Religion Should Be Taught In Public Schools.... WHAT?!?!?!?

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


You are absolutely correct; just this week I have posted the same precept in these forums. If kids are not taught about religions - ALL of the major religions - and how they developed, where, and into what they evolved, they are in danger of being "indoctrinated" by any cult who gets their hands on them.

World Religions SHOULD BE TAUGHT in public schools, alongside history and social studies. The naysayers who claim it is "useless" are missing the fact that humankind MUST LEARN TO GET ALONG, and UNDERSTAND ONE ANOTHER - even if they disagree.

Cultural Competency. Diversity, tolerance, and VALIDATION of other people's points of view. THAT is what will lead to peace on Earth and Goodwill toward men. Not this stupid, never-ending barbarity of religious hatred, war, and rabid dogma.

S/F

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


I completely agree with you on this, I had a long battle with my teenage daughter's school to have her removed from the religion class ...as is my right. Here in Northern Ireland the religious education class is incredibly biased and amounts to little more than church in school. To be fair this is the same RE I remember on the mainland when I was in school. The admin was completely reluctant to honour my request claiming that they had never heard of anyone withdrawing a child from a class as it is not up to myself what my child is taught. I literally had to give them internet resources where they could make themselves aware of my rights.
My daughter was expected to answer the question 'Do you believe God can still talk to people today?' and 'does God still perform miracles?'. She was coached into answering these questions a certain way and I don't believe one can be graded on beliefs.
There was a strong slant on proving protestantism is better than catholicism where she had to list comparative bullet points.
The brief introduction to non christian religions was laughable. The teacher introduced the topic by assuring the class that these religions aren't valid and warning them not to be confused by the class....as 'we' do not believe these myths. Having worked in a culturally inclusive montessori school environment I found the official curriculum for RE deplorable. I had no idea church was such a big part of school still. I waited a few years to hear how the class would progress to other religions but when it never happened I had to get involved, I only wish I'd known this sooner.

Pardon me for barging in, but todays religions are dead. There's absolutely no point in stuffing them with redundant nonsensical jargon that have been throughout the ages, modified and tampered with.
Now on the other side, we can teach them to know themselves. That's way better... My two cents

The only religion that is not allowed in schools right now is Christianity. Why is that?

When I was in school, we learned about Egypitan, Aztec, Islamic and Hindu religions. It's a way of studying culture and psychology in other countries. So what's wrong with Christianity being taught? It's part of our culture and our heritage. I'd rather our children learn about religion in an impartial environment than a place where they're not allowed to ask questions.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


"Teach the history of each religion. Teach how it came to be. Teach what they accept as truth and why and how that acceptance came to be. Teach from the perspective of outside looking in."


You either know that's an erroneous line of thinking, and you use it to promote your agenda, or you need to work on your critical thinking skills; and I say that not to berate you, but to challenge you to think about what you're actually saying.

I would debate the topic with you but I cannot tell if your sentiment is an atheistic agenda or just a befuddled analogical inference.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

"Teach the history of each religion. Teach how it came to be. Teach what they accept as truth and why and how that acceptance came to be. Teach from the perspective of outside looking in."


You either know that's an erroneous line of thinking, and you use it to promote your agenda, or you need to work on your critical thinking skills; and I say that not to berate you, but to challenge you to think about what you're actually saying.

I would debate the topic with you but I cannot tell if your sentiment is an atheistic agenda or just a befuddled analogical inference.

What makes you say I am following an atheistic agenda, because that's a first one. First time I have been thought of possibly following an atheistic agenda.

Now, the question I have for you is this: Did you read the post in its entirety? And if you did, what would make you think that the sentiment behind the proposition is a befuddled analogical inference, which I don't think you are using the word in a correct context.

Paraphrased: Religion classes should be taught in public schools only if taught by those with no agendas. The class shall be called Religious Anthropology!!!

For instance: Biased take on the causes of the civil war:
The civil war was fought to free the slaves.

Unbiased perspective:
The civil war was fought over socio-economic reasons as well political reasons. There were many contributing factors to the civil war, but the popular assessment of the war being exclusively fought for the emancipation of slaves is incorrect as we can see after reviewing these topics: 1,2,3, etc.

so evolution which is taught in schools is more of an intellectual pursuit as opposed to the brain washed at the pulpits.
let folks pursue that which they will on their own dime.
public (property/fed funded)- tax dollars should only be spent on the basics.
note - sex ed has greatly improved awareness of how to prevent teens from getting pregnant

reply to post by DelayedChristmas


From the inside, most religions would claim they came to be when mankind came to be.

From the inside, most religions will say the other religions must be wrong and you should follow their religion only.

From the outside looking in, you would only trace their origin back to documented history.

From the outside looking in, you would teach all religions were equally biased, thus all were of equal value.

From the outside looking in, you simply would not be able to teach the appropriate history or doctrines of said religion. You cannot teach an unbiased view of religions without their meaning being lost.

And yes, I read the opening post in its entirety, and I understood it in it's entirety. What I do not understand is why you think the way you do. When I read posts, such as yours, I am normally able to see when people's words betray and portray them, but I cannot see if your words are delivered with an atheistic agenda or not. Thus, I did not want to debate the topic with you until you understood what you were actually saying. Are you an atheist with an agenda or just mistaken?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by DelayedChristmas

 

From the inside, most religions would claim they came to be when mankind came to be.

From the inside, most religions will say the other religions must be wrong and you should follow their religion only.

From the outside looking in, you would only trace their origin back to documented history.

From the outside looking in, you would teach all religions were equally biased, thus all were of equal value.

From the outside looking in, you simply would not be able to teach the appropriate history or doctrines of said religion. You cannot teach an unbiased view of religions without their meaning being lost.

And yes, I read the opening post in its entirety, and I understood it in it's entirety. What I do not understand is why you think the way you do. When I read posts, such as yours, I am normally able to see when people's words betray and portray them, but I cannot see if your words are delivered with an atheistic agenda or not. Thus, I did not want to debate the topic with you until you understood what you were actually saying. Are you an atheist with an agenda or just mistaken?

To answer your question, no atheistic agenda behind my proposition. If anything, the agenda behind this proposition is to promote understanding without bias of the sacred dimension, which atheism also tries to explain, especially on a sensitive topic such as religion, that would hopefully carry on to other facets of one's life. These classes would not promote a theistic or atheistic point of view but rather an anthropological perspective.

I don't think teaching an unbiased view of religions would lead to their meanings being lost. This is why I said to teach How and Why according to the people of the time.

They can't handle reading writing and arithmetic. Do you think they'll do any better with religion?

Originally posted by acacko
They can't handle reading writing and arithmetic. Do you think they'll do any better with religion?

Yes, another concern that was rightfully raised. Scores are at all time low. The US, which valued hard work, brotherly love, freedom, and education, has degenerated to a culture of complacency. Speaking from a place of familiarity, there are so many distractions and lack of motivation, from self and environment. I was a bright kid in school before I reached high school. I was just so lazy and there were so many distractions, but I experienced a lot of intrinsic events that were necessary for my growth. As we start falling in the rabbit hole, the question remains: Where do we start? I think the combination of Einstein's quote in my signature and Ghandi's infamous quote of "be the change you want to see in this world" answers this necessary question.

AS Kabalah is being taught in TV , it will be good to start teaching Christianity in the schools

Originally posted by mideast
AS Kabalah is being taught in TV , it will be good to start teaching Christianity in the schools

This is not my idea. My idea is to not teach the doctrines of Christianity as truths, but rather, take an anthropological assessment on the religions. Outside looking in. If the students were to wonder inside, they are better prepared to see what the inside really is, instead of falling into the illusion of those within.

reply to post by DelayedChristmas

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
Yes, you heard it, more like read it, I believe Religion should be taught in public schools.
Before people start assuming I am implying students should be indoctrinated to receive the dogmas of the respective religion as truths, no. In fact, I believe teaching religion would prevent from brainwashing and add another intellectual defense against the such.

Yes I agree with this, in that Religion should be first learned from a theoretical and Historical perspective, first, which in turn, would help to prevent brainwashing further down the line. It would also help to promote tolerance between the different religious groups, thereby having a positive impact on society as a whole.

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
This is my proposition:
Teach the major religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.
Teach the history of each religion. Teach how it came to be. Teach what they accept as truth and why and how that acceptance came to be. Teach from the perspective of outside looking in.

Yes, I believe this is the way to go. Teaching the core structure of Religions, and how they work, would help them to be better prepared for it, so as to make better informed decisions, for when they get older.

And if and when a person does decide to become religious, later on in life, then at least they have had a good grounding/education, from which to help make their decision, rather than being pressured into a belief system, that they know little or nothing about, through some type of cult. In other words, it would help to give back the power and freewill, to the individual.

S+F

- JC

Whether we like it or not religion is and has been a massive part of the world and it would be a grave mis-service to our kids if we didn't educate them on it.

Educate.......not indoctrinate...

To teach the history of religion is not a bad idea, but it is a challenge, can whatever teacher doing this be objective, there own personal viewpoint would surface at some point then it's not history.

In theory I like the idea, but practically I don't think it's wise. No matter how fair the teacher is you would be ruffling the feathers of parents when their children relate the true history of any negative things of that homes religious affiliation, regardless of which one it is.

But some history has religion tied to it for example The Holy Roman Empire, I learned about that in middle school.

This sounds good on paper but I don't think it would work too well in the real world.

Are these classes to be mandatory or optional? If they're mandatory then I don't think it would sit too well with a Christian family if their child was forced to learn about Islam or vice versa.

If it's optional then why would a Christian family put their kid in a class about Judaism or Islam? They'd put them in the Christian class 100% of the time because they'd see the other classes as evil and would be afraid their child would be tempted by the devil.

We don't need religion taught in school for any reason in my opinion, it comes with too many downsides.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
To teach the history of religion is not a bad idea, but it is a challenge, can whatever teacher doing this be objective, there own personal viewpoint would surface at some point then it's not history.

In theory I like the idea, but practically I don't think it's wise. No matter how fair the teacher is you would be ruffling the feathers of parents when their children relate the true history of any negative things of that homes religious affiliation, regardless of which one it is.

But some history has religion tied to it for example The Holy Roman Empire, I learned about that in middle school.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This sounds good on paper but I don't think it would work too well in the real world.

Are these classes to be mandatory or optional? If they're mandatory then I don't think it would sit too well with a Christian family if their child was forced to learn about Islam or vice versa.

If it's optional then why would a Christian family put their kid in a class about Judaism or Islam? They'd put them in the Christian class 100% of the time because they'd see the other classes as evil and would be afraid their child would be tempted by the devil.

We don't need religion taught in school for any reason in my opinion, it comes with too many downsides.

The circumstances that you have mentioned is true and inevitable to happen, and it's the sad truth. My opinion is that it doesn't have to be this way and this method of teaching religion in an anthropological perspective can possibly be an agent of change.

Perhaps it's too late and it's a shame, but we can not be self-defeatists if we are to make change.