Religion Has No Place in a Public Education System.

As long as we are handing out free educational advice, consider this: LINK

Presuppositions

The world of NLP revolves around a few presuppositions. A presupposition is an implicit assumption. In other words, it is assumed that there is implied truth in what is stated and can be viewed as correct in every way. As we jump into this topic, prepare to dive deep and stretch your mind wide.

1. The map is not the territory. Have respect for the individual's map.

Each of us has a map of the territory (world around us) that will be different depending on our perspective and frame of reference. Our map of the world represents our unique view of the world, while the territory represents actual objects and events. Your perception as an educator belongs to you and does not accurately represent the territory or the map of the student. If you realize this difference and respect the map of your students, you are prepared to make NLP work for you.

2. People respond according to their map of the territory.

All students operate in the world according to their perception of the territory. Since each map is different, each response will be unique. Your responsibility as an educator is to discover the student's map and act accordingly. Change the map and you change the student.

3. Meaning depends on context.

Words only have meaning when they are represented within some context. External stimuli will change internal response. If you want to change your students' behavior or character, create context in their minds. Use metaphor when possible. Paint mental pictures and assist your students as they color in their map.

4. Mind and body affect each other.

Mind and body do not function separately. What the mind believes becomes reality in the body. What the body feels becomes reality in the mind. As an educator, you MUST respect how your actions can become emotion within your students. You have the power to affect mind and body when you speak. Choose your words and emotions wisely.

5. If what you are doing is not working, do something else.

Often, the opposite of what we think will work ends up working. Do not be afraid to make changes that are unrelated to the problem. Often this redirection solves the problem. Find out what works for others and apply these practices to your own methodology. Choose the simplest answer and you will most often be correct. Flexibility equals success.

6. Choice is better than no choice.

Your students will respect you more if you offer choices. Barking out commands and creating rules to follow will only create ground for the student to stand against you. Create a context whereby the students can operate according to their own maps. Work over time to change the map and reveal the true territory.

7. We are always communicating.

All of your actions as an educator speak loudly to your students. Tactical communication will be necessary for ultimate success. Plan your communication through wisdom and restraint while keeping effectiveness in mind.

8. The meaning of communication is the response you get.

You will only be as effective as the communication you generate. If your students do not respond according to your intentions, your communication is at fault. Improve communication to improve response.

9. There is no such thing as failure, only feedback.

All failure should be seen as feedback for future success. The more you open yourself up to opportunity, the more it will become available to you. Seek the opportunity in every failure.

10. Every behavior contains positive intention.

Seek first the positive intentions in your students' behavior. Even when behavior is poor, preserve the positive intention first. Preserving positive intentions creates positive choices. A positive teacher creates a positive student. Choice creates opportunity.

11. If something is possible, then it is possible to learn how to do it.

Poor classroom management can make a good teacher feel like a failure. If classroom management has beaten you down as an educator then this presupposition is for you. If something is possible, then it is possible for you to learn.

Take a walk down the hallways of your school. Chances are good that you will find at least one teacher controlling your out-of-control students. It is therefore possible for you to control your students well. Twenty percent of any situation is reality. The other eighty percent is purely mental. Learn to control the other eighty percent.

12. People have all the resources they need already.

Resourcefulness is merely a state of mind. Everything you need is already available. It is your job to assemble available resources at your disposal and make the best choices possible along the way to maximize their use.

13. Resistance is only inflexible communication. The person with the most flexibility wins.

Be the bigger person. In every situation and with every student, success will only come through flexible communication. Be willing to change your educational method before you blame your students for unsuccessful situations. You already have all the resources you need to achieve success. Success comes from using your communication and resources wisely.

14. If you control your mind, you control results.

Bias is the worst enemy of an educator. Your emotion can turn a student off forever. Controlling your emotion can build rapport and help you move a student forward. Creating high expectations is a well-intended goal, but when students are motivated to create their own high expectations, real success will follow.

Originally posted by NoClue206
I feel the same way about teaching evolution.

Living up to your name; i hope that was sacarsm.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["Do you really think people are blind to your twisting of what I just said."]

I have no idea about what 'people' conclude. That will be apparant, when 'people' possibly respond to it, and 'camps' will manifest.

Quote: ["Feedback is part of a teacher's job as an educational facilitator. God is a facilitator of what He teaches as well--Love, dignity and honor for the class and teacher."]

Where does this allegory link to the subject of teaching religion in public education? A manual of mixed pedagogics and theistic assumptions and allegories is irrelevant the OP's question: Who should teach children religion?

As irrelevant as the question of secularism, which the OP-author considers unnecessary.

We can row the boat any direction as long as one of us has ores. My posts clearly demonstrate that virtue is what you do, not necessarily what platform you stand on. The actions reflect the result. I'll stand with virtue and let my actions speak for me. My writings in education reflect this goal. You can row as well or sit in the back of the boat complaining. One of us will get us to the destination eventually.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["Do you really think people are blind to your twisting of what I just said."]

I have no idea about what 'people' conclude. That will be apparant, when 'people' possibly respond to it, and 'camps' will manifest.

Quote: ["Feedback is part of a teacher's job as an educational facilitator. God is a facilitator of what He teaches as well--Love, dignity and honor for the class and teacher."]

Where does this allegory link to the subject of teaching religion in public education? A manual of mixed pedagogics and theistic assumptions and allegories is irrelevant the OP's question: Who should teach children religion?

As irrelevant as the question of secularism, which the OP-author considers unnecessary.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Quote from your initial post on this thread:

["One problem we see in the world today is manifested by the problem of religion in the classroom. When we removed religion, we removed wisdom. Knowledge apart from wisdom is dangerous."]

I interpretate this orchestrated and self-contained postulate (removing religion = removing wisdom) as an effort to sneak religion into public education through the backdoor. It's purely semantic, based on the unreasonable assumption that: Religion exclusively = wisdom.

There are wise people from all parts of life. Furthermore there are some very unwise religionists too. The criteria you put up are useless.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Quote from your initial post on this thread:

["One problem we see in the world today is manifested by the problem of religion in the classroom. When we removed religion, we removed wisdom. Knowledge apart from wisdom is dangerous."]

I interpretate this orchestrated and self-contained postulate (removing religion = removing wisdom) as an effort to sneak religion into public education through the backdoor. It's purely semantic, based on the unreasonable assumption that: Religion exclusively = wisdom.

There are wise people from all parts of life. Furthermore there are some very unwise religionists too. The criteria you put up are useless.

edit on 16-7-2011 by bogomil because: addition

My criteria is love and virtue. I was clear this is found in the voices of philosophy. The Biblical text happens to be the cleanest reflection of love. As you continue to drag me out of context to your biased view, I'll simply stand on the context previously provided. Your example proves the point of virtue compared to pride. What you fail to realize is that we are equal and not above or below. truth only needs our example to be seen for the one thing it represents. We live the dichotomy as we speak. God loves us both.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
The Biblical text happens to be the cleanest reflection of love. As you continue to drag me out of context to your biased view, I'll simply stand on the context previously provided. Your example proves the point of virtue compared to pride. What you fail to realize is that we are equal and not above or below. truth only needs our example to be seen for the one thing it represents. We live the dichotomy as we speak. God loves us both.

Are you kidding me.

Your original post was offensive from a very arrogant God believing mindset.

You have the gall to call someone else bias?

Biblical text is full of judgement and hate. Oh! Unless you "cherry pick".

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["My criteria is love and virtue."]

In the post I referred to, your criterium was religion. Quote from former post: ["When we removed religion, we removed wisdom."]

Quote: ["I was clear this is found in the voices of philosophy."]

An elaborate chain of false identifications, such as putting religion and philosophy in the same box, and freely jumping amongst the possibilities of the box, is semantics. An inductively created category has no rational value in an argument.

Quote: ["The Biblical text happens to be the cleanest reflection of love."]

My bids would be buddhist compassion; or jain ahimsa. And many of them actually practise it, instead of just talking about it, as a bait for converts.

Quote: ["As you continue to drag me out of context to your biased view, I'll simply stand on the context previously provided."]

I actually believed, that I'd it clear, that I consider your 'contexts' as invalid as your single postulates and assumptions.

Quote: [" Your example proves the point of virtue compared to pride."]

In a scenario arranged on your premises.

Quote: ["What you fail to realize is that we are equal and not above or below."]

There's no such thing as equality, we are all somewhat different. There's egalitarian rights in secular, liberal democracy.

Quote: ["truth only needs our example to be seen for the one thing it represents."]

And from where comes all the semantic gymnastics in missionary religion then? That's not very 'truthfully'.

Quote: ["We live the dichotomy as we speak."]

Most likely, and an observation of several truth/reality-seeking system. The solution to this, which your system sometimes invasively push at mankind, isn't especially sound or rational. It's more the illness itself, than the cure.

Quote: ["God loves us both."]

Which 'god' amongst the many alleged options (even inside the christianities)?

Besides we are also "all buddhas", men only go to Valhalla if they die fighting, slaughtered virgins will make the sun rise another year, and the FSM likes booze (I like the last one best, there's something realistic about cosmos being created on a binge. A version of the demi-urge theme).

Can we possibly get back to, who are to teach children religion? Or is your post a continuation of the disguised effort of bringing religion into public education, but without saying so openly?

LINK This conversation has taken place.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
The Biblical text happens to be the cleanest reflection of love. As you continue to drag me out of context to your biased view, I'll simply stand on the context previously provided. Your example proves the point of virtue compared to pride. What you fail to realize is that we are equal and not above or below. truth only needs our example to be seen for the one thing it represents. We live the dichotomy as we speak. God loves us both.

Are you kidding me.

Your original post was offensive from a very arrogant God believing mindset.

You have the gall to call someone else bias?

Biblical text is full of judgement and hate. Oh! Unless you "cherry pick".

I disagree, Religion should be in schools and studies like all of the other science, social studies, world history, political science, etc...so they can see the variety and not think its a crime because their school mate is of another color, religion, gender etc... In other words; NO Book should be banned from schools except those for the greater public good such as how to make bombs.


lreply to post by CaDreamer

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
I disagree, Religion should be in schools and studies like all of the other science, social studies, world history, political science, etc...so they can see the variety and not think its a crime because their school mate is of another color, religion, gender etc... In other words; NO Book should be banned from schools except those for the greater public good such as how to make bombs.


lreply to post by CaDreamer

 

I hope to say this without putting words in your mouth, but that would formally be 'history of religion', 'general theology/philosophy' or 'comparative religion'. Highly recommendable.

This is something quite different from a single-religion approach (and worse: The teaching of any single religion's values as 'absolutes').

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
I disagree, Religion should be in schools and studies like all of the other science, social studies, world history, political science, etc...so they can see the variety and not think its a crime because their school mate is of another color, religion, gender etc... In other words; NO Book should be banned from schools except those for the greater public good such as how to make bombs.


lreply to post by CaDreamer

 

I hope to say this without putting words in your mouth, but that would formally be 'history of religion', 'general theology/philosophy' or 'comparative religion'. Highly recommendable.

This is something quite different from a single-religion approach (and worse: The teaching of any single religion's values as 'absolutes').

Yes - - but at what age should this be taught? And should it be mandatory.

IMO - - it could be an elective beginning at 11th grade level.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
I disagree, Religion should be in schools and studies like all of the other science, social studies, world history, political science, etc...so they can see the variety and not think its a crime because their school mate is of another color, religion, gender etc... In other words; NO Book should be banned from schools except those for the greater public good such as how to make bombs.


lreply to post by CaDreamer

 

I hope to say this without putting words in your mouth, but that would formally be 'history of religion', 'general theology/philosophy' or 'comparative religion'. Highly recommendable.

This is something quite different from a single-religion approach (and worse: The teaching of any single religion's values as 'absolutes').

Yes - - but at what age should this be taught? And should it be mandatory.

IMO - - it could be an elective beginning at 11th grade level.

From my own teaching experience .....from 15-16 years of age the deeper-loding versions could be suitable. And at that age the student would be able to make an informed decision on joining ot not (it should ofcourse be an optional choice; there are religionists, whose ears could start bleeding, if they are exposed to other religious information than their own).

I think the 11th grade would be too late, just think of all of the Holy Days I mean holidays celebrated during the school year. Since most kids; are 12 years old in the 6th grade that's when it should be taught cause by then; they should know the difference between A Male and A Female and Why GOD made Adam and Eve and like All Things that come from Heaven, Universe Etc, are like stars or indivdual snowflakes and loved. They also need to be taught why they should honor both their father AND mother and not one over the other. Especially if you didnt know your father and he never claimed you as his own and She raised you alone, sacrificed Her life so you could be born and made you 1st or Her top priority be given More Glory.

Just as they are teaching sex education and where babies come from, they also need to be told where diseases like Syphliss come from which was a man having sex with a sheep or bo peep's poor little lamb and then a woman who like the lamb didnt have a condom or choice.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
I disagree, Religion should be in schools and studies like all of the other science, social studies, world history, political science, etc...so they can see the variety and not think its a crime because their school mate is of another color, religion, gender etc... In other words; NO Book should be banned from schools except those for the greater public good such as how to make bombs.


lreply to post by CaDreamer

 

I hope to say this without putting words in your mouth, but that would formally be 'history of religion', 'general theology/philosophy' or 'comparative religion'. Highly recommendable.

This is something quite different from a single-religion approach (and worse: The teaching of any single religion's values as 'absolutes').

Yes - - but at what age should this be taught? And should it be mandatory.

IMO - - it could be an elective beginning at 11th grade level.

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
I think the 11th grade would be too late, just think of all of the Holy Days I mean holidays celebrated during the school year.

Fortunately - - in many (maybe most) public schools all religious names/references has been removed from all the school holidays.

Fortunately - - as Christians stole Pagan holidays - - - science can explain what solstice is. And why its reasonable to take a break at certain times in the year.

Well frankly I think that is Unfortunate because; you give the kids time off but they dont know why? I is wrong to take Christ out of Christmas, and that's just as wrong; as calling things; spring break instead of the Soltice, Easter, Passover, etc.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
I think the 11th grade would be too late, just think of all of the Holy Days I mean holidays celebrated during the school year.

Fortunately - - in many (maybe most) public schools all religious names/references has been removed from all the school holidays.

Fortunately - - as Christians stole Pagan holidays - - - science can explain what solstice is. And why its reasonable to take a break at certain times in the year.

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
i was forced to sit through Religious Education as a teenager at school...

Religion didnt interest me then and never has or will in the future.

Yet here you are in the Religion, Faith, and Theology forum. I often think that this forum should be changed to "Atheists who want to talk about religion" forum.

Religion should be discussed in school just for the fact that it is such a large part of human history and current human experiences. To pretend it doesn't exist does is not a favor to our children. The problem isn't that people don't want to talk about religion. As we all see here many atheists love nothing better than to discuss this subject. The real debate is over what version of religion to teach and not if it should be discussed at all.

reply to post by 1MrsJesusChrist


You wrote:

["they should know the difference between A Male and A Female and Why GOD made Adam and Eve and like All Things that come from Heaven, Universe Etc, are like stars or indivdual snowflakes and loved. They also need to be taught why they should honor both their father AND mother and not one over the other. Especially if you didnt know your father and he never claimed you as his own and She raised you alone, sacrificed Her life so you could be born and made you 1st or Her top priority be given More Glory."]

In other words....you want to re-introduce the preaching-variety of religious indoctrination. And let me guess, on the grounds of its being: "True, because it's true".

Which is NOT the case; it's false. The REAL 'god' is the great noodle-master and messiah/prophet is the flying spaghetti monster. But pastafarians are liberal, and don't insist on some self-appointed groups' elitist rights to make propaganda in public education systems.

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
i was forced to sit through Religious Education as a teenager at school...

Religion didnt interest me then and never has or will in the future.

Yet here you are in the Religion, Faith, and Theology forum.

I often think that this forum should be changed to "Atheists who want to talk about religion" forum.

Religion should be discussed in school just for the fact that it is such a large part of human history and current human experiences. To pretend it doesn't exist does is not a favor to our children. The problem isn't that people don't want to talk about religion. As we all see here many atheists love nothing better than to discuss this subject. The real debate is over what version of religion to teach and not if it should be discussed at all.

Yes. as in comparative religion etc. Not as in indoctrination of any specific religion.

Originally posted by 1MrsJesusChrist
Well frankly I think that is Unfortunate because; you give the kids time off but they dont know why? I is wrong to take Christ out of Christmas, and that's just as wrong; as calling things; spring break instead of the Soltice, Easter, Passover, etc.

It is wrong for the government to have official religious holidays. Especially since they are exclusively Christian holidays. They would never get away with that today.

However - undoing something is not so easy.

It is up to parents to teach their kids whatever god belief or non belief they want. It is definitely not up to schools to recognize it.

A neutral name for these breaks is the ONLY correct thing to do.