Other Religions

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dali_Lama"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dali_Lama[/url]

[goldenchild17]

another poll? Are you like a statistics major or something? No to both questions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

people who say no... why no to these and yes to all the chrisian examples?

[Groo the Wanderer]

Because we are Christian and we are correct on both cases. One must not confuse Truth with subjective truth.

Doesn't matter if one is Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, Athiestic, etc etc, the Turth remains the Truth. Jesus is the Son of God and Lord of all creation.

Since schools are SUPPOSED to teach Truth.....the logical conclusion follows...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1187371' date='Feb 7 2007, 10:42 AM']
people who say no... why no to these and yes to all the chrisian examples?
[/quote]

Because Christianity's true and these other examples are false. Why teach lies in schools? Would you want your child's teacher telling them that 2+2=5 when in fact the answer really was 4? It's false information. I think it possible that it could be taught that certain things are BELIEVED by different people, such as Mohammed being a prophet and about things like reincarnation, but they should also be taught that these things are false. That's the difference for why we should teach the truths of Christianity and not of other faiths, because Christianity is true, and other faiths aren't.

[SJRod55]

This is an interesting discussion. Having lived in Asia and Africa I have been in countries where Christianity is virtually non existant. Especially Asia where in some cases the percentage of Catholics in a region was less that 1% and therefore 'statistically insignificant.'

In such cultures they view their religeous beliefs in the same way we view our Catholic beliefs. i.e. They are right we are wrong..... There is logic in asking how you defend our traditional 'Yes' votes regarding Jesus Christ and 'God' but that we are intolerant towards Budha, Mohammed etc.

When you 'step out' of our 'comfort zone' and our area of influence the game becomes very 'different' and somewhat uncomfortable. But try to look at the question also from other 'devout' believers points of view.

[dairygirl4u2c]

rod.. i thank you again for your open-mindedness without defying CC doctrine. You are an example of how all catholics should respond, at a minimum.

others.. how do you justify your no here in an academic sense? do you just say just because... basically because you have faith?
do you try to construe the evidence for christianity in your favor and error on it's side? then construe the evidence for others against them and error against them?
Would you agree the construe could go either way and you simply pick your side as that's what you have faith in?

Edited February 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

It's quite simple to justify the position from an academic stance. It goes against all principles of learning facts when we introduce things that are not true at all. Again, I ask you, would you mind if a teacher taught your child that 2+2=5? Yes or no, and why, if you wish to explain.

[Aloysius]

What I think was absent from the other threads is this: we do not believe in teaching the children of non-Catholics that the Catholic faith is true without the parent's consent. the conversion of non-Catholics must come at the level of those old enough to understand; and then they raise their children in the faith.

It has never been our practice to take children out of a pagan or jewish or muslim home and attempt to convert them.

Your questions, then, must be answered based upon the school.

A Catholic school: yes, all children ought to be taught these things as they are truths. Non-Catholic parents sending their children to a Catholic school are giving their consent that their children may be exposed to these truths; they may counter-educate them as they see fit in their parental perogative.

A public school: Catholic children ought to be taught that these things are true. Non-Catholic children ought to be taught that these are the things which Catholics believe; and Catholic children ought to be taught that there are other things which non-Catholics believe. A simple "Catholics believe x, these historical facts support x, others believe y, these facts support y" will do; for a proper Catholic parent would raise their kid to hear synonymously the Church's belief and facts.

A home school: Catholic Children ought to be taught that things about the Catholic Faith are true.

If it is economically expedient, all Catholics ought to send their children either to Catholic schools or homeschool them; and only send them to public schools if it is their only option.

And, of course, Catholic schools and homeschools should teach the children what other people believe; but they ought to teach them that that is false.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1187371' date='Feb 7 2007, 10:42 AM']
people who say no... why no to these and yes to all the chrisian examples?
[/quote]
Quite simply, because if Christianity is true, then Islam is false (Islam explicitly denies Christ's divinity), as is reincarnation.

"Multiculturalist" pluralism is nonsense.

(And, btw, the original public schools in America did teach Christianity to be the true religion, albeit Protestant Christianity.)

[cathoholic_anonymous]

It depends on the kind of school. At the school where I completed my education, which was nominally Anglican, the course books on Catholicism were written by Catholics, the ones on Judaism written by Jews, and so on. I felt that this was a good system as it allowed us to learn about Judaism from a Jewish perspective - we weren't just on the outside looking in. None of them was presented as objectively true, even though the teacher was himself a Christian. Instead we were encouraged to question our way through everything.

My Catholicism was strengthened by this treatment, as I'm now able to say that I am a committed Catholic after examining a variety of different faith traditions with the help of insiders. This is a useful rebuttal to the tired old atheist, "You wouldn't be a Christian if your parents weren't." I could see the truth of it all the more clearly after looking at other religions. Also, my classmates got me thinking very hard about my faith - because they knew I went to Mass on Sunday, they would ask me lots of difficult questions about Catholic ethics whenever something controversial came up in the textbook. That's when I realised how ignorant I really was about Catholic moral theology and started taking steps to counter the ignorance.

[quote]"Multiculturalist" pluralism is nonsense.[/quote]

Multiculturalism does not necessarily equal pluralism. When I was in Saudi there were children from at least six different religions in my class alone and between us we could speak something like thirteen languages, but we were never taught that we all had 'equal' truth. We respected each other very much, but there was always an understanding that Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto could not all be right. I was very surprised by the British idea of 'multiculturalism' when I came back here, as it's nothing like the multiculturalism I grew up with and does everybody a disservice.

[musturde]

I believe that schools, no matter where they are, should not teach that a certain religion is right or wrong. In a private school setting, it makes sense to teach about Catholicism but it's still wrong to tell someone of a different religion that his beliefs are wrong. Instead one should just say that Catholicism teaches this to be true.

Edited February 8, 2007 by musturde

[goldenchild17]

I could see that as a viable option if it was just one's personal preference whether or not Catholicism is true. I can't separate this from other truths that are definitely true. 2+2=4, not any other number. Even if a whole bunch of people truly believed it equaled some other number they would still be wrong. Maybe they're feelings would be hurt because there error is pointed out to them. So what? Are you going to go ahead and let them go throughout the rest of their school years without insisting on the correct answer? It would never fly on any test. How can a teacher ever mark an answer wrong on any assignment, if the test-taker truly believed the answer (even if it's wrong) was the correct one?

How is this any different from the thread topic? Sure it might be offensive to some people who don't believe the truth, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a truth. Why can we ignore this truth but insist on all others?

[dairygirl4u2c]

in the questions i put "public school" except left it out in the third, so i think people actually think it should be taught there.

if you insist two plust two, you have to have a reason that's reasonably provable... i'd think at least beyond what someone else claims that they are saying the answer's four and you're not.

i don't know... the best i can assume is that people think the actual facts prove christianity and disprove the others enough even an academic would have to believe the facts. no one is saying that though, so i have to infer it. the way people are responding seems more like they think it's the truth, and that's all that matters. (and sure, maybe it's technically legal to teach it by our constitution etc, so you choose to enforce what you can instead of practcing the virtue of respect)

Edited February 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[heavenseeker]

IDk

no in this sense
seperation of church and state should be
a) gotten rid of
or
b) used on all religions and not just christianity

yes reason.
if it is being taught as a part of history then mentioning religions and the basics of the different beliefs is key talking about different groups of people. so in that case yes, they should be able to mention those two facts.

[Mr.Cat]

As Catholics are to promote academic freedom and discussion allowing for all viewpoints to be taught and understood but at the same time we must demand academic legitimacy to declare and give testament to the truth, which is that the two viewpoints named are false. Hinduism and Islam is known for a violent history, while the Catholic Church is known to be involved with a violent history never directly involved as the two prior are. When we theologically examine the two belief systems they are contradictory in nature.

For example Islam professes that God messed up in giving is the sacred scripture and He allowed the Jews to “steal” their birthright. Since from Greek Metaphysics we know God to be infinitely perfect and powerful this contradicts itself, most of all because Islam keeps theses truths strongly. Without being disrespectful to those peaceful followers of Islam there are sects whom use military force from the start to now to keep their religious belief in power. While Christians died daily for centuries for the faith to thrive, which most other religions do not have a history of.

Hinduism professes in “reincarnation” but this thought process is fundamentally flawed. If everyone were simply reincarnating then “transmigrating” to new hosts it would make sense that the global population would remain about the same, this isn’t the case. Then if one considers the great evils of humanity one would ask if anyone would have enough “karma” to be humans or to do any better in life. It raises too many problems so in the end “reincarnation” is simply a contradiction in of its own self. Moreover, if God would allow us to keep living over and over again it would be a pointless existence since we could never retain our lessons or progress from where we left off.

As Catholics we are commanded to not fall into religious indifferentism were we claim all religions (human or divine) are sufficient to please God, that they are enough for salvation, or that they simply don’t matter for religious indifferentism is sinful and wrongful. But at the same time we are called to respect the individual person and their fundamental right to profess beliefs, wrong or right. We are under no circumstances called to “respect the beliefs” of others but rather we are called to “tolerate” their beliefs. This toleration could be worked into “religious freedom” but sadly many people wish to make the word “toleration” into something that isn’t very straightforward.

But to how we go through the proofs and evidence of religious belief there is objective truth. If there was no objective truth then there is no point at all in teaching anything about religion at all. The fact that Christianity has exited for so long with the same beliefs is a lot to handle, not to mention that it springs forth from the Jewish Temple System.

But moreover as Catholics we are to preach the gospel at all times teaching every nation all that our Blessed Lord commanded with academic legitimacy even while we respect the individual person, their rights, academic freedom, academic discussion, or tolerate their beliefs.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[SJRod55]

One must presume that Dairygirl4u2c is a statistics major or an intern for a polsters office ...... statistically I believe she is the predominant polster in this forum.

But why?

Is it going to be .... 100 CAtholic Americans said .... (But rmemeber we are not all American and therefore are your polls really scientifically of any value?)

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm just a curious person. i like to provoke the topic through stats first to see what this place htinks. maybe later i'd start a post without it. i figure why not start a poll, then have the posting that would be done anyway. that way you can have best of both worlds. also you can compare what one person says to the rest so you don't feel like you're arguing against everyone when it may be only one person.

[Aloysius]

What people here are not thinking of is this: we have always respected the parental authority over children and never considered it in any way justified to take children away from parents and teach them things contrary to what their parents want to teach them as regards faith and religion.

When you talk about historical facts, it gets hazy to many because we all have been convinced of the objectiwve truth of such historical facts. Now, we are influenced by our faith primarily to believe in the miracles of Jesus as historical facts. As such: those should not be taught as historical facts but as potential historical facts in a secular institution.

But when it comes down to who was the first pope: we are more convinced by history than our facts that at the very least the office of the papacy existed in Rome as the seat of Peter even prior to Constantine. First hand sources should be used in education about such events; the leter to Clement for instance. In the secular school it would be up to the child, as raised by their parents, to make the decision as to what to believe based upon the sources.

No one with any academic honesty could come out not believing there was something considered special and petrine about the office of the Bishop of Rome in the first centuries. But the modern doctrines of our faith should not necessarily be taught to children of other faiths in a secular setting; it would violate our principal of not preying on the children of pagans but rather trying to convert the actual pagans.

[123]

Schools already have enought trouble trying to balance darwinism and Intellegent Design to try and teach about the Dali Lamma and Muhammad.