Religion in school

[Lex]

Mar 27, 2010 21:58:33 GMT -5 smilee said:

As an Atheist, this really annoys me and makes me feel suppressed and like I could never tell anyone about my religion.

Before someone rips you to shreds, I would like to point out that Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of a belief in God.

[eileen1992]

My opinion on this is probably highly biased still I've attended (and still do attend) a Catholic School all my life.
But I guess if students go to a certain school for a certain religion , they should pretty much focus on teaching that in some shape or form in a class.

But for schools that aren't particularly religious , I guess it'd be a better idea if they maybe taught the basic beliefs or facts , or even make the students aware , of all the major religions. Maybe touch on stuff like atheism or being agnostic...though how they'd do that would be tricky I suppose?

Meh that's just my two cents on it all. Probably horrifically biased so I apologise.

[shawa]

I think it's vital that Religion be taught in schools. But there's a distinct difference between teaching and preaching. In my opinion, all schools should be entirely secular, having Religious Education as an objective subject, like History or Geography.
Why I'm against preaching is that it's just not right to give impressionable children a set of absolutes. I know many people who are fundamentalist to the point of completely ignoring science. The Bible is the be-all end-all, and theses are young people, whose upbringing has lead to this.

It is truly sad when someone is so conditioned as to reject scientific advancement.

[stephen5000]

While I agree that having an unbiased Comparative Religion class in school would be quite useful, I don't think it's very likely that such a class could really exist. We currently have problems with history, geography and science classes being biased one way or the other. It is too easy for a religion class to run into problems regarding how much of each religion is covered (or what is even considered to be a religion) and the tone of how religions are taught. That is, whether the material and teacher gives the impression that a particular religion or practice is worthy of respect.

Ultimately such classes (in public schools at least) would spawn horrible political debates and could be used by certain politicians to attempt to evangelize to the students.

I think it's best to leave the study of religions to self-study and to optional University classes.

[JustAnne]

In my country there is religious education in every school. it's mandatory to visit either the catholic, the protestant or the ethics class and I think that's a good thing. I can only speak for the class I've been in since first grade, protestant class, but it's nowhere near indoctrination (is that a word? xD). I'm in 12th grade now, still have another year of school and I love actually learning about the stories in the bible. We learn why they were written, by whom, with what background and to convert what kind of people and so that helps understanding it a lot, I think. Of course the class leaves room for everyone's own beliefs and an atheist is one of the best students in the class but education helps when it comes to fundamentalism. And I think especially in America, where there are so many fundamentalist, right-wing christians such a class would help tremendously.
Our classes aren't taught by random preachers but by people who studied theology and know what they are talking about.

[Leo McGinnis]

Where I live there is a simple distinction between regular public schools (not affiliated with any religion) and Christian public schools. There's not much difference with the obvious exception that the Christian public schools teach about Christianity and the Bible. As an aside, many non-religious people attend Christian public schools simply because it's the school closest to their home or what have you. Or vice versa.

According to recent statistics by the bureau of statistics (as of 2007), 50% of my country's population is Christian (in some form or another), 5% is Muslim (though I honestly thought that was a LOT higher), 3% is classified as "other" and 41% are non-religious.

As for this thread, I think one VERY important thing people need to keep in mind is that there is a significant difference between teaching/preaching a religion and teaching ABOUT religion. By the latter I mean that students would learn about various religions the same way we're taught about Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Norse/whatever mythology in history class, and no more.

As long as the schools meet the national standards, I don't think there's anything wrong per se with educating people about certain religions if a school chooses to do so (and if they can somehow find the means and the time to do so). However, that does not involve actually promoting a certain religion, which, in my opinion, has no place in public schools.

[Deleted]

There should be a basic knowledge about the different religions. Kids should have the information which is necessary to chose whether or not they want to join a religion and if so, which one.
I think debating with them about what the deeper meaning of religion is would be a little bit too early. Seems more like something they can chose to dig deeper into in college or university.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

well it really depends on what you mean by religion in schools, if you mean like a catholic school where students are forced to attend mass (even if they aren't catholic) then no. if you mean actually preaching in the classroom and denying scientific theory, once again no.

Comparative religion or a class on the long lasting sociological, cultural and societal effects of Christianity, yes I'd allow reading from the bible at school for something like that.

but of course this is borderline. some high schools are offering this as an elective. and I can't help but feel in my heart of hearts. they're just trying to sneak religion into public schools through the back door.

[evets]

Then you have the opposite end of the spectrum where secularism is not just taught in schools, but shoved down the throat of Christian kids and other kids that have a religion. People do have a right to believe what they want - this freedom of religion is what we're trying to preserve here - and I have a problem when kids are taught secularism as The Truth when it is sometimes incompatible with their faith. It's also a problem when they teach that all religions are equally true (this is obviously false, since many religions hold many, many, contradictory beliefs).

In my country, this is a problem in Quebec (part of Canada), where not only are christian kids told that what their parents told them is wrong, they are told that what they believe about their religion is wrong, and are essentially brainwashed into secularism. This is just as bad as Christians brainwashing kids in a particular religion, if its wrong for religious people to do it, its wrong for secular people to do it too. It's to the point there where Christian parents have to "deprogram" their kids when they get back from school. The worst part is, they are legally obligated to allow their children to take part in this mandatory course. No one is allowed to be exempted because they believe something different; all kids are taught that all religions are equally valid.

On the other hand, I do think that we should teach about religion in schools, as in "There's a religion called Islam, and they believe x, y, and z." just not "There's a religion called Islam, and they teach x,y, and z, and its all true and you should practice it alongside your own religion, because its really all the same as what you believe." Sorry, no its not.

</rant over>

[helenwk]

I think religion should be taught in schools, if it can be regulated.

I've been living in the DC area for several years. When 9/11 hit, a lot of my classmates were being told by their parents that it was because of Islam, and it instilled an impression to a lot of kids that Muslims were bad people. Needless to say, this caused a lot of fear and ultimately segregation in my school. It wasn't until my sophomore year in high school that my history teacher did an entire unit on modern religions and went over basic Islamic beliefs, that it became clear to everyone that the people responsible for 9/11 were extremists, and that most Muslims would never do anything like that. I think that's a good enough reason to teach at least the basic concepts of all religions, to eliminate a lot of misunderstandings. However, I know there are teachers who aren't as cool as the teacher I had, and would let their personal opinions and beliefs get in the way. That being said, if it were regulated so that teachers were only allowed to teach the fundamentals of religion without preaching or converting, then I think it could and should be taught in schools.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

Apr 6, 2010 11:28:49 GMT -5 evets said:

Then you have the opposite end of the spectrum where secularism is not just taught in schools, but shoved down the throat of Christian kids and other kids that have a religion. People do have a right to believe what they want - this freedom of religion is what we're trying to preserve here - and I have a problem when kids are taught secularism as The Truth when it is sometimes incompatible with their faith. It's also a problem when they teach that all religions are equally true (this is obviously false, since many religions hold many, many, contradictory beliefs).

In my country, this is a problem in Quebec (part of Canada), where not only are christian kids told that what their parents told them is wrong, they are told that what they believe about their religion is wrong, and are essentially brainwashed into secularism. This is just as bad as Christians brainwashing kids in a particular religion, if its wrong for religious people to do it, its wrong for secular people to do it too. It's to the point there where Christian parents have to "deprogram" their kids when they get back from school. The worst part is, they are legally obligated to allow their children to take part in this mandatory course. No one is allowed to be exempted because they believe something different; all kids are taught that all religions are equally valid.

On the other hand, I do think that we should teach about religion in schools, as in "There's a religion called Islam, and they believe x, y, and z." just not "There's a religion called Islam, and they teach x,y, and z, and its all true and you should practice it alongside your own religion, because its really all the same as what you believe." Sorry, no its not.

</rant over>

ideally, secularism is supposed to preserve freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion, secularism isn't supposed to be having an overarching agenda.

also "they're all equally true" is a belief many religious people have, while many do not. Unitarians perhaps most Wiccans... etc. I tend to think of it like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. All of the blind men were able to see bits of the elephant but none had the entire picture, I think that's what religion is like. perhaps everyone has it a little wrong, But I believe spirituality is a growing experience. and if the religion does good for the practitioner that's the only standard we should judge it by.

Anyway, I guess after religious conservatism has been a social standard for so long I guess it was inevitable the pendulum would swing, I just hope people get things back on track in the interest of fairness.

[Jake]

In my personal opinion, teaching kids about religion is just as important as teaching about drugs, sex education and all the stuff like that. Although it's not a core subject you get examined on, it's something important you will need to know for future life.
At my school we learn about one religion over 2 weeks, and I think that's helpful. I'm also glad to finally have it taught at a non-bias view, whereas for the 4 years before then it was nothing but Christianity by someone who called the "atheist-views" section of the book the "silly little comments I'd expect from you".

[naturegirl2010]

Here is how I see it.

Religion has always been the basis of morals to those who believe how important to it.
For Christians, their morals are (or at least are suppose to be) the 10 commandments and what is taught within the Bible.
Religion was used to promote good acts and to break from animalistic habits.
This is not to say that without religion people are like animals but it is to say that the religion did a good job at guiding people to stop worrying about helping only themselves.
Example: Greed: the act of taking more then needed. This could be because someone is selfish or because someone is paranoid they will not have enough for their self (self preservation=animal instinct). By being told that it is a sin to be greedy and pointing out 'Treat others how you wish to be treated rule' (I realize those aren't the exact words but the jist of the words) one would be more willing to help another and become for civilized if they are doomed to a world of doom and terror. No one could (as still can't) prove if it is possible to be condemned to such a terrible place. So in the past people feared that it could be truth; if they did not follow what the Bible said then they will be doomed but if they did they'd be rewarded with Heaven and God and all.
Religion (at least with Christianity) has set up a system that rewarded someone for doing 'good' (what Christians qualified as good) and a horrid punishment if they strayed from the path.
Essentially it was the fact that they didn't have the equipment to get the knowledge that we do now to guide them from believing fully in the words of the Bible or lead them astray, but I think that in this day and era, it's because of knowledge that keep people from believing in a religion and getting back to old habits.
Religion has done more good then harm in all and more then half the harm it's caused is because of misinterpretations of the religion and people believing if you're not with my religion you're a heathen, or you're going to burn in an eternal fire...
But that is aside from the point. The point now is that because we have the knowledge that we do now, people don't think as highly of the Bible as it once was highly regarded. Morals are pushed aside and ignored and it's causing problems. Don't misinterpret though, I'm not saying that it's because no one believes in the Bible there are not good people in the world, or because people aren't extremely religious we have problems, it's just that religion has a good way of tying people together and allowing for sympathy and caring for others as well as yourself.

So to string all of this into the conversation. Yes. I do believe that religion should be taught in school. I'm not saying that religion should be pushed upon the students because school should never push anything upon anyone, just give the suggestion that there are other ideas out there and ones that can cowork with ones already made like how Christians can believe that people evolved from apes but it was their God who gave them the power to do that, or it was it who put created the Big Boom or ect.
To show that two sides of the story can work well with each other would help promote in kids that there doesn't always have to be a left and right side of the line but maybe a middle that can accept both. The idea could promote openmindedness which is a very good quality to have.

That's just my own outtake on the idea though. Extremely long... Oh well <3
Please refute or qualify my answer. (I do like to hear others opinions )

[bunnyfulwanderer]

I think mass conversion is unfortunately written into Christianity becuase without hell/ "one true religion" rhetoric people could more easily just ignore it.

not saying it's all bad by any means, but I am saying a lot of the harmful and therefore highly immoral behavior comes from not only reinterpretations and misinterpretations, but by verses that were intend exactly as they are practiced in the original context, it's just that certain actions done to maintain control are invariably harmful.

let's be fair now, Christianity as a whole has made a lot of effort into making other faiths look bad or wrong, and even demonizing certain faiths, outright calling them "satanic" or in allegiance with the christian devil. Religious pluralism (which I maintain is a very good thing) can not be upheld in a world where a large portion of the population believe in this "if you aren't with us, you are against us"mentality.

I know these people are extremists. but please understand what I mean by extremist not every loud obnoxious person with an agenda and a doctrine is an extremist. Extremists are people who take a doctrine to a ridiculous degree and act in a way that is not condoned by the majority of members. At the point when violent,racist,homophobic,trans phobic,and religious singularity values become the majority thought, and not simply an extremist minority. Then these are the values that are generally agreed upon by the faith.

there are plenty of instances of the leaders or majority group within a social movement has become what some members deem a "corruption" well silence is submission.

[Nakor]

naturegirl2010: I don't want to go into detail because this was all already covered in the "Religion" thread a while ago, but short version is that altruism is a natural human trait developed through evolution, due to the nature of how it helped to preserve family genes. Religion is not a necessary presence to ensure altruistic ('good') acts any more than religion is necessary for various canine species to work well together in packs and follow their social structure, or any of dozens of other similar examples of creatures with altruistic traits.

We did not become good because of religion. We had all these good attributes anyway, so after the concept of religion had evolved enough, it was natural that we would include these attributes that we value within it.

[naturegirl2010]

Nakor: I apologize for bringing up the religion topic into this conversation, but I figured a brief (which now that I look over it, really isn't brief at all ^-^" ) overview of my thoughts on religion explains why I believe religion should be taught in schools.

However on note of altruistic traits: You're saying that these traits as passed along by genes? Or the mentality is passed along just like how birds know how to fly South when it starts to get colder and know exactly where to go?
I disagree entirely actually. I believe that it's a learned characteristic that generations pass along to the next. Just like adaptation. We as people learned that if we help other aside from ourself, we don't have to grieve over connections lost. I'm just saying that religion does good in a way that promotes that you should have altruistic traits which has done good for many people. Sort of like, how people know that doing drugs can kill you but as soon as there is a DARE program or Meth commercials, people start to stray from the idea of getting into that stuff. The commercials promote people to see how dangerous it is. Religion promotes people to see selflessness which promotes good. (I suppose that's a terrible parallel, I apologize again)

The fact still remains though, that I believe that religion should be taught within school because it teaches kids to be open-minded to the many religions out there and how beliefs can affects people. And aside from all that, religion greatly influenced so many people and what they did, Ghandi, Alexander the Great, ect. ect. A bunch of literature is highly influenced by religion, as are many other forms of art. It'd be beneficial to all students to have a class when they are younger that goes over the ideas of other religions
(of course, I'm sure parents would get all upset that Billy or Suzy doesn't want to be Buddhist like the rest of the family but Jewish cause that's what they believe is truth. No way around that really except for people to accept that everyone has they're own opinions and that's just fine.)

[Deleted]

Nakor, I believe you don't really understand what altruism means.
An altruistic deed is a deed which is entirely (so 100%) not meant to improve oneself. Therefore, it's my opinion that there are no such things as altruistic deeds or altruistic people. Even people like Mother Theresa weren't altruistic, though probably the closest examples we have. The thing is, Mother Theresa did good for other people constantly, but (and here's the catch) she felt reward from doing that, people thanked her, people loved her. And, even if it was subconscious, was the initial goal of her actions, to be accepted and loved by doing good.

And now I forgot what else I was going to type, so I'm just oging to stop.

[Jake]

naturegirl2010 I don't have much to say in response because I agree with most of it, and you covered most of what I could say! So I think I'll simply just tell you that that was an awesome post! You should definitely post the first part of it to one of the "religion" threads!
I couldn't tell from your post if you are religious or not - which basically means well done for not being bias at all!

[Nakor]

Obviously there aren't 100% altruistic people. Doesn't make sense. But altruism survives through a variant of natural selection called "kin selection" -- the genetic mutations that cause a creature to tend toward altruistic acts (any act that has a high chance of getting the creature killed in the act of saving its kin) survives because of the kin it saves having a high likelihood of having that same gene. This explains it better than I could:



Ethics are a bit different, but basic ethics are not necessarily a product of religion and some not even a product of society. Our natural inclination not to kill each other (without reason) exists absent of both those things. The more complex topics are the ones that come from society. A look at nature shows many species with characteristics we could relate in some ways to ethics -- and many species without them. Any trait that is not unique to humans must be able to come about in a society without our level of intelligence and complex communication.

Heck, even being a social species is, in and of itself, an evolutionary trait.

[annazork]

Mar 26, 2010 7:05:01 GMT -5 Ricky said:

No it is not taught in my school, I don't think it should be. People tend to speak too highly of their religions and belittle others

if a teacher was teaching me about his and I started questioning it (which is something you should be able to do on any subject at school) consequences would be unfair.

Also if its something you want to learn about as a philosophical pursuit you can do it in College, but highschools and lower should stick with the basics specially when children are so impressionable.

i think it depends on the teacher-student makeup of a school, whether religion should be taught or not. you should be able to respectfully debate with your teacher about religion, and any other subject. i mean, religion as a whole is probably the most historically/politically important subject you will learn about. it defines how people interact with other and their environments. i think public schools should teach religion in a historical sense, since its so vital in that perspective.