Originally Posted by Ygorl

my comments in red

Time magazine created a stir with its recent cover story entitled "Why we should teach the Bible in public school." Times seemingly unusual stance recieved a great deal of attention - and some significant applause from conservative christians.

This controversial proposal is not a wise one, however.

Times senior religion writer David Van Biema asserts that the Bible so pervades western culture that it is hard to consider anyone educated who doesn't have at least a passing familiarity with its key passages. And as for the church-state issue, he maintains that teaching the Bible in schools is an object of study rather than God's recieved word is constitutional.

On the face of it, all of this sounds good. But there are dangers lurking whenever government gets involved in religion. There is a growing tendency for religious groups to embrace government-sponsored religious activities. Furthermore, President Bush has embraced "faith-based initiatives."

Lets go back to the Bible in the classroom issue. Would you want public school teachers interpreting the Bible for your kids ? In some schools, teachers may promote the Bible because they are believing christians. In other schools teachers with a secular humanist bent will undermine its legitimacy. The best places for faith to be taught to kids are homes, churches and private schools.

In a similar vein, I would oppose many so-called faith-based initiatives, especially ones which link public funding with religious practice.

The White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established by president Bush through an executive order in 2001. It seeks to strengthen faith based and community organizations. These faith-based organizations (FBO's) are thus allowed to compete for government contracts to deliver services regardless of their religious affiliation. In fiscal 2005, more than $ 2.1 billion in social service grants were awarded to faith-based entities.

Already, regulations were imposed on FBO's to make sure they would pass constitutional muster in the courts. As it happens, the Bush administration is taking a laissez faire approach to these faith-based groups and reportedly few federal agencies are actively monitoring FBO's as to their compliance with federal guidelines, according to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report. And a former director of the White House office, Jim Towey, admitted in 2004 that no direct federal grants from the program had gone to a non-christian religious group. Would christians like it when federal funds go to Islamic groups, or Jewish groups ?

While it is true many FBO's have done wonderful work with the funds they recieve, there's the danger that religious organizations could become so dependant on federal funds that they lose their independance.

Already Catholic-backed organizations have seen their government funding imperiled because their faith opposes abortion, contraception and gay adoption.

One of the greatnesses of America has been our independant and seperate religious establishment. In Americas great democratic experiment, we chose a different course than most of Europe where faith has become largely an institution of the state.

America has been far more stable than its European counterparts for over 200 years. One reason, I believe, is that religious groups in America act as check against the power of the state.

If they ARE "the state", then there's no check against the states power.

History readily teaches us the perils societies face when church and state become too intertwined. It was, to cite one example, the church-sanctioned "divine right of kings" precept that legitimized hereditary aristocracy and led to the likes of Louis XV. The intolerant radical Islamic regimes of today are another example.

As envisioned by the framers of the constitution, the government should be unencumbered by concerns about religion. But likewise, religion should be free from the concerns of government.

As much as NewsMax is hated by liberals, I thought that this writing from NewsMaxs editor in chief might show ONE bit of common ground between liberals and conservatives. ........the government should be unencumbered by concerns about religion. But likewise, religion should be free from the concerns of government.

Originally Posted by presluc

In answer to your question at the top of the thread .
Don't teach the bible in school.
My answer WHY NOT?
I mean why not give the same amount of time to the bible the same recognition as evolution in schools.

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

The best thing would be to teach kids the basics of every religion, so that they can interact well with members of different religions (ie don't serve ham sandwiches when inviting the Muslim family next door to dinner, don't wear shoes and walk into the room where Sikhs keep their holy book, etc). If kids want to learn enough about religion to understand it to the level of being able to decide whether they believe it or not, then that's not the business of the government, they should do it themselves. I remember how annoyed I used to get at our RE teacher, because his interpretations of the Bible were so different to mine. Better to read it yourself.

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

The best thing would be to teach kids the basics of every religion, so that they can interact well with members of different religions (ie don't serve ham sandwiches when inviting the Muslim family next door to dinner, don't wear shoes and walk into the room where Sikhs keep their holy book, etc). If kids want to learn enough about religion to understand it to the level of being able to decide whether they believe it or not, then that's not the business of the government, they should do it themselves. I remember how annoyed I used to get at our RE teacher, because his interpretations of the Bible were so different to mine. Better to read it yourself.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Its funny, we learned about all those different religions at least the basics from our catholic relgions teacher. No really, and I dont have the feeling he was doing it in a biased way. No he was quite an open minded guy.



I agree with you, that children shall learn (more) religion when they want. But I simply defend against some attempts that try to intermingle science with religion. Even regarded theologicans say, religion can not be explained by scientific means. I really lack to see how in the counter way religion should be able to explain science. (and I am not talking about the why?(thats what religion is about) but the how?(thats what science is about))

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Its funny, we learned about all those different religions at least the basics from our catholic relgions teacher. No really, and I dont have the feeling he was doing it in a biased way. No he was quite an open minded guy........
I agree with you, that children shall learn (more) religion when they want. But I simply defend against some attempts that try to intermingle science with religion. Even regarded theologicans say, religion can not be explained by scientific means. I really lack to see how in the counter way religion should be able to explain science. (and I am not talking about the why?(thats what religion is about) but the how?(thats what science is about))

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Oh jeez you didn't know that ?

Quote a newsmax peice to a liberal (remember liberal lil ?) and watch the head spin and the teeth turn to fangs

That's why I thought this writing from their editor in chief would be interesting. Of course they'll ignore it and bury it over ... well, you know where, so I didn't even bother putting it there I don't think. If I DID it's been long buried.

Originally Posted by Tim

Hmmm...no, never heard of it.

Liberal Lil? Were you on USPOL? Or is she here?