The Energon Pub

Now, first off. Please, please please for the love of whatever the hell god you do or don't believe. Leave the religion bashing out of this thread.

Don't get defensive if you feel your religion is being attacked, as this is not what I mean to do at all.

Now, I don't mean religion as is saying prayer in school, or learning about different religions in college or what-not.

What I mean by this thread, is should teachers, professors be constantly speaking about religion when there is no point in the matter.

Let me explain, I work at a tv studio for the college here in town. We have interactive classes, meaning for the people taking online courses or taking the courses on TV, they can sit down and watch their class live, or get on the internet and stream the lecture.

We were airing a class entitled "American Sports" it's being taught by the head of the christian department, leader of the christian group on campus and what not.

During the lecture, about American sports and how it came to be. He kept making references to Christianity, the bible, scripture and all that. What he was talking about had no reason that I could possibly fathom for even mentioning Christianity. Relating the color of a refs white and black shirt to heaven, purity, death etc.

Now the teacher is a very intelligent men, but intolerant as hell towards anyone not of his faith(I know this from multiple run-ins with the man, and talks with other people)

So, my question, should religion, any religion, meaning scriptures, references(or lack there of), be used when talking about topics having nothing to do with religion in the first place?

Or was how this guy taught his class an acceptable way to teach?

religion has a place in private religious schools, but not in a community college.

Public schools have the "no religion" policy to keep people of a different faith from being alienated, and to protect peoples opinions. I find it offensive that a teacher would force his religious views on students with out reguard for their own veiws.

I agree with Name_Violation..

My mother was brought up as a Christian, but neither me or my sister were really brought up as anything, we were instead taught about all kinds of different religions, which I greatly appreciate..

High School was the same, one of the GCSE's that I took was Religious Studies, my curiousity for which I believe stemmed from what my mother had taught me as a child. I still hold that curiousity to this day, not leaning toward one particular religion, but having respect and curiousity for all religions..

If someone were to try and 'force' one religion upon me though, I may find myself somewhat offended.. Not that I feel they are 'mistaken' or 'incorrect', that couldnt be further from the truth, but more a case of my upbringing..

Whilst I may have certain views or opinions on some religions, those are things Im reluctant to discuss even when asked, for fear of offending someone.

I deeply appreciate the way religion has been taught to me and when I have children, I hope I can teach them in a similar way.. however, if I were to find out that during my childs education, a particular religion were being forced upon them, in all honesty I would be somewhat annoyed.. as it may not be their belief.

I believe that if the people involved are comfortable with the discussion, then by all means, do it if it's something you'd like to talk about, or it's required for some reason.

In this instance however, I believe he was completely in the wrong. He might've been trying to reach non believers, but he's going about it the wrong way.

And he's not doing right by the students or his employers. He's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Or an assault charge.

Personally I don't have much personal stake in Religion so...

The question is one with many answers depending on the situation, but can be simplified down to: Yes, if appropriate.

The case you provide is clearly not a situation where this should be acceptable, as assuming that the colors a referee wears has anything to do with religious ideology.

Coming from a background of soccer/football, (I have Refereed, and my Father has been a FIFA level Referee) the main reason a referee traditionally wore black was to clearly standout from more colourful uniforms teams wear. Not to be some harbinger of death

Religion within religious studies however is a given, but even with some non-religious teachings it has applications. Modern civilization, classical books, ideology, government have all been influenced by forms of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindi and other religions, thus tales from their respected scripture and teachings may be of benefit as long as they are used and taught as aids for gaining a greater understanding of what has happened and why decisions made throughout history have been affected by the religion of the day.

That said, once a teacher decides to change their stance from teaching to preaching, than the context is lost and the class ceases to be based on learning to one of at best shepherding, to at worst converting.

It is easy to say that there should be a separation of Church and State/Education. However to turn a blind eye to the volume of religion within our shared histories would leave volumes of knowledge that would be incomplete.

So, yes, I would say that religion in a broader stance has meaning and value as a teaching method, but only when the person leading the class is wise enough to use the information as a tool, to help their students understand the world and not as a means to praise a higher deity.

I honestly hope that made sence, I apologize as I am half asleep, yet still awake thanks to a coughing GF.

In a history class, I could see religion being brought into discussion. Religion IS a major part of Human history after all. And I could definitely see it come into play in Philosophy class. But in a discussion about sports? That's a huge stretch.

Shadowman wrote:In a history class, I could see religion being brought into discussion. Religion IS a major part of Human history after all. And I could definitely see it come into play in Philosophy class. But in a discussion about sports? That's a huge stretch.

I agree. Religion is part of the human experience and should be treated as just another aspect of the human psyche. This can be done by careful wording and proper textbooks....I know it can be done, because we had a teacher in high school who did it flawlessly..and this was at a public high school with a class full of various religious backgrounds, and no one was in the slightest offended...as a matter of fact, it gave people an open forum to ask questions regarding religions they were previously unfamiliar with without the fear of persecution or condemnation.

I also have experienced teachers who are devout in their religious beliefs and literally brow-beat a class to the point that she was fired for her methods. Case in point...I wrote a paper on the right to chose in the case of Row v. Wade and got an F on it. The following semester, I used the same paper, VERBATIM, in another class and got an A on it.

There are ways to approach religion as a crucial part of the human sociology without bible-bashing or finger-pointing.

I'm going to agree with several others and say this guy is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I don't believe that religion should be completely removed from schools though. It's been proven that those with faith tend to do better in school than those without. I've only read about the cases, but I'd take no issue with stuff like school prayer. As long as it's kept generic and does'nt attack the faiths of others then it should'nt be a problem. The problem lies in minorities who feel that they have to inflict their will and faith on others which is what has created a school system in which the schools now try to remove god from class.

People need to learn that everyone can't be like them or worship the way they do and should'nt expect them to try. This is what causes more problems than neccessary and could be easily avoided if people as a whole were a little more tolerant of the faiths and ideals of others.

If the teacher in question were doing this in my class, I'd feel a little uncomfortable because browbeating doesn't do anyone any good. I'd feel uncomfortable, and I'm a Christian!

Heck, I'd feel jipped. I paid to learn topic X, not topic Y! I don't think I've ever heard of someone browbeating religion in class. I'm sure it's happened, but I don't know if it's common.

I had a college prof who was apparently a religious person, but never brought it up in the classroom. In fact, I wouldn't have known he was religious except through hearsay. Strictly professional. He was a nitpicker (oh, was he ever) but he didn't use his job as a soapbox. (The class was computer programming, BTW.)

Religion has no place in education whatsoever. The point of education is to enable children to grow into adults who can look at the issues of life and decide for themselves, not to indoctrinate them into one viewpoint before they've even started.

Sledge wrote:Religion has no place in education whatsoever. The point of education is to enable children to grow into adults who can look at the issues of life and decide for themselves, not to indoctrinate them into one viewpoint before they've even started.

while i agree with sledge fully, I do believe this was in college. That means trying to sway adults who probably have already come to their own decision, which may not be what the teacher is preachig about. I know teacher and preacher are 2 letters diferent, but the information given in school should not be what you would expect to learn at church. Preachers are allowed to teach to their followers, but teachers should not be allowed to preach to their students, religious schools aside.

Ah, my bad. Whilst standing by my original point then, I'll add that education had no place in this instance, as one shouldn't assume that all one's students are of the same religion. Even if he's making a comparison to illustrate a point, it's not going to be a useful comparison to people who don't share his knowledge of his faith.

Sledge wrote:Religion has no place in education whatsoever. The point of education is to enable children to grow into adults who can look at the issues of life and decide for themselves, not to indoctrinate them into one viewpoint before they've even started.

This depends on how you put religion into education. Preaching to students in bad, naturally. But in history class, you'd have a hard time NOT getting religion into it.

I'm not sure I'd disagree with you on that, but could you expand on the point a little?

Sledge wrote:I'm not sure I'd disagree with you on that, but could you expand on the point a little?

The Crusades were wrapped up in Religion, and helped shape the world as we know it, good or bad.

Even if you don't believe in a certain Religion, you have to learn about it to know your history.

Ancient Rome, the Middle East, Europe...all changed and shaped by the actions of many fighting in the name of God.

Though, it would be preferable if a teacher explained the people made the decision to fight, God didn't send them a message telling them to kill everything in sight.

Shadowman wrote:

Sledge wrote:Religion has no place in education whatsoever. The point of education is to enable children to grow into adults who can look at the issues of life and decide for themselves, not to indoctrinate them into one viewpoint before they've even started.

This depends on how you put religion into education. Preaching to students in bad, naturally. But in history class, you'd have a hard time NOT getting religion into it.

thats a given. you can't teach history without mentioning all the horrors religious zelotry has caused.

Thats why i worship the sun. it doesn't ask for anything. it provides me with warmth and fuels the things we need to survive. But i don't pray to the sun, that would be infringing on our relationship. I pray to Joe Peshi. One day i prayed to joe to make my neighbors dog quit barking. You'd be amazed what that man can accomplish with simple sporting equipment. like a baseball bat.

sorry had to paraphraze the great george carlin for a minute.

But seriously, religion has been the cause of more war than anything else in the history of man. and you couldn't explain history without explaining the atrocities that have been carried out in its name. But in a sports class it deffinately has no place. God didn't create foot ball, or hockey, or futbol, ect... Refferees wear black and white to distinguish themselves from the team members, and to show thats how the rules are written, in black and white...

I have a related story that annoyed the hell out of me.

In 2005, my sister graduated from High School and I was in the stands watching. One of the students giving a speech was a DEVOUT Christian and decided to take it upon herself to transform her speech into a sermon. I remember the phrase, "I accept Jesus as my one true god and you all should too".

This had no place in an otherwise pleasant event in my opinion.

I concur with others that religion in public schools (and events) should be limited to where they specifically apply - Philosophy and History.

I remember many a time discussing the religions of the world past and present in my History classes. Which I feel is essential to fully understand history. I don't think one can learn about the ancient Mediterranean/Middle Eastern Empires (Egypt, Persia, Greece, Carthage, Rome, Gaul, Macedon, Selucia, Byzantium, and Babylon) without learning about how the people who lived during that time lived their lives.

Sledge wrote:Religion has no place in education whatsoever. The point of education is to enable children to grow into adults who can look at the issues of life and decide for themselves, not to indoctrinate them into one viewpoint before they've even started.

I agree. Realistically, religion when mixed with education becomes too much of a stumbling block for younger minds. Kids can be taught about mythologies and things as just being stories, but then we have to be taught about the Judeo-christian faith as not being another set of stories, but as THE story and the right one. I think that's pretty crummy.
I went to a Catholic grade school and I got detention in second grade for daring to question free will. The ironic part is that asking that question was a terrific example of the exercise of free will. Anyhow, I got in trouble for asking a question, and that is so blatantly counterintuitive to the process and meaning of education that it still makes my head spin.
I know, that teacher wasn't indicative of all Catholics or Christians or whathaveyou, and that's all fine and good. My parents sent me to that school, and if I'd have had a choice in the matter I would not have gone to any kind of religiously affiliated school. I certainly do not want my kids going to a school that mixes faith and education as a principle part of it's reason for existance.
However, I'm also an English major, and I know that escaping from the religious mentions and references in said field is pretty much impossible. I used to teach at a public high school that had all kinds of Muslims and non-Christian students, and it was a battle at times trying to get them to understand a work that contained or relied on religious (i.e. Christian) references, so I do honestly think that a little bit of religious education can be useful in English classes at least, and history like Shadowman says. But, I don't think that the religious should be pushed differently as say, the mythological is or would be. Many of my non-Christian students knew Greek mythology, but didn't know about Jesus. I guess I'm ok with relgion being taught in a mythological perspective, and not as some sort of truth.
I bet that sounds like I'm baiting, and I'm not, honestly, but until the stories of gods or God can be like, honest to goodness proven, they are still stories which are believed based on faith. The Greeks had faith in Zeus, and so for all intent and purposes Zues and Jesus have to be considered by a religiously neutral public and state, as being essentially the same in that they are characters from mythology. That's not to be disrespectful, not in the least. I'm in favor of relgious education under a certain set of rules, and other than that, I'm really not ok with it. I'm pretty anti-religious, but I certainly don't try to ruin it for those who have faith.

I like your comparison, but it is flawed. Zeus was always a god, and therefore it can debated whether he existed.

Jesus was a man who's legacy transcended into a god. He did exist, but the extraordinary claims of his power bring his persona into the realm of mythology.

A proper equivalent would be the Egyptian Pharaohs or Persian Emperors who did exist, but claimed to be "God-Kings".

Fender Bender wrote:I like your comparison, but it is flawed. Zeus was always a god, and therefore it can debated whether he existed.

Jesus was a man who's legacy transcended into a god. He did exist, but the extraordinary claims of his power bring his persona into the realm of mythology.

A proper equivalent would be the Egyptian Pharaohs or Persian Emperors who did exist, but claimed to be "God-Kings".

First off, I've been thinking. I hope nobody gets offended by what I said. I've missed this forum, and certainly don't want to be the guy that starts all the trouble so soon after getting it back. A part of philosophical discussion is not HAVING to apologize for what you believe and I'm not doing that. I'm just saying I hope no one took offense, as there honestly was none intended.

Ok Fender, I see your point. But didn't Jesus 'claim' to be the Son of God? I'm trying to follow your 'god-king' line here, so let me see if this fits....

I know that there is historical evidence to support the life of Jesus, but that it's about as accurate as records of other peoples' lives from that time. Plus, if he really is the son of the God and therefor in reality was the Jesus of the Bible, wouldn't that be just as suspect as Washington chopping down the cherry tree or other such kinds of historical fiction/truth? Like those stories that make certain historical figures seem likable or embellishes their real natures? Like Johnny Appleseed? I'd bet twenty dollars that says some guy really did walk across the country throwing seeds around, but was it really the one that has become the kind of Americana myth?
I think the point I'm trying to make stems from the claim that JEsus was the Son of God. I could claim to be the Son of God, and since we cannot prove God-for lack of a better phrase-wouldn't it have to be taken on faith that I either am or am not? So it could be possible, that just like Xerxes, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and thus elevated himself to the position that others and history have looked at him as occupying?
As for any of this relating to religion being an educational tool, I still don't think that it should be used as such. We have representations of the Greek gods through art and stories of them survive as myth. Ultimately, just as we cannot factually prove God or Jesus the Christ, we can't disprove pantheistic gods and godessess, and the development or worship of new gods does not equal the elimination of old gods. They may not be worshipped anymore, but they don't disappear.

Ok, I'm sorry. I know that got turned around a few times. Good luck deciphering it. I'm in a rush today so sorry for the lack of cohesion.

I was under the impression (and as a dedicated agnostic, I try not to waste much time on this level of minutiae) that Jesus never claimed to be all those things, it was his followers who proclaimed that he was.

Sledge wrote:I was under the impression (and as a dedicated agnostic, I try not to waste much time on this level of minutiae) that Jesus never claimed to be all those things, it was his followers who proclaimed that he was.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God very often. That's ultimately what led to his crucifixion. It's rather a very important part of Christianity, not on a level of minutae at all in terms of knowing about Christianity.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

Sledge wrote:I was under the impression (and as a dedicated agnostic, I try not to waste much time on this level of minutiae) that Jesus never claimed to be all those things, it was his followers who proclaimed that he was.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God very often. That's ultimately what led to his crucifixion. It's rather a very important part of Christianity, not on a level of minutae at all in terms of knowing about Christianity.

Sledge is right, to my knowledge....Jesus claimed to be the "son of man"...he never once claimed to be the "son of god"...not in any version of the bible I have ever read. It was his followers that proclaimed him the "son of god" and the "messiah".

If you do know of a version that has him claim he's god's son, please let me know which version, so I can update my information.

Thanks!

Wow. I'm absolutely stunned that they brought this place back. Missed it a bit, but didn't expect to see a return (debate forums on boards not specifically geared to debates, in my experience, tend to collapse sooner or later, as this one once did.) It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

Anyway, I'm personally in favour of separation of Church and State where at all possible. Religion-oriented private schools exist for a reason, after all, as do the various places of worship associated with them. Frankly, gotta' agree that the guy in the OP is a problem.

Now, for some fun:

robofreak wrote: It's been proven that those with faith tend to do better in school than those without.

Since we're working under the idea that the Philosopher's Forum is a place for intelligent discussion and Debate, I think it'd be a good idea to keep to rules concerning Honesty in Arguments. Namely, this statement here would be much better with a link to some kind of Study to back it up, as it makes a claim about something being a 'proven' fact without offering said proof alongside.

Pyrostrata wrote:Jesus claimed to be the Son of God very often. That's ultimately what led to his crucifixion. It's rather a very important part of Christianity, not on a level of minutae at all in terms of knowing about Christianity.

Sledge is right, to my knowledge....Jesus claimed to be the "son of man"...he never once claimed to be the "son of god"...not in any version of the bible I have ever read. It was his followers that proclaimed him the "son of god" and the "messiah".

If you do know of a version that has him claim he's god's son, please let me know which version, so I can update my information.[/quote]

$%#&#^*@%&@#%&#%^*!!! I had a whole section with citations from John, but the computer decided to do its "I'm going to pop open the window you just switched from whiel you try to close another window, thereby closing this window" trick. Now my whole thing was lost. You'll have to wait until a bit later.

#%^#, Windows has some piss poor habits.