There are many teachers that teach in our school system whether public or private, they teach the youths of our bahamaland. There has been a distinction between teachers that teach different subjects but yet teachers are teachers. There is a set of rules that are set for some teachers but not for all.

I have encountered the above question everytime I set foot in a Religious Studies classroom. There was a discussion that went on at my school about the topic. And many teachers have argued that RK teachers should be christians and a few have said that it should not be the case. It was said that when one applies for the position of a Teacher ie RK there is no rule that says that one has to be a Christian. It is not a qualification. And up to this point there are many who are not christians. I have heard of an Athiest teaching RK within our school system and many other that are teaching Rk that are not christians. It has become an issue now a days among us teachers but it is still on the DL. The RK teachers are expected to live a certain standard... I think that all teachers should be treated the same no matter the Subject area. Yet, I still believe that if one is teaching RK one should practice what you teach.

What do you think?

why should they be held to any standard that differs from everyone else? I see no reason for a non-thiest to not be allowed to teach RK. Most of the times they are the ones that have studied it in much more depth than a lot of "christians". personally if a teacher does what they are supposed to do..which is teach and is very good at getting the curriculum across, there shouldnt be anything to say about them. Rk teachers are human like everyone else and the crap that i had to put up with coming from alot of them just proves it.

why should they be held to any standard that differs from everyone else? I see no reason for a non-thiest to not be allowed to teach RK. Most of the times they are the ones that have studied it in much more depth than a lot of "christians". personally if a teacher does what they are supposed to do..which is teach and is very good at getting the curriculum across, there shouldnt be anything to say about them. Rk teachers are human like everyone else and the crap that i had to put up with coming from alot of them just proves it.


The Athiest teaching RK??? That don't seem right to me, how can one teach what you don't believe in?

DaPrincess:
Your question is interesting. However, closely considered, I believe that you would agree that one does not have to be a christian (or anything else for that matter) to teach the subject called religious knowledge. There are many religions and religious knowledge is knowledge about those religions...their history, beliefs, key leaders etc. One does not have to believe, just know what these religions are about. And in a strict sense, religious knowledge that considers many religions is about information, not transformation.

However, I believe the question you are seeking an answer to is whether a person should be a christian in order to qualify to teach a Bible Class in the schools. Well, there are a few considerations and the first one that you rightly touch on is whether its a public or private school. The easiest one to consider is the case of a private Christian school. Here, its not just about information. Its about transformation as well and solidifying the students in their belief system. Based on the fact that these schools do require their employees to exhibit a christian lifestyle, its logical that teachers teaching a Bible class are christians. Further, private schools have the right to establish subjective criteria for staff qualifications like "must be a born again Christian" or must be "a practicising orthodox Jew or Muslim".

In the case of public schools, it's a bit muddy. In The Bahamas, because the vast majority of persons subscribe to The Christian Faith, its unlikely that the ministry of education would hire a known, practising Buddhist to teach religious knowledge because in our context religious knowledge is understood to mean "christianity and Bible knowledge" with casual exposure to other religions (primarily learning why to avoid them). However, in pluralistic societies, religious knowledge is not even a subject.

That said, I believe that we should be reminded that the home and church (or mosque or synagogue or temple or religious meeting hall) are the primary "schools" for teaching the religious faith that each family believes, not private schools and definitely not public schools. Note I said "primary". Private faith based schools should espouse the faith they believe and they need teachers whose lives give credibility to what they say because they live it out. The requirements of public schools basically will go which ever way the society is going - one faith or pluralism.

I trust this helps.

[qoute=DaPrincess]The Athiest teaching RK??? That don't seem right to me, how can one teach what you don't believe in?[/quote]

it's a syllabus right? you teach what they tell you to teach. every Rk exam i've taken asks you about information obtained from the bible...that's it. it never required you to accept it as your own. Personally i'm agnostic and i've never gotten below B in any Rk related test be it quiz or exam. that's like saying someone who doesnt believe that microsoft office is the greatest work place software shouldnt be teaching computer, but then again i was threatened with expulsion because it was thought i was athiestic so i can see bahamians reacting in this manner.

DaPrincess:
Your question is interesting. However, closely considered, I believe that you would agree that one does not have to be a christian (or anything else for that matter) to teach the subject called religious knowledge. There are many religions and religious knowledge is knowledge about those religions...their history, beliefs, key leaders etc. One does not have to believe, just know what these religions are about. And in a strict sense, religious knowledge that considers many religions is about information, not transformation.

However, I believe the question you are seeking an answer to is whether a person should be a christian in order to qualify to teach a Bible Class in the schools. Well, there are a few considerations and the first one that you rightly touch on is whether its a public or private school. The easiest one to consider is the case of a private Christian school. Here, its not just about information. Its about transformation as well and solidifying the students in their belief system. Based on the fact that these schools do require their employees to exhibit a christian lifestyle, its logical that teachers teaching a Bible class are christians. Further, private schools have the right to establish subjective criteria for staff qualifications like "must be a born again Christian" or must be "a practicising orthodox Jew or Muslim".

In the case of public schools, it's a bit muddy. In The Bahamas, because the vast majority of persons subscribe to The Christian Faith, its unlikely that the ministry of education would hire a known, practising Buddhist to teach religious knowledge because in our context religious knowledge is understood to mean "christianity and Bible knowledge" with casual exposure to other religions (primarily learning why to avoid them). However, in pluralistic societies, religious knowledge is not even a subject.

That said, I believe that we should be reminded that the home and church (or mosque or synagogue or temple or religious meeting hall) are the primary "schools" for teaching the religious faith that each family believes, not private schools and definitely not public schools. Note I said "primary". Private faith based schools should espouse the faith they believe and they need teachers whose lives give credibility to what they say because they live it out. The requirements of public schools basically will go which ever way the society is going - one faith or pluralism.

I trust this helps.



Thank you for the reply, and I see your point CM, and was about to touch on another crucial point in my next post but you beat me to it at some poin in your post...why is it that what is taught not called CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE and is called RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE? The information that is taught in the classroom is Christianity based. It was just recently that they added three other religions to the list that is studied but not in debt like Christianity. That is something I would really love to know the answer to....!

Yeah, good point k.o.o.l.b.o.n.z.e but to many who are closed minded it is difficult to accept...don't you think? Bahamains are supposing Christians ...at least many are true Christians so they would see it in a different way than others would.

In the case of public schools, it's a bit muddy. In The Bahamas, because the vast majority of persons subscribe to The Christian Faith, its unlikely that the ministry of education would hire a known, practising Buddhist to teach religious knowledge
Religious knowledge is knowledge about religion - in general, or it should be, it is seldom taught that way - except by me! (And as a Buddhist I have taught Christianity as religious knowledge, as well as a matter of faith.) If one wants to learn about a specific religion one should retire to the place of worship of that religion.

because in our context religious knowledge is understood to mean "christianity and Bible knowledge" with casual exposure to other religions (primarily learning why to avoid them). However, in pluralistic societies, religious knowledge is not even a subject.
Is that what you would do? Or would you simply teach your faith and let it stand or fall on its own merits? Teaching someone to avoid religion "a" "b" and "c" might suggest that religion "d' has no substance, not enough "juice" to hold its members.

Is that what you would do? Or would you simply teach your faith and let it stand or fall on its own merits? Teaching someone to avoid religion "a" "b" and "c" might suggest that religion "d' has no substance, not enough "juice" to hold its members.


Excuse me, I little slow, explain ur last point please? ...lol!

Yes, CG, that's what I do. So did Jesus: he warned his disciples to be ware of the "leaven" (hypocritical doctrine and practises) of the Pharisees.

I don't think you should have to be a christian to teach religious knowledge, however, considering that it teaches students about their spiritual growth, I think the teacher should be a respectable person with good moral standards, who has full knowledge, and skills to perform his/her duties, perhaps having studied theology/religion at a university level. Now the skill capacity can easily be judged, however deciding the moral ethics of a person would depend on the schools personal assessment I guess.
That's just how I see it.

If you want a Christian teacher, then the course must be called "Christian Knowledge" / "Christian Studies" . :angel:

Excuse me, I little slow, explain ur last point please? ...lol!

If religion "d" Christianity teaches that other religions "a.b.& c" should be avoided, out of hand then perhaps the impression is left in some minds that Christianity has something to fear from other faiths. Perhaps, Christianity can only survive in the absence of other belief systems. Such an impression might be made!

Yes, CG, that's what I do. So did Jesus: he warned his disciples to be ware of the "leaven" (hypocritical doctrine and practises) of the Pharisees.

Surely, the key words there are "hypocritical doctrine and practices." Jesus was not anti-Jewish. He fulfilled all the obligations of a Jew, he worshiped as a Jew. He was a Jew. Jesus never spoke against the Jews, just against hypocritical doctrine and practices - which are common in all religions.

If you want a Christian teacher, then the course must be called "Christian Knowledge" / "Christian Studies" . :angel:

Right you are! One must make a sharp delineation between Religious knowledge and knowledge of a particular religion.

There is nothing wrong with a person pursuing "Christian Knowledge" / "Christian Studies" if that is what he wishes. However, to say that Religious knowledge is only Christian knowledge is a bit short sighted, not to say arrogant.

religious studies teachers are religious studies teachers to me!!

the question i think the author wants to ask is...
"should only the religion christianity be taught in schools"..
and if not...
"then what other or should no religion be taught in schools"

dont beat around the bush...
:friday:

how do you tell a born again christian anyways..NO ONE KNOWS!!!