all the religions, so that when she grows up she can make an informed choice. However if she is only being taught the moral and ethical teachings of Christianity, then that is a good thing too. Have you, perhaps thought of exposing your daughter to all the good things other religions have to say? I am referring to the original teachings of the Founders, not the dogma of today.

Catherine: Thank you for the information. I was not aware of that. I wonder if the instruction in those first schools was in French or English.

Folks et al: People still keep confusing churchism with religion, as Thomas points out above. It should be obvious to anyone the slightest bit objective that religion in some form has been a fundamental element in man's historical growth from as far back as can be probed and as universally as anything can be. It should also be realized objectively (if not subjectively) that religion has been and still is the only source of any standards of morals and ethics. People also grossly mistake our constitution's stand in the separation of church and state. Nowhere does it even hint that religion and state should be separated. It says that the government (as I understand it in my simple way) shall not make any laws favoring one church vs another church. That's it, folks.

Religion, at the very least is an important (both for good and bad if you will) part of history. We do not teach only the "good" things of history but the bad as well. We teach that there have been wars and mass killings and don't expect those who learn of it to endorse either of them. Even an atheist should study religion so that he/she can know what it is that he/she is not in agreement with. All social values supposedly taught by social studies get their principles of ethics and morals from religious literature even if they deny it. They did not 'invent' them in a vacuum of human history. Government without religion (even if "without churchism") is government without morals and ethics. Is it any wonder that Muslims don't want their countries to become like "America"? Even we don't want our country to be like it is... children shooting children in school, marriage meaningless, crime rampant, etc., etc., etc. We teach murder and mayhem and faithlessness on TV. When government is misused to prevent the teaching of religion (not church) it is abusing the constitution, the intent of the founding fathers, and the principles of common sense. As to who teaches, forget the theologians, who have their own agendas to promote. Forget the philosophy teachers who also have their own "at a distance" agenda to promote. You need people who can be professional as teachers and leave their personal agendas at the fence outside the school yard. We teach all kinds of things which are based on pure theorizing (however well studied) including Darwinian evolution. Which, incidentally, is pure speculation still and not accepted by all "thinkers."

If you have to believe that there is a higher power, that's ok with me but don't think I'm missing anything because I don't believe. That's why it's called BELIEF. I don't believe in an afterlife either so either I'm right or I'm in for one hell of a suprise. No one knows, do they. I can assure you that I lead my life probably more Christian like than most Christians because I feel that giving to others, helping people/animals/etc in need is more powerful than sitting with my eyes closed and talking to something that doesn't exist. I just can handle others trying to shove their "beliefs" down other peoples throats or into their minds.

Sondi: I admire you. You seem to be living a truly 'spiritual' life - just the life intended by God and his Prophets or Messengers. Where do you get your inspiration for the kind of life you live? It is from religion - true religion as taught by the Founders, not as practiced by man in the 21st century. You are 100% right in not tolerating people trying to force their beliefs on others. I'm against that too. The purpose of life on this earth is to develop those qualities - spiritual qualities - that we will need to survive and grow in the next - spiritual - life. You seem to be doing that quite well. I like to use the analogy of the unborn fetus who spends 9 months developing those physical qualities he/she will need to survive and prosper in this physical world outside the womb. The difference is that the growth in the womb is automatic, not voluntary. In this life our spiritual growth is purely voluntary. Good luck to you, or as some say 'God bless you'.

Sondi M.: As the French say, "Each one to his own tastes." I would only caution you--if you are interested in discovering the truth (one way or the other)--that you do not fall into the trap of the "naive realism" of science in the past four hundred years (now no longer considered valid by science itself). All that is, is not necessarily "seeable." Recent scientific discoveries in quantum physics has really shaken the purely materialistic view of reality. It is of no importance to me whether you believe that there is a "God" or not. Just as it is of no importance to me whether you believe that you exist or not. But in the interests of intellectual perspective, I would suggest that you consider whether or not your views of "God" are tainted by the self righteous views on this same subject by a host of ignorant and delusional "believers." As an example, I do not believe in "God" also if one means by this, "God is a man in a white beard sitting on a gold throne." I believe more in "God" as considered by Albert Einstein, a Supreme Illimitable Spirit that is not comprehensible to a human mind. I also do not believe in "life after death" in that the very phrase "life after death" is an oxymoron. I believe that in some way also incomprehensible to "brain thinking" our consciousness persists after physical motality but in a way that is inexplicable to a rational explanation process.

In short, I suggest that you consider whether or not you are falling into the trap of "throwing out the baby with the bath water." The "bath water" is pure water that has been dirtied by the soap and grime of millions of unwashed babies (i.e. ignorant and unsophisticated "believers" who in good faith have fabricated a self serving view of what God and religion are all about). The "baby" is the actual, unvarnished version of reality before the distortions and "muddying of the waters" by well meaning but misguided centuries of clerical interferrence.

Donald: Thank you for adding depth and insights into the comments above.

Thomas, I'm confused by a couple of statements you made.

One is when you said, ". . . when I talk about religion I am referring to that which was taught by the founders, those Divine Teachers such as Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, Baha'u'llah, and others, all of whom basically taught the same thing."

I disagree that they all had the same (or a similar) message. I am a student of the Bible (KJV) and understand it to convey the main message that either a person 1)believes in Jesus as God in flesh (as "son" in a triune sense) or 2) he has to see Jesus as a total farse who thought he was a savior and was willing to die for that belief.

Y'know? Jesus was either who he said he was or he was a nut. I mean who lives his entire 33 years of life believing he is savior of the world and then dies for that belief - unless he was truly the savior of mankind?

I know that belief of this sort takes a giant step for the intelligent person. Faith in something unseen is always a challenge. However, the Bible scriptures say that (in Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

The Bible teaches that belief in Jesus as savior of the world is the ONLY way to heaven (unlike what the other religous founders taught).

In Christianity, the virtues of morality, kindness, honesty, & brotherly love, etc stem from the Holy Spirit (the third part of God's triune self) living in a person's body (soul). The Holy Spirit is said to be sort of the "conscience" of a person. Gently reminding you of your course or path.

In Christianity, there is total freedom of choice on whether to believe in Jesus as savior or not. I get this also from my Bible readings. I like that God gave us freedom of choice. Makes it "mean" something when/if we DO choose to make God the Lord of our lives. Like when a child does what his dad says our of respect instead of fear.

ANYhow, I thought I'd throw in my two cents on that subject.

Oh, and I dont' actually know what the following statement means. Clarify?

You said, "Religion is a beautiful thing when viewed in the light of morality, unity and peace."

Lea: Thank you very much for your contribution to this article. Your views as expressed are yours and represent your understanding of what the bible says. There are today thousands of denominations and sects of Christianity all with from slight to profound differences in interpretation. Not all Christians believe exactly the way you do.

Lea: In my view you are reading the Bible too literally and microscopically. There are other ways of reading the Bible and making sense of it. For instance, when Jesus said to the young man, "Let the dead bury the dead," He obviously did not mean it literally (vis a vis there were Zombies or walking dead people in those days whose job it was to dig the graves and bury the people in them). He meant the Rabbis, Pharisees and Scribes and the throngs of people who were taking the Judaic scriptures--the Old Testament--too literally and were not seeing the spiritual values behind it.

When Jesus said, "Only through Me can ye enter the kingdom" (I am paraphrasing here) He was speaking in the royal sense of an Earthly king. You have to remember that Jesus of Nazareth was both a man born of a woman (even if she were a virgin) and a divine representative of God, the Father. He also said, "Before Abraham was I am." Since this obviously does not mean Jesus of Nazareth (born and formed into a human body less than 33 years before) but His Persona as the Son of God, we can understand that this "Persona of God" has come before and will come again in different physical forms. I realize that you cannot believe this because your mind has been "set" from childhood and it would probably disturb your sense of security to pose anything else now. However, I believe this is where Thomas (and I also) is "coming from" on this issue.

Also, remember what Jesus said to Phillip, "O Phillip. Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? Believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me or else believe Me for the very works sake." That is, He says that even if you don't see that He is the Father, at least judge Him on what He was doing and teaching, which is the essential part of what He was all about. David Khoresh also said that He was God on Earth as did Jones in the Jonesville massacre. But their "works" were not of the level of value and divine essense as that of Jesus. Jesus is saying that you must judge not on prophecies or miracles (which He specifically said to ignore) but on His Teachings. Beware lest you make the same mistake as those multitudes of Jesus's day, who crucified Him and mocked Him with a crown of thorns (not fulfilling the prophecy of being the King of the Jews).

Donald: Thank you for your insights.

Sorry, but I think you have mistated a common misconception.

The Government has not sperated church and state. There is to be no State Religon, like that was in England. State mandated religon. However, there can be religon in schools, and there is in most cases. Public schools allow bibles and the koran, book of mormon and other various religous works. It allows student to pray before lunch, and pray at other times. However, Public schools should not require one type of prayer over all others, be the religous backbone for the students.

I agree, to have our education system for the public free from required religous mandates. I also agree with individuals who choose to have thier children schooled at private religous schools.

truths are based on individual beliefs and that of authoritive positions. I do not consider Muslims beliefs the truth, however, I give total respect for those who choose to believe in such. School are to educate in basics of education. They are not their to provide what parents should be doing, the basic moral and social manners. Parents seem to think schools are suppose to act as parents. Parents need to take responsibility in teaching their children the basics of humanism, manner, beliefs, and allow the Public School Teachers time to teach how to read, write, add, and subjects where they will be tested in school. Parents need to raise kids to pass the tests they will face in the society and communities.

Hate to disagree, but who is to choose real religion? Pastors? Priests? Sheiks? Sorry, leave the religon to parents and teaching to educators.

Cat, first public schools were formed by native americans, where they learned skills of communication, hunting, survival...

Cat, its also not a public school if it is provided by the church. The first American public school was authorized on January 2,1643 by the Town of Dedham in the Massachusetts Bay Colony — nearly 150 years before the establishment of the United States.
Philadelphia is home to the nation's first public grammar school, now known as the William Penn Charter School, founded in 1689.

The Pennsylvania Hospital, founded by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Bond, opened its doors in 1751 - the first hospital in America. In addition, Philadelphia is home to the nation's first medical school, first children's hospital, first cancer hospital, first eye hospital, first nursing school and first dental school!

Americans need to stop outsourcing not only employment but our childrens education. To many people expect more out teachers then to provide an education. Schools are not their as a Nanny. Parents need to take responsibility.

Donald C: I have read your comments and I thank you for posting them. I am at a loss to know how to respond.

Donald,

Your quote - "I realize that you cannot believe this because your mind has been "set" from childhood and it would probably disturb your sense of security to pose anything else now."

It sounds like you assume I am a closed-minded idiot who is incapable of intelligent thought. I don't appreciate your comment. Just because my views are not your veiws, you seem to see me as ill-informed, unwilling, & unable to challenge my beliefs by considering new views.

It's ironic how I, a Christian, am seen as narrow minded because of my choices. Do you consider a follower of Buddah narrow minded? Probably not. Do you consider the Krishnas narrow minded? I doubt it.

I've studied several other religions and for one reason or another don't agree with one or more major points. So, please don't tell me I'm "set from childhood" and that is why I choose the path I do.

I'm not forcing my belief system on anyone. I do, however, wish you'd give me the benefit of the doubt and not assume I grew up Christian or in a Bible-thumping home (which I did not). So, "disturbing my sense of security" isn't an issue.

I seek the truth - just as you and the rest of mankind does. I found it. I don't consider you less of a person for choosing your way. I also wish you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Thanks.

Thomas- Please publish more works like this. I may not always agree but I enjoy people who express their views and also explain them as you did. I have found many will only post one side and not consider comments and fight with anyone who disagrees. I applaud your objectivity which is so rare in gather.

Lea: I am sorry if I offended you by stating what I believe is the case with like minded people who profess to be Christians. I was brought up a Christian and went through this also. It is not that I no longer believe in Christ or Jesus. Rather, I have more understanding and respect and awe of Him than I ever did or could as a focused Christian. What I suggest is that you consider whether taking a broader view of religion as a phenomenon that is natural and part of some comprehensive divine plan rather than something proprietory to those who call themselves Christians is not a more realistic and more enlightening with regards to Jesus than simply taking a stand that is proprietory and then altering the facts to fit that position. For instance, I have been involved in recent similar discussions with "ministers" who--in my opinion, faulty as it may be--go to great lengths to find places in the Bible to totally distort specific things that Jesus said and taught. And I cannot get out of my head the natural admonition that follows from seeing how absolutely blind just about everybody (actually every single person, including Peter) was to seeing and accepting Jesus the Christ as the Christ at the time He appeared. So that I ask you this important question (as offensive as it might appear to be), do you think that you are so special that you cannot make the same mistake that EVERYONE, including Peter, made in using Scriptures (the OT) to reject Jesus? All Jews today are still making the mistake (and this is not an anti-semetic statement since Arabs are semites also) of not accepting Jesus. Do you realize that all Jews today have fundamentally the same attitude with regard to Jesus as you do with regard to Muhammad or Buddha or whatever? If you think that they may be making a mistake (the same one they made 2000 years ago) is it not appropriate and seemly for you to reconsider your own views?

Donald C.: Thanks for your good information regarding history. Right now I am living next door to Dedham, MA (right off Dedham street in Newton). I was also surprised to learn (probably relearn) that Philadelphia was the largest city in the colonies when the Declaration of Independence was drawn up. And I fully agree with you about the responsibility of parents to educate their children. The problem is that the parents are the children of yesterday, which were as much a "mess" as the children of today are, if that is possible. I only point out that religion and religious history is an important part of general human history and should be taught without bias in schools just as much as sociology or philosophy. "Readin', writin' and 'rithmatic" ain't all there is to education.

I do not know what you mean by misunderstanding the constitutional injunction against the state establishing or supporting a specific church. It seems to me that you are saying the same thing that I did but in different words. Atheists consider that for a school to teach religion is to support religion per se. Part of religious education should include the fact that some people (a very small minority) are avowed atheists, giving their reasons for it, etc. Same with agnostics. As to the TEN COMMANDMENTS being allowed on the Supreme Court building, I resent the tail wagging the dog (i.e. the small band of atheists asserting their very minority beliefs on the vast majority). Maybe I'm still missing something, Lea M. and Donald C., but I will look forward to your imput on these things. Thanks.

Donald C: Thank you for your very kind words. I will continue to try to be as factual and objective as I can. I do not seek confrontation; everyone's opinion is valuable. When someone disagrees with a statement of mine I try to clarify my position without argumentation. If readers disagree with my views that is quite fine with me. If I feel I have presented my point of view in a logical way I am content with that and will leave "the ball in the reader's court" so to speak.

Donald Hawley,

I hope most parents provide general guidance for the children in religous beliefs, but also allow the child as they mature look at other beliefs. However, public schools overall should avoid teaching beliefs but stick to basic historical facts. College level, yes, bring the education out for the students to comprehend as adult students.

Donald C.: Fully agree with you. Only, doubt that this happens much. I think it is almost impossible to find a good and objective teacher of religion. It seems that institutions (including university level) turn to either of two bad choices, clerics who have agendas to perpetrate and philosophy professors who have an opposite axe to grind, one of skeptical "objectivity." I find it almost impossible to find anyone raised in our culture who even understands what Islam is all about or can discussed it's history without coming from a "blind eye" position from a "contrasting" Christian bias approach. I was exposed some good presentation at the university level, although 'pap-ized' even then.

Donald Hawley- I happen to have had some great open minded objective teachers and professors. I also served in the USAF with a good friend who was Muslim and was a citizen of the UAE. He had a college degree from Rutgers. He was also in the process of becoming an American Citizen. Surprising what you can learn from others. Most Americans also have never traveled outside North America. Isolation of the average American causes many of our social issues with countries and people overseas. It also causes problems in our own schools.

Just got a chance to return to this post. This thread did intrigue me. I enjoyed Thomas M. and Donald H.

Thought my eyes were crossing when I kept seeing "Donald" on every post, though. Took me a second to differentiate b/w Donald C and Donald H (thank God for photo icons).

Yes, I said God.
;-)

Donald C: You are quite right. And you were fortunate to have such broad minded teachers. Mos of us are not so lucky.

So right, Donald C. (incidentally, you have a great name, "ruler of the universe"; my own father was "Donald C. Hawley"). I have traveled and lived overseas a number of times. One of the results of this ignorance of others and assumption of cultural superiority is that our leaders (elected from general population at random from among the rich and egotistic) haven't a clue as to how to deal with others when it comes to foreign affairs. It's our "cowboy" mentality.

Did anyone ever notice that secular schooling and religion are two sides of the same coin? Secular schooling is what man provides for the enlightenment and well-being of his upcoming generation; religion is what God provides to mankind for its enlightenment and well being. In secular education when we're done with the 5th grade we move on to the 6th to get further enlightenment. But in religion when we have learned the lessons of one we get stuck and refuse to move on for further enlightenment. That's where free-will comes in. In childhood we 'go with the flow', moving ahead as directed by our elders. As mature adults in the school of religion many of us are content to stay put, wallowing in our ignorance, believing we know everything there is to know. The teachers pass on, the lessons become 'old hat', the texts become out-of-date, tattered and worn out. We continue fighting in the school yard, and never quite grow up. We watch through the fence as the world around us descends into chaos and confusion, teetering on the brink of destruction. We keep hoping our teacher will come back and set things aright once again. But that doesn't happen. They've built a new, bigger and more modern school next door, staffed with new teachers, stocked with new textbooks replete with new, contemporary lessons. Will we venture inside and partake of what is there for us, or will we be content to stay outside looking in? It's up to us.

Donald H,

I disagree on the elected offical remark. Peace is everyones desire, however, often its takes times of war to bring peace.

Donald C: Are you saying we can't have peace without war? War doesn't bring peace; it brings a cessation of fighting, for a while, then back to war. Peace is a lot more than just the absence of fighting and killing. There are several countries we are not at war with right now, but we're not in a peaceful relationship with them either.

Humans will never just get along, world history has proven that. War is an extention to political desire, and at times the only way to obtain political goals is by force. Peace is also over rated... giving into an enemy to avoid war, as England first gave into German political desires in hopes of appeasing Hitler...

Consider the Cold War Era, it was the threat of war and nuclear elimination that provided a shakey peace between many nations.

Even God is at war with Satan.....war is natural part of human life, its peace that is not real.

Donald C: The future cannot be judged by the past. There is a trend in motion within the history of mankind on this planet, a trend that will only continue. Many people do not see it. Children fight with each other as a part of their growing up. But they do mature and put aside these tendencies. Mankind, too will mature and find better ways of resolving disputes. There is no such thing as Satan. 'Satan' is merely a symbol of evil. There is no such thing as evil - it is merely the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light. Peace is light, war is darkness. If you turn on the light the darkness disappears.