Teaching of Christianity 'lacks intellectual development'

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The selected memes were apt. This was a pot-stirring thread. The OP knows what topics get the members punching each other and posts accordingly. He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion. It's all very methodical.

Thank the Lord there is someone on here of a similar opinion

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The selected memes were apt. This was a pot-stirring thread. The OP knows what topics get the members punching each other and posts accordingly. He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion. It's all very methodical.

Points taken. No offence or trolling was intended.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I have no problem teaching it from a historical/political perspective

^ Yes, this. In other words: history classes. And that even is desirable, and necessary.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

^ Yes, this. In other words: history classes. And that even is desirable, and necessary.

We already cover it where necessary. Whereas stuffing the whole Christianity to our classes not only doesn't serve any purpose and is a pedagogically bad move, but also practically impossible timewise.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

He then sits back and watches the show, never venturing an opinion one way or another while the other members are played like an accordion.

What? You mean that posting random smileys in succession doesn't count as expressing your opinion?

[Cybermat47]

At my high school, we have whole periods of Catholic education! Dammit, I'm an Anglica...oh, wait, it's a Catholic school.

Should have seen that coming

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

We already cover it where necessary. Whereas stuffing the whole Christianity to our classes not only doesn't serve any purpose and is a pedagogically bad move, but also practically impossible timewise.

I do not object to any of that. What Armistead said and what I also think is that in a secular state, public schools should give dedicated religious classes no room but that the state should stay out of such lobby-focussed religious education. Still, said religions have been influential economic and political actors in history - sometimes in good and more often in bad, and thus are an object to be covered by history courses, like Rome, WWII, the Enlightenment and so. So I do not mean religions should be the only object, but one amongst many objects taught about in history classes. Teaching their history is one of the best ways to demask religions, and teaching it should not be left to religion's representatives - that would be like putting the fox in command of the henhouse.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not object to any of that. What Armistead said and what I also think is that in a secular state, public schools should give dedicated religious classes no room but that the state should stay out of such lobby-focussed religious education. Still, said religions have been influential economic and political actors in history - sometimes in good and more often in bad, and thus are an object to be covered by history courses, like Rome, WWII, the Enlightenment and so. So I do not mean religions should be the only object, but one amongst many objects taught about in history classes. Teaching their history is one of the best ways to demask religions, and teaching it should not be left to religion's representatives - that would be like putting the fox in command of the henhouse.

I'd make a difference between religion class and religious class. The latters haven't existed in the years I have been in school and I hope it stays as such. The former take a secular view on religions, which I support in a mandatory public school.

But I think such secular religion classes should be kept as their own. First of all, there is the issue of time which I already mentioned: history as a subject is already full of themes that we can't cover and have to make choices. There simply is no room for the theme of religion. We touch the subject, of course, but we don't teach it. That's the job of the religion classes.

Another point is that we are historians. Not experts of religion. I, for one, have only very rudimantary understanding of how Hinduism or Zen Buddhism work, and definitely wouldn't say I'm qualified to teach a lot about them. And if I want to teach their impact on, say, politics or economy, the students will first have to be taught what they are. I'm glad we have people who have specialized on these things during their studies, who understand what they are talking about and can therefore teach it. And of course, I'm again happy we have those people so I don't have to do their work on my class time.

Again, we can and will touch religion in history when necessary, but when the students come to my class, I expect them to know from other classes what kind of religions there are.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Thank the Lord there is someone on here of a similar opinion

It was a rare admission of what is really going on in here ... should be a sticky, uh?

As for teaching of the bible old testament or new testament ...
you can't find a better place to start your foundation of truth
to weigh against all other time lines.

The truth doesn't stop at the cross

[CaptainHaplo]

Brace yourselves....

I see no reason that religion should not be taught regarding its impact on historical events. The Inquisition, Crusades, Jihads, even the Buddhist uprising of 66 - all have important historical impacts. Understanding the motivational foundations for how/why societies have acted is necessary to understand and learn FROM history. Thus, basic information about the various faiths - without preference or bias - is necessary.

Yep - that means when your talking Islam or Christianity, you can state simply that both are monothiestic faiths that recognize various historical figures as religious leaders in various forms. You can discuss how each sees the other as a "false" theology, and each has or currently does allow for / promotes violence to achieve its increase in power DEPENDING on the interpretation. If a student wants to investigate a specific faith, they can do so outside the instructive setting of the course. Nor would various interpretations of individual faiths be necessary or fruitful. In essence - treating religion as part of the overall subject - not the subject itself.

[Armistead]

Hottot makes a good point, lot's of better subjects we could spend more time on. Considering the USA is becoming a dumb nation, maybe we need to get rid of a few subjects and start job training about the 10th grade.

In all honesty given that this about covering religion in British history in their schools how on earth are they going to fit it in?
Even just covering something major like Establishment in any great detail would probably take every history lesson through their secondary education.

[August]

I'd rather not see religion mentioned in school at all, even in history class. Just like the subject can't be discussed with any guarantee of neutrality in these forums neither will it be so in the classroom. The biases of the teacher, whether negative or positive on the subject, will always eventually come out.

[CaptainHaplo]

Unfortunately August, you can't teach history factually if you disregard or push relgiion aside. Sadly, religion has been a motivating factor in many of the wars humanity has had since it became "civilized".

Take out the basis for half the wars/conflicts in history - what kind of history will you teach?

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Unfortunately August, you can't teach history factually if you disregard or push relgiion aside. Sadly, religion has been a motivating factor in many of the wars humanity has had since it became "civilized".

Take out the basis for half the wars/conflicts in history - what kind of history will you teach?

Hey you don't have to convince me of it's importance but i'd rather leave the hole in the lesson than have some atheist or religious teacher use it to foist their own beliefs on their students which we both know they will do.

[Skybird]

History lessons without reflecting the influence of religions is impossible. You would need to ignore almost every era of European history since Rome. Religion as well as the abuse of it has been the most important motivating factor for developing and hindering arts, for going to war and ending them, for defining the legitimation of kings' rules, for the thirty years war and so many others, the emerging of pour modern understanding of laws and legality oif certain civil rights and freedoms, the way we understand terms like "freedom", "equality", "peace", not mentioning many philosophical concepts. All this is being touched by religion either be religion having fostering it, or because these things have been achieved against the bitter resistance of religion trying to prevent it, thus the conflict with religion having formed the results we have today. Laws. Government forms. Science. Arts. Philosophy. Cosmology.

You cannot imagine "history" without "religion" in good and in bad.

But the role religion plays needs to be understood in a sober, non-missionizing way, like you cannot understand the conception of the Soviet Union without mentioning communism and socialism - while mentioning them and understanding them not necessarily means that you must teach how to like and embrace communism. You mention the pantheon of the Greeks and Romans without trying to convince people of it's reality. You cannot teach Egyptian history without mentioning the old Egyptian concept of the divine nature of Pharao.

You could as well try to teach American history without referring to the independence war or the civil war, and the values and goals declared in those according historic documents. Like "American history" without these is baseless and meaningless, European history for over 2000 years is baseless and meaningless as well. Issues of religious nature have driven people in Europe to do things to a wider degree than anything else, may it be that they did things due to their religious belief, or due to their conflict with and their rebellion against religion.

Being aware of this and seeing it as an important motivational factor of history doe snot need that the confession itself must be missionized.

Some of the biog ancient cathedrals in Europe have been build over several centuries. CENTURIES. We modern Western people do not have that kind of patience and devotion anymore. We expect immediate results, and after ten years maximum we lose interest.

Teaching history, without mentioning the role religions have played, in good and bad? Think again. You could as well teach history without the role craving for money and wealth have played, or the craving for power and influence.