Re: Re: Re: Why should we have to defend teachers?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on September 08, 2002 at 14:38:36:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Why should we have to defend teachers? posted by Leland on September 08, 2002 at 08:57:11:

Yes, I would. I do not think that one needs to be taught why other belief systems are right, especially when teaching their own belief system is not allowed. I can't think of any requirement that the teaching of belief systems satisfies.

There are difficult topics, such as evolution, where the prevalent scientific thinking goes against the religious beliefs of some. But we focus on these anomalies (on both sides of the argument) and miss the important point. If my kid learns evolution in school, and I think it's wrong, I can counter that with my own teaching. If my kid learns nothing in school, then I'll be so focused on the basics that I won't have time for such volatile topics. And I can't really understand why evolution (or creation) needs to be taught in schools anyway. We can show students what we do know in the fossil record and let them tackle that subject on their own. When we teach the interpretation as fact, we are not teaching them critical thinking, are we?

It seems to me that topics like that are taught not because of the science, but because of the belief system surrounding the science, and this is true on both sides of the debate. There is no need for a person to believe one way or the other about evolution to understand science sufficiently to go on to higher education where they can fight that battle on their own, unless you have an ulterior motive for teaching it one way or the other (which both sides do).

Why does a minor child need a class in, say, comparitive religion? What does that accomplish that the child can't learn with less controversy by studying language, logic, math, science, history, geography, and the arts? As I said in my long-winded post in the other thread, a class like comparitive religion is really designed to meet what is, in my view, the wrong-headed requirement to mold our kids into a societal world-view instead of leaving that to their families.

I've met very few well-educated (in the general sense) people who were obnoxiously intolerant of, say, other religions. I've met many ignorant people who were, and I daresay many of them had taken classes like comparitive religion in schools (even if it was disguised as geography or history). I've met many well-educated people who held strong convictions about these issues, who could not be budged from their views, but they were able to defend their views through peaceful debate even if I disagreed with them. That ability is critical in civilized discourse, and it derives from the basics: Language, history, geography, math, and so on. When a person runs out of words, they get angry and look for sticks and stones. Believing nothing, which is the apparent objective of the education establishment's technique of teaching about beliefs, does not promote peaceful discourse, it promotes no discourse at all.

Rick "who agrees with Leland's intent but who thinks the educational establishment's formula for reaching it won't work" Denney




Follow Ups: