|
Post by naturegirl2010 on Apr 7, 2010 15:58:09 GMT -5
@ Nakor: Ok, I see what you're saying, I think. The video definitely helps. You're saying it's a natural occurrence the people will gravitate towards helping other people (particularly ones they share genetic write ups but it happens with people that are not within the family, just close) Humans will help other humans because it's in instinct as we've learned to do but just because that's something that's learned, is it possible that it could have been lost? Or at least forgotten to some degree? Even if it wasn't it's not that religion teaches such attitudes, it's just that it reminds the people and reunites them under one idea like such. Religion doesn't make people help one another for selfless or selfish acts but it puts the mindset to them and gives them rewards for doing so. Which is what I was trying to say. I can agree then that perhaps is a learned instinct (selflessness) from way back when that people developed when we were some creature that wasn't a homo sapien, but religion has done good in the modern mind to help with unity between people so they feel more compelled to help. Religion teaches people to bring each other together by giving them something in common. And therefore it's something that should be acknowledged, observed, and taught within schools
|
|
|
Post by SquiggleTag on Apr 7, 2010 16:01:43 GMT -5
ok i havent been following what the last few pages have been saying but heres my opinion. Schools should be allowed to teach religion but they should teach about all (or most) reigions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 18:31:01 GMT -5
Nakor: I'm not going to watch the video, as for some reason it's loading really really slowly. But I don't agree to your statement that kin-selection is a genetically transmitted thing. I have learned that the thing that makes us, humans so distinct from other animals, is that we have speech. This speech allows us to form a type of transmitting over generation which is unique in the animal world and non-genetic: Culture I think it's rather culture than genetic elements which transfer ethical values such as kindness which lead to the concept of kin-selection. This is also something we are a lot more aware of than any natural, genetic selection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying religion is needed to teach ethics, I'm saying that culture is and that that's something which isn't connected to our genes at all. I hope I have explained myself a bit
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 7, 2010 19:07:58 GMT -5
Nakor: I'm not going to watch the video, as for some reason it's loading really really slowly. But I don't agree to your statement that kin-selection is a genetically transmitted thing. I have learned that the thing that makes us, humans so distinct from other animals, is that we have speech. This speech allows us to form a type of transmitting over generation which is unique in the animal world and non-genetic: Culture I think it's rather culture than genetic elements which transfer ethical values such as kindness which lead to the concept of kin-selection. This is also something we are a lot more aware of than any natural, genetic selection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying religion is needed to teach ethics, I'm saying that culture is and that that's something which isn't connected to our genes at all. I hope I have explained myself a bit I believe morality comes from several sources working together Empathy,( or the ability to feel the emotions of other or just have meaningful emotions itself. afterall. while a sociopath may understand ethics intellectually, they might not get "morality" if they can't emote at all) Culture (this is not only ethnic beliefs and traditions but also religion and any number of social functions) and from these two we have sub-categories or categories with some cross over. Ethics, an intellectual approach to morality. (may intersect with culture) Evolutionary ethics, ideas that are ingrained into human nature (some cross over with empathy)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2010 19:32:57 GMT -5
hmm, I agree with your first 3 but not with the fourth (at least it being ingrained in humans). Seems like if either of us wants to persuade the other, we'll need to do a lot more research
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 7, 2010 19:36:29 GMT -5
hmm, I agree with your first 3 but not with the fourth (at least it being ingrained in humans). Seems like if either of us wants to persuade the other, we'll need to do a lot more research I thought that one was weakest, but there is some sort of human nature don't you think? that's all I meant.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 8, 2010 1:42:46 GMT -5
In the interest of education, yes however this would mean teaching ALL religions not just a single religion so it depends on what you're really asking. If history books are being replaced by bibles than I would say no. (and I had a teacher who did this and she was eventually fired not just for that reason, she also cussed at one of my friends and apparently hit a couple other students but I wasn't a witness to the last one.) I know one of my co-workers took a class in collage which was all about religion but as he exsplained it the class doesn't focus all on one single religion. They apperantly study a new religion each week for educational reasons and to better understand these different religions this is not to actully join but just to learn. And this I think is perfectly OK. I only find it wrong when a single religion is being taught as fact as if you should join and believe every word of it. BTW as far as I know the Amish people are the only religion that encourages it's memebers to decide on their own weather or not they want to remain part of the religion they were born into which I think is amazing. I wouldn't join them but I do love that and wish others were like that instead of shouveing their religion down my throat by showing up at my house at 7 am to inform me of all the reason's I'm going to hell. Yeah not your best sales pitch, first prove to me hell actully exsists then we'll talk.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Apr 8, 2010 1:47:57 GMT -5
I don't understand the question. Of course religion should be taught in school. >.>
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 8, 2010 10:07:25 GMT -5
Yes the Amish do let you choose to leave the faith, but it also means leaving the Amish village and everyone you know and grew up with, it literally means you will have to start a new life away from your family.
They aren't exactly champions of letting people choose their faith, but they do give some choice (they have this ritual where they let their teens live in the outside world for a time before deciding whether or not to join the faith, I think statistically speaking many more join then not, which isn't surprising considering the culture shock)
If you want someone who doesn't force religion look at neo-pagans, Wicca in particular. they speak against evangelizing. Your not even allowed to join the faith formally until you are 18 years old and it's always meant to be a personal choice. While there are minors interested in Wicca and may get some guidance from their parents (there always will that way views color us) you could say there's a large portion of the population who don't believe in indoctrinating their kids, and the others may sprinkle their religion over the course of the childs life (much like one might do so politically or anything else) it's not really a concise effort like sunday school...
|
|
|
Post by dibwys on Apr 8, 2010 12:06:43 GMT -5
Religion should be taught, as in, some people believe this, but should never be presented as the undeniable holy truth. Knowledge is essential for prevention of hate. The media gives a very distorted view of things and it's important that people know and understand other people's beliefs to prevent said other people being victimized because of them. The stuff that goes on in your average school RE class is education, not indoctrination, and in my experience is a very positive thing.
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Apr 8, 2010 23:02:32 GMT -5
That's like saying "it's a free country so you're allowed to believe that the holocaust didn't happen." Sure, you can delude yourself if you want, but you're still an idiot for doing so. And when it's a teacher saying something like "I don't believe in the theory of evolution" my first reaction is "How intelligent can this teacher be?" and my second is "Should someone stupid enough to actually think that be teaching children?" I know that you can't take action against someone for just a statement like that (unless of course she was a science teacher and actually trying to teach students that evolution was a lie as though it were in the curriculum) but I expect my teachers to be generally intelligent people, and that comes into major question when they claim that they don't "believe in" what is a certain scientific fact. Her beliefs have no effect on her ability to teach Sociology. In fact she does one hell of a job if I may so myself. To call her an idiot because of her beliefs is unfair. She's a very bright woman and she's inspired me to think about things I probably would have never given thought to if I hadn't taken her class. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but I certainly wouldn't call her stupid. It would be stupid of me to call her stupid, clearly she isn't. And may I remind you that the THEORY of evolution is still a THEORY. You and Dan may call me whatever you please, I know I'm not an idiot and as far as I'm concerned....that's all that matters :] Sorry, completely off topic, but this stopped me in my tracks. I HATE THE MISCONCEPTION THAT EVOLUTION IS A "Theory"! This is often based off of the Darwin's shorthand version of THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DUE TO NATURAL SELECTION. The theory is the process by which evolution occurs. Evolution would, in the science world, be considered a natural law.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 9, 2010 0:53:52 GMT -5
Her beliefs have no effect on her ability to teach Sociology. In fact she does one hell of a job if I may so myself. To call her an idiot because of her beliefs is unfair. She's a very bright woman and she's inspired me to think about things I probably would have never given thought to if I hadn't taken her class. We may not see eye to eye on everything, but I certainly wouldn't call her stupid. It would be stupid of me to call her stupid, clearly she isn't. And may I remind you that the THEORY of evolution is still a THEORY. You and Dan may call me whatever you please, I know I'm not an idiot and as far as I'm concerned....that's all that matters :] Sorry, completely off topic, but this stopped me in my tracks. I HATE THE MISCONCEPTION THAT EVOLUTION IS A "Theory"! This is often based off of the Darwin's shorthand version of THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DUE TO NATURAL SELECTION. The theory is the process by which evolution occurs. Evolution would, in the science world, be considered a natural law. Well no the misconception is based off the use of "theory" in the conversational sense, and not the scientific sense, thus confusing the two.
|
|
Engesa Green once more
Meteor
Once upon a time there was a suggestion that we should all write our names on our profile. I'm Ebbe.
Posts: 89
|
Post by Engesa Green once more on Apr 9, 2010 4:19:27 GMT -5
Religion should be taught in school. no question there. the question is -how- it should be taught and how it shouldn't. it shouldn't be taught as fact since it has been disproven. but it could be taught as a world view. Like christianity says: "Turn the other cheek" and such, that is good things and should definetly be taught in schools, since everyone should have some moral. also it should be remembered that there is also things in the bible that says "an eye for an eye" and that shouldn't exactly be highlighted by the schools since it's kind of evil.
Also there should be taught alot of religions and not just one, and the person who teaches them should not be biased to teach the kids that "insert religion" is the only true thing to belive in.
|
|
ariya
Meteorite
birthday cake mode.
Posts: 6
|
Post by ariya on Apr 10, 2010 7:57:51 GMT -5
I go to an Islamic school and I've been at the same school since kindergarten. I'm in 10th grade now. Really, I don't see the point in teaching religion in school. I mean, teaching kids about different religions is good, but I don't think teaching them about the religion they're supposed to be really has any effect. I've been at school with the same people for more than 10 years now and the difference in how "religious" we are or how much we practise religion varies greatly. I think that religion has a lot to do with how we're brought up at home rather than what we're taught at school.
|
|
LegacyOfPaper
Moon
Why yes, I would like a side of fries
Posts: 178
|
Post by LegacyOfPaper on Apr 10, 2010 10:02:56 GMT -5
Yes. Quite frankly, religion is a part of society, and we already so many uneducated opinions and generalizations about it. At least if they were taught about it, I wouldn't hate their ignorance as much for saying stupid things.
|
|
matttherobot
Meteorite
As I Spy From Behind My Giant Robot's Eyes
Posts: 26
|
Post by matttherobot on Apr 10, 2010 12:05:40 GMT -5
I see its as simply as this. If parents want to send their kids to a school that teaches religion and religious ideas, let them. If parents don't want that, then they will send their kids to different schools. The real issue is the problem with public schools. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here, and public schools force us into that mold.
|
|
|
Post by futureastronaut13 on Apr 10, 2010 21:17:38 GMT -5
I believe that it should be taught in schools, that is if the information they are teaching is all correct and accurate. I am Shia Muslim. I had a teacher that taught the ways of Sunni Muslims and had no idea when I brought up the idea of Shia Muslims and that angered me because she was teaching this had no idea what she was really teaching me.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 10, 2010 21:25:50 GMT -5
I believe that it should be taught in schools, that is if the information they are teaching is all correct and accurate. I am Shia Muslim. I had a teacher that taught the ways of Sunni Muslims and had no idea when I brought up the idea of Shia Muslims and that angered me because she was teaching this had no idea what she was really teaching me. It's one of those reasons it should be left out. The experts on the subject matter are at the churches, synagogues, mosques, monasteries and so on. If one wishes to study religions, going elsewhere is a better idea rather than it being taught unnecessarily in schools. Plus, think of how much the parents would complain? Just the thought that say, an Islamic, Judaic or Christian theology course were being offered as an option at a public school would enrage most parents. The only difference would be in History classes, I suppose. Like, being taught Greek and Roman mythology and things like that. Though, on the other hand, I'd like to see people being properly educated about the Islamic faith. Not being taught as in being indoctrinated or brought into the religion, but educated to understand the faith properly. I'm specifying Islam here because it's probably the most misunderstood religion today. It would be nice, but the controversy would be outrageous.
|
|
ariya
Meteorite
birthday cake mode.
Posts: 6
|
Post by ariya on Apr 11, 2010 3:33:22 GMT -5
That's true. When I ask my teachers about something specific, they never really give me a straight answer, which kinda bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 11, 2010 4:45:13 GMT -5
I believe that it should be taught in schools, that is if the information they are teaching is all correct and accurate. I am Shia Muslim. I had a teacher that taught the ways of Sunni Muslims and had no idea when I brought up the idea of Shia Muslims and that angered me because she was teaching this had no idea what she was really teaching me. It's one of those reasons it should be left out. The experts on the subject matter are at the churches, synagogues, mosques, monasteries and so on. If one wishes to study religions, going elsewhere is a better idea rather than it being taught unnecessarily in schools. Plus, think of how much the parents would complain? Just the thought that say, an Islamic, Judaic or Christian theology course were being offered as an option at a public school would enrage most parents. The only difference would be in History classes, I suppose. Like, being taught Greek and Roman mythology and things like that. Though, on the other hand, I'd like to see people being properly educated about the Islamic faith. Not being taught as in being indoctrinated or brought into the religion, but educated to understand the faith properly. I'm specifying Islam here because it's probably the most misunderstood religion today. It would be nice, but the controversy would be outrageous. That's what I think. It would have to be taught by someone who is unbiased as to religion (difficult) and who also knows the various religions fairly well (also difficult). It seems unlikely to be executed properly in areas with a strong leaning to a particular religion or in places where religion has become political (i.e. most places).
|
|