Okay, so you do at least admit that math is necessary. And LOTS of people use math in their jobs. So why include that in your original complaint about what religious (and presumably anti-math) people are forced to learn? And history is abstract? And you have a specific beef against string theory? Or is it against science in general, because you've fallen for the talking point that says Science is Just Another Religion?

I'm sorry you seem to make assumptions based on what I believe simply because I am an avowed Christian. I never said I rejected string theory, or any other scientific theory. I was merely commenting that it was an abstraction that most people will never need to learn or understand. And yes, certainly lots of people use math. That doesn't explain why we need to learn advanced calculus in high school or nonlinear math in college. When I talk about math as an abstraction, I am not talking about the kind of basic math that will help you do your bills each month. And, as an aspiring historian, yes, history is abstract, particularly the way it is taught these days.

Is your contention that since we're not teaching anything "practical" in our public education system at the moment, why not just replace these abstract classes with, presumably, a more useful and pragmatic religious history curriculum? Just to be fair?

My observation is that the modern education system is not designed to create good producers but designed to create whole human beings. I have never said anything about modifying the education system. I merely commented that we live in a world where people are expected to learn about many fields not because they will find the information useful but because it makes them better thinkers. Christians are required to learn about these things like anyone else. But very rarely is anyone required to learn about religion, and particularly theology. My "contention" therefore is that people who are otherwise well-educated and reasonable beings know very little about Christianity and therefore are not in a good position to criticize the faith, yet they presume to do so as if their rational education makes them experts on religion as well.

I don't think you're trying to say that the USA should be teaching particular flavors of religion in public schools outside of specific religious studies classes, are you?

I don't know how I feel about that issue, except that I would feel far better if our country's children were learning the principles of theology from an educator rather than some creep like James Dobson. Leaving religion out of the classroom completely is certainly no solution. I mean, we learned about Marxism when I was in high school. It didn't mean you had to be a Marxist and it didn't mean you were ostracized if you were. Some things you just need to learn about.

Michael B.'s post is exactly the sort of thing I find so tiresome when dealing with allegedly intelligent atheists (I'm not saying there is no such thing as an intelligent atheists because some of my best conversations are with them). I appreciate some of you anonymous posters' willingness to at least engage in discussion with me, because that at least signifies some degree of interest in other people's perspectives.

Michael B, you have not brought up a single point of fact, religious or otherwise, for me to argue for or against. Your post is all sound and fury, signifying nothing... except that you include a quotation, which I suppose is meant to make you sound smarter or more educated than the average Salon letter-writer.

If you would like to discuss something specifically feel free to bring it up. If your previous post is the best you've got, then all I can do is sit back and yawn.

For you to say that atheists (or antithesists or rationalists or anything else you want to call us) know nothing about the history of christianity is really unwarranted.

Many atheists have done a lot of reading in an effort to understand (and be able to rebut) the crap that christians believe. You point out articles of dogma that were invented long after the time that christ actually lived. This helps prove the point for some of us who believe that all religion is nonsense. It is all made up by humans. Show me one single bit of evidence that it is not.

Really? Who have you read? What courses on religious history have you taken? How does the church's attempt to clarify its own beliefs disprove all of religion?

And, duh, religion is made up by humans. God is not invented but everything we have said about God is said by humans. Isn't that obvious? If you're asking me to prove that God exists, I obviously cannot do that anymore than you can prove that God does not. That is one of the great things about faith. It is a decision you must make, one way or the other, or you must decide not to make a decision.

Your later points talk about the need to study theology as if theology were a legitimate object of study. It may be important to understand as it has influenced the course of history but other than that, theology is no more necessary than the study of fairy tales or other folk beliefs.

Perhaps you are not aware that modern education stems from the earliest theological schools that were meant to educate priests, monks, and laypeople. Perhaps it would be more charitable for you to thank theology for raising the questions of human suffering and God's earthly silence and human purpose long before secularism even existed or common people have any interest in education. Theology continues to address the important questions in today's world: Injustice, genocide, poverty, ethics, morality, and so on. If you think theology is obsolete then I'd suggest you google liberation theology and see what it has been doing for people in South America.