I like this guy!

[rusmeister]

We agree that there are many religions out there. We agree that many followers of each of those religions feel that the one they follow is the one and only Truth of existence. Those are facts. Does anyone disagree?

So we should teach the basic ideas of Christianity, and that many people believe it is the one and only Truth of existence. And we should teach the basic ideas of Islam, and that many people believe it is the one and only Truth of existence. And Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and many others. All religions should be given equal footing.

The school system should not be saying, "Yes, we want you to understand that there are other religions out there. But we also want you to understand that Christianity is the real Truth. The others are false."

This, as always, misses my main point that a specific view on all of these religions IS being taught. But I'm tired of repeating and realize that the point is just not going to get across.

We all must face that whoever determines curriculum determines what gets taught, and the average person has no clue who determines curriculum. But its certainly not based on any consensus.

Where's the 'bow down, you rock' smilie? That is the essence. Only I would clarify "curriculum" to mean "general policy" more than mere academic points.

[Fist and Faith]

This, as always, misses my main point that a specific view on all of these religions IS being taught. But I'm tired of repeating and realize that the point is just not going to get across.

Well I'll try again! I'm not arguing that a specific view is or isn't being taught. I'm talking about how I think it should be.

[rusmeister]

This, as always, misses my main point that a specific view on all of these religions IS being taught. But I'm tired of repeating and realize that the point is just not going to get across.

Well I'll try again! I'm not arguing that a specific view is or isn't being taught. I'm talking about how I think it should be.

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification!

I am reading GKC's collection of essays "The Common Man", and one essay really nails what we are talking about
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Common_Man.txt
(unfortunately, you have to scroll down a ways to find it, and if you read "Catholic" as either "Christian" or "that which teaches the truth" you might appreciate it. But the most relevant stuff:

They were very uneducated rich men who loudly demanded education.
And among the marks of their ignorance and stupidity was the particular
mark that they regarded letters and figures as dead things,
quite separate from each other and from a general view of life.
They thought of a boy learning his letters as something quite
cut off, for instance, from what is meant by a man of letters.
They thought a calculating boy could be made like a calculating machine.

When somebody said to them, therefore, "These things must be
taught in a spiritual atmosphere", they thought it was nonsense;
they had a vague idea that it meant that a child could only do
a simple addition sum when surrounded with the smell of incense.
But they thought simple addition much more simple than it is.
When the Catholic controversialist said to them, "Even the alphabet
can be learnt in a Catholic way", they thought he was a raving bigot,
they thought he meant that nobody must ever read anything but
a Latin missal.

But he meant what he said, and what he said is thoroughly
sound psychology. There is a Catholic view of learning the alphabet;
for instance, it prevents you from thinking that the only thing
that matters is learning the alphabet; or from despising better people
than yourself, if they do not happen to have learnt the alphabet.

The old unpsychological school of instructors used to say:
"What possible sense can there be in mixing up arithmetic
with religion?" But arithmetic is mixed up with religion,
or at the worst with philosophy. It does make a great deal
of difference whether the instructor implies that truth is real,
or relative, or changeable, or an illusion. The man who said,
"Two and two may make five in the fixed stars", was teaching arithmetic
in an anti-rational way, and, therefore, in an anti-Catholic way.
The Catholic is much more certain about the fixed truths than about
the fixed stars.

But I am not now arguing which philosophy is the better;
I am only pointing out that every education teaches a philosophy;
if not by dogma then by suggestion, by implication, by atmosphere.
Every part of that education has a connection with every other part.
If it does not all combine to convey some general view of life,
it is not education at all.

There IS a default philosophy being taught in public schools and universities already, and the fact that many here happen to agree with that philosophy is a most curious coincidence if it is truly not a result of that education and its reinforcement in the media and popular culture.

[rusmeister]

Its not a direct causative link, but a strong correlation....the higher and higher numbers of people with "successful" (applying the definition I sued earlier) lives. I know many people who attended ONLY public, non-religious schools, who "found Jesus" (using the term they used, NOT a label of my own devising). Conversely I know a couple of people who "felt the call of the words of the Prophet" (again, their term), and became Muslims after a strong secular education. Ditto for a couple of Buddhists I knew at college. So a secular education is clearly NOT a barrier to faith.

Agreed. However, that's not exactly what I am arguing. In terms of sheer numbers, your examples are obviously exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of people drift away from faith, especially as young adults - when they are free (of parents) to do so. So no, it's not an insurmountable barrier to faith, but, and I say this in the literal sense of the expression, it sure as hell stacks the deck.

As far as the choking out...Fist only want to choke it (and others) out of anywhere where there are equally valid (in terms of evidence supporting and refuting), mutually exclusive views to be considered.Such as, Christianity vs Judiasm vs Islam. All claim to be the one and only Truth. All claim all others are false, These are all lacking any objective evidence to support OR refute these assertion. These are clearly mutually exclusive, they can't ALL be true. IN that position, the ONLY fair (in terms of evenhandedness) thing to do is teach them all without endorsing any. Give everyone the facts of the faiths (claims be be only true word of god, dogmas of X, Y, Z, responsible for A, B, C, and D events in history). Let the childrens parents put the unarguable facts into the context of their own beliefs.

Now you are again speaking about teaching a religion per se, instead of speaking to the fact of a default philosophy always taught no matter what you teach (perhaps the quote from the Chesterton essay above will clarify what I am saying). As I said to Fist, it seems at this point as if my main point is being deliberately ignored and is being twisted back into 'teaching of religion' time and again.

Just as I am vehemently opposed to a publilc school teacher leading a compulsory prayer in his classroom, I am EQUALLY opposed to a teacher forbidding a student from praying silently before class/after his work is finished. Coach shouldn't make the football team pray together before the game, he also shouldn't take exception to a player briefly praying before taking the field for kickoff.

There was a case recently of a football coach who was suspended, for passively participating in a student-led prayer. www.rutherford.org/KeyCases/Borden.asp
How does that fit into your scheme of things?

I have found, in EVERY religion I've studied (as in, learned about, not as in practiced) at LEAST one admirable characteristic, usually a multitude of them. And in the VAST majority of them, I've found at least ONE thing I feel is highly objectionable. I believe that by having such a multitude of faiths, the society containing them is made all the more vibrant, energetic, alive, vital. Each faith brings a history (long or short), and its unique elements to create a whole tapestry that is truly greater than the sum of its parts. I want my children to be able to learn about EVERY faith out there, and find a faith that will exalt their soul, put wings tot heir spirit, and bring a radiant light into their heart, a deep and abiding joy into their lives. That makes them truly FEEL the divine, connected to all the wonder of the world.

Yes, that's your world view. I'm glad it does it for you. But trying to use the government to bring THAT to all the people is just as based on a belief as a Christian, Islamic or Judaic one, and you are using the government to bring it to all the people.

Rus, from what you've said, I have NO DOUBT that Orthodox Christianity does this for you. I'm happy for you. But trying to use government to bring ANY religion to "all the people" has NEVER ended up healthy for the society in question, no matter the nobility of the intent. I'm not questioning your motivations/intent. However, can you be intellectually honest enough to admit there are Muslims out there (not the jihadist whackos) who are equally sincere in their beliefs, with just as much scholarly research supporting their views as you have, who would argue for Islamic basis of education? And lacking any personal belief in either faith, that there is precious little to differentiate the two views? From within either faith, I realize there is a TREMENDOUS difference...but not so much to an outsider.

I'm not questioning your motivations or intent, either, and I'm glad we accept this of each other. However, can you be intellectually honest enough to admit that I have established that there IS a philosophy taught in the public system, and not as a subject, but as the worldview which permeates how everything is to be taught?

I don't think you intended to be patronizing. But when you use expressions like "intellectual honesty" and suggest that I am seeking to deceive myself, it does come across that way - thus, my turning of the tables.

[CovenantJr]

There IS a default philosophy being taught in public schools and universities already, and the fact that many here happen to agree with that philosophy is a most curious coincidence if it is truly not a result of that education and its reinforcement in the media and popular culture.

Interesting. I can't help thinking that if the school system emphasised Christianity, the popularity of that religion would be not a 'curious coincidence' but a demonstration of truth.

[Cybrweez]

I have found, in EVERY religion I've studied (as in, learned about, not as in practiced) at LEAST one admirable characteristic, usually a multitude of them. And in the VAST majority of them, I've found at least ONE thing I feel is highly objectionable. I believe that by having such a multitude of faiths, the society containing them is made all the more vibrant, energetic, alive, vital. Each faith brings a history (long or short), and its unique elements to create a whole tapestry that is truly greater than the sum of its parts. I want my children to be able to learn about EVERY faith out there, and find a faith that will exalt their soul, put wings tot heir spirit, and bring a radiant light into their heart, a deep and abiding joy into their lives. That makes them truly FEEL the divine, connected to all the wonder of the world.

Yes, that's your world view. I'm glad it does it for you. But trying to use the government to bring THAT to all the people is just as based on a belief as a Christian, Islamic or Judaic one, and you are using the government to bring it to all the people.

Yes, that's been my point all along. There is no objective proof for that basis 7W. Its simply what you want.

[stonemaybe]

Loving this thread!

I completely agree with Rus's argument that there is a definite culture behind how kids are taught in school - and it's probably even 'worse' (from Rus's POV) here in the UK than it is in the US. The education system here has been firmly in the hands of the 'Left' since the 1960's, despite whoever's been in government.

My 14 years of schooling were in Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland. All my teachers were Catholic (they had to be, the schools would not employ non-Catholics), and I had two or three teachers who were priests in secondary education. I know I've been indoctrinated. (Small point, I didn't even realise until I left NI, that there weren't 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' schools, there were 'Catholic' and 'Public' schools!) I've made a conscious effort to rid myself of what Catholic baggage I can, and I have come to peace with myself regarding certain beliefs that are lodged too deep for me to change. Moving away (to England) helped with this, and also helps me see (as an 'outsider') how the public education system here does exactly what Rus says it is doing in the US. I don't intend having a family, but if I did, I would move back to NI and put them through Catholic school rather than Public school there or here. Confused yet? Strangely, it seems that this relatively modern form of teaching it harder to dispute/refute/argue against than Christian teaching, despite Christians having 1000s of years more practice at indoctrination.

Here's a point about this public education agenda though (and I admit, I may be showing media indoctrination or somesuch by saying this!): So what? Society, mainly, works better today, now that most people have had these same values instilled in them. I can live my life safely. When I meet a random person, I can be fairly sure how their mind works and how we can communicate enjoyably. I'm 99.9% positive that I could raise a family safely if I wanted. My kids would probably have a less troublesome childhood than mine, with less threats and intimidation. They probably won't have much or any say in how their society works, but they're also less likely to be conscripted and sent off to a foreign war that has nothing to do with them. *shrug* They'd be a 'number' (as in, 'I'm not a number!') but they'd be safe little numbers.

Rus:
If you could make the 'agenda', how do you see society turning out in forty years time, after everyone had passed through your view of how education should be taught?

[Cybrweez]

Good questions stonemaybe. For me, I'm not sure what public education should look like. I only know some of the changes over 150+ years, yet I don't see an increase in effect. Its my opinion teaching critical thinking is more important then facts. Then, you can interpret facts at a higher level, rather than just absorb them.

I question the compulsion part of it. Why does the govt interfere so much in education? Why make it so complicated to teach your own kids, or send them wherever you want? For the kid's benefit? Heh, that's a good one.

[stonemaybe]

At the risk of serious thread hijack - what are the relative importances of what a kid gets out of public education?

Pure knowledge? (Fist's 'facts' )
Ability to interact with others?
Respect for authority?
Employability?
Ability to learn?
How to be an obedient citizen?
How to avoid a life of crime or poverty?
How to get to heaven?
Etiquette?

A parent's POV will be different to the governments', and the government's possibly different to the education establishment's, and different again to prospective employers'. Never mind what the kids themselves want! Who should decide, if it was indeed possible to make that decision?

[Menolly]

Oy...

*wonders if anyone on the Watch home schools*

I will say the "socialization" aspect of school, whether religious or secular, is vastly over rated. The child will find opportunities to be social outside of the educational setting, if the parents give them enough opportunities to grow, such as play dates or organized activities such as scouts.

I believe it is the parents decision what type of educational setting best suites their child until the child demonstrates the ability to make a weighted decision of such magnitude, as long as local law supports it. But yeah, major thread jack, IMO...

[rusmeister]

Oy...

*wonders if anyone on the Watch home schools*

I will say the "socialization" aspect of school, whether religious or secular, is vastly over rated. The child will find opportunities to be social outside of the educational setting, if the parents give them enough opportunities to grow, such as play dates or organized activities such as scouts.

I believe it is the parents decision what type of educational setting best suites their child until the child demonstrates the ability to make a weighted decision of such magnitude, as long as local law supports it. But yeah, major thread jack, IMO...

Amen, amen, amen!!! (With European, rather than Southern Baptist, pronunciation)
IOW, strongly agree.

[rusmeister]

There IS a default philosophy being taught in public schools and universities already, and the fact that many here happen to agree with that philosophy is a most curious coincidence if it is truly not a result of that education and its reinforcement in the media and popular culture.

Interesting. I can't help thinking that if the school system emphasised Christianity, the popularity of that religion would be not a 'curious coincidence' but a demonstration of truth.

This seems to be an avoidance of the actual fact (in the indicative mood) that DOES exist in public schools.
Of course it would claim to be true, just as the teaching and claim of the actual public philosophy is that truth is personal and individual.

The implications of what actually IS and how that affects how children perceive truth - and the very question, 'what is truth?', could be creepy, especially if you realize that they did it to you (where applicable).
Any one would be prone to take what he had been taught all his life dogmatically, and feel uncomfortable (to say the least) to learn that what he believed was an artificially induced and quite debatable base of philosophy. It would force rethinking absolutely everything - a Richter '9' earthquake of the soul. Again, Neo, in the Matrix.

[rusmeister]

At the risk of serious thread hijack - what are the relative importances of what a kid gets out of public education?

Pure knowledge? (Fist's 'facts' )
Ability to interact with others?
Respect for authority?
Employability?
Ability to learn?
How to be an obedient citizen?
How to avoid a life of crime or poverty?
How to get to heaven?
Etiquette?

A parent's POV will be different to the governments', and the government's possibly different to the education establishment's, and different again to prospective employers'. Never mind what the kids themselves want! Who should decide, if it was indeed possible to make that decision?

Obviously, the people who love the children most should decide - and that would be the parents.

As to importance, the answer is quite simple, I think. Teaching the child what is true, how to distinguish between truth and falsehood. If they can do that, they will be enabled to do everything well, because their actions will be based on understandings that align as closely as possible to a correct understanding of the true nature of the universe and human nature.

Everything else is incidental to that. Thus, nothing is more important than to have a philosophy of education that is true. Only then can you even talk about organizing a school system, and decide what it should look like (because you have the best and most correct answers as to what the nature of man is and what his purpose in life is. And whether "employability" should be a concern or whether we should just dismantle capitalism altogether and build a kind of society that is good for all. For that, you need to define what "good" is and are back to the question of 'what is truth?'

[stonemaybe]

Rusmeister wrote:

As to importance, the answer is quite simple, I think. Teaching the child what is true, how to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

Wo! Simple? In The Land, maybe, but in our society? With the wealth of information (and mis-information) available, with the whole range of different (and maybe equally valid ) viewpoints that are held. How do you teach a kid that?

[rusmeister]

Loving this thread!

I completely agree with Rus's argument that there is a definite culture behind how kids are taught in school - and it's probably even 'worse' (from Rus's POV) here in the UK than it is in the US. The education system here has been firmly in the hands of the 'Left' since the 1960's, despite whoever's been in government.

My 14 years of schooling were in Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland. All my teachers were Catholic (they had to be, the schools would not employ non-Catholics), and I had two or three teachers who were priests in secondary education. I know I've been indoctrinated. (Small point, I didn't even realise until I left NI, that there weren't 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' schools, there were 'Catholic' and 'Public' schools!) I've made a conscious effort to rid myself of what Catholic baggage I can, and I have come to peace with myself regarding certain beliefs that are lodged too deep for me to change. Moving away (to England) helped with this, and also helps me see (as an 'outsider') how the public education system here does exactly what Rus says it is doing in the US. I don't intend having a family, but if I did, I would move back to NI and put them through Catholic school rather than Public school there or here. Confused yet? Strangely, it seems that this relatively modern form of teaching it harder to dispute/refute/argue against than Christian teaching, despite Christians having 1000s of years more practice at indoctrination.

Here's a point about this public education agenda though (and I admit, I may be showing media indoctrination or somesuch by saying this!): So what? Society, mainly, works better today, now that most people have had these same values instilled in them. I can live my life safely. When I meet a random person, I can be fairly sure how their mind works and how we can communicate enjoyably. I'm 99.9% positive that I could raise a family safely if I wanted. My kids would probably have a less troublesome childhood than mine, with less threats and intimidation. They probably won't have much or any say in how their society works, but they're also less likely to be conscripted and sent off to a foreign war that has nothing to do with them. *shrug* They'd be a 'number' (as in, 'I'm not a number!') but they'd be safe little numbers.

Rus:
If you could make the 'agenda', how do you see society turning out in forty years time, after everyone had passed through your view of how education should be taught?

Thanks, Stonemaybe - great post!
I'd encourage you to dig into the history of British and Irish public education - when did the public schools and board schools come to resemble the Prussian model?

Fascinating stuff about the Catholic schools! if I had to say one thing to people here on that, I would say that it is the fact the the indoctrination is OPEN - that they TELL you exactly what the philosophy is and why, rather than hide it in the great pretense of universal tolerance (not that this pretense is purposeful - people are largely unaware of the nature of the philosophy and the inconsistencies that it creates by its falsity).

A total aside on a personal question, but you don't intend to have a family? Plans for old age? What do you do when you get old and friends fall away? (I think even by middle age, loneliness begins to become a serious problem - ironically encouraged in our society - that's what 'birth control' (euphemism alert!), late marriage, abortion, etc, all tend to lead to.

Strangely, it seems that this relatively modern form of teaching it harder to dispute/refute/argue against than Christian teaching, despite Christians having 1000s of years more practice at indoctrination.

Back to topic, I think the reason this is the case is for that very reason - that because it is not announced or discussed, or even define, it is nearly impossible to fight. How can you fight an enemy that can change shape at will? You prove one thing, and they immediately shift to a different position - because nothing is defined. It took me years to formulate it, and I worked in the system. The smoke screen is dense.

It's only on your last paragraph that we diverge. I'd say that the things you mention are indeed pleasant (safety, stability, etc). But everything comes back to ultimate world view. Safety ends. We die.
The working assumption that you are coming from, wittingly or not, is that this life is all that matters; is all there is. If it is not, then the value of safety and stability change. If there IS an eternity that is determined based on our correct reaction to the nature of the universe, then we cannot make those things the prime values to strive for. The Christian martyrs (and new martyrs of Russia, btw), once again, saw something far more important than that, and sacrificed things like safety and stability. So yes, the public system, for a time (I assert that it won't last because it's not based on correct philosophy in the end), can produce such things as you describe. But if by it you sacrifice that eternity, then it is an awful mistake, is it not? So the debate of what is true remains. And the public education system - the same across Europe, as well as America, and based in part or entirely on the Prussian system - teaches that definite and well-hidden philosophy, that does not declare itself, but creeps out in practice. It is the source of "political correctness", which sprang out, not from a small and commanding elite - to all appearances - but as a grass roots phenomenon - because it was. The schools were working on the ground level to produce that thing we now call PC. It is the practical application of religious/philosophical pluralism.

As to "my agenda" - the most important thing is that it's not 'mine'. If everyone were to convert to the most correct form of Christianity - which I identify as Orthodox - then while we would not have a perfect world (as long as sin exists), we would have people striving to conform themselves to the truth - and correctly acting in the light of a true understanding of human nature and the nature of the universe. Even other forms of Christianity are much closer to the truth, and thus, would produce better societies, ultimately more stable and longer lasting, than the one we see unfolding now. In short, the closer a philosophy is to the truth, the better the results will be. I say that it is the fairly strong beginnings of America as a largely religous nation, and a mostly Christian one at that, that resulted in most of the things that, as the saw goes. 'made America great'.
Basically, if you learn the truth about something, it is far easier to correct it than if you work from false assumptions.

[rusmeister]

Rusmeister wrote:

As to importance, the answer is quite simple, I think. Teaching the child what is true, how to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

Wo! Simple? In The Land, maybe, but in our society? With the wealth of information (and mis-information) available, with the whole range of different (and maybe equally valid ) viewpoints that are held. How do you teach a kid that?

I didn't mean that teaching the child will be simple, or that determining the truth would be simple, but that the answer to your question is simple.

[stonemaybe]

Ah, ok.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

The passive participation in student led prayer seems questionable. His doing so can easily be seen as favoring those players. I'm not saying he WOULD/IS, but it looks dubious. However, unless there's some allegations (WITH supporting evidence) of such impropriety (which I seriously doubt there would be), I find nothing objectionable in his actions, and much in the school's response objectionable.

I am, to use your words, "using the government to bring to the people" all the information possible about ALL faiths. Favoring none.

I was not trying to accuse you of intentional self-deception. I was more gesturing towards the (from past experience with other people in such discussions) possibility that you unconsciously ascribed such genuineness and sincerity in their beliefs as the sole province of the "True Faith". Which isn't really self-deception, just an assumption. You didn't, however, address the second part of that statement, about those other faiths sincerity and scholarship of support.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

The passive participation in student led prayer seems questionable. His doing so can easily be seen as favoring those players. I'm not saying he WOULD/IS, but it looks dubious. However, unless there's some allegations (WITH supporting evidence) of such impropriety (which I seriously doubt there would be), I find nothing objectionable in his actions, and much in the school's response objectionable.

I am, to use your words, "using the government to bring to the people" all the information possible about ALL faiths. Favoring none.

I was not trying to accuse you of intentional self-deception. I was more gesturing towards the (from past experience with other people in such discussions) possibility that you unconsciously ascribed such genuineness and sincerity in their beliefs as the sole province of the "True Faith". Which isn't really self-deception, just an assumption. You didn't, however, address the second part of that statement, about those other faiths sincerity and scholarship of support.

Based on this:

I am, to use your words, "using the government to bring to the people" all the information possible about ALL faiths. Favoring none.

I'm not sure if you've even seen my thesis - by now stated at least a dozen times - which is that it is precisely not about teaching religion in school, but about a definite default philosophy actively but subtly being taught to all children - reflected in the requirements for teachers and district, county and state ed policies. (Maybe I should put it in bold max font size, etc?)
That's why I don't respond to the question of a faith's sincerity or even 'support'. It's not what I'm talking about at all.

People have this idea that 'subjects' can be taught in a vacuum without an overarching philosophy. Did you read the Chesterton quote above?

I'll add this:

It is our opponents, and not we, who give a really
outrageous and superstitious position to dogmatic theology.
It is they who suppose that the special "subject" called theology
can be put into people by an experiment lasting half an hour;
and that this magical inoculation will last them through a week
in a world that is soaked through and through with a contrary
conception of life.

Theology is only articulate religion; but, strange as it seems
to the true Christians who criticise us, it is necessary to have
religion as well as theology. And religion, as they are often obliging
enough to remind us when this particular problem is not involved,
is a thing for every day of the week and not merely for Sunday
or Church services.

The truth is that the modern world has committed itself to two totally
different and inconsistent conceptions about education. It is always
trying to expand the scope of education; and always trying to exclude
from it all religion and philosophy. But this is sheer nonsense.
You can have an education that teaches atheism because atheism is true,
and it can be, from its own point of view, a complete education.
But you cannot have an education claiming to teach all truth,
and then refusing to discuss whether atheism is true.

When schooling was supposed to consist of spelling, of counting
and making pothooks and hangers, you might make out some kind
of case for saying that it could be taught indifferently by a
Baptist or Buddhist. But what in the world is the sense of having
an education which includes lessons in "citizenship", for instance;
and then pretending not to include anything like a moral theory,
and ignoring all those who happen to hold that a moral theory
depends on a moral theology.

The point is that you cannot assume "a neutral position". There is no such thing. A definite, non-neutral position HAS been assumed and was taught to you (if you attended public school or college).

[Fist and Faith]

rus,

At the moment, I suppose the education system is far closer to what I think it should be than what you and Cybr think it should be. And yet, we have reports like these.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opin ... uote](CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.[/quote]

www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birth ... ]PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.[/quote]

uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2922875820071129?sp=true

DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.

Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."

So an education system that's closer to what I want than what you want doesn't seem to be leading people astray, by your standards. They're still able to see the Truth, as you see it.

And I don't hear news reports about atheists attacking those who are doing non-atheist things, but I hear about Christians beating homosexuals - sometimes to death - because the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Don't get me wrong. I don't for a single second entertain the thought that you approve of such a thing. Still, as far as they, and the KKK, are concerned, they're doing this stuff in God's name. But they're not being taught that in public school.

Cybr says the USA's public education began by teaching the Bible. At the same time, they were enslaving Africans, and exterminating Native Americans.

I'm not attempting to use any of this to argue for or against any education system. Clearly, nothing we've had so far has done the best job of what anyone wants or expects it to.


As for how things actually are... You know, the advances in the world since the USA came along have been extraordinary, and the USA has had a good deal to do with that. Why is that? Because the different cultures that came here each had their own ways of doing things, and they combined to solve more problems than ever before? Because the literacy rate, thanks to public schools, is much better than many other places? Because there just happened to be a bunch of geniuses born here? I don't think we can say homeschooled people are responsible for all the accomplishments. And we certainly can't say public school is responsible for the intuitive leaps that have often been made. All in all, I don't think any single thing can take credit for the changes in the world in the last 50, 100, 150 years. But I sure think the public education system can take some of the credit.

You think those of us who largely agree with it do so because we've been brainwashed into it. I think we largely agree with it because it has, through trial and error, become what it is: Something that is succeeding to a large degree, even if it's impossible for such a huge organization to work perfectly.

People have this idea that 'subjects' can be taught in a vacuum without an overarching philosophy.

I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest they can't. I still say I can discuss infinite sets, or gravity, or the internal combustion engine, without any overarching philosophy. Why on earth can't I??

I question the compulsion part of it. Why does the govt interfere so much in education? Why make it so complicated to teach your own kids, or send them wherever you want? For the kid's benefit? Heh, that's a good one.

I assume the theory is that it's for society's benefit. Education is among the least objectionable things that can forced on us, imo. And if a lack of education - not being able to read; not being able to do basic math; not have skills in any field; etc - leads to crime, poverty, etc, then I'm not opposed to forcing education on everyone.

Obviously, there are two problems. The first is, what things should we all be forced to learn? That's what a lot of this thread has been about.

The second is, how can we ensure an education is being given? Without question, homeschooling can accomplish as much as any other kind. So people should be allowed to homeschool their children. But we want to make sure it's happening, right? We can't just let everyone not go to public or private school, and assume they're learning anything. So we have ways of looking into it, and making sure. No, it is absolutely not a perfect system. For many reasons (the person in charge in one area is a jerk, and gives people crap every day; the person in another area isn't paying the slightest attention to if anybody is doing anything; the parent lies about what their child has accomplished; etc), the system is flawed. But there's no such thing as a perfect system. There's NO WAY to have a society where nobody is disgustingly rich, and nobody is disgustingly poor. There's no system of education that can teach everybody according to their needs. What is this person best suited for? What do they most want to learn/accomplish? How can this person best show us what they know? (Written test? Verbally demonstrating what they know? Drawing pictures of what they know?) But it seems better to have some system, even knowing that it is impossible to make it perfect, than to have a society where many people would never send their kids to school, and would not educate them at home. Not good for society, and, really, not fair for the kids either.