I so rarely aggree with Bill O'Riely (a religion in school thought)...

[bholdr]

...that i have to post when i do.
He was talking about the teaching of religion, specificly, christanity, in public high schools, and he made what i consider to be a very good point.

first, though: conservatives, especially evangelicals, often argue that the basic tenants of christianity should be taught in public schools because: "this is a christian nation" or "Our laws and customs are founded on the ten commandments- so students should understand them..." or some such BS... I always laughed at those arguments: they are generally transparent calls for judeo-christian socialization of students by agents of the government, IMO, and clearly aimed at promoting their specific brand of deisim.

back to my point:

good 'ol Bill O'R said this (pharaphrasing here): "How can students be expected to understand american history if they have no basic knowlage of the primary motivating religion/force behind the actions of historical figures?"...

like, how could a high schooler grasp the scope and meaning of lincoln's second innaugrall(sp?) address without knowing the basics of christianity? or how to understand the pilgrims flight from oppression without discussing the sectarian differences that were powerful enough to drive them accross the atlantic? not to mention the mormons (frankly, silly) exodous to utah...

maybe high schools shouls have a "Religion for Context" class that would equip them with the basic understanding of religion (and, yes, specificly christianity) that's needed for understanding and learning in other subjects (english, history, etc)?


just a thought... i am re-evaluating aspects of my stance on religion in public school curriculums.


thoughts?