Religion in Schools

[Mercy]

Alright, as many of you know, I have been in Europe for the past three weeks. While living in Germany with my homestay, I discovered that there is a religion class (which is optional) at her public school. In this class, all different religions are explained. In America, however, this subject is banned from public schools. Do you believe it would be alright to teach religion as an optional class?

[Bowie20049]

I think religion awareness class would be a great thing at school. It could easily prepare the student for many professions.

[Starry]

My school has a class called Comparative Religions, actually, so I don't think it's outright banned so much as very limited.

Religion class is good in theory, but it is way too easy to get unbiased very very quickly, and the next thing you know you're preaching a religion at your students. (I think it only works in my school because the place is full of atheists. :) ) It's just not worth the risk in most places.

[Bowie20049]

Ah yes, you're right, Starry. I guess it will only work on a highly educated Atheist as a teacher.

[Shaun]

The problem with America is that there are far too many teachers who are incapable of being unbiased. Having a religion class would require a teacher who can adequately give the same level of attention to a variety of religions without making any one religion more pronounced (i.e. no vocalizing of personal bias, etc.). I don't know if that's possible in the U.S. on a nationwide scale. Europe has largely secularized, so the idea of a religion class in Germany isn't all that cringe-worthy. Here, I see such a class being abused non-stop and I think that unless we have laws that severely fine professors for violating separation of Church and State we should keep all discussions of religion outside of historical context out of schools. I'm all for teaching a class about religion, but only if I can be guaranteed that my child (future child, I mean) will not be exposed to the biases of someone of a certain religious or non-religious descent.

[eriko]

Even though, it is more like a discussion but let me add my stuff as well:

1. Religion is something very personal to people and they don't like it being forced on them. 90-95% of Indian students are religious, at least I have not come across any one in school who claims to be an atheist.

2. Echoing what others have said, teachers really can't be unbiased. And in India with not as efficient education system (as should be) and under qualified teachers, this is very obvious. Once we were doing an English poem which had the line, 'Let you sins of previous biths be burned." And the teacher started her idiotic philosophical talks. Needless to say, it was all mythical.

3. Not even religious classes, I am also against keeping and hanging pictures of Gods and even praying in schools. People can sometimes get really uncomfortable with this.

4. There are many other sources where people can better exercise their religion or even learn about other religions other than school.

5. One main point, who can guarantee that right/correct knowledge will reach the students. After all even a highly qualified atheist, however unbiased he is, will use the book to teach. And of course the book will be filled with all goody-goody things about all religions. This I feel will deprive the students to think and perceive any religion in his/her own way.

6. Everyone have their own views about religion, not only of different religions, but people belonging to one religion practice it differently. And when there is belief, there is conflict. And so to avoid unnecessary conflict, religion should not be mixed with school.

[Alex]

5. One main point, who can guarantee that right/correct knowledge will reach the students. After all even a highly qualified atheist, however unbiased he is, will use the book to teach.

Teaching an advanced course in pretty much any subject would be more difficult (in terms of knowledge you need to know to adequatley prepare students) than teaching a course that has to do only with religion. If you trust the public school system to prepare a child for their future career (which, at least in my mind, is much more important than one measly religion class they might take) then it should be just as easy to trust them teaching this subject as well.

[Jack]

I think religion is a thing better left out of school. I agree with Shaun completely, teachers, especially in the U.S, would be unable to be non-bias towards there religious views on a nationwide scale. A few months ago, a teacher at my school was teaching an English class, and the topic of religion came up due to a religious text they were studying. A student asked: "If you don't believe in God, do you go to hell?" and she simply replied "Yes." She also went on to explain that if your parents have become divorced, they will also go to hell. My views on this subject are obtained via personal experiences like this one.

[Alex]

I think religion is a thing better left out of school. I agree with Shaun completely, teachers, especially in the U.S, would be unable to be non-bias towards there religious views on a nationwide scale. A few months ago, a teacher at my school was teaching an English class, and the topic of religion came up due to a religious text they were studying. A student asked: "If you don't believe in God, do you go to hell?" and she simply replied "Yes." She also went on to explain that if your parents have become divorced, they will also go to hell. My views on this subject are obtained via personal experiences like this one.

Why would teachers in the U.S. be unable to avoid bias in a lesser capacity than teachers from Europe/Asia/Africa/etc.? I'm sorry, but despite the fact that the U.S. is anything but secular, you can't say a teacher from Turkey, a "secular" country, would be any more or less biased.

[Shaun]

Teaching an advanced course in pretty much any subject would be more difficult (in terms of knowledge you need to know to adequatley prepare students) than teaching a course that has to do only with religion. If you trust the public school system to prepare a child for their future career (which, at least in my mind, is much more important than one measly religion class they might take) then it should be just as easy to trust them teaching this subject as well.

I don't trust the public school system to prepare a child for their future career. So I guess we solved that :P.

And even if I did, I don't trust them enough to be able to adequately and fairly teach a subject like religion, one which has a particularly contentious existence in the U.S. and elsewhere.

[Shaun]

Why would teachers in the U.S. be unable to avoid bias in a lesser capacity than teachers from Europe/Asia/Africa/etc.? I'm sorry, but despite the fact that the U.S. is anything but secular, you can't say a teacher from Turkey, a "secular" country, would be any more or less biased.

We're talking specific parts of Europe that have largely secularized everything. While there are loads of believers, etc. there, it's less intrusive in the lives of individuals. Quite a few nations there have significant portions of non-theists (agnostics and atheists) in comparison to the U.S.

But obviously Turkey and certain nations within Europe don't qualify. A lot of them do, but I never said that all of them do.

[jordanisonfire]

Well, I'm going to a Catholic sixth form soon, and I expected them to force their religion on us, but they give us an option to do Religious Studies (which will just be learning about Roman Catholicism), but I think that's more for those in the school that actually are Catholic. They accept people that are of the Church of England (like myself), and they give the chance for those who aren't part of the Christian faith to enter, but I doubt they have much chance of getting in.

The teacher at my old school who taught us for English (and was one of my favourite teachers) was also the RS teacher, and, although she was an old South African woman, she was Christian and taught other faiths besides Christianity in her RS classes, and she didn't seem biased at all, and always emphasised that religion is about choice and that what may not be appealing to some in some religions are appealing to others and we shouldn't discriminate people based on their religion.

As for the actual topic, I think Religious Studies is a good subject to learn in a school, but it should explore a wide variety of religions and not focus too much on the most popular religion of the country it is being taught in. People should learn about religion, because religion can help people through life, and I believe that even though I'm a Spiritual Agnostic.

[Bowie20049]

hmmm...now that I think about it. This thread looks familiar...

[listophergreene]

The problem with America is that there are far too many teachers who are incapable of being unbiased.

And this doesn't apply elsewhere in the world? Honestly though, I think too many teachers would teach the class like it was mythology, because our atheist/agnostic population seems to have increased, especially in the field of education. True, that would be bias.

Here, I see such a class being abused non-stop and I think that unless we have laws that severely fine professors for violating separation of Church and State we should keep all discussions of religion outside of historical context out of schools.

Who limited this to professors? Besides, if you're talking about your child, you shouldn't care about a professor. Once they're in college, that's their choice. In the meantime, why would you intentionally obstruct your child from learning about religions? They take after their parents mostly until they reach the age at which they become individualized, at which point you can't really stop them from disagreeing with you. Until then, regardless of what they know, they'll most likely follow after the parent.


I'm all for teaching a class about religion, but only if I can be guaranteed that my child (future child, I mean) will not be exposed to the biases of someone of a certain religious or non-religious descent.


I guess most of us would be in agreement on this one. The problem is, everyone has their own opinion and - no matter how subtly - they will inflect it into their work. So just because someone is in a secular place doesn't make them less prone to sharing their views.


6. Everyone have their own views about religion, not only of different religions, but people belonging to one religion practice it differently. And when there is belief, there is conflict. And so to avoid unnecessary conflict, religion should not be mixed with school.

There will always be conflict. Perhaps it wouldn't be so sever, but it would still be there. Think about this: the two things you don't talk about in public are politics and religion. There are plenty of classes about politics, as it is a necessary thing to learn about. That doesn't lessen the conflict surrounding it. In the same way, religion should be allowed to be taught in schools, because regardless of whether they're in an official class or not, students will disagree. At least a class might be able to clear things up a bit.
____________________________________________________________________


I'm also for this sort of class, but like Shaun said, I would prefer the teacher not to smear their own beliefs all over my kid. So as long as the teacher is decent about it, they can let their own opinion in too. Keeping a packed curriculum would help that sort of thing as well.

Also... praying in schools has to be allowed. Not praying as led by staff, but students praying individually and not being disruptive. Otherwise there would be a breach on our freedom of religion.

[Bowie20049]

Also... praying in schools has to be allowed. Not praying as led by staff, but students praying individually and not being disruptive. Otherwise there would be a breach on our freedom of religion.

Students don't have freedom of religion...

[eriko]

Teaching an advanced course in pretty much any subject would be more difficult (in terms of knowledge you need to know to adequatley prepare students) than teaching a course that has to do only with religion. If you trust the public school system to prepare a child for their future career (which, at least in my mind, is much more important than one measly religion class they might take) then it should be just as easy to trust them teaching this subject as well.

I don't think so. Religion is not a simple thing. One main thing is that it is some kind of a personal quest. Everyone should be a able to realise it in their own way. (Those who want to that is.) And secondly, it takes same level of competence or even more than that of Science. So if a person spends his whole life learning religions, I don't think it would be worth it just too teach it to students in school.

And if a person who is not sufficietly qualified takes up this subject, there won't be any point in teaching the students about it.

There will always be conflict. Perhaps it wouldn't be so sever, but it would still be there. Think about this: the two things you don't talk about in public are politics and religion. There are plenty of classes about politics, as it is a necessary thing to learn about. That doesn't lessen the conflict surrounding it. In the same way, religion should be allowed to be taught in schools, because regardless of whether they're in an official class or not, students will disagree. At least a class might be able to clear things up a bit.

I don't disagree with you. But very frankly and personally speaking none of my friends is actually interested in learning about other religions. (Of course needless to say most are also not interseted to learn about their religion as well. But others are a big no.) You could have an optional religious class, but even that won't work; at least not in India.

Also... praying in schools has to be allowed. Not praying as led by staff, but students praying individually and not being disruptive. Otherwise there would be a breach on our freedom of religion.

Actually I was speaking against the praying led by staff. Anyways I don't see any problem in this. People can always pray silently whenever they like, between the periods; anytime they want to.

[Jack]

Why would teachers in the U.S. be unable to avoid bias in a lesser capacity than teachers from Europe/Asia/Africa/etc.? I'm sorry, but despite the fact that the U.S. is anything but secular, you can't say a teacher from Turkey, a "secular" country, would be any more or less biased.

Sorry, I just mean to say that the U.S is a highly religious place, if you look at the amount of people that are religious against the size of the country.

[Shaun]

And this doesn't apply elsewhere in the world? Honestly though, I think too many teachers would teach the class like it was mythology, because our atheist/agnostic population seems to have increased, especially in the field of education. True, that would be bias.

This is precisely how you would have to teach the class: as mythology. No other way would be fair to the students. You can't teach it as "true," because that would essentially make the claim that all religions, whether current or past, are factual. It's not a preaching session; it's a session for learning about religions.

This never even was an issue of secular vs. religious, so why you're making the issue in your post is beyond me. I accounted for biases on both sides.

Who limited this to professors? Besides, if you're talking about your child, you shouldn't care about a professor. Once they're in college, that's their choice. In the meantime, why would you intentionally obstruct your child from learning about religions? They take after their parents mostly until they reach the age at which they become individualized, at which point you can't really stop them from disagreeing with you. Until then, regardless of what they know, they'll most likely follow after the parent.

I just said professors. Teachers was what I actually meant. Chill.

Why would I obstruct? Because my child will not be forced to be of any particular religion. If they choose to be religious when they become adults, then that's up to them, but I refuse to be part of a brainwashing process that manipulates children through authority figures. My household will be a non-religious one, but not an atheist one. There simply will be no religion in it. Children cannot make decisions for themselves in regards to religion or non-religion because they are often influenced by their parents to be a certain way. This is why so many kids are sucked into all the radical religions, etc.--they follow authority figures (parents).

There will always be conflict. Perhaps it wouldn't be so sever, but it would still be there. Think about this: the two things you don't talk about in public are politics and religion. There are plenty of classes about politics, as it is a necessary thing to learn about. That doesn't lessen the conflict surrounding it. In the same way, religion should be allowed to be taught in schools, because regardless of whether they're in an official class or not, students will disagree. At least a class might be able to clear things up a bit.

You're basically arguing that we should be worried about the magic elves that live in your closet rather than the flood coming down the mountain. Politics affects us all, even if we're not involved in it, while religion does not (or isn't supposed to due to protections for people in the Constitution). There's no law that says you can't talk about politics or religion in public, but there is a law that protects people from religion.

You'll never have a religion class in public school so long as protections for people from religion cannot be guaranteed. Such a class has to be taught like a history class, not like a recruitment course. A class will likely not clear up conflicts of religion, since such a class shouldn't be about the conflicts themselves, but about the history of the various religions in the world (and not just the big three, but the dead religions too).

Also... praying in schools has to be allowed. Not praying as led by staff, but students praying individually and not being disruptive. Otherwise there would be a breach on our freedom of religion.

Technically children don't have rights, but praying individually is not illegal unless it is disruptive. Unfortunately a lot of people find it disruptive.

[Mercy]

There's no law that says you can't talk about politics or religion in public, but there is a law that protects people from religion.

It's freedom of religion/no religion, not freedom from it. Although many people state that religion is forced upon them, I feel like atheism is forced just as much. Not only this, but when people say they don't want religion in schools, at least when Americans say this, they mean Christianity. Which I can understand, teaching one religion would be unfair. But let's face it, America has a prejudiced against Christians, which is why many of them begin to obsess with their religion. About 99% of Christians I know rarely talk about their faith in public and accept anyone with a different denomination as people. If you talk about Jesus or God with the exception of swearing or joking, your are deemed a religious fanatic. But if you speak about Buddha or another religion, you are less likely to be titled this.

In addition, how can a child learn and pick a religion, or no religion, if they have no exposure? That's why I like the idea. A class that can teach the basics of all religions, and atheism, can show the child several choices and allow them to choose. Also, I'm being very loose with the term child and I would prefer this class to be one taught in high school, rather than in elementary and middle.

[Shaun]

It's freedom of religion/no religion, not freedom from it. Although many people state that religion is forced upon them, I feel like atheism is forced just as much. Not only this, but when people say they don't want religion in schools, at least when Americans say this, they mean Christianity. Which I can understand, teaching one religion would be unfair. But let's face it, America has a prejudiced against Christians, which is why many of them begin to obsess with their religion. About 99% of Christians I know rarely talk about their faith in public and accept anyone with a different denomination as people. If you talk about Jesus or God with the exception of swearing or joking, your are deemed a religious fanatic. But if you speak about Buddha or another religion, you are less likely to be titled this.

The language is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can't have freedom to religion without freedom from it, and the law literally states that we have freedom from it as much as to it. You can be Christian, but you have no right to establish laws that respect your religion over my religion or non-religion. Hence why we are not a Christian nation, just a nation. The founding fathers were as much against radical religion (and probably atheism, if they ever met such individuals back then who weren't hanged for being heretics) as I am.

Yes, we mean Christianity when we have an issue with religion, but that's because 75% of Americans are Christian. If they were 75% Muslim, we'd mean Islam, rather than Christianity. It's just a numbers game.

Buddha is also not a God, and Buddhism itself is not a religion, but an ideology. That's a common mistake made by people who assume that it is a religion. It's not. There are no Gods, no deities or any sort in Buddhism. The Buddha is just a man, with no "special" power. Anyone can achieve what the Buddha achieved, according to the methods of Buddhism. This is why I agree with teaching a mythology/religion class that doesn't treat these things as truthful, because then you could educate people on what is unbiased fact. Buddhists also are highly unlikely to cause issues with their beliefs/methods, because Buddhists aren't necessarily interested in conversion. Some are, but most live unobtrusive lives and are uninterested in professing their "faith" (methodology, etc.).

In addition, how can a child learn and pick a religion, or no religion, if they have no exposure? That's why I like the idea. A class that can teach the basics of all religions, and atheism, can show the child several choices and allow them to choose. Also, I'm being very loose with the term child and I would prefer this class to be one taught in high school, rather than in elementary and middle.

School is not the place for religious teaching. You want that, go to private school, or take a community course on it. Exposure to religion is firmly in the domain of parents, but it is against the law for schools to foster any sort of faith, whether it be atheism or otherwise. It's an institution for learning skills they will need, presumably, for the real world. You use a lot of those things even if you're not aware of it (math and English/writing, specifically).

And this is precisely why I don't think we should have these sorts of classes. There will never be any agreement on how to teach them, and too many kids could end up being violated by breakages of the law.

[Mercy]

The language is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can't have freedom to religion without freedom from it, and the law literally states that we have freedom from it as much as to it. You can be Christian, but you have no right to establish laws that respect your religion over my religion or non-religion. Hence why we are not a Christian nation, just a nation. The founding fathers were as much against radical religion (and probably atheism, if they ever met such individuals back then who weren't hanged for being heretics) as I am.

Then isn't that law prohibiting freedom of speech and religion? I am not saying we should be a Christian nation, only one that teaches tolerance towards all religion, even Christianity, opposed to the intolerance often shown in American society.

Yes, we mean Christianity when we have an issue with religion, but that's because 75% of Americans are Christian. If they were 75% Muslim, we'd mean Islam, rather than Christianity. It's just a numbers game.

Does that still make it right to degrade a religion, simply because it is the majority?


Buddha is also not a God, and Buddhism itself is not a religion, but an ideology. That's a common mistake made by people who assume that it is a religion. It's not. There are no Gods, no deities or any sort in Buddhism. The Buddha is just a man, with no "special" power. Anyone can achieve what the Buddha achieved, according to the methods of Buddhism. This is why I agree with teaching a mythology/religion class that doesn't treat these things as truthful, because then you could educate people on what is unbiased fact. Buddhists also are highly unlikely to cause issues with their beliefs/methods, because Buddhists aren't necessarily interested in conversion. Some are, but most live unobtrusive lives and are uninterested in professing their "faith" (methodology, etc.).

Exactly, but most kids don't know this because of the lack of religious education.


School is not the place for religious teaching. You want that, go to private school, or take a community course on it. Exposure to religion is firmly in the domain of parents, but it is against the law for schools to foster any sort of faith, whether it be atheism or otherwise. It's an institution for learning skills they will need, presumably, for the real world. You use a lot of those things even if you're not aware of it (math and English/writing, specifically).

But most families can't afford a private school and I am not saying it should be a mandatory course, only an optional one. Laws can be changed. Learning skills they need? Not every student needs art or music, yet they teach these subjects? Not every student needs American film or crimes, at yet they teach it.


And this is precisely why I don't think we should have these sorts of classes. There will never be any agreement on how to teach them, and too many kids could end up being violated by breakages of the law.
I think we have all agreed that the teaching method should be mostly unbiased and professional, as all subject professors are required to be.

[Shaun]

Then isn't that law prohibiting freedom of speech and religion? I am not saying we should be a Christian nation, only one that teaches tolerance towards all religion, even Christianity, opposed to the intolerance often shown in American society.

Often shown? Mercy, the intolerance shown to religion now is fairly recent and it's only come about due to well over 50 years of religious intolerance. I don't agree with militant atheism, but I'm sorry, we live in a nation that has allowed religion to seep its way into every single corner of the government, even though that is against the U.S. Constitution. And people are sick and tired of religious people making laws that screw with secular individuals, or people of different faiths. Radical Christianity is not a small, insignificant bunch. There are entire mega churches of radical theists in this country. And radical theists are simpling getting the redirect of karma.

The Constitution protects your right to free speech, but as with anything there are limitations. But it also separates Church and State, specifically to protect people against radical theism and to protect individuals from government impeding on their ability to worship (within reason, since clearly if you worship a God that "demands" you to murder 5-year-olds, that's unacceptable). Technically, the way the law should work in this country is to allow you to worship, pray, etc. so long as you are not harming others in the process. Religion was never meant to be something that could impede the rights of others who didn't share the same beliefs, etc. We've gotten to that point now where religion has enough power in this country to literally change the way people can exist here, something that violates most State and Federal statutes.

Does that still make it right to degrade a religion, simply because it is the majority?

Yup. You put it out there, you're open to criticism. Free speech allows for that. Religion doesn't get an out just because it's a belief. If we can criticize politicians, homosexuals, writers, actors, etc. for what they do publicly or otherwise, and if the religious are so willing to openly criticize so many of these things, then it follows that no special exceptions should be made for religion. Criticize the hell out of it.

Laws can be changed.

Go for it. Guaranteed you'll be met with violence when that happens, and for good reason.

And I'm so terribly sorry that not everyone can afford to go to a private school, but tough crap. That's not my problem. Private schools that largely do whatever they want with curriculum, with certain rules that must be followed by all schools regarding requirements, etc.

Public school is federally funded, therefore under the same laws that we must all abide by. As such, public schools cannot sanction religious practices, nor host recruitment courses, even as optional courses without violating the Constitution. You want to create a recruitment vehicle for religion, which I am 100% against. If you want to have a history lesson, great, so long as it is factual and unbiased and without exposing children to religious methodology. Religion itself should remain at the home and in Church.

[Mercy]

You want to create a recruitment vehicle for religion, which I am 100% against. This is not what I want. I want people to have knowledge of every choice, not simply what their parents tell them or the atheism that public schools dictate.

[Shaun]

Public schools do not dictate atheism. They dictate factual information, not beliefs. It was never an atheistic breeding ground and still isn't. The problem seems to be that now more atheists are being vocal about being non-theists, primarily because they've largely been discriminated against (for no good reason whatsoever). They weren't vocal before. Religion has done enough damage to the world, can we please just let it rest and leave it out of our kid's education as anything beyond historical context? If you want your kids to know other religions, then you teach them, but don't force other kids to be subjected to what will unfortunately end up being an exceedingly biased perspective on religion, which will act more as a recruiting ground than anything else, something you're advocating for by wanting the class to be about letting the kids choose what to believe. That's not the job of schools. Public schools = facts.

[S. Peppercorns]

I would love to have a teacher who discussed unbiased information about religion. There are a lot of feuds that have roots in religion, and it would be good for us to learn to accept the beliefs of others before we get it into our heads to turn it into a global issue. If we all learn to accept each other as kids, the world of adults might be a lot nicer. And it would be a really fun class, too. It would have to be unbiased. I think Sunday school has no place in public schools.

[Randomitity]

Personally, I think it's great for students to be aware of diffrent religions and used to knowing about them-- but that the teachers shouldn't be allowed to take time out of many of their classes to speak about religion, which, sadly, many of mine do. I also think that if you wnat to learn about other relligions-- great! Go right on ahead. But if it offends you in any way or if you don't have a religion-- Isn't it calles Atheisism of something?- then you shouldn't be required to take that class or listen to another lecture. That's just my opionion-- you guys can go ahead and continue your debate.

[Jack]

Its called Atheism. And yes, I agree. Unfortunately, up untill the age of 11 until I left Primary School, I was taught Christianity like it was fact. We learnt about other religions, but it always came back to how God did this and how God did that in the Christian faith. That is why I think Religion should be left out of schools. Full stop.

[listophergreene]

Its called Atheism. And yes, I agree. Unfortunately, up untill the age of 11 until I left Primary School, I was taught Christianity like it was fact. We learnt about other religions, but it always came back to how God did this and how God did that in the Christian faith. That is why I think Religion should be left out of schools. Full stop.

I think we shouldn't teach religion in schools unless it is a separate optional elective class, but having a requirement to take one such class wouldn't be so bad, it would just promote understanding. Anyway, what I don't like is when a teacher's viewpoint obstructs my view of the material, but luckily that hasn't really happened yet.

[dreamer]

I live in Uk and have studied from public schools and have been taught R.E. (religious education). To be honest it was quite an interesting class and great awareness. I think Religious awareness is really important.

[Gryk]

Okay...here's my argument

like you guys, I was thought religion at my school and yes, we were thought on how God is like this and like that but here the contradiction...we don't know what is the personality of God. It is different of knowing what is God like (our perception)and who really is God (God's real personality)

That's mostly the case in school where they teach students that God is this or that but for us, we were told that these were simply guesses. Alone on the line, we were introduce on various theologians and saints who try to ponder who God really is which makes it interesting because instead of laying out the facts like any other work...we were given facts that left us to ponder and debate on broad ideas such as time and reality.

So yeah, i might agree religion in school but it must be taught in a way that the students are not only given facts that they can put into the backs of their head but something that will make them ponder for a longer amount of time.

Not only that, Religion in school does not only teaches a student the on they values but also of various cultures that sprang up and it gives them an understanding on how these people behave and believe. As well, it is important to note because Christianity or Judaism or Islam believes in God does not mean that any other religions don't believe in it.

Again, we don't know on who God is and how God ( note that God personally has no gender. We just perceive that he is male.) Works in society. Such as that we were taught on the persecutions of the Roman empire towards the early Christians. In this topic, we were ask on how God works or how God appears during this time of great distress when Christians were publicly killed and at the end, we were able to relate that event to the contemporary society. Overall, i think Religion is good at school to understand life but it must be taught so that the students can ponder and think.

[Jack]

Okay...here's my argument

like you guys, I was thought religion at my school and yes, we were thought on how God is like this and like that but here the contradiction...we don't know what is the personality of God. It is different of knowing what is God like (our perception)and who really is God (God's real personality)

Yes, but Gryk, you are basing all of your opinions on the fact that God does exist. You do realise this is not fact, right?


Not only that, Religion in school does not only teaches a student the on they values but also of various cultures that sprang up and it gives them an understanding on how these people behave and believe. As well, it is important to note because Christianity or Judaism or Islam believes in God does not mean that any other religions don't believe in it.

The problem is, most teachers have their own religious beliefs that obstruct them for being able to teach children what other religions believe without being biased about it. Like I said above, in my Primary school almost all of the teachers were Christian, so I was taught Christianity like it was fact. We sung songs about how great god was. That is the kind of thing I have a problem with. Schools, especially primary schools where young children follow the example of the teachers alot more, should not be based around religion. What if, like me, some of the children at my school were Atheist, and every afternoon for an hour we sat in the hall and sang songs about how great God was? That is why religion should be kept out of schools, or at least primary schools where children are uncapable of deciding for themselves what exactly they believe.

Again, we don't know on who God is and how God ( note that God personally has no gender. We just perceive that he is male.) Works in society. Such as that we were taught on the persecutions of the Roman empire towards the early Christians. In this topic, we were ask on how God works or how God appears during this time of great distress when Christians were publicly killed and at the end, we were able to relate that event to the contemporary society. Overall, i think Religion is good at school to understand life but it must be taught so that the students can ponder and think.

And again, you are basing your argument on what children is taught god is like. No body knows what god is like because nobody knows whether god exists.

[listophergreene]

Yes, but Gryk, you are basing all of your opinions on the fact that God does exist. You do realise this is not fact, right?

The problem is, most teachers have their own religious beliefs that obstruct them for being able to teach children what other religions believe without being biased about it. Like I said above, in my Primary school almost all of the teachers were Christian, so I was taught Christianity like it was fact. We sung songs about how great god was. That is the kind of thing I have a problem with. Schools, especially primary schools where young children follow the example of the teachers alot more, should not be based around religion. What if, like me, some of the children at my school were Atheist, and every afternoon for an hour we sat in the hall and sang songs about how great God was? That is why religion should be kept out of schools, or at least primary schools where children are uncapable of deciding for themselves what exactly they believe.

And again, you are basing your argument on what children is taught god is like. No body knows what god is like because nobody knows whether god exists.

You mention leaving religious education out of schools because of the effects it may have on children who cannot decide for themselves what they want to believe. On the other hand, it clearly did not affect you any, as you believe something significantly different than your school taught you. So... what exactly is the problem with teaching religions in schools as though they were a fact? For the sake of political correctness, each class would either treat the religion in question as right or wrong, meaning that all classes have the same outlook. So either there is no correct religion, or they are all right. It is the secular way.

But if we choose to make them all 'wrong', then we are doing a great disservice to the students by ruining the quality of their education. If we are to teach religions in schools - which I believe we should, to promote understanding and tolerance - then we cannot teach them as though they have no meaning. That defeats the entire purpose of the class. You yourself are an excellent demonstration of what happens when a student doesn't personally believe the religion being taught - nothing. So what's the big deal?

[Jack]

Schools are there to teach children. Treating religion like it's fact does not teach the children anything, it clouds there perception of the real world. That's the big deal. I would have no problem with religious education classes in school if they were done properly, but the fact is a lot of them are lead by bias teachers. The education authorities don't have enough time to go around making sure that every teacher delivers an unbias R.E class.

Although my primary school was heavy on this, my secondary school was not, and it was during my early secondary school years that I became an Atheist; up until that point I believed in God and Heaven and all the rest of it. Thanks to my secondary school, I was able to decide what I actually believed because they gave my access to both sides of the story. Lots of secondary schools don't offer that and primarily religious, which is not what schools are for.

For the sake of political correctness, each class would either treat the religion in question as right or wrong

No. An UNBIAS R.E class would teach the students what a certain religion believes to promote knowledge and understanding. Just because a school doesn't treat religion as fact, it doesn't mean that the school is completely the other way; it doesn't mean the school is drumming into students heads that religion is wrong does it?

[listophergreene]

Schools are there to teach children. Treating religion like it's fact does not teach the children anything, it clouds there perception of the real world. That's the big deal. I would have no problem with religious education classes in school if they were done properly, but the fact is a lot of them are lead by bias teachers. The education authorities don't have enough time to go around making sure that every teacher delivers an unbias R.E class.

Although my primary school was heavy on this, my secondary school was not, and it was during my early secondary school years that I became an Atheist; up until that point I believed in God and Heaven and all the rest of it. Thanks to my secondary school, I was able to decide what I actually believed because they gave my access to both sides of the story. Lots of secondary schools don't offer that and primarily religious, which is not what schools are for.

...

No. An UNBIAS R.E class would teach the students what a certain religion believes to promote knowledge and understanding. Just because a school doesn't treat religion as fact, it doesn't mean that the school is completely the other way; it doesn't mean the school is drumming into students heads that religion is wrong does it?

I suppose. What I meant by the right or wrong comment was that the secular education system shouldn't discriminate between religions, claiming one correct and one incorrect. So yes, I agree with you there. I've never had to endure a class or school system based around religion, so I can't give much of a personal opinion.

Do you think it's really impossible to teach such a class without one's own beliefs interfering? I mean, I'm going through college now and everything is very secular. Either you don't mention religion or spirituality, or you respect them all. Do you think that would be possible with teachers of younger age groups?

[Jack]

Do you think it's really impossible to teach such a class without one's own beliefs interfering? I mean, I'm going through college now and everything is very secular. Either you don't mention religion or spirituality, or you respect them all. Do you think that would be possible with teachers of younger age groups?

I know it's possible. I just know we will never come to a time where all the Religious classes in schools will be unbias, so that is why we should leave it out of the school curriculum.

[listophergreene]

I know it's possible. I just know we will never come to a time where all the Religious classes in schools will be unbias, so that is why we should leave it out of the school curriculum.

But that's unfair to the teachers and students who could make the system work, isn't it? Besides, just a few flaws in a system doesn't make the system useless or invalid.

By 'leave it out of the school curriculum' do you mean classes on religion and spirituality should never be offered, or that they should never be required?

[Gryk]

When you meant by spirituality and religion...

it does not solely based on the belief on that certain religion (either its christianity or buddhism). What is emant by this is that the school must offer a wide range of subjects to the students. These subjects are in order for them to udnerstand teh world around them.

By placing religion in the school, the students are able to know the values and the belief that they inhibits. They introduces the students various of people with some common or no common ideals with them.

SO what if tehre is nor religion curriculum in the school...what will ahppen if they go out into the open and meet some Buddhist monk. How would they respond especcially when they start a chat? Without knowledge of the kind of spirituality or belief this monk possess, how would this student relate or go along with the chat? Or is it that the certain studentwill just leave the monk and do nothing??

Religion in school not only teahces belief but introduces culture...and various people who are different from them. If not, they would just know their own culture...their own belief and when they meet someone of some different culture or belief....they may be able to relate and to respect them as they are.

[Shaun]

I think everyone knows my opinion on this matter. As Drax has said: you can't guarantee that teachers remain unbiased in their discussion of religion. If you can't guarantee that, then it can't happen. You can teach religion in private school, not in public school. That's the law in the U.S. Other countries may have their own ridiculous, self-replicating, self-perpetuating brain-washing techniques, but in this country we have rules that establish what we are allowed to force upon our children in schools. Religion is not one of them.

But we've talked about all this before, so I'm just repeating what has already been said by me and by others. In circles we go.

[Jack]

SO what if tehre is nor religion curriculum in the school...what will ahppen if they go out into the open and meet some Buddhist monk. How would they respond especcially when they start a chat? Without knowledge of the kind of spirituality or belief this monk possess, how would this student relate or go along with the chat? Or is it that the certain student will just leave the monk and do nothing??


So your saying that we should teach children religious education just in case they meet a Buddhist Monk in their later life? This isn't a good enough argument. Your saying we should teach children religious beliefs so they are more tolerant of people that are said religion, but this argument falls flat because it would only work if students were taught every single religion in the world during there school life. As you know, that would be impossible.

[Shaun]

Well, by that logic, we should teach kids how to flip burgers or do some other remedial work precisely because the vast majority of high school kids will end up doing just that, even if they do go to college.

School is not about preparing you for your personal life. We can't possibly prepare kids for every instance in which they might meet someone different than them. Otherwise we'd have to devote an entire year to social interaction just so all our kids would know about every kind of person there is.

As Drax said, that isn't a good enough argument. Just because they might meet a Buddhist or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever isn't reason for introducing potentially controversial and easily skewed curriculum into public schools.

[listophergreene]

So you don't think we should ever offer said classes? Or should we just not require any of them? I think they would be a lot more beneficial than some electives being offered right now.

[Shaun]

The way the system is now is utterly crap if you are in any place that relies on standardized testing and "standardized results." But school is not a place to peddle religious views, which is exactly what such a class would be used for. That, in and of itself, violates the rights of parents and of children to be free of religious imposition by a government authority. Anyone who works in a public school is acting on behalf of the government to provide a social service (i.e. education). As such, it must remain, as the government does, entirely secular. Seeing how pervasive and insidious religion can be and often is in this country, I cannot see how anyone can possibly guarantee that our students are learning about ALL religions and not a particularly biased view of any particular one.

So, no, I don't think such classes should exist at all, because human beings who have particular views of the world cannot be trusted to keep their biased hands off the minds of children who are not only impressionable, but prone to agree with figures of authority. Students need to learn skills they need to survive, and being aware of the fact that there are people of various faiths in the world really isn't one of those skills. That's something they probably already have through their parents, or were denied access to for whatever reason. Life is a learning experience. We don't teach kids other social behaviors that do not pertain to education anyway.

[Jack]

Well put Shaun, well put.

[Gryk]

" That's the law in the U.S. Other countries may have their own ridiculous, self-replicating, self-perpetuating brain-washing techniques, but in this country we have rules that establish what we are allowed to force upon our children in schools. Religion is not one of them."


Oh so you mean in the US?? No wonder why there are so many social problems in the US...i will back up my point to what i had said...to teach religion in school does not mean simply belief it is culture as well...

the world is getting multi cultural by the second. Different people from different countries are going to different countries-US for example. In primary, a child can meet a Hindu, a muslim or a zoroaster. This si no longer the time where one religion dominates the school...so who cars if you're an atheist, there are people in the school who are not and each of these person have their own certain belief.

Okay, so if tehre is no religion in school...what are the effects to young children.
1) they only believe in one culture
2) their information aound the world is limited
3) they can only socialize with their own kind and avoid other cultures which may lead to prejudice...and prejudice will lead to hatred. No wonder the 9/11 happened...
4) how would they cope if they went to an amish village or when they grow up with no rfact on religion, how would they cope when they go India, Israel or Tibet where religious people stay?? Would they simply go to hotels and pubs and stay there?

look at what happened in Nazi germany?? the children there had been thought that Jews were evil and in consequence, the holocaust came to be. they were taught things that may improve their social life, to have a good lfie but not taught on the otehr people and what their values are...
not only that, religion does not only teaches belief of a certain person...it is the values as well. A certain religion hold a certain value that helps them. Take Buddhism for example, it is about life and concentration, the purity of the mind. Religion teaches people how to behave good moral conduct with each otehr.
Look at the broader picture...so who cares if they don't believe the stuff that religion teaches them...it is to broaden their information around the world not just to limit it.

[Inkling]

I think it would be okay, as long as it was taught in a totally unbiased way, and kids didn't have to reveal their personal faith in class if they didn't want to, and if they strived to try to teach kids not to be prejudiced against one another just because of their religious beliefs.

[Jack]

" That's the law in the U.S. Other countries may have their own ridiculous, self-replicating, self-perpetuating brain-washing techniques, but in this country we have rules that establish what we are allowed to force upon our children in schools. Religion is not one of them."


Oh so you mean in the US?? No wonder why there are so many social problems in the US...i will back up my point to what i had said...to teach religion in school does not mean simply belief it is culture as well...

the world is getting multi cultural by the second. Different people from different countries are going to different countries-US for example. In primary, a child can meet a Hindu, a muslim or a zoroaster. This si no longer the time where one religion dominates the school...so who cars if you're an atheist, there are people in the school who are not and each of these person have their own certain belief.

Okay, so if tehre is no religion in school...what are the effects to young children.
1) they only believe in one culture
2) their information aound the world is limited
3) they can only socialize with their own kind and avoid other cultures which may lead to prejudice...and prejudice will lead to hatred. No wonder the 9/11 happened...
4) how would they cope if they went to an amish village or when they grow up with no rfact on religion, how would they cope when they go India, Israel or Tibet where religious people stay?? Would they simply go to hotels and pubs and stay there?

look at what happened in Nazi germany?? the children there had been thought that Jews were evil and in consequence, the holocaust came to be. they were taught things that may improve their social life, to have a good lfie but not taught on the otehr people and what their values are...
not only that, religion does not only teaches belief of a certain person...it is the values as well. A certain religion hold a certain value that helps them. Take Buddhism for example, it is about life and concentration, the purity of the mind. Religion teaches people how to behave good moral conduct with each otehr.
Look at the broader picture...so who cares if they don't believe the stuff that religion teaches them...it is to broaden their information around the world not just to limit it.

Gryk, your comparing Religion in schools to the 911 and Nazi Germany, when in fact they have nothing, NOTHING to do with eachother. I don't think you are truly understanding, or maybe not actually reading, mine and Shaun's argument...

[listophergreene]

I think that religion is, in some ways, like classical literature. We study it for more than just facts. When we indulge our minds with said material, we unlock an entirely different way of thinking. Research has shown that people from different cultures who grew up hearing different moral stories, etc. think in different ways. For example, children in cultures that use logograms or phonograms have different problem solving and critical thinking skills than children who form words from letters. They are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to certain matters.

The more material we expose ourselves to, the more of these skills and abilities we will obtain. Just because some people are radical extremists doesn't mean that everyone should have to suffer seclusion from valuable knowledge.

Also, even if a teacher did share their own beliefs, or acted in such a way that they were obvious, it would only offer the students another opportunity to discern for themselves what is truly objective, and what is the teacher's subjective opinion. If students are not capable of this, then we must place an age requirement on teaching religious philosophy, perhaps high school only.

Overall, I think the benefits of these courses would outweigh any negative aspects of them, even in consideration of all the possible flaws they may have.

[Shaun]

the world is getting multi cultural by the second. Different people from different countries are going to different countries-US for example. In primary, a child can meet a Hindu, a muslim or a zoroaster. This si no longer the time where one religion dominates the school...so who cars if you're an atheist, there are people in the school who are not and each of these person have their own certain belief.

This right here tells me you have no idea what the United States is actually like. You want to know how multi-cultural the U.S. is? I'll tell you.

My first day here at the University of Florida I met people from Nepal, India, England, various parts of the U.S., Canada, parts of Europe, China, Japan, countries in Africa, and many others. I've met Muslims, Catholics, various versions of Christian, Buddhists, non-theists, atheists, agnostics, and numerous others. I've met African Americans, Whites, Asians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.

So, while you might think this is all a wonderful way to slam the U.S. for being socially homogenous, you've failed to grasp the crux of the issue at hand.

Your point about Nazi Germany is exactly what I am against happening by the inclusion of a religion class. You need to seriously learn the difficulties in dealing with religion in the any nationalistic structure.

[bigjo92]

Religion in schools!? are you kidding me. even if there optional your still going to have them worshipers running around school like chickens with there heads cut off because your giving them more access to what they want. im a beleiver of god and everything but i think there is a time and a place for all of that religion stuff. its calles 8 o clock church service on sunday mornings. now, to me, i get very pissed off when teachers even mention religion in school. its like i dont give a shit what you think about it. im hear to learn about the shit i signed up for, not god. on that note, i dont agree with church, because 1, its just a competition in my eyes. for example, if your next door neighbors go, you feel obligated to do it, and to try to make it a competition, and 2, i dont need some joe shmoe standing in from of a congregation telling me how i should talk to god or pray to him. i can do that on my own. so my point is, no i think religion in schools are violating the rights of students who do not go to church or are not firm beleivers.