um name please
Member
didnt mean to be harsh
sorry
sorry
Remove Religious Texts from Syllabus (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jm1234567890
- Start date
tieki
Member
very good...that about sums it all up 
Wait, i got a good one...
...I came to Australia when i was 4 and so i feel unfairly disadvantaged at english...i demand english be taken out!!!
lol, j/k mate but i couldn't resist.
However has anyone considered it this way? Those students who have a religious background may be the ones disadvantaged by the inclusion of religious material. yeas, i agree those without will need to spend abit more time researching, but those who are christian may be tempted to supplement the reading of the texts with their own beliefs or understandings. Given a modern interpretation could be different from that in Donne's time, I would say that without proper research a student will appear to have a lesser understanding of the text, or a distorted understanding of meaning. This can only be a negative in the marker's eyes which may translate into lower marks. Being forced to research should be considered a blessing in disguise.
...I came to Australia when i was 4 and so i feel unfairly disadvantaged at english...i demand english be taken out!!!
lol, j/k mate but i couldn't resist.
However has anyone considered it this way? Those students who have a religious background may be the ones disadvantaged by the inclusion of religious material. yeas, i agree those without will need to spend abit more time researching, but those who are christian may be tempted to supplement the reading of the texts with their own beliefs or understandings. Given a modern interpretation could be different from that in Donne's time, I would say that without proper research a student will appear to have a lesser understanding of the text, or a distorted understanding of meaning. This can only be a negative in the marker's eyes which may translate into lower marks. Being forced to research should be considered a blessing in disguise.
jm1234567890
Premium Member
wow, i didn't realise ppl felt this strongly about this topic.
i have read the posts and agree that an amount of religion can be included due to the study of the context of the various texts. However, the teaching of texts should include some background religion.
This should be taught in an objective manner so that no one is influenced by it.
After all, religion is not an important part of life. It only exists because some people cannot find a direction in life.
This is true, think about it.
i have read the posts and agree that an amount of religion can be included due to the study of the context of the various texts. However, the teaching of texts should include some background religion.
This should be taught in an objective manner so that no one is influenced by it.
After all, religion is not an important part of life. It only exists because some people cannot find a direction in life.
This is true, think about it.
Lexicographer
Retired 13 May 2006
Nope! The bible is STILL the number one most read book of all time. Consider that it is 2000 years old, and there are currently 2 billion Christians worldwide (one in three people!) as well as (historically) an even higher percentage in previous centuries.
Still not enough to outdo the people that have throughout history read the bible.
There are only currently 1.2 billion people in China, not even close.lol by saying its not an important part of life then stating that it gives people a 'direction' in life totally contradicts your first comment....
if someone has no direction in life and something comes along and gives them this direction isnt this therefore an integral part of their life ?
...what i think you meant was that religion isnt necessarily a part of EVERYONES life
jm1234567890
Premium Member
no, i said it exist because if that. it doesn't/shouldn't be taught.
*I think* He meant:
"No, I said if it exists because of that, then it doesn't/shouldn't be taught"
@jm
if you did mean that well i have to ask wether or not you will , in your entire life, ever find the need to use volumes (im assumng u do 4U maths). ie. finding the volumes of donuts, admiral caps...the like. I can find no relevance between this and life (unless u like calculating the volume of donuts or very basicly shapped admiral caps), but the purpose of its inclusion in the syllabus would be to test our ability to learn and perform certain functions. I belive u are saying that Religion is a human response to a desire for something beyond the physical, which can be seen as irrelevant. As such, its inclusion in the english syllabus to show how values and reactions are expressed through texts is certainly justified.
"No, I said if it exists because of that, then it doesn't/shouldn't be taught"
@jm
if you did mean that well i have to ask wether or not you will , in your entire life, ever find the need to use volumes (im assumng u do 4U maths). ie. finding the volumes of donuts, admiral caps...the like. I can find no relevance between this and life (unless u like calculating the volume of donuts or very basicly shapped admiral caps), but the purpose of its inclusion in the syllabus would be to test our ability to learn and perform certain functions. I belive u are saying that Religion is a human response to a desire for something beyond the physical, which can be seen as irrelevant. As such, its inclusion in the english syllabus to show how values and reactions are expressed through texts is certainly justified.
jm1234567890
Premium Member
... volumes are very important in understanding the physical world
we do not live in a "spiritual world", we live in a physical world.
I cannot deny the existance of this spiritual world, but until there
is proof i will not accept its existnace.
religion leads people into believing in its existance with false claims.
if it only taught about morals and ethics i suppose it would be acceptable.
we do not live in a "spiritual world", we live in a physical world.
I cannot deny the existance of this spiritual world, but until there
is proof i will not accept its existnace.
religion leads people into believing in its existance with false claims.
if it only taught about morals and ethics i suppose it would be acceptable.
people can and have lived a life in the physical world without needing to understand volumes. By this i mean they don't need to learn how to intergrate and rotate very basic shapes and curves to understand the concept of an object having a volume.
I don't understand, If you cannot deny the presence of a spiritual world how can you not accept its existence? Anyway there are other people who do believe in its existence, such as john Donne, and the purpose of it being in the syllabus is to show how language is used to reflect this. It is to test your ability to do a certain function: to test whether or not you can analyse a text and pick out (BS) where certain contextual values have affected its composition. It doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe it.
I don't understand, If you cannot deny the presence of a spiritual world how can you not accept its existence? Anyway there are other people who do believe in its existence, such as john Donne, and the purpose of it being in the syllabus is to show how language is used to reflect this. It is to test your ability to do a certain function: to test whether or not you can analyse a text and pick out (BS) where certain contextual values have affected its composition. It doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe it.
being half asleep, i started reading this and almost clicked x thinking it was about maths. then i read on and it was the religions texts, and then i read donne and almost pressed x again thinking it was english.... i think i'll go to bed now
thats GAY, G then A then Y = GAY, cause NOt all pple in this world are Bible readers. NOt all are catholics or christians. How can Buddists know any background history? Do u expect them to study the bible just for some poem? Y don;t they choose buddist poems? Then Cathos and Christians will too get trouble learning that kinda poetry
aud
Member
I'll defend the argument - I don't like the whole Christian based texts - having to be told what is implied by the composer by a teacher instead of interpreting it ourselves (no, I'm not Christian, I'm Pagan) - yes, we should promote religious diversity but not like this - where symbolism and inferences are thrown at us from a predominantly Christian society - take Religious Studies if you want that. (Which, by the way only focuses on like 5 religions).
A little note: people have been talking about King Lear, but Shakespeare wrote King Lear in a pre-Christian context - there's references to Apollo and Zeus and Hecate - and I suppose someone like me would have an advantage there - I grew up amongst Greek and Roman mythology, but people here are using it to back an argument that it's a Christian text... *confused*
And lastly, VanCarBus - grow up, don't toss around the word 'gay' as an insult - it's people like you that cause things like the homosexual defence - disgusting
A little note: people have been talking about King Lear, but Shakespeare wrote King Lear in a pre-Christian context - there's references to Apollo and Zeus and Hecate - and I suppose someone like me would have an advantage there - I grew up amongst Greek and Roman mythology, but people here are using it to back an argument that it's a Christian text... *confused*
And lastly, VanCarBus - grow up, don't toss around the word 'gay' as an insult - it's people like you that cause things like the homosexual defence - disgusting
jm1234567890
Premium Member
hehe, this thread is back from the dead...
Even though i've finished the HSC, I still reckon religious texts should be removed. The government school system should be neutral in terms of religion. Promoting a particular religion is
simply illogical and unfair, no matter how well known the text may be.
Even though i've finished the HSC, I still reckon religious texts should be removed. The government school system should be neutral in terms of religion. Promoting a particular religion is
simply illogical and unfair, no matter how well known the text may be.
jm1234567890
Premium Member
He do you ppl, want to send a formal letter to the board of studies?
glycerine
so don't even ask me
wow, so, for example, when you study Frankenstein, shouldn't the teacher give you excerpts from Paradise Lost as supplementary material? Or how about for the people who do post-modernism for Extension One, is it terrible that my teacher gave us texts of religious significance in order to help us understand the references in the book we studied better?
oh, and how about my prelim. extension course? We studied creation myths from all over the world, all of which had a religious/spiritual bent. Dear me, I guess all the Buddhists were advantaged with the Buddhist creation myth, and the Christians with Adam and Eve, and so on and so forth...
it's absolutely ridiculous to remove "religious texts" from the classroom. foremost, the majority of the texts we study have religious symbolism - that's why reading the bible, as a believer or not, is honestly one of the best things you can do if you're a serious English student, you'll understand so much more.
I just realised that the majority of this argument took place in Sept. Oh well
oh, and how about my prelim. extension course? We studied creation myths from all over the world, all of which had a religious/spiritual bent. Dear me, I guess all the Buddhists were advantaged with the Buddhist creation myth, and the Christians with Adam and Eve, and so on and so forth...
it's absolutely ridiculous to remove "religious texts" from the classroom. foremost, the majority of the texts we study have religious symbolism - that's why reading the bible, as a believer or not, is honestly one of the best things you can do if you're a serious English student, you'll understand so much more.
I just realised that the majority of this argument took place in Sept.
Oh welljm1234567890
Premium Member
hehe, My point was that reading the bible shouldn't be beneficial.
Not everyone should be forced to read the bible...
or any religious text for that matter.
Religion isn't something that is beneficial academicly. It should be
seen as a past time some people do on the weekends, not
something built into the HSC syllabus.
Not everyone should be forced to read the bible...
or any religious text for that matter.
Religion isn't something that is beneficial academicly. It should be
seen as a past time some people do on the weekends, not
something built into the HSC syllabus.
glycerine
so don't even ask me
yes. but. my point is, a lot of texts have some kind of religious reference. (for example, if you do blade runner, theres a lot of symbolism, esp. towards the end quarter). therefore, it IS beneficial to have at least some grasp of bible concepts and stories... also, there's a difference between reading the bible as a piece of religious truth... and reading it as a piece of literary allegory.