daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (09/03/86)
> Xref: cbmvax net.religion:1287 talk.religion:39 > >>This whole mess came up when someone (I think Ray Frank) complained that >>school children were not being taught enough about christianity. > > If this means teaching religious doctrines, I strongly disagree. > If this means teaching the role of religion in history, I agree with > (whoever-it-was). The Christian religion certainly had its role in the settlement of this country, that being the settling of New England by the English Puritans. A history class should certainly discuss the conflicts within Christianity in England at the time that drove these settlers to Plymouth, and the continuing conflicts within the group that drove the many splinter factions out to settle much of the North East. That's the religious part of the country's heritage, but it should be represented as common personal heritage. And the non religious settling of the South East should be similarly discussed. MY ancestors left Ireland for Virginai, not for any kind of religious freedom, but because the King of England at the time owed the family lots of money, and offered them land instead. That's my personal heritage, and as well a piece of the country's heritage not based in any way on religion. >>What I was opposed to >>was teaching ABOUT christianity WITHOUT teaching about other religions > > Replace "Christianity" with "evolution" and "other religions" with > "Creationism" and what do you get? A claim that you should be able > to modify a particular subject matter to suit your own desires. > Bull and bunk! Christianity certainly should be mentioned for its role in the settlement of the Northeast in a history class, whereas something like Hinduism would obviously be left out, since it didn't play a part in that area of American history. This wouldn't be teaching the religion, but the effects of that religion, and likely the conflicts in English Christianity that led to the split. A class on religious philosophy, however, must treat religions equally. And a class on science should teach Evolution, the theory of Natural Selection, and any other scientific theories. It should not, however, teach religious dribble thinly disguised as science, which is exactly what Creationism is. > > |Dan| > "Rome was not destroyed in one day" -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment." -Gotama Buddha These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/