World Religions taught in public schools?

[AriaStar]

Is there's one good thing my home town of Modesto, California, ever got right, it's that World Religions is now a requirement to graduate. Not preachy-preachy, but just teaching the kids about different religions. Personally I think it's a fantastic idea. What is the harm in simply learning about how others believe?

What do you think?

[phatlip12]

Why not? Part of learning about different cultures is learning their beliefs. I see why not.

[AriaStar]

If you see why not, please share that? Or was that a typo? I can't tell if you're in favor or against it.

[Ryudo]

I had a world religion class I took in jr high.

[GoNZooo]

Learning about different religions isn't standard in all of the US?

[AriaStar]

Learning about different religions isn't standard in all of the US?

It's outright illegal in many parts for a teacher to even breathe the word "religion" or to mention any god. Basically the message sent is that "other religions," meaning any other than your own, are to be feared. If you can't speak of it, it's something to fear.

World religion classes are not standard, and Modesto is the only school district in the country that now requires high-schoolers to take it to graduate high school.

[Ryudo]

Learning about different religions isn't standard in all of the US?

I guess not.
I had it in jr high and an option in high school but seems some states from what I am hearing don't offer it.

But maybe that is why our system is one of the worst in the world.

[matsie]

I went to Catholic school. World Religions was required both in middle school and high school. I've found I'm much more familiar with other religions than they are with mine. A lot of misconceptions of the Catholic Church out there.

I think teaching World Religions in public schools is fine. It doesn't violate the separation of Church and State. It's more of a cultural studies course/anthropology than anything else. It's learning about the religious belief system that has shaped many a different culture. It's also seeing how religion DOES influence culture, which many people don't realize. Religion does not equal culture and vice versa. They are related and they definitely influence each other, but are not the same thing.

[Guytheninja]

Why not? Part of learning about different cultures is learning their beliefs. I see why not.

I actually went to a private Christian school --- so I learned about Christianity in detail :D.

However, as for a public school setting, how would you teach such a class?

Take this story on Digg.com for instance: "Jesus in China"
http://digg.com/world_news/Jesus_in_China_3

These Christians will not have the same political views (in general of course) as most Christians in America --- or Christians in Africa. So how do you deal with this?

I think such a class would be too simplistic. You can't just say that China has Buddhists, America has Christians, and India has Hindu's. Anyway, I'm not trying to preach on a soapbox, I just think it would be difficult to teach this class accurately.

[matsie]

I actually went to a private Christian school --- so I learned about Christianity in detail :D.

However, as for a public school setting, how would you teach such a class?

Take this story on Digg.com for instance: "Jesus in China"
http://digg.com/world_news/Jesus_in_China_3

These Christians will not have the same political views (in general of course) as most Christians in America --- or Christians in Africa. So how do you deal with this?

I think such a class would be too simplistic. You can't just say that China has Buddhists, America has Christians, and India has Hindu's. Anyway, I'm not trying to preach on a soapbox, I just think it would be difficult to teach this class accurately.

I take it you've never actually had a World Religions course, have you? In a world religions course they discuss the differences between Christians in the United State v Europe v Asia v Africa. The debates over condom usage in Africa because of the AIDS epidemic was one way we discussed cultural differences in religion. I also learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Protestantism (we delved into several different Protestant religions, but since there is a great deal of similarity in many of these religions, we dealt with them a bit more generally), Islam (including the difference between a shi'ite and suni...), Judaism. I also took a class in high school about the ways various different religions dealt with death. The class would only be simplistic if the teacher made it so.

[techliveadmin]

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Anthropology is my minor, and I think cultural and religion classes should be mandatory. I'm glad it's mandatory in Modesto. The US could learn a thing or two from that district.

[GoNZooo]

... I just think it would be difficult to teach this class accurately.
My latest class in religion dealt with the subject matter just like I wanted it to. It explored the history of different religions (judaism, christianity (lutheran and catholic as well as calvinistic), islam, with a brief journey into new age stuff), where they exist in the world and in what numbers, what kind of connection they have to the countries they exist in, what moral ground they stand on, etc.

There was also a part about ethics, where we examined a lot of different things, expressing our own opinions on things as well as examined different religions' view of things.

What I wanted out of the class wasn't to hear some made up story about burning bushes and how there is a god (because at the end of the day I believe the important writings in the religions I mentioned earlier are not accounts of what happened, but stories made up to teach people something), it was to better understand how people within different religions live and reason. The class did exactly that.

[matsie]

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.


Making some gross over-generalization does NOT help a cause. My high school NEVER taught me such things. In fact, one of my Muslim friends did an entire presentation for the class on the grieving rituals surrounding a traditional Muslim funeral. In my classes, we were taught that those terrorist groups who have attacked the United States are NOT representative of all Muslims. That's like saying that the people who bomb abortion clinics represent all pro-life people. It's simply NOT true and undermines any point you may try to make later.

Do NOT tell me what my school taught me about Muslims because you are WRONG.

[Guytheninja]

I take it you've never actually had a World Religions course, have you? In a world religions course they discuss the differences between Christians in the United State v Europe v Asia v Africa. The debates over condom usage in Africa because of the AIDS epidemic was one way we discussed cultural differences in religion. I also learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Protestantism (we delved into several different Protestant religions, but since there is a great deal of similarity in many of these religions, we dealt with them a bit more generally), Islam (including the difference between a shi'ite and suni...), Judaism. I also took a class in high school about the ways various different religions dealt with death. The class would only be simplistic if the teacher made it so.

I see. You are correct, I did not have a "world religions" class.

Instead I had a class on Christian Apologetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

[Bohemian_Beauty]

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.

Sorry, sweetheart. You're very wrong.

I can not speak for every school in this nation, but I'm sure if there were any, they are very very VERY few and far between, and wouldn't be a school as a whole, but maybe a teacher or two.

[msmags]

I'm not a religious person by any means, but I do think that it is a good idea for people to be educated on the different types of religions that exist in the world, and to understand the differences between them. If kids are taught world religions in school, perhaps there would be more tolerance and less hate.

The more educated about a topic you are, the more likely it is that you'll be understanding and compassionate, rather than quickly jump to hate and racism.

[matsie]

I see. You are correct, I did not have a "world religions" class.

Instead I had a class on Christian Apologetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

My school didn't really deal with Christian Apologetics. But I've found that's more common in Christian schools as opposed to Catholic schools. There are varying degrees of conservatism in Catholic schools, but for the most part I've found they give a pretty good world view of religion to students. Or at least, the Catholic schools my friends and I went to. (Metro-Detroit area Catholic schools, about 10 different ones.)

[phatlip12]

If you see why not, please share that? Or was that a typo? I can't tell if you're in favor or against it.

In favor.

[phatlip12]

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.

How would you know? I live here, I went to the schools here. I as long as everyone else here can confirm that's not even remotley true. At all.

[Guytheninja]

My school didn't really deal with Christian Apologetics. But I've found that's more common in Christian schools as opposed to Catholic schools. There are varying degrees of conservatism in Catholic schools, but for the most part I've found they give a pretty good world view of religion to students. Or at least, the Catholic schools my friends and I went to. (Metro-Detroit area Catholic schools, about 10 different ones.)

My hometown of 50,000 had one Catholic school, and it was very conservative.

[matsie]

My hometown of 50,000 had one Catholic school, and it was very conservative.

Oh, I won't deny that there are very conservative Catholic schools out there. That's for damn sure! But I think it definitely matters where you live. I think there's a bit more of a spectrum conservative <-> liberal in Catholicism than in a lot of other Christian religions. Presbyterians and Lutherans being some exceptions to that statement. I'm not trying to make an affront to other Christian religions, so if I come off that way, I apologize.

[matsie]

I also think there is a lot of Catholic hating because it's kind of easy to make pot shots at a religion that's struggling with it's archaic hierarchical system and child sex abuse issues.

ETA: Oh, just so you know. I'm not terribly religious or anything. I'm just fascinated by the ways people of varying religions interact with each other and the different stigmas each religion holds.

[techliveadmin]

I think you all are greatly misguided. Not religious wise, but concious wise. As of late I have been the target of many Christian groups on my blog, threatening my life.

I have seen videos of the ridicule my people get in your lands.

Sure 9/11 happened, but why take it out on all?

It hurts me to know that you all think theres no stigma of Muslims in your country.

[matsie]

I think you all are greatly misguided. Not religious wise, but concious wise. As of late I have been the target of many Christian groups on my blog, threatening my life.

I have seen videos of the ridicule my people get in your lands.

Sure 9/11 happened, but why take it out on all?

It hurts me to know that you all think theres no stigma of Muslims in your country.

You're the misguided one who believes a minority represents the whole of a country. I don't think those who killed in the name of Allah represent all of the religious views of Islam. In fact, I believe the opposite. They have perverted the teachings of Mohammed. They do not represent what Muslims believe.

You, however, insist the super right wing fundamentalist religious groups represent all of Christianity. You, sir, are the bigot. Not us.

[phatlip12]

I think you all are greatly misguided. Not religious wise, but concious wise. As of late I have been the target of many Christian groups on my blog, threatening my life.

I have seen videos of the ridicule my people get in your lands.

Sure 9/11 happened, but why take it out on all?

It hurts me to know that you all think theres no stigma of Muslims in your country.

So because SOME Christian people are doing bad things and saying bad things to you that means we're all like that?

So thats to say it's ok for me to believe all Muslims are like the ones that drove planes into the twin towers? It's the same thing. Pure hypocrisy.

You can't judge millions of people based upon the actions of a few.

[matsie]

Also, no one said there were not people who think that all Muslims are like the terrorists. We refuted your claim that ALL schools in the United States teach children to hate Muslims. That is a rarity.

[phatlip12]

Also, no one said there were not people who think that all Muslims are like the terrorists. We refuted your claim that ALL schools in the United States teach children to hate Muslims. That is a rarity.

SOME Muslims are terrorists. SOME Islamic schools in the middle east teach children to hate all non Islamic people. I guess that means all muslims do the same.

It's the same sort of thinking.

[Ryudo]

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

[matsie]

SOME Muslims are terrorists. SOME Islamic schools in the middle east teach children to hate all non Islamic people. I guess that means all muslims do the same.

It's the same sort of thinking.

Exactly. We pretty much pointed out the same thing within seconds of each other.

[Ryudo]

Some people think Mormons or members of the LDS church practice polygamy and were part of that Texas thing ..not the case as they were a separate group ..much like some might believe all muslims are evil since 9/11 but that is not what is what is taught in schools..people who believe these misconceptions are uneducated and paranoid.

I don't believe those people who committed those acts of terrorism represented the Muslims....just one small group of monsters who try and pass as a human being.

[esophagus]

I think you all are greatly misguided. Not religious wise, but concious wise. As of late I have been the target of many Christian groups on my blog, threatening my life.

I have seen videos of the ridicule my people get in your lands.

Sure 9/11 happened, but why take it out on all?

It hurts me to know that you all think theres no stigma of Muslims in your country.TLA, I think the problem is that you said schools taught this. There are stigmas associated with being Muslim. I'm sure there are teachers who believe them, I'm sure there are parents who pass it on to their children, and I'm sure their are people to ignorant to be making up their own mind deciding that, but it isn't taught in schools. Mostly because its wrong, partially because of the liability involved.

[Guytheninja]

I think you all are greatly misguided. Not religious wise, but concious wise. As of late I have been the target of many Christian groups on my blog, threatening my life.

I have seen videos of the ridicule my people get in your lands.

Sure 9/11 happened, but why take it out on all?

It hurts me to know that you all think theres no stigma of Muslims in your country.

What christian groups have been talking to you?

"Although Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, they reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, comparing it to polytheism. In Islamic theology, Jesus was just a man and not the son of God;[23] God is described in a chapter (sura) of the Qur'an as "…God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.""[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Actually, Christians like to talk to Muslims because they acknowledge Jesus Christ as a prophet --- so at least Muslims have a positive view of Jesus Christ right off the bat.

[esophagus]

What christian groups have been talking to you?

"Although Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, they reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, comparing it to polytheism. In Islamic theology, Jesus was just a man and not the son of God;[23] God is described in a chapter (sura) of the Qur'an as "…God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.""[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Actually, Christians like to talk to Muslims because they acknowledge Jesus Christ as a prophet --- so at least Muslims have a positive view of Jesus Christ right off the bat.I really disagree.

Partially because Muslims have a negative spin in our society, partially because they don't believe in Jesus as a god.

[matsie]

TLA, I think the problem is that you said schools taught this. There are stigmas associated with being Muslim. I'm sure there are teachers who believe them, I'm sure there are parents who pass it on to their children, and I'm sure their are people to ignorant to be making up their own mind deciding that, but it isn't taught in schools. Mostly because its wrong, partially because of the liability involved.

It's not just that he said we teach children that in our schools. It's the fact that it's okay for him to be a total hypocrite and lump all Americans/Christians together as believing and backing something, but it's not okay for Muslims to all be lumped together and generalized.

He comes off as a bigot and ignorant. He comes off just as bad as those he is attempting to malign. He is a hypocrite and doesn't know the least bit of what he is talking about.

[phatlip12]

I really disagree.

Partially because Muslims have a negative spin in our society, partially because they don't believe in Jesus as a god.

Again, you can't generalize an entire group of people. I'm a Christian and have nothing against Muslims or talking to them.

[esophagus]

Again, you can't generalize an entire group of people. I'm a Christian and have nothing against Muslims or talking to them.
Exactly. He said that all Christians like Muslims on that basis. I pointed out reasons why some Christians might feel differently. I know there are Christians who like Muslims, and some even for the reason he mentioned.

[phatlip12]

It's not just that he said we teach children that in our schools. It's the fact that it's okay for him to be a total hypocrite and lump all Americans/Christians together as believing and backing something, but it's not okay for Muslims to all be lumped together and generalized.

He comes off as a bigot and ignorant. He comes off just as bad as those he is attempting to malign. He is a hypocrite and doesn't know the least bit of what he is talking about.

Not only that but I doubt he'll even comment on our arguments because he's so blindly set in his belief (even though its completely hypocritical).

Thats not the first hypocritical thing I've heard him say as of lately. Just a few days ago his status on faceook said something like:

"I don't hate all Jews. I just hate Jews that hate."

Kind or ironic?

[esophagus]

It's not just that he said we teach children that in our schools. It's the fact that it's okay for him to be a total hypocrite and lump all Americans/Christians together as believing and backing something, but it's not okay for Muslims to all be lumped together and generalized.

He comes off as a bigot and ignorant. He comes off just as bad as those he is attempting to malign. He is a hypocrite and doesn't know the least bit of what he is talking about.
Don't be a douche.

His opinion of what Americans feel about his religion is all he can base an opinion off of, and that leaves him the Christian groups flaming his blog and the people consistently shooting down any of his attempts to mention Islam here. I'd probably think the same way as I was him.

[phatlip12]

Don't be a douche.

His opinion of what Americans feel about his religion is all he can base an opinion off of, and that leaves him the Christian groups flaming his blog and the people consistently shooting down any of his attempts to mention Islam here. I'd probably think the same way as I was him.

So its okay for me to think all Muslims are terrorists based on 9/11? It's the same thing. Nothing really justifies that sort of thinking.

[AriaStar]

I guess not.
I had it in jr high and an option in high school but seems some states from what I am hearing don't offer it.

But maybe that is why our system is one of the worst in the world.

That was something touched on in the news story, that America has a lot of wrong notions because we are taught so little about other religions.

[AriaStar]

I actually went to a private Christian school --- so I learned about Christianity in detail :D.

However, as for a public school setting, how would you teach such a class?

Take this story on Digg.com for instance: "Jesus in China"
http://digg.com/world_news/Jesus_in_China_3

These Christians will not have the same political views (in general of course) as most Christians in America --- or Christians in Africa. So how do you deal with this?

I think such a class would be too simplistic. You can't just say that China has Buddhists, America has Christians, and India has Hindu's. Anyway, I'm not trying to preach on a soapbox, I just think it would be difficult to teach this class accurately.

It teaches the basics that each religion believes and the differences between the same religion in different areas. And IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING. Just because every religion and every area can't be taught in painstaking detail doesn't mean we should all keep our heads in the sand.

Ignorance breeds fear breeds hate.

[Guytheninja]

I really disagree.

Partially because Muslims have a negative spin in our society, partially because they don't believe in Jesus as a god.

That may not be true where I am. I've never really gotten that vibe.
I think that feeling was strong right after 9/11, but its pretty much faded.

Hating your fellow man takes a toll. I mean, would you want to hate a group of people just for the heck of it? It would warp your mind --- you wouldn't think correctly. Hatred is exhausting. Its much easier just to live and let live.

But if you do find someone who does hate his fellow man due to the color of their skin (or religion etc) --- AVOID THEM. If they are willing to harm their fellow man over something trivial like skin color, it doesn't take much for them to harm you as well.

[AriaStar]

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.

The media does a good enough job of that.

[Rokov]

Anything that increases understanding of other cultures is a good thing and as long as it's taught without any bias, I think it's a great idea. I've been fascinated by comparative religion for many years and have done a lot of studying on my own (which is odd for an agnostic lol), so I kind of wish they had this when I was in school. If it had been done a lot sooner and in many more places, I probably wouldn't had to explain so much when I've mentioned to people that I'm Buddhist.

[AriaStar]

Anthropology is my minor, and I think cultural and religion classes should be mandatory. I'm glad it's mandatory in Modesto. The US could learn a thing or two from that district.

Believe you me, it's the only thing that godawful city has right. But it is still something all schools should emulate.

[esophagus]

That may not be true where I am. I've never really gotten that vibe.
I think that feeling was strong right after 9/11, but its pretty much faded.

Hating your fellow man takes a toll. I mean, would you want to hate a group of people just for the heck of it? It would warp your mind --- you wouldn't think correctly. Hatred is exhausting. Its much easier just to live and let live.

But if you do find someone who does hate his fellow man due to the color of their skin (or religion etc) --- AVOID THEM. If they are willing to harm their fellow man over something trivial like skin color, it doesn't take much for them to harm you as well.As I said in a later post, I'm sure there are lots of Christians who feel that way, I was just saying not all do.

[AriaStar]

Sorry, sweetheart. You're very wrong.

I can not speak for every school in this nation, but I'm sure if there were any, they are very very VERY few and far between, and wouldn't be a school as a whole, but maybe a teacher or two.

I think he might mean that schools do little, if anything, to stop the beliefs about Muslims that run so rampant.

[AriaStar]

Again, you can't generalize an entire group of people. I'm a Christian and have nothing against Muslims or talking to them.

Phatty, the media and all we hear is intended to instill in the general population a sense of fear. Some of us don't fall for it on a conscious level. Some do. Socially there IS a stigma against Muslims. It's wrong and based on inaccurate facts, but the stigma is real. When we hear about terrorists on the news, they mean "Muslims." Muslims did this or that. They aren't bothering to differentiate. Anything to make a news story.

[AriaStar]

Not only that but I doubt he'll even comment on our arguments because he's so blindly set in his belief (even though its completely hypocritical).

Thats not the first hypocritical thing I've heard him say as of lately. Just a few days ago his status on faceook said something like:

"I don't hate all Jews. I just hate Jews that hate."

Kind or ironic?

Taken out of context. Like I don't hate all people, but I hate people who hurt and kill little kids. I can understand the perceived irony/hypocrisy in that statement about Jews, but I think it's taken wrong.

[AriaStar]

So its okay for me to think all Muslims are terrorists based on 9/11? It's the same thing. Nothing really justifies that sort of thinking.

Muslims are much more oppressed. There is a lot more hate aimed at them than non-Muslims commonly realize. We know we don't hate all Muslims, but what he's experienced is an extreme hatred toward him. More of his interactions are ones of hate and threats than not. More of our interactions with Muslims are not of violence. His view is skewed, but based on his experiences.

[AriaStar]

That may not be true where I am. I've never really gotten that vibe.
I think that feeling was strong right after 9/11, but its pretty much faded.

Hating your fellow man takes a toll. I mean, would you want to hate a group of people just for the heck of it? It would warp your mind --- you wouldn't think correctly. Hatred is exhausting. Its much easier just to live and let live.

But if you do find someone who does hate his fellow man due to the color of their skin (or religion etc) --- AVOID THEM. If they are willing to harm their fellow man over something trivial like skin color, it doesn't take much for them to harm you as well.

Hate takes a lot of energy.

Unfortunately there is a lot of hate still toward Muslims. We are just so used to it we don't notice it as readily as we once did.

[matsie]

Don't be a douche.

His opinion of what Americans feel about his religion is all he can base an opinion off of, and that leaves him the Christian groups flaming his blog and the people consistently shooting down any of his attempts to mention Islam here. I'd probably think the same way as I was him.

I'm not being a douche. He is being a bigot. If it is bigoted and ignorant for Fundy Christians to believe that those responsible for 9/11 represent all Muslims and thus we should hate them and revile them then it is bigoted for him to think that those same Fundy Christians represent ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. It's bigoted hypocrisy.

Phatty, the media and all we hear is intended to instill in the general population a sense of fear. Some of us don't fall for it on a conscious level. Some do. Socially there IS a stigma against Muslims. It's wrong and based on inaccurate facts, but the stigma is real. When we hear about terrorists on the news, they mean "Muslims." Muslims did this or that. They aren't bothering to differentiate. Anything to make a news story.

Socially there is a stigma, but it is not one held by all U.S. Citizens. It is not being taught in our schools. Frankly, our schools are designed to give you the tools to develop your own point of view. Not dictate one to you. And if you want to consider Fox News as the only media source, then yes. The U.S. is being fed false news and led to believe there is no distinction between terrorists and Muslims. BUT FOX NEWS IS ONLY ONE OF MANY MEDIA OUTLETS. It's bleeding heart liberal bullshit like saying, "All our media demonize Muslims..." and other over generalizations and histrionics that undermine efforts to quash the anti-Muslim stigma that is in the U.S. By exaggerating the problem, you create a gap between reality and what you're saying. Ergo, people are less likely to believe what you are saying is true. You can't tell me that Keith Olbermann goes on a tirade about racial profiling at airports that he is telling you there is no difference between terrorists and Muslims. Or when Anderson Cooper maligns President Bush for wrongfully linking Al-Quaeda with Iraq that he is saying all Muslims are terrorists.

The problem with most of the arguments in this thread is that people try to make an argument using straw men and hasty generalization and engage in ad hominem attacks.

[phatlip12]

Socially there IS a stigma against Muslims.

The same can be said for just about any group. There is also a stigma on Digg that all religious people are complete and utter morons. That really doesn't mean anything though. Thats not to say every single person that belongs to that particular group (whether it be religious, a country or even Digg .com) believes that.

Techlive is making it sound as though everyone in this country hates Muslims. How is that sort of thinking acceptable yet it isn't acceptable to think all Muslims are terrorists? The kids going around saying our schools teach hate towards Muslims when the kid probably never even stepped foot in this country before let alone attended school in the country as we have.


When we hear about terrorists on the news, they mean "Muslims." Muslims did this or that. They aren't bothering to differentiate. Anything to make a news story.

How so? So because a terrorist may be a Muslim it shouldn't be in the news? Thats like saying the news caster reporting on the unknown shooter really means the black man. You have nothing to back up such claims and really no way to back it up.

[phatlip12]

Taken out of context. Like I don't hate all people, but I hate people who hurt and kill little kids. I can understand the perceived irony/hypocrisy in that statement about Jews, but I think it's taken wrong.

Yes but if you hate haters then you are doing the same thing you hate which is hypocrisy. Your example is irrelevant.

Also, nothing was taken out of context. This is exactly what he said:

"says Israel has no right to exist! Differ with me? NO RIGHT! Explain the genocide of Palestinians. I do not hate Jews, just Israelis who hate!"

[Quix]

Is there's one good thing my home town of Modesto, California, ever got right, it's that World Religions is now a requirement to graduate. Not preachy-preachy, but just teaching the kids about different religions. Personally I think it's a fantastic idea. What is the harm in simply learning about how others believe?

What do you think?

I think it should definitely be mandatory. My High School taught a class about the Bible as Literature and I thought it was fascinating to read it from that perspective. If they took as "scientific" of an approach to other religious texts or expanded that to encompass the religions in a more general sense I think it would be a great asset for every student.

All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class.

Mine didn't. It taught that the Americans who believe that are simply overzealous reactionaries(the average citizen who bought into it) and fear-mongers who use it as a method of holding on to power(the political and societal elites who exploited said fear.)

I'm not going to say that there's no stigma towards Muslims in the U.S. because it definitely exists. However there are also those who know better than to fear and smear an entire religion based on the actions of a few extremists.

Of course, you're also acting as if all Americans agree with an extremist sect which is at its core the same mistake that those who fear Muslims are making.

[Guytheninja]

Yes but if you hate haters then you are doing the same thing you hate which is hypocrisy. Your example is irrelevant.

Also, nothing was taken out of context. This is exactly what he said:

"says Israel has no right to exist! Differ with me? NO RIGHT! Explain the genocide of Palestinians. I do not hate Jews, just Israelis who hate!"

Just send everybody to Hawaii to learn about the Aloha Spirit :D. Bruddah Iz, why did you have to leave us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_17vGYa81s

The locals in Hawaii were the most easy-going, laid-back people I had ever seen. The friendliest and most polite people in the entire world. Why can't we just do the same on the mainland??? :confused:

[esophagus]

I'm not being a douche. He is being a bigot. If it is bigoted and ignorant for Fundy Christians to believe that those responsible for 9/11 represent all Muslims and thus we should hate them and revile them then it is bigoted for him to think that those same Fundy Christians represent ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. It's bigoted hypocrisyYou're grossly exaggerating.

He said that he couldn't believe any of us could not see that America has a sitgma against Muslims, and I agree. If you can't agree that there is a stigma in America against Muslims, you're being entirely irrational. It doesn't mean that all of America hates them.

He also said that it was probably taught in America that Muslims are bad. While that isn't true, it also doesn't say that all Americans hate Muslims. Calm down. He isn't being a "bigot", you're being quite overly harsh.

[esophagus]

Also, nothing was taken out of context. This is exactly what he said:

"says Israel has no right to exist! Differ with me? NO RIGHT! Explain the genocide of Palestinians. I do not hate Jews, just Israelis who hate!"I'm guessing tha the could say the same of all people, as I'm guessing you could. Who likes people full of hatred? Now you're grasping at straws.

[matsie]

You're grossly exaggerating.

He said that he couldn't believe any of us could not see that America has a sitgma against Muslims, and I agree. If you can't agree that there is a stigma in America against Muslims, you're being entirely irrational. It doesn't mean that all of America hates them.

He also said that it was probably taught in America that Muslims are bad. While that isn't true, it also doesn't say that all Americans hate Muslims. Calm down. He isn't being a "bigot", you're being quite overly harsh.

Read what he said. He didn't say that it was "probably" being taught. He said ALL schools in the United States are teaching hate.

Also, read what I said. I said there is a stigma against Muslims in the U.S., but it is not one felt by all U.S. citizens and that by overgeneralizing he was being a hypocrite. He is making the same false statement toward Americans that he claims Americans make toward Muslims. If U.S. citizens are being bigots when they racially profile those of Arab descent and claim that Muslims want to kill us and to hate Muslims, then his hatred and ignorance toward U.S. citizens is bigotry as well. It doesn't go one way just because one is a hot button issue.

I am not being overly harsh.

And just so you can read what he said...

"All schools in America teach that Muslims :

1) hate all of you
2) will kill all of you
3) are old backward and horny

Thats my 2 cents and if none of you all really acknowledge this, then my word, you should attend a religious class."

That says ALL schools. What does "all" mean? Every. Not a single one does not. Entirely inclusive. He also said this unprovoked and without anyone ever denying that there was a certain stigma associated with Muslims in the United States. The discussion was about how important learning about religions like Islam is for our curriculum and to quash the exact kind of bigotry he is so vehemently opposed to. He undermines his own purpose with his ignorance and hate.

[Quix]

Exactly. No one is saying that there's no stigma against Muslims but that stigma doesn't justify responding in kind.

[esophagus]

For some reason, the forums won't let me post my full response. I'll try this again later.

[techliveadmin]

Clarify my statements.

First off about my post on fb. I said I dont hate Jews, just Israeli's who hate.

Not all JEWS endorse Israels actions.
Not all Israeli's kill Palestinians.
Not all Israeli's are pleased with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.

I dont' hate ALL Jews, I hate the IDF and the Knesset, they both know what they have done to the Palestinian Muslims. I can never find it in my heart to forgive such ruthless people.

Back to my posts about America.

Should have remembered this was an American Based board lol
I should have rephrased my initial statement. Not ALL schools 'teach' hate. However a terrorist is known as a Muslim.

This is what we are being taught : Muslim and or Arab = Terrorist

Racial profiling in America towards Muslims and Arabs in general are very high.

In a recent poll 63% of New Yorkers now believed Al Qaeda did not comitt 9/11.

However there is a larger stigma upon Muslims than any other group in America.

Take for example the recent news of an Obama representative having to remove a woman in Hijab from sitting behind him during one of his speeches.

Now he has had to cancel his trip to a Mosque because it may give the impression he is Muslim.

If being or associating yourself with a Muslim, can ruin your chances of being elected, that then the electoral does have a stigma against Muslims.

It has been 7 years since 9/11 and Matsie you believe there is little to no stigma? Well wear a Hijab and try boarding a plane, going into court, going to a baseball game or something. The amount of disgusting, hateful words that would be shouted at you, the way your privacy will be violated is something you would wish never to experience.

No stigma? None? Little? I laugh at that, Abu Ghraib justifies some of America's hate towards us. How is it that Israel can be allowed nuclear weapons, when they say they are willing to use it on us. Yet when we want, even though we said we would use it on them, we aren't allowed it?

I will not say that ALL Americans carry hate against us, but theres a large percentage who do.

[matsie]

Clarify my statements.

First off about my post on fb. I said I dont hate Jews, just Israeli's who hate.

Not all JEWS endorse Israels actions.
Not all Israeli's kill Palestinians.
Not all Israeli's are pleased with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.

I dont' hate ALL Jews, I hate the IDF and the Knesset, they both know what they have done to the Palestinian Muslims. I can never find it in my heart to forgive such ruthless people.

Back to my posts about America.

Should have remembered this was an American Based board lol
I should have rephrased my initial statement. Not ALL schools 'teach' hate. However a terrorist is known as a Muslim.

This is what we are being taught : Muslim and or Arab = Terrorist

Racial profiling in America towards Muslims and Arabs in general are very high.

In a recent poll 63% of New Yorkers now believed Al Qaeda did not comitt 9/11.

However there is a larger stigma upon Muslims than any other group in America.

Take for example the recent news of an Obama representative having to remove a woman in Hijab from sitting behind him during one of his speeches.

Now he has had to cancel his trip to a Mosque because it may give the impression he is Muslim.

If being or associating yourself with a Muslim, can ruin your chances of being elected, that then the electoral does have a stigma against Muslims.

It has been 7 years since 9/11 and Matsie you believe there is little to no stigma? Well wear a Hijab and try boarding a plane, going into court, going to a baseball game or something. The amount of disgusting, hateful words that would be shouted at you, the way your privacy will be violated is something you would wish never to experience.

No stigma? None? Little? I laugh at that, Abu Ghraib justifies some of America's hate towards us. How is it that Israel can be allowed nuclear weapons, when they say they are willing to use it on us. Yet when we want, even though we said we would use it on them, we aren't allowed it?

I will not say that ALL Americans carry hate against us, but theres a large percentage who do.

I never said there was little to no stigma. READ WHAT I SAY. I said that there is a stigma, but it is not one held by every U.S. citizen. Don't twist someone's words. I never said anywhere in this thread that there was little to no stigma. I'd LOVE to see some statistics on this LARGE percentage that hate Muslims. Just because a minority is more vocal does not make them the majority.

Furthermore, I consider Timothy McViegh to be a terrorist. He was some podunk white dude in Oklahoma. To most U.S. citizens "terrorist" does not mean "Muslim." There IS, however, an association because of the increased amount of terrorism various so-called Muslim groups have been perpetrating worldwide.

Have you been to the United States and gone to the airport or to a baseball game in Hijab? No? Don't speak of it as though you know for certain then. I have both Muslims and Arabs in my family. They are not being persecuted as you say. They represent the percentage of people that YOU ignore for your own political and social arguments and opinions.

I do not ignore that there is racial profiling or ignorant and bigoted folk. I never said that even once. Every time such subjects came up in this debate, I said YES, THIS DOES HAPPEN AND IT IS BAD.

Learn to make form a coherent and cohesive argument. When you do, I'll debate you. Otherwise, I'm out of this thread.

[phatlip12]

Clarify my statements.

First off about my post on fb. I said I dont hate Jews, just Israeli's who hate.

Not all JEWS endorse Israels actions.
Not all Israeli's kill Palestinians.
Not all Israeli's are pleased with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.

I dont' hate ALL Jews, I hate the IDF and the Knesset, they both know what they have done to the Palestinian Muslims. I can never find it in my heart to forgive such ruthless people.

Back to my posts about America.

Should have remembered this was an American Based board lol
I should have rephrased my initial statement. Not ALL schools 'teach' hate. However a terrorist is known as a Muslim.

This is what we are being taught : Muslim and or Arab = Terrorist

Racial profiling in America towards Muslims and Arabs in general are very high.

In a recent poll 63% of New Yorkers now believed Al Qaeda did not comitt 9/11.

However there is a larger stigma upon Muslims than any other group in America.

Take for example the recent news of an Obama representative having to remove a woman in Hijab from sitting behind him during one of his speeches.

Now he has had to cancel his trip to a Mosque because it may give the impression he is Muslim.

If being or associating yourself with a Muslim, can ruin your chances of being elected, that then the electoral does have a stigma against Muslims.

It has been 7 years since 9/11 and Matsie you believe there is little to no stigma? Well wear a Hijab and try boarding a plane, going into court, going to a baseball game or something. The amount of disgusting, hateful words that would be shouted at you, the way your privacy will be violated is something you would wish never to experience.

No stigma? None? Little? I laugh at that, Abu Ghraib justifies some of America's hate towards us. How is it that Israel can be allowed nuclear weapons, when they say they are willing to use it on us. Yet when we want, even though we said we would use it on them, we aren't allowed it?

I will not say that ALL Americans carry hate against us, but theres a large percentage who do.

Techlive, you obviously didn't read what we said. We all agree that there is a stigma. But you know what? Theres also a stigma against blacks, Mexicans, gays, Asians, Christians, Jews, young, old. You wana talk about stigma? How about the stigma that many Muslims hate and want to kill Americans? That doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists, NOR is it something I believe but thats a stigma too.

Do you see the problem? Group A hates Group B because their stigma towards them and Group B hates them because of their stigma towards them. You can't fight fire with fire.

All because SOME people in a certain group have a stigma towards you DOESN'T make it right for you to have one towards them. Thats what you did and thats why we came down on you for it. You tried saying ALL of our schools teach hate. Thats not true and you gota realize, you saying that is the same as me saying "All terrorists are Muslims". It's the same thing. Now can you understand the anger?

Then you rephrased your statement and said:

"Not ALL schools 'teach' hate. However a terrorist is known as a Muslim.

This is what we are being taught : Muslim and or Arab = Terrorist"

I'm not angry, but taking a firm tone but I gota ask you...

HOW IN THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS? Have you ever attended a school here or even went as far as step foot in this country? This simply isn't true. When we learned about other cultures when I was in school my teachers only had positive things to say about Islam and other countries. Do you know how politically correct schools are in this country? It's almost laughable that you think this sort of thing is taught in our schools to be honest with you.

[techliveadmin]

Listen up guys, we are arguing with no end in sight.

In conlcusion, I have my views, you have yours.

I'll end it like that. I have no further desire to comment on the topic at hand.

[tokenuser]

Frankly, our schools are designed to give you the tools to develop your own point of view.My wife would dispute that fact. Schools are designed to teach rote learning and exam techniques that will get you into college. You might pick up some basic life skills along the way, but critical thinking will not be one of them.

My wife (a college prof at what would be considered a liberal college) complains about the general lack of critical thinking in all the undergrads that come in, and the general lack of ability they have in formulating their own arguments based on their research rather than regurgitating popular opinion.

(BUT, I agree with the other stuff you said).

[tokenuser]

<useless rhetoric removed>

I will not say that ALL Americans carry hate against us, but theres a large percentage who do.Hate to say it, but you are your own worst enemy. The only hate I have seen here has been entered by you.

Americans don't think Muslims are terrorists.
Do you know how many Americans are Muslim? Estimates place it at around 6.5Million people. That is about 1/4 of the population of Iraq.

Press coverage in the US does talk about Muslim extremists, but the emphasis is on radical or extreme followers, and not of Islam in general.

Name the single largest Muslim population in the world ... and you might be surprised that they aren't Arabic, they aren't from the middle east, and they are not the target of US propoganda.

So, please, get off your high horse. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs, but dont follow them blindly. Talk to your Imam about the perception of Islam in the western world, and then ask about comparative religions and how Islam views them. Now seek out a Rabbi and ask him the same questions. You might learn something about brotherhood and peace that Islam alone is not providing you ... and realise that you are not that different after all.




(BTW - the answer is Indonesia ... and its by a large margin. There is a radical islamic group in that region responsible for bombings in Bali ... yeah, great way to demonstrate a "peaceful" religion).

[Quix]

Should have remembered this was an American Based board lol
I should have rephrased my initial statement. Not ALL schools 'teach' hate. However a terrorist is known as a Muslim.

This is what we are being taught : Muslim and or Arab = Terrorist

In the wake of 9/11 there were some who had a knee-jerk reaction which lead them to bigotry but it wasn't universal and no school I've ever gone to aimed to reinforce that bigotry.

Racial profiling in America towards Muslims and Arabs in general are very high.

In a recent poll 63% of New Yorkers now believed Al Qaeda did not comitt 9/11.

However there is a larger stigma upon Muslims than any other group in America.

Take for example the recent news of an Obama representative having to remove a woman in Hijab from sitting behind him during one of his speeches.

Now he has had to cancel his trip to a Mosque because it may give the impression he is Muslim.

If being or associating yourself with a Muslim, can ruin your chances of being elected, that then the electoral does have a stigma against Muslims.

I agree with all of that. Further evidence would be the uproar which was caused in far-right circles by Keith Ellison's election simply because he's a Muslim.

It has been 7 years since 9/11 and Matsie you believe there is little to no stigma? Well wear a Hijab and try boarding a plane, going into court, going to a baseball game or something. The amount of disgusting, hateful words that would be shouted at you, the way your privacy will be violated is something you would wish never to experience.

I've seen many people walking around in Hijabs without being harassed. They may be harassed in the more backwards part of the country, but that's true of anyone who isn't a WASP. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant) Those who would harass women for wearing a Hijab also aren't the majority.

No stigma? None? Little? I laugh at that, Abu Ghraib justifies some of America's hate towards us. How is it that Israel can be allowed nuclear weapons, when they say they are willing to use it on us. Yet when we want, even though we said we would use it on them, we aren't allowed it?

I will not say that ALL Americans carry hate against us, but theres a large percentage who do.

No one has denied the existence of a stigma and many Americans were also horrified by the atrocities that were depicted in Abu Ghraib just as many Muslims were horrified by 9/11.

[gimpbully]

Is this class providing a section on satanism? Yes, it's a ridiculous argument, but that's the nature of that pesky bit of the constitution. The endorsement, by a public school (a governmental entity) of any religion over another is tantamount to the establishment of religion by the government. I like the constitutions language on this subject; it's clear and concise. It's the use of tax money put towards the endorsement of religion (no matter how many or how few the class may teach).

It's outright illegal in many parts for a teacher to even breathe the word "religion" or to mention any god. Basically the message sent is that "other religions," meaning any other than your own, are to be feared. If you can't speak of it, it's something to fear.

World religion classes are not standard, and Modesto is the only school district in the country that now requires high-schoolers to take it to graduate high school.

[xibalba]

Is this class providing a section on satanism?

I would have loved a class on that subject during high school. I was labeled satanist or witch through out. People would just come up to me and call me Satan even yell it at me. Sort of became a nickname for me. :D

[gimpbully]

You are free to investigate this on your personal dime. You are free to teach your children this. There is specific wording in the constitution that says you cannot do this using the taxpayers dime. I have a clear opinion that this is right and proper. This *is* the essence of the separation of church and state. Your rights are not being hindered by this and you are not hindering others' rights.

It teaches the basics that each religion believes and the differences between the same religion in different areas. And IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING. Just because every religion and every area can't be taught in painstaking detail doesn't mean we should all keep our heads in the sand.

Ignorance breeds fear breeds hate.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

I know my Religious Antho class touched on it. I'm not too fond of the religion my self. From what I remember, it was kinda made out of spite, but... to each their own.. ^_^

Oh, talking about Satanism here.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

You are free to investigate this on your personal dime. You are free to teach your children this. There is specific wording in the constitution that says you cannot do this using the taxpayers dime. I have a clear opinion that this is right and proper. This *is* the essence of the separation of church and state. Your rights are not being hindered by this and you are not hindering others' rights.

Well, if not religion, then what about world cultures? Because one thing this world is lacking, or at the very least could work harder at, is tolerance.

I personally think religious and cultural tolerance should be taught in high school. It would help debunk a lot of crap that parents feed their children.

And for the record, I've been a non-believer since I dropped out of my mothers womb. :)

[tokenuser]

You are free to investigate this on your personal dime. You are free to teach your children this. There is specific wording in the constitution that says you cannot do this using the taxpayers dime. I have a clear opinion that this is right and proper. This *is* the essence of the separation of church and state.

Very true, but broken by the whole ...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

No matter how hard the "under God" part gets fought, the current supreme court justices keep allowing it. Makes it kinda hard to seperate church and state, when the enforcers of the laws of the state are political appointees, and largely fundamentalist christians.

[gimpbully]

Satanism was simply a convenient example. It can clearly provides an example of an established religion that is often left out of surveys like this due to stigma with which it is linked. Imagine if a public school had, for example, left christianity out of a survey course on world religions.

I know my Religious Antho class touched on it. I'm not too fond of the religion my self. From what I remember, it was kinda made out of spite, but... to each their own.. ^_^

Oh, talking about Satanism here.

[gimpbully]

Yes, I completely understand the very blurred line between cultural anthropology and religious studies. I also understand how a robust education and the inclusion of liberal arts clearly contributes a huge amount to a well rounded education. It's a rather difficult problem. I certainly don't like indoctrination funded by tax dollars or, further, being required education. I also don't like the clear problem with biggotry and clear lack of education when it comes to religious differences in the US (and, well, the world). BUT the teaching of a survey course by public schools is doomed to be selective. It's the selective nature that is clearly dangerous and, frankly, unconstitutional.

Well, if not religion, then what about world cultures? Because one thing this world is lacking, or at the very least could work harder at, is tolerance.

I personally think religious and cultural tolerance should be taught in high school. It would help debunk a lot of crap that parents feed their children.

And for the record, I've been a non-believer since I dropped out of my mothers womb. :)

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Yes, I completely understand the very blurred line between cultural anthropology and religious studies. I also understand how a robust education and the inclusion of liberal arts clearly contributes a huge amount to a well rounded education. It's a rather difficult problem. I certainly don't like indoctrination funded by tax dollars or, further, being required education. I also don't like the clear problem with biggotry and clear lack of education when it comes to religious differences in the US (and, well, the world). BUT the teaching of a survey course by public schools is doomed to be selective. It's the selective nature that is clearly dangerous and, frankly, unconstitutional.

I don't think our founding fathers foresaw the future filled with intolerance and bigotry. I've never taken an Anthro class that was selective in it's teachings, so I can't say that I agree with you.

I feel this is the only way to help educate the masses on religious and cultural tolerance, and I fully support it.

[gimpbully]

I think there's a problem inherent in any opinion one can form on the subject, unfortunately. Mine certainly included.

I don't think our founding fathers foresaw the future filled with intolerance and bigotry. I've never taken an Anthro class that was selective in it's teachings, so I can't say that I agree with you.

I feel this is the only way to help educate the masses on religious and cultural tolerance, and I fully support it.

[phatlip12]

I see nothing wrong with teaching world religions. Religion is part of learning about other cultures. I don't see how the separation of church and state applies here. Theres a difference between a prayer before the start of each school day (which I think we SHOULDN'T HAVE) and learning about a religion.

It's almost a necessity's sometimes. How can you possibly learn about the history of the middle east without even LIGHTLY speaking if Islamic beliefs?

As far as the question about Satanism being taught I say why not? If the following is substantial and large enough I see no reason why it shouldn't be taught in a world religion class. Apparently there are alot of misconceptions about Satanism so thats even more reason to cover it.

[darknessgp]

You are free to investigate this on your personal dime. You are free to teach your children this. There is specific wording in the constitution that says you cannot do this using the taxpayers dime. I have a clear opinion that this is right and proper. This *is* the essence of the separation of church and state. Your rights are not being hindered by this and you are not hindering others' rights.

Read the Constitution lately? Cause it doesn't saying "separation of church and state" It doesn't even mention the words "separation", "church" or "state". Let me refresh you with quoting the section you are referring to.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

1) It's only saying what Congress can't do, not referring to any other part of the government.
2) It says make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If it can't prohibit the free exercise, how can we claim that a state employee can't practice it? How can we claim not it can't be in the government?

Now, I'm not saying I want a bunch of religious people in government offices. However, I hate that people say the constitution says that church and state should be separate, which it actually doesn't say that. All it says is that the government can not prevent someone from practicing whatever religion they want nor can they enforce a state religion.

[Quix]

Yes, I completely understand the very blurred line between cultural anthropology and religious studies. I also understand how a robust education and the inclusion of liberal arts clearly contributes a huge amount to a well rounded education. It's a rather difficult problem. I certainly don't like indoctrination funded by tax dollars or, further, being required education. I also don't like the clear problem with biggotry and clear lack of education when it comes to religious differences in the US (and, well, the world). BUT the teaching of a survey course by public schools is doomed to be selective. It's the selective nature that is clearly dangerous and, frankly, unconstitutional.

That's a good point. There would be an inherent selectiveness simply due to the practical fact that a teacher only has a limited amount of time. The only way I could see around it would be to teach about the top 5 or so religions in terms of the number of adherents. If we assume that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religio n.png) flawed graph is correct(just for the sake of argument) the class would cover Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese Universalism, and Buddhism.

I don't see how that would indicate that the state endorses those religions.

[gimpbully]

the "seperation of church and state" is an interpretation that I was using to simplify the concept. I had hesitated to use that specific phrase because people constantly scream when you say it. I think I had explained, in very clear terms, how this goes against the constitution in other posts. I'll quote:
" The endorsement, by a public school (a governmental entity) of any religion over another is tantamount to the establishment of religion by the government."

Like it or not, you cannot complete a survey of every religion in a public school semester. Leaving out a religion from a survey class in a public school is akin to the endorsement of one religion over another (it's not as important to mention, so for brevity's sake, we'll omit the religion).

That *is* what the constitution says.

Read the Constitution lately? Cause it doesn't saying "separation of church and state" It doesn't even mention the words "separation", "church" or "state". Let me refresh you with quoting the section you are referring to.



1) It's only saying what Congress can't do, not referring to any other part of the government.
2) It says make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If it can't prohibit the free exercise, how can we claim that a state employee can't practice it? How can we claim not it can't be in the government?

Now, I'm not saying I want a bunch of religious people in government offices. However, I hate that people say the constitution says that church and state should be separate, which it actually doesn't say that. All it says is that the government can not prevent someone from practicing whatever religion they want nor can they enforce a state religion.

[darknessgp]

...
Like it or not, you cannot complete a survey of every religion in a public school semester. Leaving out a religion from a survey class in a public school is akin to the endorsement of one religion over another (it's not as important to mention, so for brevity's sake, we'll omit the religion)...

Fair enough, I haven't read through this entire thread, so pardon me if I jumped the gun.

Although I would agree, I'd say that it is completely impossible to cover all religions. There are an innumerable amount and some would be considered a religion and others not. i.e. Would you have Mormonism and Christianity seperate? Mormon's call themselves Christians, but a large number of Chrisitians would say that they are not. Also, how would you define a cult as opposed to a religion? Many people call Scientology a cult, whereas it claims itself as a religion and even gets the tax break that comes with that. So, that's one major issue that would need to be addressed. It's impossible to hit all of them, and no matter the depth covered there will always be someone who will get offended, whether you spent too much time or not enough on one religion.

As for my opinion of religion in the classroom... As long as the class is optional and represents itself well then there shouldn't be an issue. For example, in college i took a Paul and the Early Church class, I went in expecting it to be about Christianity and it was, duh. On the flip side, I tried to take a film class called Film Genres, I went in expecting to learn about different genres (from horror to comedy to etc.) and it ended up being a class 100% dedicated to 30s and 40s French films... needless to say I dropped that class.

[Guytheninja]

Very true, but broken by the whole ...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

No matter how hard the "under God" part gets fought, the current supreme court justices keep allowing it. Makes it kinda hard to seperate church and state, when the enforcers of the laws of the state are political appointees, and largely fundamentalist christians.


Well, God is in a position of authority over the United States government. Lets look at the Declaration of Independence:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What this basically means is that this "God" (whom the founders did not name) is the guardian of your rights as an American. And because of this, the government does not have the right to enslave the populace -- why, because the Creator does not give the government that power.

Because of our "unalienable rights" from our Creator, Americans can (and should) overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical. So don't throw God out of American government just yet.

[gimpbully]

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this. This is also the same document that specifically calls into question the right of the government to make any endorsement of a religion (and as such, commonly, a god). The mere mention of a "being" does not negate clear statements on how a government was designed.

edit: I think the reason I replied to this was the fear that words like this are interpreted to support the notion that the country is based on religion. I don't mean that people call this out to support the idea that it's a christian nation or a jewish nation (if we are even a nation to begin with) but more that we have a basis in religion period. I think it's fairly clear that atheists have the same rights christians do in this country. Statements like the one quoted scare me in this regard.
Well, God is in a position of authority over the United States government. Lets look at the Declaration of Independence:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

What this basically means is that this "God" (whom the founders did not name) is the guardian of your rights as an American. And because of this, the government does not have the right to enslave the populace -- why, because the Creator does not give the government that power.

Because of our "unalienable rights" from our Creator, Americans can (and should) overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical. So don't throw God out of American government just yet.

[Guytheninja]

I'm at a loss as to how to respond to this. This is also the same document that specifically calls into question the right of the government to make any endorsement of a religion (and as such, commonly, a god). The mere mention of a "being" does not negate clear statements on how a government was designed.

edit: I think the reason I replied to this was the fear that words like this are interpreted to support the notion that the country is based on religion. I don't mean that people call this out to support the idea that it's a christian nation or a jewish nation (if we are even a nation to begin with) but more that we have a basis in religion period. I think it's fairly clear that atheists have the same rights christians do in this country. Statements like the one quoted scare me in this regard.

As I said in my post, the God is not named. So if you were Jewish, Islamic, Christian, etc... you wouldn't have a problem with the statement.

However, the founding fathers did talk about a "Creator" giving us our rights. They didn't mention His name on purpose (because of freedom of Religion).

However, it is obvious that God is needed according to the founders. Do you have to have a personal relationship with Him in order to have rights as an American? No you don't --- this is shown in the first amendment.

[gimpbully]

I think that's a bastardization of the wording. They pointed out, in the parlance of the times, that people inherently have rights. I find the use of this wording as anything other than a recognition of inalienable right very disturbing. There is no requirement, under the constitution, that I recognize any religion or religious being. In fact, there is a requirement that there be no requirement.

As I said in my post, the God is not named. So if you were Jewish, Islamic, Christian, etc... you wouldn't have a problem with the statement.

However, the founding fathers did talk about a "Creator" giving us our rights. They didn't mention His name on purpose (because of freedom of Religion).

However, it is obvious that God is needed according to the founders. Do you have to have a personal relationship with Him in order to have rights as an American? No you don't --- this is shown in the first amendment.

[gimpbully]

However, it is obvious that God is needed according to the founders. [/COLOR]

This, specifically, I disagree with.

[AriaStar]

You are free to investigate this on your personal dime. You are free to teach your children this. There is specific wording in the constitution that says you cannot do this using the taxpayers dime. I have a clear opinion that this is right and proper. This *is* the essence of the separation of church and state. Your rights are not being hindered by this and you are not hindering others' rights.

As long as "under god" is part of the pledge, then separation of church and state went out the window. Separation of church and state never was about ignoring religions, but rather not mandating any religion. Christianity is, at the least, being endorsed in the pledge and on all our currency and in that the federal holidays around religion are all around Christian holidays and the White House Christmas tree. If the government is going to go there, then what's the problem at least teaching about world religions?

[gimpbully]

see, so I don't understand why people always associate "God" with christianity... where does that come from? Either way, the mere existence of exceptions does not negate the bill of rights. It merely means those exceptions should be struck down.

As long as "under god" is part of the pledge, then separation of church and state went out the window. Separation of church and state never was about ignoring religions, but rather not mandating any religion. Christianity is, at the least, being endorsed in the pledge and on all our currency and in that the federal holidays around religion are all around Christian holidays and the White House Christmas tree. If the government is going to go there, then what's the problem at least teaching about world religions?

[AriaStar]

see, so I don't understand why people always associate "God" with christianity... where does that come from? Either way, the mere existence of exceptions does not negate the bill of rights. It merely means those exceptions should be struck down.

Our holidays are all around Christian holidays, so when hearing "god" in connection to the government, of course the Christian god comes to mind.

[tokenuser]

It wasn't until I did the cut/paste from wiki of te Pledge of Aleggiance that I saw the history of it. The "under God" part was added in in 1951 at the insistance and lobbying of The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organisation.

You can take god to mean you diety du juor, but the intent was most definately a Christian god.

[gimpbully]

Okay.. that was a tangent anyway. Either way, these examples are unconstitutional and there are mechanisms within the legal system to get them struck down.
Our holidays are all around Christian holidays, so when hearing "god" in connection to the government, of course the Christian god comes to mind.

[iccanui]

Is there's one good thing my home town of Modesto, California, ever got right, it's that World Religions is now a requirement to graduate. Not preachy-preachy, but just teaching the kids about different religions. Personally I think it's a fantastic idea. What is the harm in simply learning about how others believe?

What do you think?

If its balanced about ALL of them, its a good idea.

Otherwise its brain washing, pure and simple.

[Heyseuss]

Ok, now that Modesto is catching up with the rest of the world and supposedly teaching world religion, maybe it can start another new american trend and catch up with the rest of the world, in the area of history, american or not. American history isn't even taught in america as well as it is in most other countries, let alone, other countries histories being taught in america.

[gimpbully]

I think that's the point of the tangent, the term "god" literally does not link itself to any single religion. There have been massive pushes from various groups to do just that throughout the history of the US.

It wasn't until I did the cut/paste from wiki of te Pledge of Aleggiance that I saw the history of it. The "under God" part was added in in 1951 at the insistance and lobbying of The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organisation.

You can take god to mean you diety du juor, but the intent was most definately a Christian god.

[AGeexChick]

I know that this has already been said, and I do agree with the previous posts, but I found this when looking up The Pledge of Allegiance and "under God."
"These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded."
-President D. Eisenhower - August, 1954

I think he said it perfectly.

And Token, I was reading up on that wiki on the subject. The way I put the information together, the Knights of Columbus lobbied for it to be passed, but they were consistently put down. It was Reverend George McPherson Docherty who spoke personally w/ Eisenhower, saying that without the words, our Pledge could apply to just about any other nation. The next day, Eisenhower put the ball in motion in front of Congress. 6 months later, Eisenhower gave the address quoted above.
I learned something today. Thanks Token!

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Ok, now that Modesto is catching up with the rest of the world and supposedly teaching world religion, maybe it can start another new american trend and catch up with the rest of the world, in the area of history, american or not. American history isn't even taught in america as well as it is in most other countries, let alone, other countries histories being taught in america.
Nail on the fucking head!

I don't care if Americans want to stay willfully ignorant. I don't want another Bush in the White House. We need to educate our people better.

[AGeexChick]

Nail on the fucking head!

I don't care if Americans want to stay willfully ignorant. I don't want another Bush in the White House. We need to educate our people better.

I'd give you a fist pound, but I don't want to be considered a terrorist. How about a "right on!"?

[Bohemian_Beauty]

I'd give you a fist pound, but I don't want to be considered a terrorist. How about a "right on!"?

Haha. I'd give ya a fist pound. ;D I'm practically considered a terrorist anyway. -_-


*High Five* Right on, sistah!

[Heyseuss]

Nail on the fucking head!


Actually no, I walked into a bank tellers counter when I was four and I've had the little dent ever since. Thanks for pointing it out BoBe and making me self conscious again ! :(

[Heyseuss]

Haha. I'd give ya a fist pound. ;D I'm practically considered a terrorist anyway. -_-


*High Five* Right on, sistah!

Ok, yeah,,.... maybe just put your arm around her now..... and squeeze gently, that's it, just giver her a little hug..... ok now, now smell her neck..... yeahhhhh

[phatlip12]

Ok, yeah,,.... maybe just put your arm around her now..... and squeeze gently, that's it, just giver her a little hug..... ok now, now smell her neck..... yeahhhhh

LMAO!

Enjoy the positive rep.

[Guytheninja]

I think that's a bastardization of the wording. They pointed out, in the parlance of the times, that people inherently have rights. I find the use of this wording as anything other than a recognition of inalienable right very disturbing. There is no requirement, under the constitution, that I recognize any religion or religious being. In fact, there is a requirement that there be no requirement.

I figure if the founding fathers wanted to leave God out of the Declaration of Independence, they would have. I mean geez, the republic was a start of a new nation, they could have written this document however they wanted.

If you think "unalienable rights" come from thin air, well you have that right to think that. However, unless the founding fathers were crazy and double-minded, we should read the document as is.

I'm not saying America should be a Christian only nation. What I am saying throwing God out of the public square (or religion in general) was not the founders' intention. The founders' wanted us to have a civil discourse about religion in the public square, but not set up a state-run church (somewhat like the Church of England).

[phatlip12]

Like it or not, you cannot complete a survey of every religion in a public school semester. Leaving out a religion from a survey class in a public school is akin to the endorsement of one religion over another (it's not as important to mention, so for brevity's sake, we'll omit the religion).


True, but you also can't cover all of US history in one semester either. You teach the most significant and important content. In this case, that would be the most popular and dominant religions around the world.

Like it or not, you can't truly learn about different cultures without learning about their religious beliefs.

[Heyseuss]

LMAO!

Enjoy the positive rep.

I'm rubbing it on my nips right now.

[Heyseuss]

I'm not saying America should be a Christian only nation. What I am saying throwing God out of the public square (or religion in general) was not the founders' intention. The founders' wanted us to have a civil discourse about religion in the public square, but not set up a state-run church (somewhat like the Church of England).

Some of that was done on purpose, to differentiate with the church/royalty relations of the inbreds 'americans' were running away from in the first place when they came here.

[techliveadmin]

I'm rubbing it on my nips right now.

Ummmm to comment or not to comment :P

[techliveadmin]

The forefathers were right. Religion does define a society. It gives them a upperhand it allows the society to develop with one goal, one mindset. Of course all under one God.

I think that they saw the purpose of God and knew that it was essential for religion to be instilled in people. All in all, its a wise decision.

Atleast thats what I believe.

[skyz]

i think religion is not wise

i think wisdom is found in spirituality which is fluid like the tao

once it is cemented into a formal religion it becomes a problem

[gimpbully]

I figure if the founding fathers wanted to leave God out of the Declaration of Independence, they would have. I mean geez, the republic was a start of a new nation, they could have written this document however they wanted.

If you think "unalienable rights" come from thin air, well you have that right to think that. However, unless the founding fathers were crazy and double-minded, we should read the document as is.

I'm not saying America should be a Christian only nation. What I am saying throwing God out of the public square (or religion in general) was not the founders' intention. The founders' wanted us to have a civil discourse about religion in the public square, but not set up a state-run church (somewhat like the Church of England).
Okay, I completely understand what you're saying. That said, I think you're missing what I'm positing. It was obvious that the founding of this country (mind you, the "nation" thing is a can of worms in itself that calls this very matter into question) recognized the importance of a deity in the lives of people. What I find disturbing is the position that the founding documents single out those with a belief in such a deity as those with undeniable rights.
I can understand the language used but I'm fairly sure that wasn't the point of the language. It was a very good way to point out specific undeniable rights and provide a simple way for this concept to be accepted by the masses.

edited to add: The other side of this, public schools teaching courses on religion: No, I'm not saying the government should be in the business of denying public discourse, quite the opposite. I'm saying that taxpayer dollars should not be used for religious education. I guess that's the core of the position. Further, it's a careful interpretation that follows interpretations long held by scholars that the endorsement of specific religions are tantamount to the 'establishment of religion'. On that process of thought, I'm suggesting that you cannot possibly cover all religions in a public school survey course.

The existence of "under god" in the pledge is a particularly poor example of the idea of religion being our heritage and thus shouldn't be avoided in public school teachings. The matter has once been brought up in the supreme court (it was accepted as a case). The case was then thrown out to, arguably, avoid the case. It was decided that the case was meritless as the father had no legal grounds to raise the case as a proxy for his son in the first place.

Candidly, I challenge you to teach such a class in the rural deep south. I'm sure there are towns in which you could pull this off, but I certainly promise you a court case or two.

True, but you also can't cover all of US history in one semester either. You teach the most significant and important content. In this case, that would be the most popular and dominant religions around the world.

Like it or not, you can't truly learn about different cultures without learning about their religious beliefs.
There is no amendment that prohibits the establishment of history :)

The forefathers were right. Religion does define a society. It gives them a upperhand it allows the society to develop with one goal, one mindset. Of course all under one God.

I think that they saw the purpose of God and knew that it was essential for religion to be instilled in people. All in all, its a wise decision.

Atleast thats what I believe.
The problem here, specifically, is the conflict inherent in this when combined with the next sentence in the bill of rights. Congress is not in the business of hindering anyone's freedom to speech. It is easily argued that you have a freedom to voice your opinion on the existence of a deity.

[kowgod]

Wow. I don't hate anything. My avatar is my religion. This thread is scary. I'm not coming back in.

[Heyseuss]

Wow. I don't hate anything. My avatar is my religion. This thread is scary. I'm not coming back in.

Oogedy boogedy boo!

Sorry, that's just something we say in my religion.

[GoNZooo]

If its balanced about ALL of them, its a good idea.

Otherwise its brain washing, pure and simple.
A few people in this thread seem to think learning about the religions means being showed some kind of commercial about them. My teacher never said what he believed in, or even if he believed, and he gave every religion equal time. Even if he hadn't, he didn't say anything about what was good or bad, and the book we had certainly didn't mention anything of the sort.

Learning about different religions does not mean being recruited for them. You learn about how they work, what they are based on, etc..

[Heyseuss]

A few people in this thread seem to think learning about the religions means being showed some kind of commercial about them. My teacher never said what he believed in, or even if he believed, and he gave every religion equal time. Even if he hadn't, he didn't say anything about what was good or bad, and the book we had certainly didn't mention anything of the sort.

Learning about different religions does not mean being recruited for them. You learn about how they work, what they are based on, etc..

This thread was based on people confusing, "teaching religion", and "being taught about religion".

[skyz]

A few people in this thread seem to think learning about the religions means being showed some kind of commercial about them. My teacher never said what he believed in, or even if he believed, and he gave every religion equal time. Even if he hadn't, he didn't say anything about what was good or bad, and the book we had certainly didn't mention anything of the sort.

Learning about different religions does not mean being recruited for them. You learn about how they work, what they are based on, etc..

it is cultural anthropological study even literate

a friend of mine was an anthropology major and one of his textbooks was about vodoo

i read it

it was very interesting

there is some wisdom in all religions

they just aren't absolute wisdom but the adherents need to think / believe that they are

thus you have conflict and hate in the name of god

that's crazy imho

[phatlip12]

There is no amendment that prohibits the establishment of history :)


Learning about another religion isn't the same as practicing it. If you sat here and told me everything you know about Islam would that suggest you're practicing Islam? I highly doubt the school cracks out a different holy book every new chapter and religion of the book and starts praying. Then I could see your point. Everyone is still free to believe what THEY want to believe. Buy by saying "Muslims believe this, Jewish people believe this and Mormons believe this..." you're simply not practicing a religion or restricting anyones rights. I think you're taking the separation of church and state too literal. Whats the difference between saying "Muslims believe this" in context of a history lesson and doing so in context of learning about other cultures. Or do you suggest we blank out massive portions of our history books?

A society that has the knowledge of the beliefs of others is a society that is more likely to respect others beliefs. This would possibly eliminate such ignorance beliefs as " all Muslims are terrorists". Having a knowledge of the Islamic faith and what Muslim people believe in what prove otherwise.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Wow. I don't hate anything. My avatar is my religion. This thread is scary. I'm not coming back in.

Why is it scary? Your religion is peace? You know what would help peace move along? Teaching the masses about other religions and cultures, and helping them to understand that being different is okay. Tolerance and peace kinda go hand in hand.

[phatlip12]

Why is it scary? Your religion is peace? You know what would help peace move along? Teaching the masses about other religions and cultures, and helping them to understand that being different is okay. Tolerance and peace kinda go hand in hand.

Lets hear it for intolerance and ignorance! Down with education!

;)

[gimpbully]

Learning about another religion isn't the same as practicing it. If you sat here and told me everything you know about Islam would that suggest you're practicing Islam? I highly doubt the school cracks out a different holy book every new chapter and religion of the book and starts praying. Then I could see your point. Everyone is still free to believe what THEY want to believe. Buy by saying "Muslims believe this, Jewish people believe this and Mormons believe this..." you're simply not practicing a religion or restricting anyones rights. I think you're taking the separation of church and state too literal. Whats the difference between saying "Muslims believe this" in context of a history lesson and doing so in context of learning about other cultures. Or do you suggest we blank out massive portions of our history books?

A society that has the knowledge of the beliefs of others is a society that is more likely to respect others beliefs. This would possibly eliminate such ignorance beliefs as " all Muslims are terrorists". Having a knowledge of the Islamic faith and what Muslim people believe in what prove otherwise.
Again, it's not about indoctrination, it's about state endorsement. Sure, I'm completely against indoctrination funded by the state (like religious schools getting tax dollars) but I'm further against tax dollars being used for state endorsement of religion (I'm using the legal definition of 'endorsement'). This is a tried and true constitutional interpretation that has been held up in the supreme court countless times.

I do understand what you're saying, but that's not what I'm saying.

Lets hear it for intolerance and ignorance! Down with education!

;)

Okay, let's address this. I'm all for education, of course. I'm a proud college graduate and I've had 4 papers published at conferences and in journals. I fear the point where a survey course in a public school looking at religion becomes selective. This is the main point I've been making this whole time. It is far too easy to say, okay, we don't have time, let's pick two religions. Now you end up with judism and catholicism. This is not a survey of world religions. This is the state making a judgement as to which religions are deemed valuable enough to examine. It is not up to the state to make this decision. There is clear wording in the bill of rights that prohibits the state from making such a decision. Thus, unless you cover all religions including non-religions... you're being selective. That's it. You are more than free to seek out an education on religious studies, you are free to teach your children on these subjects, but the state is not.

[phatlip12]

Again, it's not about indoctrination, it's about state endorsement. Sure, I'm completely against indoctrination funded by the state (like religious schools getting tax dollars) but I'm further against tax dollars being used for state endorsement of religion (I'm using the legal definition of 'endorsement'). This is a tried and true constitutional interpretation that has been held up in the supreme court countless times.

I do understand what you're saying, but that's not what I'm saying.



Okay, let's address this. I'm all for education, of course. I'm a proud college graduate and I've had 4 papers published at conferences and in journals. I fear the point where a survey course in a public school looking at religion becomes selective. This is the main point I've been making this whole time. It is far too easy to say, okay, we don't have time, let's pick two religions. Now you end up with judism and catholicism. This is not a survey of world religions. This is the state making a judgement as to which religions are deemed valuable enough to examine. It is not up to the state to make this decision. There is clear wording in the bill of rights that prohibits the state from making such a decision. Thus, unless you cover all religions including non-religions... you're being selective. That's it. You are more than free to seek out an education on religious studies, you are free to teach your children on these subjects, but the state is not.

How is teaching a group of peoples beliefs and how they live their day to day lives based on THEIR beliefs endorsing any particular religion? Again, I ask you how you can truly have a thorough understanding of how things work in other countries without first understanding the culture and what the people believe? We have a separation of church and state in this country but the same isn't true for other countries. There are countries where the word of their particular god is the ultimate rule of law. Their religion is the basis of how things get done. How exactly is learning about THEM and what THEY BELIEVE in endorsing a religion? It's not.

I get what you're saying but thats not the debate. We're discussing the system that is in place now which is the study of the popular WORLD relgions. Not just one or two. The topic isn't a hypothetical scenario of what the course may become. If it were to become a course as you just described it really wouldn't be the same program anymore and thats grounds for another debate (one which I'm sure I'd agree with you on). It would be a different course. What I'm debating is the current course. The current program seems to cover all the major WORLD religions. You can't cover EVERYTHING just as you can't cover EVERYTHING in history or really any other topic for the matter.

[gimpbully]

I can appreciate how you're trying to mold this debate, but the question was how do you feel about this course. I've explained several times exactly what I believe and why I hold that belief. I'm basing these beliefs on a solid understanding of the interpretation of the first amendment, one that has been long held by scholars. I firmly believe in the amendment's logic and feel strongly that it should be adhered to. What I'm reading from you is that you're saying that people's religion equates to their culture. I can understand this, but how is this any different from having a course on Christianity? Or a specific course on satanism? There are cases on the books where these types of courses have been struck down with great prejudice based on constitutional law. This is not the kind of course for a public school that is funded by the government and thus tax dollars. Like it or not there are certainly situations where these courses *are* used for indoctrination but that's not even the core of the debate. At the core is the case law and constitutional law. It is very clear in this case.

This is not a hypothetical and should a case be brought against this school district, they would likely lose an purely constitutional grounds.

You said, "You can't cover EVERYTHING just as you can't cover EVERYTHING in history or really any other topic for the matter." This is absolutely true and that is precisely why I brought this 'hypothetical' situation up (in reality, it's not a hypothetical at all... the course exists, as described). That is exactly what I was describing. Again, there are no amendments prescribing the teaching of history or the arts, there are for religious studies.

I completely respect your opinion on this. I naturally understand religion is a large part of peoples lives and large swaths of a culture, but there is a principal at play here that was meant to limit the governments endorsement of religion. The fact that there are state run schools does not negate this principal.

How is teaching a group of peoples beliefs and how they live their day to day lives based on THEIR beliefs endorsing any particular religion? Again, I ask you how you can truly have a thorough understanding of how things work in other countries without first understanding the culture and what the people believe? We have a separation of church and state in this country but the same isn't true for other countries. There are countries where the word of their particular god is the ultimate rule of law. Their religion is the basis of how things get done. How exactly is learning about THEM and what THEY BELIEVE in endorsing a religion? It's not.

I get what you're saying but thats not the debate. We're discussing the system that is in place now which is the study of the popular WORLD relgions. Not just one or two. The topic isn't a hypothetical scenario of what the course may become. If it were to become a course as you just described it really wouldn't be the same program anymore and thats grounds for another debate (one which I'm sure I'd agree with you on). It would be a different course. What I'm debating is the current course. The current program seems to cover all the major WORLD religions. You can't cover EVERYTHING just as you can't cover EVERYTHING in history or really any other topic for the matter.

[phatlip12]

I can appreciate how you're trying to mold this debate, but the question was how do you feel about this course. I've explained several times exactly what I believe and why I hold that belief. I'm basing these beliefs on a solid understanding of the interpretation of the first amendment, one that has been long held by scholars. I firmly believe in the amendment's logic and feel strongly that it should be adhered to. What I'm reading from you is that you're saying that people's religion equates to their culture. I can understand this, but how is this any different from having a course on Christianity? Or a specific course on satanism? There are cases on the books where these types of courses have been struck down with great prejudice based on constitutional law. This is not the kind of course for a public school that is funded by the government and thus tax dollars. Like it or not there are certainly situations where these courses *are* used for indoctrination but that's not even the core of the debate. At the core is the case law and constitutional law. It is very clear in this case.

This is not a hypothetical and should a case be brought against this school district, they would likely lose an purely constitutional grounds.

You said, "You can't cover EVERYTHING just as you can't cover EVERYTHING in history or really any other topic for the matter." This is absolutely true and that is precisely why I brought this 'hypothetical' situation up (in reality, it's not a hypothetical at all... the course exists, as described). That is exactly what I was describing. Again, there are no amendments prescribing the teaching of history or the arts, there are for religious studies.

I completely respect your opinion on this. I naturally understand religion is a large part of peoples lives and large swaths of a culture, but there is a principal at play here that was meant to limit the governments endorsement of religion. The fact that there are state run schools does not negate this principal.

I think the issue lies in our interpretation of religious endorsement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion as well. :)

[gimpbully]

Oh, absolutely. This really is a fascinating subject for thought experiments.
I think the issue lies in our interpretation of religious endorsement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion as well. :)

[GoNZooo]

If the constitution limits tolerance through knowledge that shit needs to be changed. Education in a majority of the world's largest religions should be mandatory, regardless of what people decided more than 200 years ago.

Blindly accepting technicalities that are obvious results of something being old isn't going to get you anywhere. I'd expect any reasonable person to see when something needs to be interpreted differently or changed to allow the people to function better as a unit, as well as let them understand the world.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

If the constitution limits tolerance through knowledge that shit needs to be changed. Education in a majority of the world's largest religions should be mandatory, regardless of what people decided more than 200 years ago.

Blindly accepting technicalities that are obvious results of something being old isn't going to get you anywhere. I'd expect any reasonable person to see when something needs to be interpreted differently or changed to allow the people to function better as a unit, as well as let them understand the world.
Indeed, Gonzooo. This is why America is falling behind the rest of the modern world. Sad, isn't? Especially since we act like we're on top of it. -_-

[Heyseuss]

Especially since we act like we're on top of it. -_-

That is the strangest and hardest thing to understand. I spent 12 years outside of america and when I came back, it was like stepping back in time. I'd not really seen poverty and racisim and government control and wastes of space and time and money, anywhere in the world as like in america. And then, to make it worse, everyone is bragging about themselves and only pays attention to themselves. Europeans know about the cultures of countries all over the world, most americans can't find Spain on a map. The fact is, after the war, so much was set in place, so cemented in the cultures minds, that the entire culture can't move past the 1950's. The american dream, is a nightmare to the rest of the world.

[gimpbully]

Not at all! It doesn't limit tolerance through knowledge in the least, it prohibits state sponsorship it. You are *fully* allowed to pursue whatever course of learning you might want to pursue. The government is also prohibited from interfering with your personal quest for knowledge on religious matters. Just not on the government dime. This is precisely religious freedom!

If the constitution limits tolerance through knowledge that shit needs to be changed. Education in a majority of the world's largest religions should be mandatory, regardless of what people decided more than 200 years ago.

Blindly accepting technicalities that are obvious results of something being old isn't going to get you anywhere. I'd expect any reasonable person to see when something needs to be interpreted differently or changed to allow the people to function better as a unit, as well as let them understand the world.

[Quix]

I just don't see why a detached survey of various religions if chosen on an objective model would indicate state endorsement of any religion. If they made a value judgment towards any of the religions, it would be, but not if they chose it on some objective metric like number of adherents.

[gimpbully]

does number of adherents equate to viability or value?

I just don't see why a detached survey of various religions if chosen on an objective model would indicate state endorsement of any religion. If they made a value judgment towards any of the religions, it would be, but not if they chose it on some objective metric like number of adherents.

[GoNZooo]

Not at all! It doesn't limit tolerance through knowledge in the least, it prohibits state sponsorship it. You are *fully* allowed to pursue whatever course of learning you might want to pursue. The government is also prohibited from interfering with your personal quest for knowledge on religious matters. Just not on the government dime. This is precisely religious freedom!
It does limit tolerance; everyone isn't going to seek out knowledge. This is an area where some people need to have it thrown on them. It should be mandatory to promote tolerance and to help people understand the world.

Religious freedom is the freedom to practice your religion and it has little to do with education in how different religions work. You seem to have missed that throughout this thread, though, so I'm not really holding my breath.

[gimpbully]

So education equates to tolerance? You're right, I fail to see the causality.

It does limit tolerance; everyone isn't going to seek out knowledge. This is an area where some people need to have it thrown on them. It should be mandatory to promote tolerance and to help people understand the world.

Religious freedom is the freedom to practice your religion and it has little to do with education in how different religions work. You seem to have missed that throughout this thread, though, so I'm not really holding my breath.

[skyz]

So education equates to tolerance? You're right, I fail to see the causality.

well even if not entirely successful it certainly does not hurt

[phatlip12]

So education equates to tolerance? You're right, I fail to see the causality.

I think a persons home life has the most to do it. If you're raised by ignorant hateful people you're going to be more likely to carry on those same beliefs. However, you have to take into account that individuals own personal life experiences which most definitely includes their education. If they can learn tolerance somewhere other then their home then I think it's very well possible for education to equate to tolerance.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

The american dream, is a nightmare to the rest of the world.

Most definitely. I've been saying those exact words for years.

[skyz]

Most definitely. I've been saying those exact words for years.

when the day comes that i have the capital i would be more than willing to give you the money to take you and your family wherever you wish to reside

it is one thing to have issues with one's country but your absolute disdain for the usa troubles me

so pick your destination tell me how much $ you need and as soon as i have it you can leave and hate on the usa from somewhere else

[Heyseuss]

when the day comes that i have the capital i would be more than willing to give you the money to take you and your family wherever you wish to reside

it is one thing to have issues with one's country but your absolute disdain for the usa troubles me

so pick your destination tell me how much $ you need and as soon as i have it you can leave and hate on the usa from somewhere else

Won't stop the country from sucking anymore.

[skyz]

Won't stop the country from sucking anymore.

actually even though extremely minor and essentially irrelevant in actuality to a some quantum degree it just might

btw do you mean any more as in any more so or anymore as is still so

[Heyseuss]

actually even though extremely minor and essentially irrelevant in actuality to a some quantum degree it just might

btw do you mean any more as in any more so or anymore as is still so

I meant both, but didn't want to say, "any more, anymore".

[Bohemian_Beauty]

when the day comes that i have the capital i would be more than willing to give you the money to take you and your family wherever you wish to reside

it is one thing to have issues with one's country but your absolute disdain for the usa troubles me

so pick your destination tell me how much $ you need and as soon as i have it you can leave and hate on the usa from somewhere else

Troubles you? You know what troubles me? The fact that a good amount of Americans would rather line their pocketbook with a little extra cash, than pay a little more in taxes so that every countryman will have the chance to acquire adequate health care. Right now it's not affordable for millions of Americans.

What troubles me is the "we know best so let us show you how to do it the right way", mentality.

What troubles me is our gung-ho go get em doughboy attitude. We're a violent culture.

If that all doesn't trouble you, than that worries me.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Won't stop the country from sucking anymore.

No it won't. In fact, when people like her want people like me to leave and leave the US to people like... well... you know.... you get the idea. ;)

[skyz]

No it won't. In fact, when people like her want people like me to leave and leave the US to people like... well... you know.... you get the idea. ;)

yes we get the idea you are trying to propagate

HOWEVER you have previously stated that you want to leave

so there is 'no people like her' (me) happening here

did you or did you not say you wanted to leave the usa because you hated this country ?

do i have to digg through your posts to find these comments or can you just admit it ?

[quantumfreak]

I've had two classes (in college) that examined the doctrine of various religions. One dealt with religions throughout history and another dealt with cults operating in the US.

I believe a high school class examining such subject matter couldn't be mandatory. Similar in approach to sex education, many schools would require parental permission to allow a child in. Since parents have the right to control the belief system taught to their kids, such a class could interfere with that relationship. Like journalists, teachers are human and are biased to some degree. Finding a good teacher to keep their personal beliefs in check is difficult. Likewise, such a class always has a student that doesn't understand the objective of the class. Said student starts arguing why a belief is wrong, as if the instructor is endorsing said belief.

With that in mind, I enjoyed the classes. To gain from the classes, the student needs to be able to check their beliefs at the door so as to not color the material being presented. Some can, some can't. I don't think it is possible to understand world events without a basic understanding of belief systems. But then again, who cares? If it isn't going to be on a test, why waste tax dollars and time on the matter?

[skyz]

Troubles you? You know what troubles me? The fact that a good amount of Americans would rather line their pocketbook with a little extra cash, than pay a little more in taxes so that every countryman will have the chance to acquire adequate health care. Right now it's not affordable for millions of Americans.

What troubles me is the "we know best so let us show you how to do it the right way", mentality.

What troubles me is our gung-ho go get em doughboy attitude. We're a violent culture.

If that all doesn't trouble you, than that worries me.

let's lay the truth on the table

none of the above is what worries you about me to the point where you are like a dog nipping at my heels with every post i make

you have issues with me and you are interfering with my enjoyment of this forum

you are in fact harassing me and don't think for one moment i don't get the underhanded compliment implied by your focus on every nuance of everything i say or do

you are by far not the first envious female i have encountered in my life and you for sure won't be the last

[tokenuser]

I just talked about comparative religions with a Hindu friend.
It was mainly surrounding limited over cricket vs the new 20/20 format that has taken off professionally in India, but we also touched on aspects of Hindu faith as well.

I need to learn more about both. I think I need a trip to our Indian offices to get a better appreciation.

[gimpbully]

"what's this expense report... wait, you went to india on the company dime to do... you're fired" :)
I just talked about comparative religions with a Hindu friend.
It was mainly surrounding limited over cricket vs the new 20/20 format that has taken off professionally in India, but we also touched on aspects of Hindu faith as well.

I need to learn more about both. I think I need a trip to our Indian offices to get a better appreciation.

[skyz]

I just talked about comparative religions with a Hindu friend.
It was mainly surrounding limited over cricket vs the new 20/20 format that has taken off professionally in India, but we also touched on aspects of Hindu faith as well.

I need to learn more about both. I think I need a trip to our Indian offices to get a better appreciation.

hinduism is / was the precursor to buddhism

in hinduism you have jiva (individual soul) which in self realization unites with atman (the universal soul)

the imagery often used is the idea of a wave and the ocean

the wave is not separate from the ocean

buddha was a hindu but he took out the soul both individual and universal

as both are mere figments of the imagination

hinduism breaks down to four basic paths: jahna which is the path of knowledge you read all the scriptures (india has the richest trove by far of scripture of any civilization)

karma yoga: where you dedicate your work toward the greater good mother Teresa is a good example

bhakti yoga: is the yoga of love this is the path of the mystic

raja yoga: is the study of mind through meditation you understand your own mind which is very deep

buddhism is a mental practice also but it goes totally deep into the transformation of your own unconscious

for example aggression is a quality built deep into the unconscious

through practice you can eliminate that primal aggression

the tibetan people were very war like people prior to buddhism their transformation into a nation of peaceful people is you might say the external proof of the validity of the practice

[Quix]

does number of adherents equate to viability or value?

It could be used to make a value judgment, but they wouldn't inherently do that.

Troubles you? You know what troubles me? The fact that a good amount of Americans would rather line their pocketbook with a little extra cash, than pay a little more in taxes so that every countryman will have the chance to acquire adequate health care. Right now it's not affordable for millions of Americans.

To be fair, a good number of Americans are fine with paying higher taxes to get universal health care.

[gimpbully]

Absolutely, there are just a lot of talking heads out there trying to convince you otherwise.

..I need to go shower, i just said "talking heads"

To be fair, a good number of Americans are fine with paying higher taxes to get universal health care.

[phatlip12]

The fact that a good amount of Americans would rather line their pocketbook with a little extra cash, than pay a little more in taxes so that every countryman will have the chance to acquire adequate health care. Right now it's not affordable for millions of Americans.



I think the same can be accomplished without raising taxes. If the government simply stopped spending money like a kid in a candy store that is. Perhaps then we'd have more money to spend on things that would actually help the American people.


What troubles me is our gung-ho go get em doughboy attitude. We're a violent culture.


To quote Mr. Toby Keith:

"We'll shove a boot in your ass. It's the American way."

Both sad and true.

[phatlip12]

I just talked about comparative religions with a Hindu friend.
It was mainly surrounding limited over cricket vs the new 20/20 format that has taken off professionally in India, but we also touched on aspects of Hindu faith as well.

I need to learn more about both. I think I need a trip to our Indian offices to get a better appreciation.


I too am interested in Hinduism. It's an interesting religion. That and Buddhism. I was once told by a Hindu man that I was going to be very rich either in this life or my next. :D

[Heyseuss]

I too am interested in Hinduism. It's an interesting religion. That and Buddhism. I was once told by a Hindu man that I was going to be very rich either in this life or my next. :D

He meant, rich in character. :) Guess he meant the next life. :D

[tokenuser]

Absolutely, there are just a lot of talking heads out there trying to convince you otherwise.

..I need to go shower, i just said "talking heads"Are you some kinda Psycho Killer? Stop Making Sense ...

[Bohemian_Beauty]

let's lay the truth on the table

none of the above is what worries you about me to the point where you are like a dog nipping at my heels with every post i make

you have issues with me and you are interfering with my enjoyment of this forum

you are in fact harassing me and don't think for one moment i don't get the underhanded compliment implied by your focus on every nuance of everything i say or do

you are by far not the first envious female i have encountered in my life and you for sure won't be the last



Ahh... No.

You don't get to play the victim. I have not harassed you in any way. I just voice my opinion of you when I feel you're being annoying, pathetic or just need to express some humility. Unlike other people, I don't walk on eggshells for people that bother me. That's just how I am.

You haven't given me anything to be envious of. You boast about things some find to be complete bullshit, and this is on an internet forum, which makes me have even less of a reason to be envious.

A smidgen of humility would suit you well, but I don't expect you to take my advice, as I'm sure you think you're above it.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

I think the same can be accomplished without raising taxes. If the government simply stopped spending money like a kid in a candy store that is. Perhaps then we'd have more money to spend on things that would actually help the American people.



To quote Mr. Toby Keith:

"We'll shove a boot in your ass. It's the American way."

Both sad and true.

I understand that we can do it without raising taxes, but will we? I'd like to think so.

[skyz]

You boast about things some find to be complete bullshit

some find ?

that implies more than you yes ?

and for you to know this you would have to discuss me with other people yes ?

you won't find me discussing you with anyone

so you are full of it bohemian bitch and don't think that others here don't realize it because i know they do without having to ask them

i like this place too much to let you drive me away but you are a really unpleasant fact of life here for me

and yes you are right i don't think your opinions regarding me are of any import at all

now would you like to defend your 'people like her' by claiming you never said you hated the usa and wanted to leave

i feel for your husband and for your kids i really do

you are a not very nice person trying to pretend you are better than you really are

'people like her' gives it all away to anyone with any observational power

and the people here do not tend to run to the stupid

i think you underestimate them

that comes from overestimating yourself

i'm putting you on ignore

[skyz]

i apologize to everyone else but she just gives me way too much unwanted and unwarrented 'attention'

[Bohemian_Beauty]

Good, because this thread isn't about us, and it shouldn't have been dragged on this long.

[techliveadmin]

Good, because this thread isn't about us, and it shouldn't have been dragged on this long.

I agree with BoBe. She's right.

[phatlip12]

I agree with BoBe. She's right.

I like turtles.


Moving on now!

[phatlip12]

I understand that we can do it without raising taxes, but will we? I'd like to think so.

TRUE, but I think the people are going to be more likely to support the government cutting un-needy spending *cough* Iraq *cough* then support raised taxes.

[Bohemian_Beauty]

TRUE, but I think the people are going to be more likely to support the government cutting un-needy spending *cough* Iraq *cough* then support raised taxes.
I agree. I was being pessimistic. There are so many things we could do to boost this economy. If only we had a President that didn't cater to special interest groups... :rolleyes:

[Quix]

TRUE, but I think the people are going to be more likely to support the government cutting un-needy spending *cough* Iraq *cough* then support raised taxes.

Sadly, you're probably right given that the political right has been far more effective in pushing their view of taxes(the government stealing your money) than the left has been in pushing their view(paying your fair share to the civil society which nurtures and supports you.)

[Heyseuss]

Sadly, you're probably right given that the political right has been far more effective in pushing their view of taxes(the government stealing your money) than the left has been in pushing their view(paying your fair share to the civil society which nurtures and supports you.)

It's not that one side was more effective voicing their views, it's that the evidence and affect of wasting our money, is far more convincing to us, than the measly effort and false re-assurance the other they offer, to convince us they aren't wasting our money.

It's not so much about who is better at convincing us, it's about who is behind me, raping my ass. I don't need to be told who's back there, I'm well aware I taste government dick in the back of my throat.

[Quix]

The one "raping" you is the far right. The left brought the nation out of the Great Depression, created Social Security, created Medicare/Medicaid, and created a surplus in the 1990's. We're not in debt because taxes are too high, we're in debt because President Bush plunged us into a costly quagmire which we couldn't afford and cut taxes at the same time.

[Heyseuss]

The one "raping" you is the far right. The left brought the nation out of the Great Depression, created Social Security, created Medicare/Medicaid, and created a surplus in the 1990's. We're not in debt because taxes are too high, we're in debt because President Bush plunged us into a costly quagmire and cut taxes.

Cutting taxes doesn't cause the plunge, mismanaging the expense account causes the plunge. I wasn't claiming taxes are too high, just misappropriated. I wouldn't mind losing 48% of my income, if it was benefitting myself and society. I pay $14'000/annum on property taxes which goes to local schools, and my neighbors kids are dumb.

Can't believe you tried to pass off Social and Medicare as benefits to my, or future societies.

The greater problem exists within your (the greater 'your') need to still use terms like 'left' and 'right'. Either are wrong and not helping.

[Quix]

Cutting taxes doesn't cause the plunge, mismanaging the expense account causes the plunge. I wasn't claiming taxes are too high, just misappropriated. I wouldn't mind losing 48% of my income, if it was benefitting myself and society. I pay $14'000/annum on property taxes which goes to local schools, and my neighbors kids are dumb.

Can't believe you tried to pass off Social and Medicare as benefits to my, or future societies.

The greater problem exists within your (the greater 'your') need to still use terms like 'left' and 'right'. Either are wrong and not helping.

Oh, I agree that for the most part taxes have been inappropriately invested as shown by our at best mediocre public education system(which was never great, but is even worse after No Child Left Behind.)

I don't see why Social Security and Medicare wouldn't count as benefits to our society given that they have helped keep many who can't work due to disabilities or age out of poverty. You may not have personally benefited from them, but many have.

As for the terms of left vs. right, they're still completely relevant terms. The main two ideologies within the United States are that the government should be larger and help people stay out of poverty and that the government should be small and the poor should rely on private charities. I can understand the argument that the Democratic and Republican parties have both failed, but neither is representing a pure form of the ideologies.

The Democrats are failing to live up to the Left's ideals by failing to pass Universal Health Care, failing to prosecute the President and his underlings for violating our civil liberties, failing to end wage inequality, failing to legalize marriage equality, failing to end the Iraq War, failing to make public education work, and failing to end poverty.
The Republicans are failing to live up the Right's ideals by supporting big government, failing to prosecute the President and his underlings for violating our civil liberties, failing to dismantle the IRS, failing to end the Iraq War, failing to transition from public education to private education, failing to dismantle social security, failing to be isolationist, etc.

[Heyseuss]

I don't see why Social Security and Medicare wouldn't count as benefits to our society given that they have helped keep many who can't work due to disabilities or age out of poverty.

Show me one disable or elderly happy with the quality and quantity of benefit, and I'll show you 50 unhappy with.


You may not have personally benefited from them, but many have.

Oh I have, just not in this country.

As for the terms of left vs. right, they're still completely relevant terms.

Relevant as in, still exist. Useful, accurate, or necessary? No.


The main two ideologies within the United States are that the government should be larger and help people stay out of poverty and that the government should be small and the poor should rely on private charities.

Really? Those are the main two ideologies? Nobody told me this. Do they have this printed on pamphlets to hand out when you land at the airport ?

I can understand the argument that the Democratic and Republican parties have both failed, but neither is representing a pure form of the ideologies.

Ok....
As for the terms of left vs. right, they're still completely relevant terms.

Hmmmm...
I can understand the argument that the Democratic and Republican parties have both failed, but neither is representing a pure form of the ideologies.

But wait,.. ...
As for the terms of left vs. right, they're still completely relevant terms.

*kablooey*
*mind explodes*
So this is what you do with your off time then huh Riddler ?

[Quix]

Show me one disable or elderly happy with the quality and quantity of benefit, and I'll show you 50 unhappy with.

Oh, I'm not saying it's perfect just that it's been a success. Those 50 may not be happy with the current system, but I'd wager they prefer it to having nothing.

Oh I have, just not in this country.

Ah, alright.

Relevant as in, still exist. Useful, accurate, or necessary? No.

What would you use in their place?

Really? Those are the main two ideologies? Nobody told me this. Do they have this printed on pamphlets to hand out when you land at the airport ?

The majority of Americans can identify their political beliefs as either liberal or conservative when asked.

Ok....


Hmmmm...


But wait,.. ...


*kablooey*
*mind explodes*
So this is what you do with your off time then huh Riddler ?


It's not a contradiction. The parties' rhetoric falls in line with the two philosophies and most Americans lean towards one of the two parties. The fact that politicians don't make their rhetoric reality doesn't invalidate the political philosophies.

[skyz]

on topic and to the point

attitudes of 'people like him her or they / them' vs 'people like me he she or us' is the basic format for all forms of intolerance religious or otherwise

'us' as good

'them' as not good or not as good or even 'bad'

is exactly what intolerance is

and no matter from whom or from what motive

it is as ugly as it gets

as proof think of it like this: would you find anyone saying 'it is i she he or we that is not as good as him her or they / them'

if you did you would find yourself face to face with nobility even saintliness at the very least 'good sportsmanship'

whether this concept can be taught is however questionable as the teacher would have to be entirely sincere for the students to 'buy in'

i don't know if you can find that level of quality teachers enough to serve the needs of the public high schools

on the subconscious psychological level this demonizing of 'the other' is an attempt to assign unattractive aspects of the self to 'the other' in order to bring comfort to the ego

that need to comfort the ego at the cost of truth fairness justice is what makes religious intolerance so insidious

[Quix]

That's not something inherent in recognizing differences though. If it's allowed to fall into "us vs. them" it definitely ends up that way, but if it can be maintained at the level of "us and them" where we recognize and respect the fact that there are differences the negative aspects can be avoided.

Of course, it would require a maturity that many don't have in their teens to keep it from spiraling out of control.