The Bible should be brought back into the classroom.

[BlackSheep]

Something should be done about our "system" of public education. It is an abysmal failure. In an age of mass literacy, when knowledge is widely diffused, not just through the medium of print, but through the internet as well, at the same time we paradoxically seem to be more stupid than ever before.

I think you mean uninformed rather than stupid.

This problem of mass stupidity cannot be solved through educational reforms. However, we need to admit that that there is something fundamentally wrong with public education; something inherent and central to the entire program. But, where is the critical defect?

I think that the original defect can be traced back to the ideological father of public education himself: Horace Mann.

It would be unfair to blame Mann alone for the removal of Christianity from the classroom. Mann was not against the combination of education and religion, as long as it was a certain type of religion. He was not opposed to using the Bible in school, in general. But there was one aspect of religion that specifically disgusted and horrified him: religious sectarianism.

In fact, it wasn't so much the religious aspect that troubled him specifically, but sectarianism in general. Mann saw religious and political controversy as basically the same thing: insignificant sound and fury, useless noise, etc.. He thought that the developing mind of a young, impressionable citizen should be protected from the cacophony. He envisioned public education as providing a protective cocoon to shield our future citizens from these distorting influences.

No matter how well intentioned this ideology, it must be admitted that there are grave consequences. Our system cannot function without meaningful dissent. There must be vigorous argument, especially on the important points. However, we seem to have lost the ability to maintain a cogent public discourse. I don't blame public education solely, but it has had an impact.

I fail to see ow these points relate. There are many systems that do reasonably well without the ideas you wish to introduce.

By the way, what about ADHD? According to the principles of Horace Mann, we advance a public curriculum that is bland and innocuous, and then when the students get bored and bounce around, we blame the students, and shove pills down their throats.

ADHD is a real phenomina that has likely always been there undiagnosed in any way but lazy and malingering and it can be dealt with without pills. Both my son and I do that.

The Bible might help to straighten out these bored and unruly students. Let's put the Bible back in school.

Again no. If you wish to introduce debate then that is a reasonable thing to do, but it it does not require the Bible and as I said early would be better served without it.

[SoylentGreen]

.

This problem of mass stupidity cannot be solved through educational reforms.

Yes it can, that is exactly how you educate the masses.

However, we need to admit that that there is something fundamentally wrong with public education; something inherent and central to the entire program. But, where is the critical defect?

No, you need to admit that you have not even bothered to compare the American system with any other country. It is not the entire, but only to the American program.

I think that the original defect can be traced back to the ideological father of public education himself: Horace Mann.

It would be unfair to blame Mann alone for the removal of Christianity from the classroom. Mann was not against the combination of education and religion, as long as it was a certain type of religion. He was not opposed to using the Bible in school, in general. But there was one aspect of religion that specifically disgusted and horrified him: religious sectarianism.

In fact, it wasn't so much the religious aspect that troubled him specifically, but sectarianism in general. Mann saw religious and political controversy as basically the same thing: insignificant sound and fury, useless noise, etc.. He thought that the developing mind of a young, impressionable citizen should be protected from the cacophony. He envisioned public education as providing a protective cocoon to shield our future citizens from these distorting influences.

No matter how well intentioned this ideology, it must be admitted that there are grave consequences. Our system cannot function without meaningful dissent. There must be vigorous argument, especially on the important points. However, we seem to have lost the ability to maintain a cogent public discourse. I don't blame public education solely, but it has had an impact

There are countries where religion is taught freely. America's problem is in that theists want religion taught as a fact. It is in a lot of countries, just as Shakespeare is taught as fact. A real person whose existence is occasionally brought into question who wrote stories about imaginary people with their imaginary friends.

By the way, what about ADHD? According to the principles of Horace Mann, we advance a public curriculum that is bland and innocuous, and then when the students get bored and bounce around, we blame the students, and shove pills down their throats.

The Bible might help to straighten out these bored and unruly students. Let's put the Bible back in school.

Lets do some observations first and compare results.

[Strawman]

Yes it can, that is exactly how you educate the masses.

Programs of public education can never solve society's problems. It can never work, because education cannot be confined to the classroom. A child is educated continually; his whole life is a process of education. In fact, the most important parts of this process happen outside the classroom. The child is educated by society itself. Bad society, bad education. All the public education in the world cannot protect a child from the education he receives from his society.

[Questatement]

NEVER would I want the bible used anywhere near a science class.

Up until this week, I've only been able to dig up bits and pieces of Newton's theological writings.

Before anyone framed the science vs. religion concept, one of histories greatest scientists simply incorporated his studies of the bible, among other religious texts, into his view of the natural world and guess what?

It worked out pretty well for him.

[arX]

This is a pathetic appeal to authority; Newton was also a 17th century occultist who believed in alchemy and magic.

Before anyone framed the science vs. religion concept

Scientific advancement contradicts many religious claims.

[BlackSheep]

Programs of public education can never solve society's problems. It can never work, because education cannot be confined to the classroom. A child is educated continually; his whole life is a process of education. In fact, the most important parts of this process happen outside the classroom. The child is educated by society itself. Bad society, bad education. All the public education in the world cannot protect a child from the education he receives from his society.

So then why are you trying to solve it via the classroom?

[BlackSheep]

Up until this week, I've only been able to dig up bits and pieces of Newton's theological writings.

Before anyone framed the science vs. religion concept, one of histories greatest scientists simply incorporated his studies of the bible, among other religious texts, into his view of the natural world and guess what?

It worked out pretty well for him.

That was back in the day of renaissance men, when people could effectively know all of knowledge and so they did. It was also a time when religion was part of everything. The fact that he learned theology and he wrote on it is not surprising at all.

[JimmyNic]

This is a weird argument for an atheist to propose.

I think that we should utilize the Bible more, for the purposes of public education. Why bother to teach our kids Shakespeare, and not teach them the Bible? These are both important works of western literature. No one can claim to be truly literate if they do not have some familiarity with the Bible.

The citizens of a democratic republic must be able to argue, and to understand arguments, on substantial and difficult subjects. Perhaps it would be helpful to first master the art of arguing over nothing at all. Bible studies in public schools could be helpful to this end.

Let's define literate:
lit·er·ate/ˈlitərit/
Adjective:
(of a person) Able to read and write.

What you have said literally means that no-one can claim to be able to read or write if they don't have some familiarity with the Bible. Which is, quite obviously, incorrect.

You don't need to understand the origin of the phrase "It's cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey." to understand the meaning. You don't even need to understand the origin to use the phrase successfully. Just as you don't need to understand how a car engine works to drive a car and you don't need to understand how a CPU works to use a computer. And you don't need any knowledge of the Bible to be able to read or write successfully.

Will an understanding of the Bible broaden one's appreciation of literature? Sure. And who is that useful for? Writers. And what percentage of school children end up as writers? You might as well teach every kid about architecture appreciation or music appreciation or film appreciation on the basis they might end up in those fields. Those who like those things will spend their own time making those connections, and those who don't will resent you trying to teach them something so patently irrelevant to them.

As for cultivating the ability to analyse, studying the Bible is not necessarily the best way to teach someone that skill. The best thing for any person to analyse is something they already have an interest in. If you have a kid who is interested in football you teach him to analyse football. If you have a kid who likes comic books you teach them how to analyse comic books. Analysis and argument are not specialist skills - they are used in every goddamn field humans have ever invented.

[Questatement]

This is a pathetic appeal to authority; Newton was also a 17th century occultist who believed in alchemy and magic.

An argument from authority indeed, but there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the average college class will include thousands of such references for support of the topic being taught. Now if you're claiming that it was a fallacious appeal, please provide evidence for such. Also, define 'alchemy' as you use it here and back up both that and your 'magic' claim with evidence.

Scientific advancement contradicts many religious claims.

There is nothing in science that contradicts the Protestant bible.

[Peter]

There is nothing in science that contradicts the Protestant bible.

Many would disagree. How do you reconcile biblical resurrection with science?

[barts]

In my view, Strawman is absolutely right. The Bible and the Christian tradition should be taught in schools.

Like it or not (and I don't) the Bible and the Christian tradition have been instrumental in shaping the society we have today. Not only are their influences prevalent in our civil and political society, but also in our literature. Indeed, an absence of understanding of the Bible and the Christian tradition renders some literature almost unintelligible.

The Bible and the Christian tradition should be taught, in my view, as is Greek and Roman mythology from a literary standpoint, and as a part of any political education.

To purge the Bible and the Christian tradition from eduction does not improve it; it diminishes it.

I say this as an atheist.

[Questatement]

Many would disagree. How do you reconcile biblical resurrection with science?

Although the evidence for Christ's resurrection can be debated, there is evidence.

However, if we're talking about the aspect of science which tests explanations and predictions, repeatable, bla bla bla - death will provide such a proof for each and every one of us, no?