CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
All religions, for example, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and all should be there as a subject called "Religion".
Thus, those who are Christians can choose Christianity as their Religion subject and others choose whatever they would want to. Isn't this the best way to fortify own faith?
i think it should be up to the person who is going to be learning it what religion they want to learn as its not fair on 100% atheist having to learn ll about god and jesus when they do not believe at all :)
It should be up to the school what they teach. If they want to teach Christianity at their school, let them! If people don't want their kids learning about it, don't send them to a school that teaches it.
What if I were an atheist (I am) and I pay taxes (I do and quite a bit of them) and the only school within miles teaches Christianity - doing so using a portion of the taxes I pay?
Seems silly and directly counter to the indisputable separation of church and State very apparent and easily understood in the constitution.
How about this. We let private schools offer an education - and these private schools don't receive public funding. And these private schools can teach religion, since they are not aided by the State?
Well then in that case if you are going to have a secular state there should be a cut in taxes so that the private schools won't need to be so exclusive.
Well then in that case if you are going to have a secular state there should be a cut in taxes so that the private schools won't need to be so exclusive.
That argument isn't on topic. this debate is, simply, asking about Christianity being taught in school, not how much money should be spent on public schools.
All public schools aren't the same, but they shouldn't be allowed to have an entire class on Christianity. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." If a school is being funded by public money, then it should follow the rules that make it accessible for all public to go. Why should a Muslim person pay their taxes to have it given to a school that teaches a class on Christianity? Besides, there are plenty churches if you'd like to learn about the religion.
Well that's exactly what I said before, there shouldn't be such a high budget for public schools, so that people of different religions aren't paying for education about Christianity.
That way the schools are free to teach what religion they want, not what the government demands.
Well that's exactly what I said before, there shouldn't be such a high budget for public schools, so that people of different religions aren't paying for education about Christianity.
They aren't. It's illegal to teach a class on religions in public schools.
That way the schools are free to teach what religion they want, not what the government demands.
You do realize that in order for that to happen every school would have to be a charter school or private school? The government demands that the school can't teach about religion because the school are supposed to be open for anyone to go. If you owned a company, would you want your employees to follow your rules, or do whatever they want?
They aren't. It's illegal to teach a class on religions in public schools
Well it shouldn't be! I agree it shouldn't be compulsory for students to learn about Christianity, but it shouldn't be ILLEGAL for ALL students in a public school to learn about it.
If you owned a company, would you want your employees to follow your rules, or do whatever they want?
Well it shouldn't be! I agree it shouldn't be compulsory for students to learn about Christianity, but it shouldn't be ILLEGAL for ALL students in a public school to learn about it.
If you go to a private school, then you can learn about Christianity all you want. I'll go back to my earlier example: Although their kids aren't forced to take the class, why should they be forced to pay taxes for a Christianity class that isn't needed.
If they were mine, yes.
...then why should government employees be exempt from that?
If you go to a private school, then you can learn about Christianity all you want. I'll go back to my earlier example: Although their kids aren't forced to take the class, why should they be forced to pay taxes for a Christianity class that isn't needed.
Then they should get rid of PE too, as it isn't beneficial for most people, as well as other classes. Hence there shouldn't be such high taxes and such high spending.
...then why should government employees be exempt from that?
Then they should get rid of PE too, as it isn't beneficial for most people, as well as other classes. Hence there shouldn't be such high taxes and such high spending.
Why? Every school doesn't have the same population, thus meaning they don't have the same learning styles, the same test score, the same parent involvement, etc. That is the same for any job. The people that work at another company aren't the same as the people that work at your company.
That's a very good question, you should ask the government that.
Every school doesn't have the same population, thus meaning they don't have the same learning styles, the same test score, the same parent involvement, etc. That is the same for any job. The people that work at another company aren't the same as the people that work at your company.
So there are different rules and regulations for each school.
So there are different rules and regulations for each school.
Okay...How does this relate to the topic? There may be some things different, but there are some rules that each school must follow, such as teaching religions. No matter how different the children are, there is no purpose for teaching about Christianity (or any other religion) during school.
I agree, it should be an elective. If you want to learn about something you are unfamiliar with, offer it. If you want to learn more because you are religious already, offer it. If you just want to learn about someone else's beliefs, offer it! I LOVE THAT IDEA! As an elective. Do you know what good that could bring. Even the athiests of the world would have the option to learn why people do what they do and a new found respect would be in place!!!
How do people plan to cut taxes by adding programs? Who do you think teaches these classes? Who do you think pays the teachers salary and buys the books and pays the electric bills and buys the classroom furniture? It doesn't grow on trees. If it is done at a private school, okay, but not at a public school.
I think Christianity should indeed be taught. Not only Christianity, but other religions, which is including the religion of Macro evolution.
I didn't become a Christian until the last year of school. My school didn't really teach much Christianity at all. Most people at the school, including myself did not know what Christianity was all about. There were assemblies where people spoke about Jesus though, but I never really thought they were very beneficial.
But anyway, I feel everyone should be allowed to learn as many different things as possible in schools. This should also include religion, otherwise there would probably be hardly any chance of people ever becoming aware of what religion actually is. If we are taught religion, it can help us to understand things about certain people's lifestyles, which will probably come in handy at some point. This is my opinion anyway.
I think Christianity should indeed be taught. Not only Christianity, but other religions, which is including the religion of Macro evolution.
If religions are allowed to be taught in schools, it will turn them into indoctrination centres for the local town religious majority. People who advocate teaching religion in school aren't interested in teaching every religion in a manner consistent with anthropology or world history. They want an excuse to legitimise the local prejudices of the nation, and turn the next generation into pliable minds for the church.
I didn't become a Christian until the last year of school. My school didn't really teach much Christianity at all. Most people at the school, including myself did not know what Christianity was all about. There were assemblies where people spoke about Jesus though, but I never really thought they were very beneficial.
Schools are institutions of fact and knowledge. They are not for superstition, especially state schools where it is illegal to teach religion on the taxpayers' dollars.
But anyway, I feel everyone should be allowed to learn as many different things as possible in schools. This should also include religion, otherwise there would probably be hardly any chance of people ever becoming aware of what religion actually is. If we are taught religion, it can help us to understand things about certain people's lifestyles, which will probably come in handy at some point. This is my opinion anyway.
This is why encyclopedias exist. Indoctrinating religion closes minds and causes intolerance.
So, you think teaching religion in schools is turning schools into "indoctrination centres"?
Isn't teaching evolution part of a belief system? (supposedly based on facts, but creationist christian's claim to be based on facts also)
So I'm sticking by my view point, sorry.
let's stick to Creationism in Christianity for this time.
The reason athiests don't complain about evolution being taught, is because they believe it could be true - thinking it to be based on facts. Yet, athiests don't complain about it, but complain when another idea pops into the picture, such as what the Bible says.
If you must talk about science, I think, because science is supposed to be open minded, we should teach creationism in our science classes, and also evolution. Anything else, is biased.
The beliefs are both ideas, and interpretations of what is observed. So let us check out both interpretations.
So, you think teaching religion in schools is turning schools into "indoctrination centres"?
Correct. It is indoctrination when the material is presented as fact.
Isn't teaching evolution part of a belief system? (supposedly based on facts, but creationist christian's claim to be based on facts also)
Only in the broadest sense that we believe in facts as presented to us by educated authorities. Once we test those facts, we know that they are true and thus it is no longer belief but knowledge. Science doesn't operate like religion, it is critical of itself and corrects mistakes, it is also based on theory, law, evidence, mathematics and hypotheses which all are defined specifically and apart from colloquial usage.
So I'm sticking by my view point, sorry.
I expect nothing less.
let's stick to Creationism in Christianity for this time.
I do not understand the sentence, but I believe you are suggesting that Christianity requires creationism. This is a theological matter, but in absolute terms there are two ways to read the bible:
The bible is infallible, therefore whatever it says, no matter how impossible must be accepted on faith alone. This interpretation is rigid and so inflexible that there are less than a handful of Christians who practice this to its logical conclusions (which would be a flat, geocentric Earth which was created recently, stars are small enough to land on Earth, witches and demons exist, etc.).
The bible is a book written by inspired men, so where it contradicts reality, it must be the case that the bible is mistaken, because after all, if god created the universe then his creation is more authoritative than the authors who wrote down their divine revelations. This viewpoint often leads to deism or even atheism, as the need to appeal to god becomes less and less.
Most people actually compromise, because Christianity is a belief system, they believe as much as they can but abandon that which is too implausible to defend to themselves. For example, even most creationists reject flat earth cosmology because it's so absurd that no amount of faith is enough to believe it, and they even pin the flat earth on scientists to distance themselves as far away from it as possible. Of course if you read the bible, the implications are there, and 1 Enoch elaborates upon them.
The reason athiests don't complain about evolution being taught, is because they believe it could be true - thinking it to be based on facts. Yet, athiests don't complain about it, but complain when another idea pops into the picture, such as what the Bible says.
Evolution is science. The bible is a religious book. The only way the bible may legally be taught in schools is if it is treated as fiction, and is studied critically as a work of literature and culture. This is because our nation is secular, which means it prohibits the endorsement of religion through government-funded facilities and the practice of religion may not be prohibited in these facilities either.
In other words, if we tried to teach the biblical view that disease is caused by sin instead of bacteria and viruses, the science educators would rightly be angry at religious encroachment, and taxpayers would be rightly offended that Christianity is being taught to their children without consent using their money.
If you must talk about science, I think, because science is supposed to be open minded, we should teach creationism in our science classes, and also evolution. Anything else, is biased.
Creationism is not science. Evolution is. Science does not operate by being open-minded to that which contradicts evidence, is untestable, unfalsifiable, supernatural, magical. In other words science cannot be open-minded towards creationism because creationism violates each and every foundational tenet of science.
Creationism invokes magic and god, science does not work with this.
Creationism cannot be falsified, science only works with that which may.
Creationism makes no theoretical predictions, science demands useful predictive tools.
Creationism is not parsimonious, science requires that we avoid unnecessary assumptions.
Creationism has no evidence, only faith.
Creationism is about morality, science makes no comment upon morality.
The beliefs are both ideas, and interpretations of what is observed. So let us check out both interpretations.
Science is about knowledge, not belief. Textbooks are edited by professionals so that the content is trustworthy. Children who know nothing about biology are not in a position to question it. You question things once you know a great deal about a subject. That way you have a framework that allows intelligent inquiry.
You don't know how science works, but you propose creationism. This is precisely the problem. You illustrate what is wrong with your suggestion, in that children who are taught that science has no consensus will know nothing about science.
I'm going to say yes to this one, but add that if we do, it shouldn't be taught exclusively (sp?) of other religions/beliefs. It shouldn't be mandatory, but an elective. Perhaps a study of world religions.
Why are people offended by something they don't believe in? I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not going around trying to get unicorns banned from being seen by the public. That's not a reasonable argument.
Why are people offended by something they don't believe in? I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not going around trying to get unicorns banned from being seen by the public. That's not a reasonable argument.
Would you like your tax dollars wasted on teaching children about a group of primitive men who worshiped unicorns thousands of years ago and wrote a book about it, or would you rather your money be spent preparing children with the skills they need to be successful as adults?
Tax dollars are spent on this. Our kids are taught about ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome and the gods that they worshiped. These kids are also being taught about evolution (which is still a theory), being presented as fact. This is also being paid by my tax dollars, and yet I don't believe in it. I don't want it banned, I want other THEORIES taught along next to it, being presented as just that...theories.
These kids are also being taught about evolution (which is still a theory), being presented as fact. This is also being paid by my tax dollars, and yet I don't believe in it. I don't want it banned, I want other THEORIES taught along next to it, being presented as just that...theories.
Do you believe in the THEORY of gravity? And whether or not you believe in the THEORY of gravity, I suppose it's your position that other THEORIES should be taught to children along side the THEORY of gravity, because gravity is only a THEORY.
Tax dollars are spent on this. Our kids are taught about ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome and the gods that they worshiped.
They are not taught about those gods as if they are fact. Children are taught about Christianity in the middle ages, again Christianity is not taught as fact, but is treated in historical context.
What you want is for it to be treated as fact, so that public schools may become centres for indoctrination into your religion.
These kids are also being taught about evolution (which is still a theory), being presented as fact.
"It doesn't matter because science is not bound by laws concerning religion. Science is treated as fact."
Evolution is not repeatable. Therefore it is still theory, and telling kids there is only one way of thinking is brainwashing.
Definition of Scientific fact: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
(dictionary.reference.com)
You can repeat the theory of gravity over and over again. Not the Big Bang. It can't be confirmed, and it has been refuted by scientists many times.
"Teaching "other theories" is a ploy to discredit evolution in the classroom, and make students into scientific illiterates."
So it's ok to teach kids to be tolerant of every way of thinking except for Christianity? Would you feel the same way if we were talking about teaching kids about what the Bhudists believe? Or the Native Americans?
Evolution is not repeatable. Therefore it is still theory, and telling kids there is only one way of thinking is brainwashing.
That you deny modern biology is your own problem. The issue itself is open for anyone to see and understand, but the problem is not on behalf of scientists. The problem is the fault of religiously indoctrinated minds like yours who deny science in order to believe silly fairy tales which violate every known facet of the universe.
I linked you to the scientific usage of theory and fact. You speak from ignorance and did not bother to correct that ignorance by investigating the meaning of the scientific words "theory" and "fact."
Definition of Scientific fact: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
(dictionary.reference.com)
You can repeat the theory of gravity over and over again. Not the Big Bang. It can't be confirmed, and it has been refuted by scientists many times.
I'm really bored of scientific denialism at this point and so I have little patience to educate people who are ignorant, by choice, of the subject matter they profess to have an opinion about.
If you can't be bothered to read biology and astronomy textbooks, or at the very least a book on the philosophy of science, then any corrections I make on this matter will likewise be ignored by you because you're only looking to justify religious dogma by any means necessary.
So it's ok to teach kids to be tolerant of every way of thinking except for Christianity? Would you feel the same way if we were talking about teaching kids about what the Bhudists believe? Or the Native Americans?
Christianity is a mythology that has no place in the classroom any more than the tooth fairy does. That your mythology has billions of believers does nothing to legitimise it, because it is a demonstrably false doctrine. For example, we know for a fact that humans did not descend from two human ancestors, neither was there a global flood, and neither do the dead rise from their tombs.
How are they successfully preparing children as adults id they really do not know everything out there. You are basically saying its ok to spend are tax dollars on one (evolution)but it is definitely not ok to spend are tax dollars on another theory that more people believe in(creation)!!!
Students should learn about all religions, including Christianity, in their history and social studies courses. Because of the enormous impact this religion has had on the course of human history, it would be irresponsible not to teach our students about it.
If a school can't teach Christianity, then it shouldn't be able to teach any other religion!, it's like saying all the others are more important. All children have the right to know about different faiths Christianity included
i must negate to the resolution that states christianity should be taught in schools.
though am a christian i really believe that the fact that christianity is thought in schools also means that all other religions should be taught.
religions shouldn't be taught in schools because school is a place where we learn about our law and things that'll make us learn and understand what we need to know. school is not a place where we judge other people's religions:) i'll rest my case:)
I'd claim understanding religion is crucial to living in the modern world. School is the utility in which we prepare children for daily life. It is only suiting that religion be taught in schools.
•Churches can only give a biased view and only towards their own religions. That's like saying "I learned all there is to know about politics from my party".
-
"Religion does not have to be part of daily life, thus it should not be in school, according to your argument."
•For as long as weak minded individuals shall become aware of their own mortality, there will be things as desperate as religion. This is something we all will have to deal with, the religious. This is undeniable.
You don't have to only go to a church. If you want to learn about Buddhism, then go to a temple, Judaism, go to a synagogue, Hinduism, go to a Hindu temple. This debate just happens to be on Christianity, not every other religion in the world.
There are some impossibilities to pursuing all religions in such a manner, depending on your location. And you can't trust a church to tell you what their religion is about because practice can differ from what is preaced, and each branch of church has specific changes to eachother's belief structure. It is best to approach a religion from an unbiased entrypoint.
Pay for it on your own dime. Don't charge me for something that we don't need. Is it so crucial that you can't wait until college? Even if it is, take a class outside of school.
Religion is anything except crucial to living in the modern world. It features outdated ideals, many of which have been cast aside due to their lack of relevance to modern society. For example "Wives, submit to your husbands" (Ephesians 5:22)
These types of outdated, not to mentions discriminatory and sexist ideals, have no place in our schools and should definetly not be taught as "the truth" to the young members of our society.
The very fact that these outdated, bigoted, and sexist morals are still being believed in demands critical analysis and education.
-
By the way, I said nothing about teaching a truth. There is no truth. Education is just that, educational. If we expose the reality behind these folly belief systems across the public schooling district, I guarantee it will render positive results.
And yet we teach that even in America women weren't given the right to vote, people of other color were used as slaves, and that Native Americans were mistreated and forced to move against their wishes. We don't teach this in a way that says that those things were right. We teach those as a part of history.
SO you can either teach "outdated ideas" or you shouldn't. If you don't know history you are doomed to repeat it.
This is a poor armgument against the reason for teaching religion.
And yet we teach that even in America women weren't given the right to vote, people of other color were used as slaves, and that Native Americans were mistreated and forced to move against their wishes. We don't teach this in a way that says that those things were right. We teach those as a part of history.
We do not teach that they were correct. Also, the larger point is that they are not religious tenets of a book taught as fact.
This is a poor armgument against the reason for teaching religion.
Teaching religion, on the other hand, teaches all the evils of Biblical and/or Quranic dogma as facts. The other, perhaps more important, point is that government-funded schools may not endorse religion. Period.
The moral argument is that teaching religion in schools undermines a child's ability to think critically, since religion itself tends to retard scepticism with concepts like "faith" and trust in authority, and the religions which would be taught are intolerant of other ideas, meaning that the schools are acting as a social menace for indoctrinating intolerance and bigotry into children.
"Love your wife as Christ loved the Church."(Ephesians 5:25)
"Love your wife in the same way you love your body and your life."(Ephesians 5:28-33) If you read the WHOLE Bible it also talks about how men are to cherish there wives and how wives are to respect there husbands which is what Ephesians 5:22 is talking about. If we learned about it in schools then we would have a broader view on things and we would understand the Bible also; insteading of being narrow minded and using one verse to explain the whole Bible as you are doing.
Maybe we should teach people to be tolerant but why would we offer specific religions and propagate lies even as an elective? I want to advance towards flying cars not regress into the dark ages.
Why would we offer "Geography Circa 500 BC" and allow teachers to explain how the earth is flat?
Furthermore, the fact that this question is for Christianity specifically punctuates the fact that it is absurd. "Should the one true religion be taught in schools?" is not a valid question. Assuming that Christianity is any more valid that any other religion is far less acceptable than my assuming that no religion is valid.
Personally, I am Jewish. I believe in God and I respect the idea of other religions. But, according to the Constitution of the United States Of America, we have the right to freedom of religion. If schools taught Christianity, they would be forcing a religion down children's throats. Many Americans are not religious so it may not be a part of daily life. All Americans CHOOSE to have a religion and practice it. To say Christianity is the "holiest" religion is just biased.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Could you explain that reason? Because I am aware that the reason it is not taught is because this Country doesnt believe in are morals that we started to build this country with in the first place
religion should be done away with entirely. how can we read these fairy tales written 2000 yrs ago and then take them seriously while we know all the scientific discoveries we know now. back then, they use to think the globe was flat.
Just like how can we believe in evolution because it is still a theory, there is NO facts to show that its true. Even though there are facts to showing there was a huge flood many years ago. There is facts that shows land on earth use to be one body which is in the Bible. There is facts that foreshadowing in the Bible has happened in are generation. We might as well turn into communists because you are saying to get rid of religion entirely which is something that communists would do.
