Here's something we've been covering in our History class for the past couple days.

What are your views on this subject? Do you believe that all religion should be seperated from education completely, some references here and there, or influenced within schooling?

In America, yes; we believe in religious freedom, and imposing G-d on people that don't even believe in a G-d is wrong. It's like banning evolution because it disagrees with the Bible (which is completely wrong from the start; we proved it in my Bible class). It's completely uncalled for.

We get all beliefs in history, and the evolution with biologie.

I'm in a public school so they show strong and weak points of all of the beliefs.

I like the way they did it although the beliefs had a bit outdated descriptions

We certainly cover some religions in our school, but in a strictly historical way. Religion shouldn't be allowed in schools, though, in the form or prayer. This can lead to alot of trouble when people don't believe what you do.

Should students be forced into standing for the pledge by administrators?

That is more of a sign of respect; what administrators should not do is force everyone to say the pledge

At my school this kid in my grade refused to stand up and say the pledge and got detention. Now you have to get a note signed from your parents saying you don't have to stand up and say it. :(

First, BlackBaron that's odd. Never heard of something like that. I don't see why one can't just stand. No one should be that lazy.

Second, I think if they can teach evolution they should also teach the biblical (and any other religious) belief of creation. There's no proof for any of them, so I don't see why there should be an unequal representation of the different beliefs. By singling out evolution teachers are implying that it's more right than anything else when in fact it's not.

Third, I think there should be classes that teach history through the Bible. As far as I know, it's historically acurate, and it's greatly influenced the world in it's several thousand year reign as "best seller". So much of the world is christian (or in the case of jews, based on the bible) that it should be required, just so people understand eachother's beliefs.

But like RFB said, the state should not force people to pray in a certain way, or limit people's opportunity to pray. Overall though, I think we're doing pretty well with this here in America. I can't speak for other countries, but it seems to work so far.

In a public school, not everyone believes in the Bible, and therefore such courses would not be acceptable. And anyway, evolution and the Biblical creation story are the same stories told in much different words; but they have the same main idea. The difference in this case is that it is more concrete and more widely accepted to use a science book, as most people do not realize this relationship.

that wouldn't matter. I'm not talking about a course in christianity, I'm talking about a course that looks at history from bible's perspective and the effect the bible has had on history. School's can not dismiss the bible as irrelevent. The book has influenced history in every era. Think of the crusades, think of the influence of the catholic church. You can't deny the impact of the bible. The class would be like a british literature class or something. Besides, they can teach evolution in schools, and not everyone believes in that (in fact more people believe in the bible than in evolution).

Well, I'm agnostic, so this doesn't 100% pertain to me. But I only think a few words in the pledge isn't serious...that guy was just upset about his daughter lol. I think government and religion should be separated, and thats why I'm Democratic..

What's the pledge?

Some people disagree with it; especially if you are not American, it should not be forced.

Although many religious folk may choose not to believe the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection, it IS still a scientific theory and therefore should be taught in a science based class. Religious theories of how the earth was formed have no scientific evidence whatsoever and therefore should NOT be taught in science class, simply put.

As for religion based clubs, I think they should be allowed as long as ALL religious type clubs are allowed, not just majorities.

I don't think the words, "Under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. In a country with freedom of religion, public schools shouldn't require students to repeat this religious phrase. Being forced to recite the pledge, or else face punishment from your teacher, is very degrading to someone with different religious beliefs. They may not only feel pressure to change their religious views, but they will also feel left out from the rest of their class.

Ok... personally the whole "drop God from the pledge" thing is stupid. One of the primary reasons this country was founded was because of the belief in God. The puritans, for one, left England because they disagreed with the church. So in a sense, the country was founded "under God". It's a historical reference, it has nothing to do with religion. Besides, it's not like it's targeting any particular religious sect. Every religion has a "god' whether it be Yahway (sp?) or Budda or just simply nature... god really is not all that specific. And even if you take it from a aethiest point of view, they're chosing to not believe in God, but still they're beliefs are founded "under God" in that they're beliefs revolve around there not being a god. In all truth it's just a symbol for why this nation was created. How many other countries can really boast that it was created "under God" or with the idea of "God" guiding the countries decisions, and believe me God guides the decisions. God is the reason for the seperation of church and state; God played a major role in the Scopes trial, and God has cropped up all over in our history. Again, the text is a SYMBOL, why do people not understand this basic principle? Why does everyone take everything at face value? Are people too lazy to think? Seriously, any educated person should be able to recognize the importance of that line and what all it entails. Besides, this will just lead to more destruction of traditions such as the "In God We Trust" on the front of every coin and bill in the U.S. Why remove such traditions? Why destroy everything that has built up through the years? Why destroy the country?



[ :D Abit zealous, but that's my opinion. ]

While you are true that this country was founded under CHRISTAIN religious tolerance, not ALL religious tolerance (think about Salem Witch Trials?), we live in a society now that provides freedom for all people, and not all people believe in Gd; that's my issue with it.

Again, a perfect example of how "God" has influenced America. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God, it all has to do with the fact that "God" or "religion" influences the nation's policies. It's like that saying "to not chose is still a choice" well, to seperate church and state was influenced by the peoples belief in religious freedom, which in turn means their freedom to believe in GOD. God, whether you like it or not, influences every decision of the State. Again, "under God" is a symbol of freedom of religion. Removing it would be saying "I don't believe in freedom of religion." That's not what you're trying to say is it?

Plenty of scientific evidence exists supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection. As I quote my school Biology book (Harcourt Brace & Company):

"In The Origin of Species, as the book is commonly known, Darwin not only presented much evidence that evolution occured but also proposed that natural selection was its mechanism. Organisms with traits well suited to an environment are more likely to survive and produce more offspring than organisms without these favorable traits."..."Because Darwin presented a mechanism as well as evidence for evolution, his arguments were compelling. His views were soon accepted by biologists around the world."

On another matter, I don't attend a public school to be confronted with religion when I arrive in the morning. If I wanted that, I'd have gone to a private religious school, don't you think? I was under the impression public schools were for everybody.

You are correct. The phrase "under God" only represents monotheistic religions (believing that there is only one god).

Of course, and what better way to support our freedom of religion by requiring students of polytheistic religions to recite a pledge that goes against their beliefs! My good friend Avani is part of a religion/lifestyle known as Hinduism, which in its polytheistic elements, contains a variety of deities (gods). How do you suppose she feels?

Why do you continue to take things literally? I've already said it and I'll say it again, "God" is a symbol to represent religion. Just because it says "God" does not mean that it can not include other religions. From a writers stand point, it would be stupid to change the pledge to "under God and gods or goddesses" it breaks up the rythmn.

Second, this entire debate is all personal belief and preference. What I can't understand is why you assume that the phrase is purposefully targeted against athiests and polytheistic faiths. Why do people take something that could be interpereted a number of ways and automatically assume that their way is best? So far, my concept has been the only one that pleases both sides of the arguement. If you take "God" as a symbol of freedom of religion then both sides would be happy, yet you refuse to accept this, why? Why can't you be satisfied with a realistic and logical conclusion that will satisfy both arguements, why must the answer be removing of the line. Why must tradition be re-written to fit your beliefs?

Lastly, natural selection is not a basis for the theory of evolution. Darwin never in his book concludes that natural selection was the basis of all mankind. Yes, he proved that animals can adapt to their environment, but if you just look at the human race you'll see evidence of this. For example, if a Floridian went to Alaska, he would complain of being cold, because his body had adapted to the warmer climate in Florida. Likewise, the Alaskans would complain about the heat if they were to move to Florida.

Darwin was a firm believer in the Catholic church, and his theory of natural selection only proves why there is variance in the species. He still believed that God created the species, but that time and nature cause the best of the best to survive. He never proved any great leaps such as a fish suddenly growing lungs and living on land. His theory targeted small changes, like the shape of bird beaks, or skin coloring. In no way does this support the big bang theory, which is the core of evolution, that the universe formed from an explosion and everything evolved from that point. This theory has no scientific basis at all. In fact, I went to a lecutre just a weekago about some of the advances in physics, and how scientists are trying to bridge the wholes in the theories of evolution at a molecular level, but even the professor, a well known physicist at Oxford, stated at the end that "all though these are wonderful theories, there is no actual proof as of yet to support them" Yes, they are trying to obtain that proof, but as of now, there is no proof. So don't you dare tell me that evolution has been proven. There are still way too many wholes that need filling before its even close to being proven. Which is why it is a belief. The only reason you accept it as fact is because it is placed in a science book and school has taught you to believe everything in those books. That's pure propoganda. This is why I think, personally believe, it should be addressed in a theology class along with all the other major religions of the world, but I know this will never happend. I just wish teachers would spend more time stressing the fact that it is a theory, and as such may not be correct. Give the students a chance to form their own theories, rather than force things upon them.

Never, not once before have I heard that arguement, and I refuse to believe that the phrase "under God" also represents polytheistic religions as well as atheism, as you often use the word "tradition" in your arguements. Polytheistic religions and atheism are not the traditions of this country.

This debate is far from personal beliefs and preferences. Do you know where I live? I live in a state called Florida. You couldn't find a more Evangelical Christian place if you went to their male-dominant heterosexual-only heaven. The theory of evolution and natural selection, which by the way has scientific, physical evidence supporting it, couldn't be farther from their beliefs, yet they respect it as a scientific theory and therefore teach it in science class. As for the pledge, these people do not use the phrase "under God" to refer to freedom of religion. They are referring to their god and their religion.

Beliefs, or lack thereof (I'm agnostic). Tradition, as you like to call it, has been changed several times to better fit today's society. Women's rights, integration, anti-descrimination laws, just to name a few. I just figured scientific theories should be taught in science class. Just an idea.

From what I understand, theoretically, evolution does not occur in ones lifetime, but over the course of millions of years. There are at least a couple chapters in my school's Biology book with explanations as well as physical evidence (fossils) supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I have been introduced to both religious and scientific theories in my short lifetime. I do not accept evolution as a fact, I accept it as a scientific theory with a variety of fossils and scientific experimental studies supporting it. Save the religious theories without any scientific evidence supporting them for the theology classes.

I feel that "under God" may be provocative, because not all people believe that this nation should be governed under theological beliefes (a.k.a Bush and his idea to ban abortion and gay marriage because of the Bible), and that includes me. This nation, today, is meant to be a pluralistic one, and when you throw in something that only agrees with one set of beliefs, it changes it. "Under Gd" makes it seem as if this is a Christain country, and lots of laws that are in the bill process are also in the context, which is inappropriate (imo).

I agree.