How Much Religeon Should Be Discussed In Our Public Schools?

[MontanaMama]

So, my 7th grader comes home from school yesterday with a homework sheet assigned by his Social Studies teacher. It is a crossword puzzle to be filled in with facts about the Church In Medieval Europe. My son proceeded to read some of the questions from the puzzle and I must say I was surprised at the content of the assignment. Some of the questions were:

-Person who oversaw the archdioceses?
-Who is second to the Pope?
-What is solemn rite of Christian churches?
-The study of God and religious truth?
-What is the celebration of Christ's Resurrection?
-Famous Italian saint who helped the poor?
-Number of sacraments?
-First important sacrament?

You get the drift of this thing. As a former Catholic, I'm a bit nerved up that my kid is learning this stuff in public school. I don't know if they will also be exposed to Islam or Judaism too or just Christian history and facts? Am I overreacting? Should I let this go? I plan to call his teacher and ask these questions, however, I'm asking for feedback from DUers on this. Any suggestions for additional questions for the teacher?

Thanks! This kept me up last night...

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Flat out teaching Christianity, illegal, i say give em hell

[MontanaMama]

18. Thanks.

I agree - Just wanted to see if you all thought I was nuts. I just left the teacher a voice mail.

[adigal]

126. I disagree. As an English teacher, i am glad when the kids know this stuff

So many classics have so much religion in them one way or another. Even Poe's The Cask of Amontillado, is set in Carnival season. I have to explain what is Carnival, why, etc.

How about Canterbury Tales, which I teach. We should probably take that out, cause it is a satire on the Church. We dont want that. And don't even get me started on that damn John Milton, writing about "Paradise Lost."!!!

Any intelligent, educated adult has this body of knowledge. As long as it is lresented as nackgeound and ot belief, I think it is very i portant to learn much of this.

[Eliot Rosewater]

127. I dont see any reason anyone needs to know

What is the celebration of Christ's Resurrection?
-Famous Italian saint who helped the poor?
-Number of sacraments?
-First important sacrament?

But I am not an educator either.

[adigal]

131. Seriously? Easter is incredibly important in both the history

and literature of all of Europe, where most of literature we teach comes from.

Did you see what I said about Poe? Carnival season is before Lent, 40 days before Easter. That is why the characters are in disguise.

Sacraments? The Church split up because it was selling indulgences during confession, the 2nd sacrament. Throw out Canterbury Tales.

Much of literature is based around the number of sacraments, the Seven Deadly Sins, the Italian saint who helped the poor may be the subject of literature they are about to read.

I teach a lot of Bible when I teach. If I dont, the students have no clue what I'm talking about. I just taught them how the Church stole pagan symbols and rituals when pagans were forced to convert as I taught a story on ritual and sacrifice, The Lottery.

As long as the teaching is presented as"This is what the Christian Church believed, which is important to your understanding of the literature," it's fine. In fact, not teaching the background is really bad teaching. The kids would be lost.

[Eliot Rosewater]

134. As long as equal time is given to at least 3 other religions, fine.

[adigal]

137. We teach literature mostly from Europe, thus mostly a Christian background

It would be absurd to teach about Islam when I'm teaching works based on a Christian history and time.
Now when I teach Night, I do teach about Judaism, and being in guests, as I'm weaker in the traditions of Judaism. Imwould love to teach some Muslim literature, and should expand to that, but I teach British Lit, which is 99% Christian influenced.

[MontanaMama]

174. Nope.

No other religion is being taught thus far. Nothing on the lesson plan on the teacher's website. Neither of my two phone calls were returned. If I don't hear back from the teacher by the end of school Monday, I'm working my way up the administrative chain. This isn't okay.

[mountain grammy]

168. If you're teaching Bible, you shouldn't be teaching in a public school

If you were teaching my kids Bible, I'd be raising hell. No, I do not think the bible is essential to learning literature. This is a nonsense. I read Poe, I don't need to read the bible to appreciate it.

Really, I do hope you're not teaching in a public school, you have no business there.

[Demsrule86]

248. I don't think it is appropriate personally.

[Mosby]

2. "christ" is opinion, not fact

His secular name, if he existed, is Jesus of Nazareth.

Or yeshua Ben yosef in transliterated Hebrew.

[MontanaMama]

21. I've always thought that the existence of Jesus

was not necessarily a fact...

[Drahthaardogs]

87. Jesus was almost certainly a real man

Ciaphis's ossuary, Pilate's tablet, and Peter's remains (exactly where they were supposed to be)were all found by archeology digs in the last 60 years or so.

The lines of evidence are strong. Even GA Wells the most famous Christ mythology expert has changed his opinion and now believes an actual man was born, preached around the Sea of Galilee, and was crucified by the Romans. The evidence supports this.

Whether you believe in His divinity is another matter altogether.

Christ mythology is kind of not cool anymore

[Codeine]

128. The ossuary and Peter's remains are very disputed.

Citing them as established fact is a questionable tactic.

And Pilate's existence does not prove the existence of Jesus.

[Drahthaardogs]

159. No they are not

They are accepted by most biblical archaeology experts as authentic.

In fact, to assume that there was NOT a man wandering around claiming to be the fulfillment of the prophecies of Ezekiel and others is pretty ludicrous when you think about it.

Jesus mythers are the lefts version of flat earthers.

Of course there was a historical Jesus or multiple Jesuses

[VermontKevin]

185. Didn't they just find Peter's bones AGAIN? Like, they've found them a couple of times.

[Drahthaardogs]

211. There are always those saying they found them for real

But the bones in the Vatican we're found where Constantine built his Temple and they were
Surrounded by corpses believed to be the early Popes. Pope Linus is inscribed there.

They used to say Pilates never existed because they had no record, then they found his tablet.

Ciaphis's ossuary contained crucifixion nails.

Peter's bones were the right age, gender, and DNA.

At some point you have to say there is far more physical evidence for it than against it.

[VermontKevin]

217. "Pilates" should never have existed, but "Pilate" was only disputed by those who never read Philo

or Tacitus.

As for "crucifixion nails" saint's bones, and Shrouds of Turin, one wonders why people of faith need physical evidence.

[Drahthaardogs]

218. Autocorrect likes to change Pilates to

Pilates. I fought it three times. Thought I won. Guess not 😀

[VermontKevin]

219. Lost again. Lol.

[Drahthaardogs]

221. This is funny!

😂😂😂😂

[Drahthaardogs]

220. Ha!

It did it again.

Fuck you Bill Gates 😂😂😂😂😂

[edhopper]

200. At first I thought you were giving the

Christian line of crap about why the Biblical Jesus "has to be" real.

But I see this is just about the Jesus myth theory.

I agree that there was a man, or men that the Biblical Jesus was based on.

It's like Walt disney's Davey Crocket.

[Drahthaardogs]

210. Yes. Even the most famous Jesus myther

GA Wells now agrees that there is simply too much physical evidence to NOT believe a man named Jesus lived and preached.

[edhopper]

212. Though it's funny how some Christains

think that just that confirmation alone makes the Bible real.
When in fact relying on the historical record shows how much of a fantasy the Gospels are.
The real Jesus Myth is not the existence of a man named Yeshua. It is the complete mythology of the Bible.

[guillaumeb]

81. Alternatively

Issa bin Yusuf.

[MontanaMama]

90. Hmmmm.

Didn't think of that...

[guillaumeb]

93. Muslims do honor Jesus as a prophet.

Good luck on the matter and I hope that you provide an update.

[MontanaMama]

95. I didn't know this!

Thanks guillaumeb. I will update when the teacher returns my call.

[RKP5637]

3. None !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[MontanaMama]

22. That's what I was thinking... eom

[Matthew28]

4. None

[MontanaMama]

26. I lean this way as well.

It is a slippery slope talking about any of this in school.

[Wounded Bear]

5. I'm a bit divided on this...

One one hand, you can't really understand Middle European History without a working knowledge of the Catholic Church. It really kind of dominated.

OTOH, as you say, that's a lot of Christian "knowledge" to put in a public school lesson. I, too, would wonder will similar things be done when studying, say, the Middle East and Muslim expansion? Will there be a similar lesson about India and Hinduism, or China and the fight between Confuscionism and Toaism?

In a, hopefully, increasingly secular world, understanding history means understanding how the various religions affected the political climates they existed in.

[marylandblue]

24. No part of Medieval history turned on knowing the first important sacrament

That's definitely a theological question.

[Drahthaardogs]

225. 95 Thesis. The Reformation

You are wrong

[marylandblue]

226. That's after the Renaissance

[Drahthaardogs]

227. So?

It is all the history of the Church which IS the history of Europe.

[marylandblue]

229. Church history is a big part of European history

But they aren't the same thing. People DID do things other than go to Church.

[Drahthaardogs]

230. Their whole life revolved around the Church

The largest landowner in Europe was the Church. Constantine's conversion. Charlemagne and the holy Roman Empire, this is the history of the WESTERN WORLD.

So yes, some understanding of the basics of the religion is required to understand our history

[marylandblue]

231. Which one of those events involved knowing the 7 sacraments?

For example, did Constantine have an opinion on the Sacraments? If he did was that a signficant factor in bks attitude towards Christianity? Were the Crusades launched in defense of the Sacraments?

[Drahthaardogs]

236. Uh, Council of Nicaea...

Kind of important on how the whole thing got started

[marylandblue]

237. Mostly concerned the Arian Heresy and not during the Middle Ages

[Drahthaardogs]

239. Okay, we are done.

The Council's of Constantine ratified a common Christian tradition thus ending civil unrest and allowing it's expansion.

You're just being difficult to be contrary. No, you cannot understand Western civilization without at least a rudimentary understanding of Catholic or Orthodox. Knowing the sacraments are important to understand Luther. If you don't understand Luther, you don't get the Reformation. Hell, you can't even understand the Church of England which is pretty damned important to our very existence as Americans. The pilgrims, the Quakers, the Mormon Trail...

Ahhh fuck it. Believe whatever you want. Raise your kids to be ignorant dolts. I don't care.

[marylandblue]

241. There is no need to be insulting

We are having a difference of opinion, that's all.

[Drahthaardogs]

242. I have given multiple reasons WHY

Some understanding of the Church is required to understand our history. You have provided nothing other than you don't like it. No facts. No alternatives. Nada

That's not a difference of opinion, that's an emotional response. So please, explain to me how you teach Luther without an explanation of the sacraments

[marylandblue]

243. My original comment: "no part of medieval history turns on knowing the first important sacrament."

So let's unpack that. I've taken several college level courses in European History, Christian History and one in Western Religion. So I am not talking from total ignorance, but from the knowledge I gathered from those course. And of course, European History and Christian History have been closely intertwined for the last 2,000 years. I never disputed that, and I am sorry if you got the impression that I was.

First, I was responding to the original post on the question of whether a question about the first important sacrament is relevant to a high school level medieval history class.

Second, I am holding that medieval history begins after the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire, and ends around 1400 with the aftermath of the Black Death and the rise of humanism. So really I didn't have the Reformation in my mind, being over 100 years after the end of the Medieval period. Of course, periodizing history is arbitrary, but the dates I am using are commonly accepted.

Third, in those courses I took, very little time was taken up with sacraments in Medieval Europe. Of course it was important to the people living then, but from a historical perspective, they didn't really matter much. By that time, there was little theological debate over them, no wars were fought over them, etc. A lot more time was spent on the role of the Pope vs. Kings vs. Bishops vs. religious reformers like St. Francis. For ordinary people, they spent some time on the social role of the church as the source of community, education and news. None on details of what people actually did in Church, like engaging in Sacraments.

Fourth, I did take a course in the Reformation. It started with the late Medieval Church and of course spent a lot of time on Luther. And at that point we did cover the Sacraments, but only from the perspective of Luther rejecting the traditional seven, and it only took up part of one lecture. If they discussed the "first important sacrament" I don't recall it.

In my Western Religion class, we did cover the sacraments of course, as well as the difference between Protestants and Catholics. Maybe we covered the first important one, but that was a long time ago so I am not sure. Still would not be out of place in a course like that.

So based on all that, I stand by my assertion that you don't need to know the first important sacrament to understand Medieval History. And I agree it could come up in Reformation History, but I'd argue that at level of detail in a high school class, it's not that likely and it would only matter as part of a long list of theological disputes that occured in the Reformation.

[Drahthaardogs]

245. Maybe, but...

The Church's influence in Europe was huge at that time. Popes held authority over monarchs and typically determined lines of succession.

In fact, if I remember correctly one pope declared Thurs through Sunday Holy Days and outlawed warfare on those days. The results were less wars.

The Crusades started around 1000 AD. Hmm? No discussion of theological differences is appropriate?

In addition, neither you nor I know what is next in the text, and it very well could be the Reformation. This could be teaching the foundation for the next chapter.

Regardless, it's history and I don't see the outrage of teaching history. I am surprised the OP did not simply ask the student to show her the text book to see if the teaching is inappropriate. Until then, I am going to say that this COULD certainly be a valid history point. I had it in World History in both high school and college, so I don't see the freak out until someone demonstrates that this teacher is being inappropriate.

[marylandblue]

249. Well you could be right about that

But in fairness to the OP, she came here asking for questions to ask the teacher, so I was simply providing my opinion that at least one of those questions is beyond what I'd expect in a high school social studies class. You have given counterarguments, so she certainly has enough information to decide for herself.

If I were going to reframe my statement as a question for the teacher, I'd probably say, "I don't understand why you are asking about sacraments in this unit. Can you explain it to me?"

[Drahthaardogs]

250. I agree.

And if the teacher said "To spread the Good News" I would have a fit.

And if they said,"We are building the foundation of understanding for the Crusades, then the Reformation, Enlightenment, and Renaissance, and this context will allow the student to not only understand the "what" happened but also the "why"

I would say, "ah, okay"

[MontanaMama]

27. Thanks.

I appreciate this perspective. This teacher's curriculum has been historically very balanced...so I'm hopeful this is an anomaly.

[Irish_Dem]

105. Addressing religion in a historical context is one thing, indoctrination is another.

Indoctrination not OK in the public school system.

[frogmarch]

6. None. nt

[wryter2000]

7. I would certainly ask those questions

You can't study the Middle Ages without discussing the church, but that seems way too detailed.

[MontanaMama]

28. I agree.

Especially on the "sacraments" thing...

[Thomas Hurt]

8. All or nothing....

Students should be able to learn about religions as long as there are comparable lesson plans for all religions......well at least the largest religions.

Personally, I am partial to nothing. Religious training of any kind the job of the parents and a decision for the individual to make after they turn 18 and are off to college or what have you.

Now, my hometown had a Mormon religion class (high school level) that Mormon students could attend for one class period during the day. However that class was held off of school property in a trailer park across the street.

I don't see any problem with that.

[MontanaMama]

56. When I was a Catholic kid

living in Utah for a couple years, I remember the Mormon kids going to CTR classes after school. They were held near the campus but not on it. I was the only kid that didn't go. Once a teacher made me get up in front of class to explain why I was Catholic and not Mormon. Scarred me for life, I was only a 2nd grader.

[Thomas Hurt]

66. the Mormons were not a majority in my hometown, they kept it on the down low.

It doesn't not surprise that you went through that though, the Mormons can be outright arrogant about their religion.

[milestogo]

9. The comparative study of religions is probably a good thing.

Most people are illiterate regarding any religion but their own. So I support it as a subject worthy of study. I do not support teaching a particular religion as truth - people should get that at their church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever.

[MontanaMama]

32. Yeah...

I'm not seeing other religions on the lesson plan and that's my concern. I left a voice mail for the teacher a few minutes ago.

[kwassa]

120. Most people are illiterate regarding all religions, including their own.

Including some frequent church attenders.

[ProfessorGAC]

238. I Agree

There is historical significance in comparative religion. Totally on board, especially if there's no proselytizing.
This example, however, seems to miss the mark.

[samnsara]

252. i agree. Im atheist but i took World Religions in College..great class!

[ProfessorGAC]

254. So Did I

In fact, part of the class was weekend service, and if you could afford it, meal at a joint of that culture.

[HopeAgain]

10. The church was a hugely important institution in Medieval Europe

But these do not sound like questions about the churches influence on medieval Europe or European history. More suited for a comparative religions course or something.

[TheDebbieDee]

11. I don't think religion should be taught or discussed

In public schools at all anymore - that's what churches are for...

I wouldn't have an objection to comparative religion being taught in public schools but I know that religious zealot parents would have issues so I say keep all religious stuff out of the public schools.

[adigal]

129. So much literature is based on the Church, as that was the major social,

legal, moral aspect of most life for a thousand years.

You would be throwing a LOT of great lit out.

I hate that dems are afraid of kids being exposed to ideas that differ from their own.

[gratuitous]

12. Would need to know a little more about the context

But certainly any review of the history of Medieval Europe would be very incomplete without a discussion and understanding of the role of the church in civil society and politics. Understanding that role would entail knowing who's who in the church hierarchy (why did this ruler ignore a bishop, but then he capitulated when a cardinal got involved); what sacraments are and why getting cut off from them was considered a big deal; and how the church calendar influenced society's calendar, to name just a few.

The context matters if the teacher is presenting this information as being just as true today as it was in the 12th Century (or whenever during the Medieval period). But if the information is presented in a way that makes it clear that we don't think about these things the same way today that the rulers and people of Europe did then, then I don't see a problem.

[MontanaMama]

34. Great points!

I'll keep this in mind when the teacher returns my call. She's had a balanced lesson plan this year over all...this seemed unusual and it made me uncomfortable.

[TexasBushwhacker]

48. Keep in mind the curricula is set by the state and the school district n/t

[octoberlib]

13. None. That's what church is for.

[MontanaMama]

36. Exactly what

my husband said. He was all WTF? last night when I showed him the assignment.

[MineralMan]

14. How about these questions instead?

What Pope was instrumental in the Crusades?
How many Muslims died as a result of the Crusades?
What was the most common torture method during the Inquisition?
List all evidence of the existence of any deity of your choice.
What is the word that means religious rules of thinking?
Explain Purgatory in 100 words or less.
What major part of Catholic dogma did Martin Luther want to reform.
Name a sin that will cause you to spend eternity in hell?
Discuss the concept of transubstantiation, as you understand it.

[BlueJac]

15. None..

that is why there are churches. School is for learning the real stuff!

[MontanaMama]

37. Haha!

"Real stuff"...exactly what why kid said when he was doing this assignment!

[adigal]

138. You have to understand Christian traditions, beliefs, rituals

To understand the literature we teach.
Just make sure it is being taught as history, not a belief. I always tell my students, "I'm not teaching you religion, but giving you the background you need fo jnderstand the literature."

[MontanaMama]

149. This would be my hope

for what is happening at school. My jury is out however. Waiting for teacher to return my call.

[mountain grammy]

170. That's funny! Joking, right?

because that's utter nonsense.

[adigal]

188. Ok, when you have any logical responses we can chat

Cause all you have is insults. No reasons, no logic.

[mountain grammy]

194. Nothing rational to discuss with someone

who says they teach the bible in public schools.. That's irrational.. the bible is irrational and should never be taught as "history." you're way off base on this.

[adigal]

195. Maybe you should read better...I dont teach the Bible

I teach the relevant parts of our history that the students need to understand the literature.

Sad, how afraid you are of students learning our history. Kind of like Evangelicals who dont want their kids exposed to anything they dont believe.

And still...no logical response. I'm done with you.

[mountain grammy]

197. You said you are teaching the bible..

You have no business teaching in a public school.

[Averagegrunt]

16. Yes for the right reason

For a history course that is social studies it relatively makes sense. Europe was centric for several centuries and "the church" was the center of it. Removing it would present solutions without a question. You can't teach the crusades without first understanding the perspectives of those who took part in it.

As long as it doesn't present itself as "the answer" then it isn't a problem.

[rurallib]

33. Agreed, but looking at the depth of the questions it appears to me that

this is beyond the need of a history class in middle or high school.

[Averagegrunt]

40. Info

Depends. I need a whole lot of information before I pass judgement but at this point as long as it's not being presented as "the good religion" I'd personally have no problem with it. In fact I think we should cover the 3 "main" world religions as a basis of world history.

[MontanaMama]

58. Agreed

and I am hopeful that if this is being taught that the other two will be presented as well. However, I'm not seeing them on the curriculum. Waiting for the teacher to call me back...

[MontanaMama]

43. Thanks.

If it had been exclusively historical facts of the church in medieval times that'd be one thing. It was the questions abut the sacraments, saints and the physical attributes of a Catholic church that weirded me out.

[Averagegrunt]

116. I can agree

I can agree and understand but even under the right context that information isn't a bad thing either.

[MontanaMama]

118. I get you on this.

Although I left the Catholic church long ago, I have wondered if I shouldn’t be teaching some of the aspects of that religion to my child from a mere cultural perspective. He’s 12 now and isn’t particularly interested and his dad is very opposed. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[adigal]

135. I teach hs English and I see no issue with this information

As long as it is presented as history, not religion.
Why would any Dem/liberal have a problem with a childgetting a well rounded education. The Church was the most important force for 1500 years of European history.

[Averagegrunt]

147. This

Exactly this

[crosinski]

17. I think those questions cross over into teaching about Christianity ...

... instead of teaching about it's roll in society and history. It's probably hard for some new teachers to draw the line, and then maybe this teacher is using this lesson as a chance to do some 'undercover' christian teaching. I would ask if they plan to get as involved with other religions too. I doubt that they do. You're going to have an interesting conversation, however it goes!

[MontanaMama]

61. This thread

has been really helpful in developing my thoughts about the assignment. Exactly what I was hoping for.

[exboyfil]

19. As others have said these questions

are far too detailed and frankly have little meaning for the influence of the Catholic Church on Medieval Europe. I can't answer most of them myself - even the number of Catholic sacraments being Lutheran and only recognizing two.

The question about the Italian saint could be part of a an overall discussion of the contribution of the church towards helping the poor. The fear of being separated from the Catholic church for not following its edicts could also be another fruitful area of study. Who really cares about the number 2 to the Pope? A much better discussion would be the use (and potential misuse) of indulgences. Also as you move towards the Reformation a study of why Luther sided with the princes and not the poor.

Learning disconnected facts is not the way to teach history. I probably wouldn't even give such a sheet to my 7th graders in Sunday School.

[Drahthaardogs]

23. You do realize that Lutheranism paved the way for feudalism

Right?

[Wounded Bear]

31. I think your timeline is a bit skewed...

Feudalism dominated Europe from the end of Rome until the growth of the nation states, which would be from about the 6th to the 14th Century or so. Luther nailed the theses to the Church in the late 1400s IIRC.

[Drahthaardogs]

42. I meant paved the way for the fall of it

By taking money out of the Church and freeing to a growing business class.

Countries adopted Protestantism to free up financial interests more so than theological.

The Church cannot be separated from Western history.


Sorry for the omission. I am bad on phones

[dhol82]

101. I think a larger reason for the fall of feudalism was the plague

It killed 30% - 65% of the population of Europe in the fourteenth century.
It destroyed the worker base and led to the rise of a business class.

[adigal]

141. Yes, during plagues, the peasants took off from the land and headed to

The cities. Got jobs, started guilds, etc.

[adigal]

139. Feudalism came to England with the French, 1066. Feudalism means

Land given based on military service. And lots of schools do British lit.

After the Romans left or were weakened in England after Rome fell, the Celts came back down out of the hills. Then the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes came over, 400s, 500s. There was lots of tribal warfare, no feudalism. St. Augustine brought Christianity to England in 1596-1597. Then some peaceful times, then the vikings came over, still no feudalism in England, at least. 700s - 800s.

William the Conqueror brought Feudalism when he defeated William Godwinson and gave land to 180 of his warriors. So that is where much of our literature we do in schools comes from.

[dhol82]

152. Cool. Did not know the military aspect of feudalism.

Thanks.

By the way, I think you meant that Christianity came over in 596 not 1596.

[exboyfil]

38. I am not sure that Lutheranism

had much impact except of the margins. The system existed prior to Luther and continued after Luther. The princes did consolidate more power in the region that would become Germany, but whether it was the Catholic church or the Lutheran church it still would have been some form of state church.

The "original" sin of the Christian church was becoming the state church of Rome. When it was a faith of persecuted and marginalized people, it had power to change lives. Once it had the power of the state behind it, it became tyrannical. We are still fighting that battle today.

It would be interesting to play what if games regarding decisions that Luther made. Most Lutherans do not view him or his writing as being sacramental - merely informative when establishing doctrine. He had many flaws and his siding with the princes was the worst of them.

[Drahthaardogs]

47. Not to be too theological, but Sola fidelis as Luther

Likely envisioned it has been bastardized to something he probably would not recognize.

Calvinism is so far removed it's not really Christian if you dig into it.

[exboyfil]

55. Interesting point

I worshipped in a Reformed church while in Tennessee. It was Cumberland Presbyterian, and it rejected some of the harsher aspects of Calvinism (can we say double predestination anyone).

I think what you will find in most modern mainline Protestant denominations (at least the ones which I have interacted with) is a confluence of opinion on works, the scriptures, and salvation. There is far more difference between the liberal arm of the Lutheran church (ELCA) vs. the Missouri Synod than between some reformed churches and ELCA. I was baptized by the Missouri Synod Lutheran church and later joined the ALC which merged with the more liberal LCA to become ELCA.

[Drahthaardogs]

72. In my mind, Luther left confession

Sees a woman, feels lust, now believes he is again in a state of mortal sin for committing adultry in his heart (or something similar to this).

This leads Luther in despair at his own animal nature. Upon reflection he believes humans too flawed to EVER please God through works, thus due to our every nature, only faith and the Grace of God give salvation.

Today that gas been bastardized by some who burst out they accept Jesus, and are thus now saved and free to be corrupt.

Calvinism's double predestination is beyond anything taught by the Christian tradition. It cannot co-exist with free will, thus invalidates Many are called, and the narrow path, concepts attributed to Christ. It literally contradicts his teachings.

Simplification of concept ideas we could discuss, but I bet you get this when you read it

[NutmegYankee]

63. Luther came after.

Oct 31, 1517 is the date of the 95 theses.

[Drahthaardogs]

73. I omitted the fall

Typing on my phone.

Shall I edit? I am a bit lazy

[NutmegYankee]

85. I too was browsing on the phone.

And I can't read much of the thread titles (cut off). Now that i'm home, I see the followup from the previous reply.

[WinkyDink]

150. Luther was much later.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

155. Feudalism existed long before Luther.

It began developing around 900, and was a system in which there were three basic classes: a warrior nobility, the clergy, and the peasantry who worked the land for the nobility. All were subservient to a ruling family. The peasant classes were illiterate and depended for their survival on being able to live on the land of the nobility. The clergy were essentially a branch of the government. Luther actually helped weakened feudalism by translating the Bible and other church rites into German, making them accessible to the masses and diminishing the common people's dependence on the Church and its priests. The feudal system started falling apart during the Renaissance, starting about 1500. Luther published his 95 Theses in 1517.

[MontanaMama]

45. Exactly.

It isn't like they are spending a ton of time on this subject. For that reason, it seemed this stuff was too in depth to even be discussed - as most religious concepts tend to be.

[Drahthaardogs]

20. The history of Rome, The Church, and the modern world

Are impossible to separate.

What you propose is no different than a fundie saying evolution must not be taught

[exboyfil]

46. The question is how deep do you go into

the nuts and bolts of an individual religion. I am having a difficult time knowing how it is important, even for a Catholic, to know who the number two is after the Pope. Also whether marriage is a sacrament or not is pretty irrelevant to a discussion on the influence of the Catholic church in society.

[Drahthaardogs]

52. Today, it's not

Back then, the Pope had his own Army and USED it. It would have been very important.

[exboyfil]

59. So who is the number 2?

Aren't all other archbishops below the Pope all equal in rank?

[MontanaMama]

70. I have no idea!

The puzzle answer was Cardinal. That was good enough for me!

[Drahthaardogs]

76. I believe the Secretary of State would not be Pope

But would make decisions until a new conclave is held

[MontanaMama]

67. Exactly!

This is where they lost me on the assignment.

[northoftheborder]

25. My first automatic reaction was NONE. However,

religious power plays a major role in much of European and world history. How can you teach about the Crusades without explaining the power of the Catholic Church, and the Muslims in the Middle East they attempted to annihilate. England, France, Spain, ireland and their kings fought lengthy battles over which religion would be the official one. The wars between ancient Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, and ancient China all had periods of various battling over religious belief.

That said, teaching detailed religious beliefs of any religion, unless ALL are included in a general study of Religion such as many universities have, should be not allowed. All of the questions you posed above would be out of bounds in my mind, and have nothing to do with religion's place in history.

The founders of our country had first hand knowledge of how detrimental having an "official" religion had been in their own histories; that is why they made the point to separate government from religion; allowing complete freedom of religious choice was the aim then, and should be the goal now.

[MontanaMama]

49. Thank you.

I appreciate your perspective.

[Drahthaardogs]

92. Actually, if we had an official religion the evangelicals

Would NEVER exist and we might not have the goofy shit we do.

Who knows? You never can tell!

[smirkymonkey]

125. I had the same initial first reaction, but then I reconsidered and think it should only

be taught from an historical perspective. I can see teaching comparative religions, but they would have to make it very clear that it was not promoting one religion over another.

[ClarendonDem]

202. If the lesson is focused on European history in the middle ages

Then I would expect Christianity to be the primary, and perhaps only, religion discussed. There's no need to give equal time to Buddhism (as an example) in that type of lesson. Teaching about the tenets of Christianity in a lesson about European history doesn't have any bearing on an "official" religion. There's simply no requirement that public schools eliminate any mention of Christianity, as some on here seem to suggest.

[Coventina]

29. I teach public college and I include a lot of this stuff.

Not just Christianity, but I also teach the basics of Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Islam, Judaism, and a little bit about native American, African, and Oceanic beliefs as well.

No, I don't teach religion, I teach Art History, but I feel it is important to understand something about the religion in order to understand the art that it produces.

[annabanana]

64. I learned a lot about various Religions studying Art History..

Actually got WAY more history in those classes than in most of my "History" classes. (Less timeline, more context)

[Coventina]

107. I was the same way. I couldn't "get" history just by lectures. It took art history to make sense

of it all.

I thought I was the only one!!

[MontanaMama]

69. I get that.

It was the references to sacraments, chain of command to the Pope etc. And, I am not seeing any reference to other religions on the lesson plan. That's what got my back up.

[Coventina]

108. Well, I would say, Christianity was THE dominating force in the European Middle Ages.

In order to understand that time and place at all, you do need to know a fair amount of Christianity.

Just as you would need to know a fair amount of Hinduism to understand the Medieval period in India.

I guess the important question to ask would be is if they are only going to be studying Europe, or are they taking a global approach?

If they are limiting the study to Europe, then only studying Christianity makes sense.

[adigal]

133. Cardinals and Bishops were very crucial in both history and literature

Archbishop Thomas Becket's murder and his tomn is important in Canterbury Tales. Kids need to know this when we read this.

[SamKnause]

30. Zero, Zip, Nada, None, Zilch, Nil, Naught, Nix, Nought, Nihil.

[MontanaMama]

71. Tell me how you really feel?

I think I'm with you. This assignment wigged me out.

[adigal]

140. Then you are going to have amazingly uneducated dolts in schools nt

[handmade34]

35. religion should definitely

be taught in school! As a former Social Studies teacher I taught religion (all religions) and see it as necessary to understanding our past and present day culture... that being said, your son's homework is inappropriate and is not 'teaching' religion in an historic sense but more indoctrination into Christianity, unless there are also an in-depth teaching of Muslims and their contribution during the Middle Ages... to be fair though, the Catholic Church was very powerful and it is important to understand how they controlled people

[MontanaMama]

74. Thank you for this!

I was hoping a teacher would weigh in here.

[rurallib]

39. slightly off topic, but the middle question

"religious truth" - wonder what that is.

I could see some reasons to know the historical effects of religion of the time, but these questions look way too deep for that. Appears to have slipped into teaching dogma.

[ProudLib72]

53. That's what I thought, too

What sort of context requires all these questions? Maybe they are tolerable if there is some specific event/idea that pivots on them. But it's looking like dogma to me as well.

[MontanaMama]

75. Yep.

That's the question that seemed "off" to me. It made me get involved in this particular assignment.

[LeftInTX]

41. This is too much for a 7th grader

Why would a 7th grader need to know the number of sacraments? All they need to know is that the Catholic Church has sacraments and that they are a mandatory part of participation in the Medieval Church (Knowing that Protestantism comes next etc)

Also there is the Knights Templar thing. (Not knowing exactly exact time period is being covered)

The church had huge secular influence that seems to be missing from the crossword puzzle. (Isn't that the purpose of the class?)

[MontanaMama]

78. YES!

And they needed to know that there were 7 of them to boot.

[adigal]

143. Lots of reasns for them to know it, and why not?

Knowing something doesnt mean that you believe or practice it. I know about Satanism, but no danger of me practicing it.

[L. Coyote]

44. Just enough to spell it correctly.

[Not Ruth]

50. Great is like a discussion of witchcraft

Archaic cautionary tale

[lagomorph777]

51. Fine to provide a general outline of all the European religions at the time.

But not a full catechism of just one.

Jews were there.
Some pagans were still cringing in the shadows.
Muslims were in control of Spain and Southern France.
And I'll bet there was an atheist or two.

The key is to show how the interplay of religions affected history, not to instruct that one of them was correct and the others were heresy.

[Doreen]

54. Religion of any kind has NO place in public school.

[ClarendonDem]

57. Those questions don't strike me as problematic

But more context about what points the teacher is trying to impart would be helpful.

[Kleveland]

60. None as far as trying to subject young mind to a specific belief/dogma.

However, a study of the world's religions, and how they have influenced civilization as we know it would be an interesting course in a strictly historical sense.

Being aware of the various belief systems does not necessarily harm an inquiring mind.

Forcing any belief upon someone else in my opinion is a "sin".

Myself, my interests lie in Eastern religions and philosophy, which teach being in balance and harmony with nature in all of its forms, including humans.

Contemporary Christianity seems to focus more on exploitation, and false guilt as a means to control those who do not follow blind belief.

I am a firm believer in separation of church and state, and feel basically the same about forcing religion in schools.

Question authority, and think for yourself.

[OriginalGeek]

62. lol, I went all 4 years of High school to a christian school

and I wasn't taught any of that.

Of course, my school was run by Independent, Fundamentalist Baptists so anything Catholic would have been considered just short of devil worship and idolatry.

I do remember studying the crusades but only in the warmest of tones. Meaning they approved. I was probably an adult before I figured out the Catholics had anything to do with it.


I never said my christian school was taught by scholars of any kind. Most of my teachers were related to the preacher who ran the church.

But to answer your question, outside of a history class or a comparative religion class, no church shit should be taught in public school.

[adigal]

191. So how do I teach Canterbury Tales without discussing the Church?

Seeing as it is a satire of the Christian church?

Or should I just tell my district that I won't teach Chaucer and Milton's Paradise Lost and many other works cause liberals dont believe in giving the background for literature anymore?

Your argument is the flip,side of Evangelicals who don't want their kids exposed to anything they dont believe. It is ignorant and dangerous.

[OriginalGeek]

223. Nope

Don't have your self-righteous little fit on me. Maybe I didn't name every exception but I clearly allowed for exceptions. Public Schools don't need to be teaching church doctrine. Background is darn close to history.

[Solly Mack]

65. That teacher would hear from me as well, had I a child in the class.

Sounds more like the teacher is teaching about a particular religion instead of the role of religion in Medieval history.

[MontanaMama]

82. Yes,

it seems we veered away from history and got into actual teaching and practice. I'm not having any of it.

[Skittles]

68. NONE

you need to make a complaint; that is RIDICULOUS

[MontanaMama]

80. I'm waiting for the teacher

to return my call. Probably not what she wants to deal with on a Friday afternoon...

[Not Ruth]

77. How about they watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail and check it off the list?

[MontanaMama]

79. If only!

[janterry]

83. what are the state standards?

You can pull those and look.
The second great awakening, in this country, was something that my daughter studied last year in an online public school. It was pretty important - and you have to teach about the ministers (and feminism, for that matter) - to get it right.

So, IDK. It depends on the goals and the teacher and the teacher's ability to be wide-minded enough to allow all students to feel comfortable.

This year (HS), my daughter is in a New England 'hippie' school. So, I'm comfortable with whatever they bring up (because they are flexible and focused on inclusion.

[MontanaMama]

86. I'd like to go

to a New England "hippie" school. Sounds interesting!

[guillaumeb]

84. A section of history class dealing briefly with the history of religion in the US

might be acceptable. But these questions are far too detailed. I would complain to the school and the ACLU if my complaint were ignored.

[MontanaMama]

88. Didn't even think of the ACLU.

Thanks. I'll see how receptive our teacher is...

[meow2u3]

89. I think comparative religion is a legitimate subject

in that students can learn about religions other than the one (or lack thereof) practiced (or not) in the home. What's wrong about learning about world religions and their core beliefs in a manner that's as objective as possible?

[MontanaMama]

94. I don't have an issue with it

as long as they are teaching a comparative history. It doesn't appear that they are here...at least the lesson plan does not reflect it.

[elleng]

91. Appropriate ONLY IF similar questions about other religions are also asked,

and discussed.

DON'T let it go.

[MontanaMama]

98. It doesn't appear that any other

religions are being discussed - at least the lesson plan is not reflecting it. I am not letting this go! I'm thankful that my concerns with the assignment are being supported here. Hoping the teacher calls me back today.

[elleng]

113. ABSOLUTELY supported.

My daughters attended a Catholic elementary school (in DC, Georgetown, liberal parish,) and as they are 1/2 Jewish, their teachers asked them to explain Chanukah to their class(es.) REAL education.

[adigal]

144. If the literature isnt Muslim or Jewish based, why teach them.

Makes no sense at all.

[elleng]

145. Teach as HISTORY, not as 'literature.'

[adigal]

146. I teach British lit, which is all based on Europe, which was mostly

Christian. Many works are based on the Church or about the Church, or infkuenced by the Church.
Not teaching the religious background as history would be malpractice.

[mountain grammy]

171. Teaching the bible in a public school is malpractice.

[adigal]

187. If the students have no background, how can they understand the literature?

How can anyone think giving information about our history or the history of a work is teaching the Bible?
Sometimes we are as ridiculous as the right wing in the other direction.

[mountain grammy]

196. You are teaching bible study in a public school.

and shouldn't be teaching children with that attitude.. You force bible study on "students who have no background?" WTF does that even mean?

[ClarendonDem]

203. Where does anyone support "teaching the bible"?

There's nothing wrong with teaching about religion in the context of a historical lesson. As others mentioned, you certainly can't understand the Crusades without understanding the religious context, including the role of the Catholic church in medieval society.

[mountain grammy]

205. See post #131

[ClarendonDem]

216. That post looks reasonable to me

The post says that students need to understand the teachings and influence of the church to properly understand history.

[mountain grammy]

222. No this teacher says he/she is

“ teaching the Bible “ but if you’re fine with that I don’t care. If my kids are being taught the Bible in public school I’d be furious. And who needs to know the teachings of the church to understand history? what crap.

[Drahthaardogs]

161. Nonsense.

If you don't understand WHY Luther had issues with the Church you don't understand WHY he nailed the 95 Thesis to the Vatican door.

You don't understand the Reformation and you don't understand the Enlightenment.

The western civilization is tied to Rome and the Church.

If you don't get it you don't get history.

Pretending other churches are equal as far as historical influence in Western society is kind of stupid and intellectually dishonest

[elleng]

166. NO NONSENSE,

I said teach them ALL as HISTORY.

[Drahthaardogs]

169. Why?

Tell me what influence Buddism has had on Western civilization? How has it influenced American history?

[elleng]

180. So DON'T teach them all,

makes LOTS of sense.

Buddhism is the world's fourth-largest religion, with over 520 million followers or over 7% of the global population, known as Buddhists. Buddhist schools vary on the exact nature of the path to liberation, the importance and canonicity of various teachings and scriptures, and especially their respective practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

DEFINITELY ignore Buddhism.

[Drahthaardogs]

183. I don't care if it has 4 billion followers

It has little to do with western history and us NOT the same as the Catholic Church in importance

[adigal]

190. 100% correct - i get discouraged when Dems fear things being taught

I would hope we want our kids to be exposed to all of our history. Then, it is the parent's responsibility to add the values part to it.

[Daphne08]

96. None!

As a former public high school teacher, I absolutely refused to discuss religion with any of my students.

My sons went to Catholic schools for kindergarten through 8th grade, and I didn't have a problem with the teaching of religion there.

When they attended public schools for 9th to 12th grades, I would have found those questions you listed as being inappropriate - unless the course was comparative religions as they relate to world history (and I seriously doubt that is being offered in 7th grade in public schools).

[MontanaMama]

99. Great feedback.

Thank you.

[adigal]

142. What subject did you teach? If you taught English or History and REFUSED

to talk about religion, you did a terrible job.
Sorry, but you cant teach history or English without an understanding of the history and beliefs of the Church.

[samnsara]

97. the ppl you should ask are The Freedom From Religion

group (FFRF... Ron Reagan Jr speaks for them).

They know all the legal stuff and they would know what crosses the line constitutionally. But I as a parent (and an atheist).. I would call the teacher and ask about it. Don't get me wrong.... if religions of the worlds ( ALL RELIGIONS) are equally studied then I have no problem with it. I took that class in college and it was very interesting...but I took that class BY CHOICE.....and NOT in a public school.

[MontanaMama]

102. I've got a call in to the teacher

and am hopeful she will call me back to discuss. Her lesson plans this year have been balanced and appropriate so I'm thinking this somehow fell through the cracks...even though it should not have. That said, if it was intentional, I've got a big fat problem with that. I'm not letting this go.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

100. Montana, depends on the context and class.

I'm totally against teaching any part of religious theology in public schools (or publicly funded charters) which in any way could sway a child toward religion, or toward any sect.

That said, it may be necessary to include some church history and background as a part of say, World History or the History of Europe. We don't want to stifle learning about those things, such as the Crusades or the religious foundations of many of the past empires.

I am curious how this was justified in a Social Studies class, though.

[MontanaMama]

104. Me too KY_EnviroGuy.

I get the historical significance of the Church in Europe - kids need to know that. I don't get, however, that they need to know how many sacraments there are or who is the runner up to the Pope. We'll see what the teacher says if/when she calls me back!

[KY_EnviroGuy]

111. Thanks, and please let us know what happens!

The two things you mentioned certainly are not necessary for teaching history or social studies, but instead are pure sectarian church structural teachings.

My daughter teaches fifth grade reading, so I like to track this sort of issue.

[avebury]

103. An alternative way to handle this would be to find

people of other religious beliefs, show them this assignment and see if they could each provide a similar excercise based upon their beliefs (judaism, islam, native american, buddhism, hindu, pagan, and so. Collect their lessons and provide the teacher with a copy of each one as you say "I know that you will agree that these lessons will provide your students with a much more broad knowledge of various world religions." Then step back and watch her reaction. Her reaction will show you her true colors. If it really is about pushing Christian beliefs in a public school you will be able to nail her to the wall.

[MontanaMama]

106. Oh snap!

What a great idea. If I get one ounce of push back from her on the phone, this is the way to handle it. My gut told me not to let this just be...Thanks for the feedback avebury!

[loyalsister]

109. I was force fed creationism

because a "science teacher" demanded equal time to counter evolution. There is no better way to bring out prosthelitizers than to actually broach the subject of religion. I wouldn't go any further than to say, "there are a lot of books about it."

[blueinredohio]

110. Shouldn't this be taught in church? Not in school. And why Catholicism?

[handmade34]

184. the history of the church

is our history... the Catholic Church was all powerful during the Middle Ages and without understanding the church one can not really understand the Middle Ages...

a problem would only exist if the teacher had an agenda (other than merely teaching history)

[NotASurfer]

112. I would want a gander at the textbook and curriculum for the course

That would give some perspective on whether the course is trying to make an effort to introduce some understanding of the religious underpinnings of historical conflicts including but not limited to the Crusades, or if it’s an example of a teacher going full Roy Moore on students.

Never hurts to spend an evening reading your children’s textbooks anyway. Gives you the chance to file away some of the thornier questions so you look like you know your stuff when they ask about something!

[MontanaMama]

117. I would do exactly that

if there were an actual textbook. Seems schools don’t have them for every class any more. I don’t think Mrs G has gone full Roy Moore by any means and I do recognize the significance of the Church in medieval European history. I do not, however, think 7th graders in public school need to know there are 7 sacraments. Fine line but maybe not that fine after all.

[Adrahil]

122. Good advice. NT

[ileus]

114. Pretty hard to teach history art or literature without including religion.

[kwassa]

121. actually impossible in Western Civ.

[VOX]

115. In a STRICT historical context, it should be okay.

Especially since the Catholic Church and the spread of Western Civilization kind of go hand-in-hand (for better or worse). It would be ideal if the downsides were also discussed -- like the killing and/or enslavement of "savages" who wouldn't convert, etc.

And the comments upthread about the importance of historical and comparative study of major world religions are spot on. One should learn as much as one can about how the entire world thinks and believes.

[Adrahil]

119. Depends on context.

In studying medieval Europe, the Church is a hugely important topic.

[Luciferous]

123. I would have a BIG problem with this!

[MontanaMama]

163. As do I.

Two unanswered calls to this teacher.

[Luciferous]

175. Well I hope you get some answers. My kids

are currently enrolled in a district where the science teachers don't believe in evolution and my son is the only kid in his class who doesn't go to church, so I can sympathize. My son wants to do a project on the subject of evolution for the science fair so he can educate them lol

[MontanaMama]

176. Oh hell yes.

Happy to hear about your son's science fair project! I'm not dropping this and I thank you for the encouragement. Science teachers who don't believe in evolution. Unbelievable.

[Luciferous]

177. Well it's Mississippi. We do a lot of supplemental

stuff at home!

[kwassa]

124. What I object to ....

is there is nothing in the crossword about the political role of the church in Medieval Europe, where it had huge influence.

The emphasis is not historical.

[MontanaMama]

164. Exactly.

This is my issue with this assignment. Ridiculous.

[NastyRiffraff]

130. I'm assuming this is a public school

If so, this is clearly a Catholic-oriented puzzle. It clearly doesn't belong in a public school.

[MontanaMama]

165. Public middle school.

Apparently they are studying medieval Europe. I get the historical significance to the Church, but these questions cross the line IMO.

[karynnj]

132. More than how much, the question would be how they do it

Last edited Fri Oct 27, 2017, 07:45 PM - Edit history (2)

My kids in either 6th or 7th grade had one unit of social studies where they learned about various religions. The area we were in was relatively diverse - so for my middle daughter's class, the teacher asked the students who would be willing to commit to putting together a basic explanation of their own religion. The class was one of the top tier classes, so each of the kids who did volunteer did a good job per the teacher and it was a nice experience. My daughter did the day on Judaism, a good friend did Hinduism, another student did Islam, and 2 others did Christianity together. My daughter then wanted to do Buddhism - and the teacher agreed as there were no Buddhists in the class.

None of the religions was done in an evangelical way. Understanding different religions and in some cases having people they knew speak of it as "their" religion could well improve the tolerance and understanding of people who believe different things.

My daughter, now a 4th year PHD student in theology after getting a masters in world religions, loved this section, but she is clearly not typical. The question I would ask is what the goals are. I would also ask what the source of the material will be. (You would want a Jewish source for Judaism etc) I would also ask if the point would be that SOME people do not believe in any religion and to note that in any faith, there are variations between congregations and also between the people in them.

[MontanaMama]

151. Very good.

Thank for for your input. I’m amassing a great list of questions for this teacher. So far there has been no mention of other religions and it is not in the posted lesson plan on the teacher’s web page.

[rzemanfl]

136. Definitely not enough so kids learn how to spell it. n/t

[WinkyDink]

148. IMO, enough to understand the basic allusions in the art and literature they study. Same with

Greek/Roman mythology.

E. g., the description of the discovery of King Duncan's body is exactly as the Crucifixion is portrayed in the KJB.

[brewens]

153. Christians beleive Christ rose from the dead. What holiday celebrates that? Would have been a more

appropriate question, rather than stating it as an accepted fact. Of course wording it like that would enrage a lot of Christians.

[cemaphonic]

154. A certain amount of understanding Christianity and the Catholic Church is crucial for understanding

European history.

But these particular questions? Way over the line. Take the first two questions. Knowing that the Pope had a lot of sway over affairs of state throughout Western Europe, and ruled Central Italy outright is useful to know. The administrative framework of the Catholic Church is trivia. (in a middle school survey class anyway) Several of the questions have loaded words like "important" and "truth."

This looks more like indoctrination rather than teaching historical context to me.

[MontanaMama]

156. Oh yes.

My thoughts exactly and I appreciate your reaponse.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

157. It's pretty tough to understand European history without knowing something

about the church. You can't understand the politics of the time without knowing how the church influenced European royalty. You can't understand the origins of the common law of England, which eventually became our common law in significant respects, without knowing how the church influenced the law, especially after Henry VIII. Why did Henry break from the church, and what was the result? Why was Archbishop Cranmer important? What was the Restoration and why was it important, politically? Why was Martin Luther important, and not just as a religious figure?

How can you understand the great artists of the Renaissance - Michelangelo, DaVinci and many others - without knowing what they were painting and why? Music as we now know it originated in large part in the medieval church. The great cathedrals were erected to glorify God, but they are also marvels of engineering, and understanding their construction and how things like arches and buttresses and domes were figured out is essential to understanding modern civil engineering and architecture. The church was absolutely central to the development of modern literature, the arts and politics. I don't see a good reason to discuss the Trinity or the Albigensian Heresy in the 7th grade, but if you ignore the influence of the church you won't understand our history at all.

[MontanaMama]

158. I always enjoy your perspective VO,

and agree with all you state here. My quarrel lies more with teaching specifics of sacraments and who is second in line to the Pope and the lack of comparative religious information. No Islam or Judaism on the lesson plan agenda. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[MyOwnPeace]

160. And don't forget music!

It was "the church" that developed and promoted its use as part of the "worship" experience.
Bach, Mozart, and more were hired and promoted by both church people and rich patrons, including many that were political leaders (kings, monarchs, etc, etc.).

To "ignore" or delete any reference to religious input would leave out significant and important musical advancements that promoted the growth of music.

[nini]

162. This is ok if....

they are also going over other religions too? Islam, Judaism etc..?

[MontanaMama]

167. Not to my knowledge.

My kiddo tells me that they have not discussed Islam or Judaism. I've left two voice mails for the teacher and haven't heard back. If I don't have an call from her by Monday...I'm working my way up the food chain.

[nini]

182. If not.. I bet they get calls from the Non Catholic Christians too

it's gonna be a wild time at that school.

Go get 'em.


Note: I went to Catholic School for 9 years but public high school where we were exposed to a bunch of different religions in a history class somewhere along the line. Also, the nuns in grammar school also taught us about other religions and how we were to respect them. They were good liberal nuns. I was lucky

[adigal]

192. Depends on the point of the lesson

I teach British Lit, and there are really not many i fluences on the lit from other religions. I dont go into other religions the same way just to be PC. I'm not paid to be PC. I'm paid to teach British Lit.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

172. idoctrination

in·doc·tri·na·tion
inˌdäktrəˈnāSHən/
noun
noun: indoctrination
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"
archaic
teaching; instruction.
"methods that were approved for indoctrination in divinity"

[MontanaMama]

173. Bingo. eom.

[Kath2]

178. Former catholic, myself.

No religion in school. That is what I think.

[MontanaMama]

179. Former Catholic here as well.

Chills went up my spine when my son started reading these questions out loud to me. History of the church in terms of European history okay...religious teaching, no thank you.

[Kath2]

181. Amen (LOL) to that, sister.

No religious teaching for my kids. No way.

[pansypoo53219]

186. the golden rule & the beatitudes. and render unto caesar what is his. nothing else.

[madokie]

189. Just the mention of the word is plenty for me

I see religion as the root of all evil. If not for religions this would be a much safer and saner world for which to live in. IMHO

[MontanaMama]

198. Yep.

I left the church years ago because of an evil priest. I never regretted that decision.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

193. I went to sunday school (not Catholic) but, ...

I don't know the answer to any of those questions.

I suppose I could Google ...

[MontanaMama]

199. I'm 52 years old

and left the Catholic Church when I was 23. When my son began reading me the questions from the puzzle, I was floored at how many answers I knew as was he! He kept saying "Mama, how do you know this stuff?" We did Google what we didn't know. I could see my child being able to live a fruitful and productive life if he knew none that in depth info about the church.

[SweetieD]

201. I'm a former catholic and don't have an issue with those questions. It sounds like they are getting

a general background as to what catholicism means. We had similar studies in my public school and various religions, including Buddhism and islam. I could tell you the 5 pillars of Islam when I was 16 and not one Muslim person went to my school. I think it is good to have a basic knowledge of what millions of people believe.

[ClarendonDem]

204. Yup

I see nothing wrong with this lesson. The indignation over this innocuous lesson just feeds the claims that "liberals" are anti-Christian.

[MontanaMama]

206. I am certainly not anti-Christian.

Sounds like you are not anti-Christian either. If that is true, would you condone a similar lesson in Islam, Mormonism, Judaism or any other religion? This class is not studying any of those. THAT is my main issue with this.

[MontanaMama]

207. Thanks for your response.

I would have less trouble with the lesson if the kids were getting all of what you cite in your post. There's no comparative religious study here. Having an understanding about the role of the Christian Church in European history is important. I offer, however, that knowing the 7 Catholic sacraments are not. Fine line but then again, maybe not that fine.

[Captain Stern]

208. I don't see a problem with the assignment.

All of those questions deal with the Church in Medieval Europe.

The assignment was to fill in a crossword puzzle with "facts about the Church in Medieval Europe".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching kids about the role of the Church in Medieval Europe. It's history. It happened.

[MontanaMama]

209. On the surface I would agree.

However when I see loaded words such as "truth" and "important" ...those are subjective. Then there's the "celebration of Christ's birth" question. Celebration of Jesus' birth is more accurate. Whether or not Jesus was the Christ is up for debate. Thanks for your response.

[J_William_Ryan]

213. The question isnt how much religion should be discussed in public schools,

but whether or not religion is being promoted, whether or not such discussions have a secular context and intent, and whether or not government is excessively entangled with religious doctrine and dogma.

The study of religion in public schools in a solely academic context is perfectly appropriate and consistent with Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Indeed, the study of the history of Western Civilization would be all but impossible absent references to religion.

[MontanaMama]

214. Thank you for your

well thought out response. I appreciate it and will refer to it when / if my son's teacher returns my phone calls next week.

[LittleBlue]

215. It should not be discussed outside of history class

I don't think it's a school's job to educate, and potentially inculcate and indoctrinate, children regarding religion. It should stay in the history books. Sometimes geography lessons are used to inculcate children into positive feelings about religion.

[aikoaiko]

224. This is the social in social studies of the church in midieval Europe

Sometime a little depth into topics is a fine educational approach.

[Bettie]

228. I think an entire assignment on the church is wrong for a public school

history of that period needs to include the Catholic church, but the focus should be on how the church influenced society not on the inner workings of the bureaucracy of the church.

[Iggo]

232. Discussed? Any of it. Preached? None of it. (n/t)

[a la izquierda]

233. I have a PhD in History.

There's not much of a way to teach certain periods of history without dealing with religion. However, a couple of those questions are less about history and more about catechism.

[MontanaMama]

234. Yes they are.

It reads like a Catholic First Communion quiz or a Confirmation Exam. And, that's my quarrel with it. I hope the teacher will hear my concerns positively. Thank you for the response.

[logosoco]

235. Learning about the churches impact within Medieval Europe is

certainly something a social studies teacher can't avoid, nor should they. Teaching kids how religion had impact on societies throughout history is something that can't really be avoided. I think the impact can be discussed without getting into the dogma.

But these questions do not seem relevant, except maybe "Famous Italian saint who helped the poor?"

And yes, if there is no comparative studies, the teacher should ditch this lesson altogether.

(I, too was raised Catholic but had many questions since the age of 5, much to my mother's displeasure!And I stopped going as soon as I could get away with it! I did not raise my kids with any religion, but I did send them to a Baptist church preschool so that my kids could be exposed to it and make their own conclusions. My daughter has done pretty much the same with my grandsons. Learning about how religions have impacted society is important for anyone from any or no religion.)

[MontanaMama]

240. Sounds legit to me logosoco.

I have no issue with him learning about the impacts of the Church on Medieval Europe and the impact it had on that society politically, culturally and socially. I got squirlly when we were going through the questions at they read like a Confirmation exam.

I have often wondered if I haven't let my son down by not teaching him more about religion at least from a cultural standpoint. His father is opposed to religious teaching. However, knowing the impact of religion on societies is important, I believe. We are going through one of those times now with the religious right dictating WAY too much policy in government.

[rufus dog]

244. Up to the point on how to spell - R E L I G I O N N/T

[Blue_true]

246. What your son witnessed is wrong.

I am ok with comparative religion being taught as history. When I say comparative religion I mean the religions that compete or competed with Christianity, the periods that they existed in time and how ritual from many of them is similar to what Christians are taught today. You should complain to the school board in writing and explain that if nothing is done, you will consult an attorney.

[MontanaMama]

253. I am waiting for a call back from the

teacher...after two voice mails left late last week. As I've said in previous posts, I have no problems with kids learning about the Church and all it meant to medieval Europe...and I would have no problem with any comparative religious history....but that's not what this assignment entailed and I see nothing of the sort on the class lesson plan on the teachers web page.

[Demsrule86]

247. I don't think it should be allowed. It establishes Christianity as the National religion

which the constitution forbids.

[Vidal]

251. History

I am totally for separation of church and state but I am not for ignorance. You can be an atheist and study the history of the Roman Catholic Church which dominated Western culture for hundreds of years. These are good things to know about. Learning is not the same as believing.

[Decoy of Fenris]

255. Doesn't seem over the line to me. Agnostic history fanatic here.

As it has been stated numerous times upthread, the Church not only played a massive part in European history, but in many ways, European history -was- the Catholic Church. As the Church moved, so too did almost every nation in Europe for almost two millennia. That influence wasn't limited to Europe, by the by, as the Byzantine Empire post-Schism posed almost as influential as the Church and followed many of the same guidelines as the Catholic organization. See Orthodox Christianity for more information on that (or its heresy, Iconoclast Christianity.) A clear and in-depth knowledge about the workings and structure is of paramount importance if one is to have a firm understanding Medieval Europe.

I could give example after example of the Church's influence on Europe and how each question posed to your kid is related, but that would belabor the point. The questions asked provide a clear and concise (if basic) window into the workings of the largest and most dominant religious force to shape the western world over two thousand years. "Establishment of religion" and "understanding history" are two completely different things, and it is functionally impossible to fully understand historic context or contemporary works without a proper education in the period.

I would advise you to ignore the zealous anti-intellectualism some are suggesting to you here and at least walk into any meeting with the teacher with an open mind regarding the multitude of aspects required to fully understand history as a study. Preaching is one thing, but just because you know something does not mean you -believe- in it. The same applies to your kiddo.