The religious discussion thread

[Archangel]

This thread was created to bring a local new story to light, which can be viewed below:

JACKSON, Ohio (AP) — An Ohio school district decided Tuesday night to keep a portrait of Jesus hanging in the school where it's been 65 years, denying a federal lawsuit's claim the portrait's display unconstitutionally promotes religion in a public school.

The Jackson City Schools board offered a constitutional justification of its own in voting 4-0 to keep the portrait up in its middle school, saying it must protect students' free speech rights. The vote drew cheers and applause from the dozens of people gathered in the elementary school gymnasium.

Read all of it here: http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-school-b...xzBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0A1Rlc3RfQUZD;_ylv=3

I posted his here @ NP to see what ppl had to say on the issue. As it turns out, this sparked many debates. I've considered closing this thread but after multiple suggestions, I decided to keep it open. Feel free to join in the topics but per forum rules, please refrain from obscene, threatening, rude, or insulting posts.

 

[enlytend]

Actually you can't adapt something that is more powerful than you, you can't adapt something that don't want to be adapted.

(??? That doesn't make sense in the context of the discussion...)

Adapt = Become adjusted to new/changing conditions.

In a sentence: Dinosaurs are extinct because they couldn't adapt to the changing climate, volcanos, disease, or whatever happened at the beginning of the Cretaceous period which killed off 70% of all species.

or

People who can't adapt to modern technology often have a difficult time in our increasingly techno-centric world.

Change is the only true constant in life. We live in a very different and more interconnected world than what existed a couple thousand years ago.

 

[DU]

That's the beauty of it. The kids will be mildly exposed to religion through their peers, if at all.

Public school is not the place to formally teach religion or promote it in any way. As a parent, you can take your kids to church or send them to private school if you feel that strongly about the scripture.

Here's a religious summary for the children.

Who needs education when you can sum it up in one chart, eh?

Your method discounts herd mentality, what being a minority it, secular teaching. Religious education is not about teaching scripture - it's about putting religion in a historically and worldly context.

What and who was Jesus? How did he survive with all those dinosaurs running around? How did he end up with such a poor suntan?

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------

There is, after all, a difference between telling ppl the story of Christ and preaching about how He loves everyone & how “gays will burn in hell so don’t ever turn gay” etc.

Jesus loves everyone? Even gays?

A study of religion in debate might discuss the concept of Jesus loving everyone as an opinion but that's not what would be taught.

Religious education is educating about a religion, its basis and its impact and not a real commentary on its merits or failures (except in the form of open discussion).

It can work. It was mandatory when I was in school and we learned a lot about Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which were religions all healthily present in my school.

 

[twomoon]

(??? That doesn't make sense in the context of the discussion...)

Adapt = Become adjusted to new/changing conditions.

In a sentence: Dinosaurs are extinct because they couldn't adapt to the changing climate, volcanos, disease, or whatever happened at the beginning of the Cretaceous period which killed off 70% of all species.

or

People who can't adapt to modern technology often have a difficult time in our increasingly techno-centric world.

Change is the only true constant in life. We live in a very different and more interconnected world than what existed a couple thousand years ago.

Maybe i was not correct in my reply.

I was talking about religion groups and society. All this changes that I was talking about (teaching at schools that people can be gay and it's okay, outstanding tolerance to everything etc.) it's not a progress but regress.
By the more powerful I meant the religions that have more straight and powerful positions than Christians right now.
In religion the strongest are those who follow their strong traditions.

 

[enlytend]

In religion the strongest are those who follow their strong traditions.

The RELIGION is strong, because the dogma is pushed upon every generation. Is that really a good thing? Is intolerance productive in an increasingly interconnected and diverse world?

 

[JB Lions]

My dear friends, the only thing I want to say now, that fully describes my point of view is:

You could be very liberal, tolerant to everything, you could love everyone and everything - because people are soooo different. Let the stuff about gay people would be learned in your schools, let the pictures of Jesus won't be in these schools, let the Christmas Tree would be "cubic", btw why do you need the crosses on the churches? (maybe the offend someone too) etc. etc. But spend just 2 minutes of your life and think about in what society would you children live in. Especially keeping in mind that children in other religions and cultures generally have not so liberal parents as you are. They raise men and women, with their very strong traditions and understanding that the man need to be a man and the woman need to the woman.
But, guys, don't forget the world we'are leaving in. One of the main rules of the Nature is that the strong eat the weak. Now who would be the weak? I know the answer. And you? I guess you simply don't care. Your choice.

What? So you're saying these other cultures where the "woman need to be the woman" which is usually second class citizens, is better, more powerful, something like that? And if you're against gays and such, that makes you a strong society etc.? If so, you have it ass backwards. A strong society is one that is open and not fearful of bs. I don't remember if it was you or somebody else in some other thread talking about how society would crumble if such things were allowed to happen. And then me asking Gilsan, did Portugal crumble because they allow gay marriage now? Of course not. You're just repeating some fearful nonsense you were taught. You would get a pass if you were a child and your parents taught you this, because parents are a child's foundation. But there comes a time in life where you should have grown up, become an adult, think for yourself and forgive your parents, knowing they were just passing down the same nonsense they were taught. Eventually you have to break the cycle.

A society fearful of 2 women getting married is not strong, it's weak as hell. Beware the lesbians*, boo.

That's for the 2 women that fought for those rights in Portugal, and now they can legally wed.

 

[Keith]

Religious education is not about teaching scripture - it's about putting religion in a historically and worldly context.

It can work. It was mandatory when I was in school and we learned a lot about Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity which were religions all healthily present in my school.

Most of my schooling was done at a Christian academy. My family spent many Sundays at a baptist church. My experience at both places was the scripture being rammed down my throat. History had little to do with it. The basic message was, you better believe in god or else you're screwed!

Your educational experience sounds much different. Were you taught at a public school, payed for with tax money? My wife is a teacher, I've never heard of such a diverse school as yours but I'll ask her.

 

[DU]

Your educational experience sounds much different. Were you taught at a public school, payed for with tax money? My wife is a teacher, I've never heard of such a diverse school as yours but I'll ask her.

UK. May have been C of E.

My first RE teacher was a christian who taught primarily from a C of E bent but it was still looking at the bible from a non-religious context. He also taught about Sikhism, Buddhism but was clearly not quite as comfortable. Being in the UK meant a lot of my friends were 1st generation English Indians. It was an interesting time to see them be brought up in England with many of them having very traditional parents.

It was tax payer and my parents hated the concept of RE (they are atheist). The reality was that I thoroughly enjoyed learning about the different religions (after all, many of my friends were Sikh, for example). My parents were a but shocked to find out I liked it.

History in general covered religion in a different way. How can you learn about the Protestant Reformation without understanding relgion? How can you discuss Kant vs Hume without understanding religion? Most people are shocked to learn that Newton and Darwin were religious (Darwin studied to become a clergyman). This fact adds a lot to the story of evolution.

I don't believe that evolution destroys the concept of God.. and I don't believe the concept of God destroys evolution and I think I can do that because I can respect both positions. This I think stems in part from how religion was addressed as a much more critical thought. (Some people will be upset that I say concept of God - that's to be expected right now.)

I find fundamentalism of all kinds annoying. Fundamentalist atheism is no better than fundamentalist evangelism.

I do believe that what you practise should be private and I think the biggest reality and difference though between then (my schooling) and now is that religion just wasn't that big a deal and now it has become a real problem.

I don't believe the U.S. is built to handle religious education in public schools right now. We can teach black history and women's suffrage so it's just a matter of getting to a place where people are more comfortable talking openly about things ... I'd like to believe it can be done.

Education should be about learning to understand each other and not about teaching the other

Hope that makes sense.

 

[GILSAN]

DU... what´s rhe meaning of C of E

 

[enlytend]

Church of England

I was raised in the US offshoot of the C of E - can't speak for the original, but the US version is a very accepting and inclusive denomination.

 

[DU]

DU... what´s rhe meaning of C of E

Church of England... But the more I think I dont think it was. We did have assembly and hymns though which I largely ignored.

Theyre a scientific school now according to the website.

Times change!

 

[GILSAN]

When I was in school in my history lessons we learned about Martin Luther breaking away from the Catholic church in Germany in protest to certain teachings and started the Protestant doctrines, or about the Anglican (Church of England) and how it succeeded from the influence of Rome, or the many Catholic and Protestant missionaries in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

The Catholic Inquisition, the Muslim conquests and invasions, the African slave trade, the Barbary Pirates (virtually no one talks about them) whose main purpose of attacks along the Mediterranean coast, to as far north as the UK and even to my own Madeira Island was to capture Christian slaves (especially women) for the Islamic market in North Africa and the Middle East. Most of these things were done in the name of God or Allah or whatever. We learned about all these things, not in great detail, but enough to give us a better understanding and in the correct context of History.

So it’s impossible, as DU rightly says, to separate Religion from History.

 

[JB Lions]

"So it’s impossible, as DU rightly says, to separate Religion from History."

I don't really seeing anybody saying that. What you just posted is factual/historic type stuff. The point is, in a public school with various backgrounds, you shouldn't favor/push one religion over another. It could be something like what this thread is about or praising Jesus/saying a prayer before a football game.

 

[Archangel]

This is.. interesting, to say the least:

Schools use KKK ruling to keep Jesus painting

In a legal sense, Jackson City Schools is likening the display of a painting of Jesus in a middle school to a Ku Klux Klan cross outside the Ohio Statehouse.

Rejecting the state’s argument that such displays represented a government endorsement of religion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that the KKK was entitled to place a Christmastime cross in a “public forum” such as the Statehouse grounds.

The court found that the cross was protected private speech because Capitol Square has long served as a public sounding board; even a religious message near the heart of government was legal if privately sponsored.

Officials in the southern Ohio school district and their attorneys cited the case, filed on behalf of a Klan leader by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in defending the display of the painting against a lawsuit seeking its removal as an unconstitutional intermingling of church and state.

Read it all here http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ls-use-kkk-ruling-to-keep-jesus-painting.html

 

[Keith]

This is.. interesting, to say the least:

Schools use KKK ruling to keep Jesus painting



Read it all here http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ls-use-kkk-ruling-to-keep-jesus-painting.html

The kkk display was a law passed for temporary placement. The school and it's lawyers are typical in the sense that they used whatever they could to push their agenda. I hope they lose if the case moves forward!

 

[Archangel]

Some (like GILSAN) argue with me and that's okay. The thing here that irks me the most is that when the schools here see students doing anything that disrupts the educational system, they end it via suspension or whathaveyou. This painting issue is the biggest disruption of education we've ever had (my hometown, Wellston, had a teachers' strike in the late 90s). This is making students, teachers etc take their focus away from the educational process. Had a student came to school with a religious shirt on, he'd face suspension. But this is "okay" because it's related to their religion of choice and thus, a blind eye is turned to the issue, as though there is no "disruption" at all. Filthy hypocrites.

 

[twomoon]

What? So you're saying these other cultures where the "woman need to be the woman" which is usually second class citizens, is better, more powerful, something like that? And if you're against gays and such, that makes you a strong society etc.? If so, you have it ass backwards. A strong society is one that is open and not fearful of bs. I don't remember if it was you or somebody else in some other thread talking about how society would crumble if such things were allowed to happen. And then me asking Gilsan, did Portugal crumble because they allow gay marriage now? Of course not. You're just repeating some fearful nonsense you were taught. You would get a pass if you were a child and your parents taught you this, because parents are a child's foundation. But there comes a time in life where you should have grown up, become an adult, think for yourself and forgive your parents, knowing they were just passing down the same nonsense they were taught. Eventually you have to break the cycle.

A society fearful of 2 women getting married is not strong, it's weak as hell. Beware the lesbians*, boo.

That's for the 2 women that fought for those rights in Portugal, and now they can legally wed.

First of all I wasn't taught by my parents or someone else the things that I'm beleive in now. I was born in a former USSR, so everything was totally different. Till today my society thanks God is not so open as yours.
It's just the common sense, my eyes and self-preservation are helping me.
Have you ever heard about statistics? Well I advice you to read some stats about population/religious groups in the Europe. How it was changed during say last 20 years.

As for the gays. Well maybe you already have info about some advanced technologies, with help of which, even f##ing in the ass causes pregnancy.
I didn't heard about something like that for now.
Plus it's unnatural.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Interesting decision.

That opens all kinds of doors for the display of religious and other famous figures, including Allah, Satan, Hitler, etc.

It may be a bumpy ride for this community.

:imho:

*

This is.. interesting, to say the least:

Schools use KKK ruling to keep Jesus painting



Read it all here http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ls-use-kkk-ruling-to-keep-jesus-painting.html

 

[GILSAN]

Some (like GILSAN) argue with me and that's okay. The thing here that irks me the most is that when the schools here see students doing anything that disrupts the educational system, they end it via suspension or whathaveyou. This painting issue is the biggest disruption of education we've ever had (my hometown, Wellston, had a teachers' strike in the late 90s). This is making students, teachers etc take their focus away from the educational process. Had a student came to school with a religious shirt on, he'd face suspension. But this is "okay" because it's related to their religion of choice and thus, a blind eye is turned to the issue, as though there is no "disruption" at all. Filthy hypocrites.

I'm glad we agree to disagree.

So apparently for 65 years there was no disruption at that school while the painting was there, but now after one student and his parents complained, the disruption started, is that correct?

Why are the people that are complaining about the picture not identifying themselves?

 

[JB Lions]

As for the gays. Well maybe you already have info about some advanced technologies, with help of which, even f##ing in the ass causes pregnancy.
I didn't heard about something like that for now.
Plus it's unnatural.

So sex is the first thing you think about with this. First, what people do is none of your business. And using your reasoning, I guess you're against oral sex as well, since I've never heard of anybody getting pregnant that way either.

 

[Keith]

Why are the people that are complaining about the picture not identifying themselves?

Does that matter?

The real question is, why has the picture been displayed when we have separation of church and state? I want to display a picture of 70 virgins because that's part of my religious belief. What say you?