Dear Meredith,

I expressed intolerance toward biblical believers and apologise.

David, Thank you, but I wasn't offended... I was more just trying to point out we all actully need the freedom to not tolerate stuff at times. I find some things utterly intolerable too.

meredith,

"I find some things utterly intolerable too."

If something is utterly intolerable, then it should not be tolerated.

David

There is a place for faith education.I dont mind at all, but just the same ,it should be balanced by humanistic studies as well.Why not offer it as an alternative at the time RE is being taught.See if there are any takers.If not,RE should go ahead because parents and their children want it to.Simple as that!!

socratease

Dear Poly,

I suggest orthodox Western historians of the early centuries would on balance hold that the person Christians call Jesus existed. Where there would be disagreement, perhaps, is a scholar of that period would suggest that Christians relate/project a four century religiousity, to a first century histography.

Jesus seems to have been trying to extend the House of David, via the Gentiles. Also, he seems to have been endeavouring to create a Davianian priest class like the House of Levi. That is, all people would be born without the need of clerical intercession with regard to being righteously justified to God.

Actually, Jesus seems to have been quite smart. His House was given given the dregs (from a Jewish perspective) to teach, yet said dregs commanded the Empire. Something he may have tried to leverage? In 51 CE, under Pauline dogma, and in 325 CE, way after the cricifixion, historial events did turn that way. He was ultimately deified.

I think I may have mentioned this before: Rome appointed the Herodians (later the Annas). The Heriodians delegated the teaching of the Gentiles in the Jewish Diaspora, to the Davids. Jesus was one of two claimants to the House of David, via Joseph and Mary. The other was the fully legitimate son, James. [Jesus was born to a Nun (Virgin) between betrovel ceremonies]. Historians would view, divinity was affixed to Jesus generations later. Of course, Christians hold a different view.

There are humanist teachings from Jesus (parts of the Sermon on the Mount), yet, I think (need to check), these originate from Heli, who was possibly Jesus' grand-father.

Cheers,

Oly, Here endth the lesson :)

The complexity of the subject is the main reason why I think these philosophical matters are best left until university.

At high school, would very quickly become a yawning exercise for most students, due to the 'lowest common denominator' effect.
Some classes would be very good. Most wouldn't.

Pericles, I see your point about humanism being lowered to the standard of religion. That gives me more to think about, and perhaps I'm not as supportive of this move by the Victorian Humanist Society (even though I only support it because we're not removing religious instruction from public schools entirely).

Take a closer look at what forms the basis of humanism - it's not technically even about religion. It's ethics, and in many ways is similar to critical reasoning - something I believe we really SHOULD be teaching, which has the benefit of not being so politically volatile.

Examinator - good points, though they only reinforce my belief that this subject matter is better taught via peer-to-peer interaction, which is better achieved at a university level.

My conclusion would be that critical reasoning should be taught in high school instead.
It would be more easily evaluated, and would give students the foundation skills that they could use to develop a more sophisticated ethics framework in later studies.

Classes could show some more common fallacies. For assessment, students could provide examples of each fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

"Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true."

(For example, pretty much every post by Gibo).

Or, perhaps these two:

"False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several.
If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question "

(See boaz's points about reduced religion apparently leading to hedonism. A double hitter).

Consider how much the quality of debate here would improve if everybody was aware of how to spot and deconstruct these fallacies?