Stirring the Pot ;)

[Minimalist]

And there is no other way to find that out except to have schools teach it in a religious context?

[Digit]

I didn't suggest that Min. I simply pointed out that people over here seem to have an agenda for the destruction of religion but have nothing to offer in its place with a moral basis.
Overall, things were better when religion was taught in schools and people went to church.
Any fool can destroy an edifice. The Nazis destroyed democracy and gave us concentration camps, the Saxons destroyed much that Rome had created here and offered nothing it in return, and religion is being destroyed here with no moral code to replace it.
Who wins?

[Barracuda]

For me this is a no-brainer. The bible should be taught...As well as the Koran, the Torah, and an understanding of major eastern religions.

All are vital to an understanding of the world today. You can't just ignore religion

But they should all be presented objectively, and let students draw their own conclusions.

Any time you try and suppress something there is a backlash

[Forum Monk]

Yes. I suggested the parents should teach it. But that would require parents to spend some time with their kids. It would require the TV and computer and IPODs to be turned off, parents to forget work and bills and sports for at least an hour. It requires something called communication and an exchange of ideas with the purpose of manifesting an impartation of values. And finally, and most importantly, it would require the teachers (parents) to live by the same values they are trying to impart.

But at the end of the day, there must be a larger, community standard.

[Charlie Hatchett]

For me this is a no-brainer. The bible should be taught...As well as the Koran, the Torah, and an understanding of major eastern religions.

All are vital to an understanding of the world today. You can't just ignore religion

But they should all be presented objectively, and let students draw their own conclusions.

Any time you try and suppress something there is a backlash

Agreed, but I think they need to remain elective, not mandatory.

[Minimalist]

I didn't suggest that Min. I simply pointed out that people over here seem to have an agenda for the destruction of religion but have nothing to offer in its place with a moral basis.
Overall, things were better when religion was taught in schools and people went to church.
Any fool can destroy an edifice. The Nazis destroyed democracy and gave us concentration camps, the Saxons destroyed much that Rome had created here and offered nothing it in return, and religion is being destroyed here with no moral code to replace it.
Who wins?

I can't speak for England but over here no one is threatening to close down churches. All I ask is that they keep their drivel out of our schools, courthouses and legislative bodies. If they want to prattle on about it in their churches where their devotees can go and listen, that's fine. But that is a far cry from having some yahoo pickup a microphone and recite a prayer to whatever version of the deity they prefer and forcing it into the ears of everyone in the building.

I must say that the idea that "religion" has any worthwhile moral framework is a bit beyond me, too. They say one thing but do another and actions speak much louder than words.

[Forum Monk]

I must say that the idea that "religion" has any worthwhile moral framework is a bit beyond me, too.

Its really too bad the media and opinions of some are so focused on the actions of extremists and the negativity of past misunderstandings. Much of the real value and worthiness of the church is not in the headlines, but in the day to day interactions of people, the giving to the poor, building homes, giving medicines. Great acts of compassion, mercy and giving without any expectation of reward. There is much you can not see.

They say one thing but do another and actions speak much louder than words.

You're preaching to the choir.

[Minimalist]

Its really too bad the media and opinions of some are so focused on the actions of extremists and the negativity of past misunderstandings.

How many soup kitchens does it take to overcome the 30 Years War?

[ravenwing5910]

Does anyone recall the uproar here in America after the news media informed us all of the "terrible" practice in the middle east of teaching the Koran to the poor little children in the schools? What makes this any different than that? Because it's "Christian"? In my opinion the bible has no place in a public school. If I wanted my son to be a Christian I would have raised him that way. But I chose to raise my son to think and decide for himself (which in hind sight, may have been a mistake since he now disagrees with me much more than he did when he was a child). Parents right or wrong have the right in AMERICA, to raise their children in the church, temple, sweat lodge, or even athiest. It is not for the government or the local school to decide what I or my child will believe. And as far as 48% of the people polled feeling that it should be taught in schools, well what about the 52% that obviously did not agree. One more thing, I am not a christian, I do not believe in the bible, I do not steal, lie, cheat or kill (except the occassional spider), being a decent human being is not dependent upon a christian or any other religious belief.

[Minimalist]

Yup.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.


Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

[ravenwing5910]

Yup.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.


Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

absolutly

[Forum Monk]

According to your abritrary definitions of good and bad.

[Digit]

My point is not about which religion to teach or whether to teach any but to teach some form of moral code to replace religion if you are going to remove religion.
We have two generations of non religious people and crime rates amongst those two generations that is such that one borough of London now has more crime than the whole of the UK immediately after WW2.
I cannot believe that there is no connection.

[ravenwing5910]

What is arbitrary about it? What is your definition of good and bad?

[ravenwing5910]

My point is not about which religion to teach or whether to teach any but to teach some form of moral code to replace religion if you are going to remove religion.
We have two generations of non religious people and crime rates amongst those two generations that is such that one borough of London now has more crime than the whole of the UK immediately after WW2.
I cannot believe that there is no connection.

Aren't there other factors that have changed over the past few generations, that may have had a greater impact than a fading religious conviction? For instance the number of women who are now working outside the home, leaving the children to be raised by babysitters, daycares, and public schools? That the general perspective seems to be on the "me" instead of on the "family"? It seems to me that years ago people cared about others, and now people care only about themselves. I would think that has more to do with the isolation that we now have. We have changed from a "front porch" society to an "internet" society. Of course this is just my opinion.