Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Texas school libraries temporarily removed some books

Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

If it was up to you, what would you do?
Both Bible and Anne Frank should be banned 8%  8%  [ 1 ]
Both Bible and Anne Frank should return to the libraries 75%  75%  [ 9 ]
Bible should be returned to the libraries; Anne Frank should be banned 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Anne Frank should be returned to the liberaries; Bible should be banned 17%  17%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 12

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

22 Aug 2022, 10:00 pm

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
QFT wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
So...no one in the next generation will know anything about geology, biology, or astronomy? And we will have to stop drilling for oil, stop the space program, get rid of GPS satellites, and ditch all medicine?

Yeah...sounds like a real "win" to me! :roll:


Well, they can study "some" biology/geology, just not the one that touches on the distant history. In particular,

1) Its okay to study structures and functions of alive organisms today, but its not okay to study how they originated in the distant past

2) Its okay to study the processes inside the earth today but its not okay to study how the earth came about

3) Its okay to study quantum mechanics and particle physics, but its not okay to study cosmology

I guess its possible that the depth of the studies might end up being sacrificed "somewhat" since, if one studies "safe" areas of biology/geology hard enough one might run into connections with "unsafe" areas. But then again, do American schools study anything that hard anyway?

Of course we shouldn't try to keep it this way: education has to improve. But thats where my advice comes in. If you want to improve education, improve it in math instead of the other fields. So I guess

A. Remove the history aspects of biology/geology/physics

B. Keep other parts of said fields, but don't go deep enough to run into the history aspects (unless you find ways of doing so that don't generate complaints)

C. Whatever time has been freed, fill it with more advanced math

Doesn't sound ideal, but at least a direction to think about.

I think we need to preserve geology because I need top notch geologists to help me find me oil fields.Industrial Civilization would end without sciences like geology.


As I mentioned, we can study those fields as long as we don't touch upon the history aspects. One doesn't have to know the way the earth formed in order to learn how to drill for oil.



Texasmoneyman300
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,317
Location: Texas

22 Aug 2022, 10:07 pm

QFT wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
QFT wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
So...no one in the next generation will know anything about geology, biology, or astronomy? And we will have to stop drilling for oil, stop the space program, get rid of GPS satellites, and ditch all medicine?

Yeah...sounds like a real "win" to me! :roll:


Well, they can study "some" biology/geology, just not the one that touches on the distant history. In particular,

1) Its okay to study structures and functions of alive organisms today, but its not okay to study how they originated in the distant past

2) Its okay to study the processes inside the earth today but its not okay to study how the earth came about

3) Its okay to study quantum mechanics and particle physics, but its not okay to study cosmology

I guess its possible that the depth of the studies might end up being sacrificed "somewhat" since, if one studies "safe" areas of biology/geology hard enough one might run into connections with "unsafe" areas. But then again, do American schools study anything that hard anyway?

Of course we shouldn't try to keep it this way: education has to improve. But thats where my advice comes in. If you want to improve education, improve it in math instead of the other fields. So I guess

A. Remove the history aspects of biology/geology/physics

B. Keep other parts of said fields, but don't go deep enough to run into the history aspects (unless you find ways of doing so that don't generate complaints)

C. Whatever time has been freed, fill it with more advanced math

Doesn't sound ideal, but at least a direction to think about.

I think we need to preserve geology because I need top notch geologists to help me find me oil fields.Industrial Civilization would end without sciences like geology.


As I mentioned, we can study those fields as long as we don't touch upon the history aspects. One doesn't have to know the way the earth formed in order to learn how to drill for oil.

You need to learn the geological time system to have any hope of striking black gold as a petroleum geologist.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,145
Location: temperate zone

23 Aug 2022, 5:50 am

^
Exactly.

Even Pat Robertson admitted that about looking for oil.

And the discovery of those historic strata in the Earth's crust predated Darwin's "Origin of Species" by at least half of a century.


And with astronomy...how can you avoid 'history'?

As soon as your students look through that telescope, and see the Andromeda Galaxy (our closest neighbor in intergalactic space) you have to tell them that it's "two million light years away".

In other words you have to tell them that "you are able to see it because the light it took to reach your eye from that object took two million years to reach earth". Right there you have contradicted Genisis which states that the universe has only existed for six thousand years.



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,569

23 Aug 2022, 10:19 am

QFT wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
Bible should be allowed, but it should be taught of as fiction and kind of a rule book for some religions.


Actually, this makes me think that it would be in the interest of devote Christian parents NOT TO allow the Bible in schools. Imagine two scenarios, and think of them from the perspective of Christian parents:

Scenario 1: The Bible is taught in public schools, as fiction. Then kids go to their Sunday classes where they are told its not fiction. Are they going to believe their public schools or are they going to believe their Sunday school teachers? Will this cast into a fiction light everything else they will learn in Sunday school?


I see your point, but would this be so horrible? Kids would get both views and would get to use their own heads to decide which view to believe once they're old enough to think things through. Or they could decide to not think about it too much and live with a "this school taught X, that one taught Y, I went to both but it doesn't affect my life." After all, there are plenty of people who have been taught the views of certain religions and are officially part of that religion, but who don't really let religious aspects affect their lives.

Quote:
Scenario 2: The Bible isn't there in schools. In this case it doesn't make it look like a fiction. After all, Clifford Algebras are not part of the school program either, but that doesn't mean Clifford Algebras are fiction: they are simply too hard for students to learn. So Bible is "too hard" in some other way. So its left out. And then its totally up to the parents to present it however they want. If they want to present it as historical reality, they can. And then their kids would believe it is a historical reality since they have not heard any message to the contrary from their schools.


I think this would end badly. Lots of people have been killed during the years by people who believe their faith to be "the one, true faith" and that everyone who doesn't "serve the same god as them" are heretics or pagans. And yes, Christians did this a lot, too. Not teaching about religions in schools at all and letting parents dictate the teachings of those could cause more murders and other crimes made in the name of religion.

Quote:
Well, I guess one should be a little careful with this. If at schools the teachers were to get mad at kids for talking about the Bible then it "might" send some kind of message against the Bible too. But then again it doesn't have to be presented that way. For example when you mentioned not to expose too young kids to Anne Frank, you didn't say Anne Frank is a fiction; instead, you said Anne Frank might be psychologically damaging to some kids. So schools could also say that Bible talk is psychologically damaging to some people, without saying its a fiction. And then they can go home and be told by their parents its a historic reality, and fully believe it.


I didn't call Anne Frank fiction because it has been proven otherwise, unlike with bible. However, you make a good point about bible also being psychologically damaging. I haven't read the whole thing, but I know some stories there are definitely not suitable for kids. Perhaps the argument of is bible true or not should be pushed aside and focus on what kind of damage it could cause if too young/otherwise sensitive students got their hands on it without adult support?