Interesting. This week, Time's cover story is an essay arguing in favor of teaching the Bible in schools, which can be boiled down to this: "Of course the Bible should be taught in schools. Duh. It's religion that shouldn't be." On the cover of its international edition is a story that is less easily boiled down: "The Truth About Talibanistan," about the resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (and also, Pakistan), and how it's "the next battleground of the war on terrorism." The story is in the U.S. edition of the magazine but not on the American cover, presumably because Rick Stengel & co. think the Bible will do better newsstand (even though it is a singularly unattractive cover).

This episode echoes a similar decision made by the Newsweek brass in October when the international editions all ran a cover called "Losing Afghanistan: The Rise of Jihadistan " about the resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (and also, Pakistan),
and how it's a place from which "Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups [can] hatch the next 9/11." The American cover? An exclusive cover shot and story on Annie Leibovitz entitled "My Life In Pictures" (which was also controversial for whitewashing her life as a lesbian); presumably Jon Meacham & co. thought it would do better on the newsstand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/0...o_n_44220.html

The pitfalls of religion are the reason it should not be tought. Like i said before, if there was objectivity and questioning it would be a different case but that is the huge problem with religion. It doesn't promote debunking theories or looking beyond what is already established. Those things are viewed as blasphomous.

A basic knowledge of religion is fine but its the abuse of power that is my main concern. You get the teacher who is a hardcore *whatever* and of course his teachings are going to be biased.

Also, you keep pointing out that 90% of people are religious, ect. So what? At one time most people were racist too but thankfully that is one thing we've tried to end and as much good there might of been in religion man has totally perverted it and used it for his own gain. The only kind of spirituality i could ever promote is that of personal spirtuality because of this.

Also i should mention that there are some universities who offer theology courses and do a good job at staying fairly objective but you get church officials in there "teaching" or devout *insert religion here* and its no longer about expanding minds as it is a propaganda session.

thats what i fear. what happens when a devout religious person teaches a course on the history of the bible in a public school?

if you bothered to read his book, you?d know that he?s FOR teaching it in schools, alongside greek mythology, and other religious pieces of literature. What he is against is teaching it as a religion, or using it in pseudo-science, such as intelligent design for example

There are subjects it falls into already, called theology and literature.
All holy texts should be covered. Why not? School is not church and vice versa.