Should Alternate Religions Be Taught In Schools?

[Stace]

Personally, I don't think I'd want my kids taking any religious classes at school. I think that is something that needs to be taught at home and in the church. Many churches offer introductory classes about their religions; I know the Jewish temple near my house has them. They encourage people who are not Jewish to attend, just to gain some understanding about the religion. There is no pressure to actually convert to Judaism; they just want people to have an open mind, and to know the facts, when it comes to their religion.

I would have no problem with my children choosing their own religion, I myself was not forced to follow anything, but I'll be sending them to school to learn the skills that are necessary for them to survive in the real world, things that will be necessary for them to obtain higher education, a degree, and then a good job......while religion is beneficial to many people, it is not necessary to obtain a comfortable job. I would gladly take them to different church services, Bible studies, Intro to Judaism classes, etc. I just don't think that is something that the taxpayers should have to fund, especially when we have enough problems and underfunding in many schools as it is.

 

[tryreading]

I really don't see the problem. I think Christian fundamentalists have really done themselves a disservice, by making the average American paranoid that even objective classes on religion are part of an insidious plot to preach it.

Because of our history we need to be careful to base our laws, and education, on reason, not faith. 'A perfect separation,' as James Madison said, between church and state. There is no reason good enough, to me, to violate this, especially not just to make certain people happy.

 

[George_Washington]

I was thinking since religious people feel Creationism is a legitimite theory the same as evolution. Why not teach other religions in schools? Each of the major religions has the same merit and legitamicy as each other. Why not teach Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christainity in a seperate Religious Studies class?

It could promote understanding and tolerance between different religions. And might encourage children to decide their own faith instead of them being brainwashed or forced upon them by their parents.

A Buddhist friend of mine who originates for Thailand went to America and people their tried endlessly to convert her saying "Buddha is dead and Jesus is alive", which insulted her. A little tolerance could go along way.

Garza, wow, your friend must have spent her whole time over here in a town with a population of 100 people. We teach about different religions all over the place, Garza. In my college curriculum, a course on world religions was required. We also have many religion majors in America, Garza. Geesh, you really need to actually come over here sometime and see what's really going on.

 

[tryreading]

Personally, I don't think I'd want my kids taking any religious classes at school. I think that is something that needs to be taught at home and in the church. Many churches offer introductory classes about their religions; I know the Jewish temple near my house has them. They encourage people who are not Jewish to attend, just to gain some understanding about the religion. There is no pressure to actually convert to Judaism; they just want people to have an open mind, and to know the facts, when it comes to their religion.

I would have no problem with my children choosing their own religion, I myself was not forced to follow anything, but I'll be sending them to school to learn the skills that are necessary for them to survive in the real world, things that will be necessary for them to obtain higher education, a degree, and then a good job......while religion is beneficial to many people, it is not necessary to obtain a comfortable job. I would gladly take them to different church services, Bible studies, Intro to Judaism classes, etc. I just don't think that is something that the taxpayers should have to fund, especially when we have enough problems and underfunding in many schools as it is.

I think it would be great if all parents would occasionally take their children to the services of worshippers with faiths other than their own. Expose children to all religions in the appropriate settings, rather than taking a short cut through the school systems with misplaced courses. Wouldn't that effort and open-mindedness be a very positive influence on their kids? I don't have kids, but I suggested this to a friend of mine recently who has two sons. I don't think he and his wife will do it. Wish they would.

 

[Kandahar]

Because of our history we need to be careful to base our laws, and education, on reason, not faith. 'A perfect separation,' as James Madison said, between church and state. There is no reason good enough, to me, to violate this, especially not just to make certain people happy.

But it's NOT violating this to have a class teach objectively about religious beliefs. I'm not talking about having preachers come into public schools and tell students that Christianity is correct.

What makes teaching about the ideas in the Bible different than teaching about the ideas of The Republic or Walden or The Communist Manifesto or Atlas Shrugged? They've all been important ideas in history, and they all deserve to be taught.

 

[tryreading]

But it's NOT violating this to have a class teach objectively about religious beliefs. I'm not talking about having preachers come into public schools and tell students that Christianity is correct.

What makes teaching about the ideas in the Bible different than teaching about the ideas of The Republic or Walden or The Communist Manifesto or Atlas Shrugged? They've all been important ideas in history, and they all deserve to be taught.

You forgot to attribute your signature to the liberal that originally said it:

"I'm a card-carrying member of the godless liberal atheist lobby. I'm also a Zionist warmonger, and a heartless neoliberal bastard. Furthermore, I will not rest until the environment is completely destroyed, the world is ruled by black Jewish homosexuals, and all criminals are back on the streets."

(He forgot to mention his ACLU affiliation)


Anyway, of the books you named above, I have only read Walden. Been wanting to read Atlas Shrugged for a while, but haven't gotten to it yet. But the difference with religion is that for some reason it wants to creep in and introduce itself and then force itself on others, while maintaining it is not doing so, and it shouldn't be allowed to in public schools. Like I said, a course teaching the history of world religion is okay with me. But a course designed specifically to teach the Christian religion is illegal, as far as I'm concerned. Teach about Christianity, objectively, while teaching about the other religions, objectively. That's fair and reasonable, and legal.

 

[George_Washington]

What makes teaching about the ideas in the Bible different than teaching about the ideas of The Republic or Walden or The Communist Manifesto or Atlas Shrugged? They've all been important ideas in history, and they all deserve to be taught.

I am inclined to agree. I think the problem is nowadays that we just don't teach enough different viewpoints on things. Looking back, some of the textbooks I had in grade school were so crappy and biased. History is probably the subject that needs the most revising. I've come to realize that if you want a good book on history...don't read a textbook.

 

[Kandahar]

You forgot to attribute your signature to the liberal that originally said it:

"I'm a card-carrying member of the godless liberal atheist lobby. I'm also a Zionist warmonger, and a heartless neoliberal bastard. Furthermore, I will not rest until the environment is completely destroyed, the world is ruled by black Jewish homosexuals, and all criminals are back on the streets."

(He forgot to mention his ACLU affiliation)

Huh?

Anyway, of the books you named above, I have only read Walden. Been wanting to read Atlas Shrugged for a while, but haven't gotten to it yet. But the difference with religion is that for some reason it wants to creep in and introduce itself and then force itself on others, while maintaining it is not doing so, and it shouldn't be allowed to in public schools.

Religion does no such thing. Religious works are no different than any other book with a central idea. It's Christian fundamentalists who want to force their beliefs on everyone else; a Bible or a Torah or a Qu'ran just sits on a desk.

Like I said, a course teaching the history of world religion is okay with me. But a course designed specifically to teach the Christian religion is illegal, as far as I'm concerned.

Assuming a school had the resources to offer such a class, would it be illegal to teach a class specifically on Ayn Rand or John Maynard Keynes instead of general economics? If not, how is this different?

Teach about Christianity, objectively, while teaching about the other religions, objectively. That's fair and reasonable, and legal.

I don't see why a class specifically about Christianity would be unfair or unreasonable or illegal if it was taught objectively. I'm not even Christian but I would have signed up for such a class if my high school had offered it, just because I find the subject interesting.

 

[tryreading]

Huh?



Religion does no such thing. Religious works are no different than any other book with a central idea. It's Christian fundamentalists who want to force their beliefs on everyone else; a Bible or a Torah or a Qu'ran just sits on a desk.



Assuming a school had the resources to offer such a class, would it be illegal to teach a class specifically on Ayn Rand or John Maynard Keynes instead of general economics? If not, how is this different?



I don't see why a class specifically about Christianity would be unfair or unreasonable or illegal if it was taught objectively. I'm not even Christian but I would have signed up for such a class if my high school had offered it, just because I find the subject interesting.

Was making a joke about your signature, I assume you use it to be sarcastic.

I was using the word religion when I should have said 'many religious people.'

I just don't like your analogies, none of them equate to the teaching of a specific religion in schools. I think if you are teaching the history/laws/influence of one religion, there is automatically a bias. Why just teach the kids about Christianity, and not the other important faiths? There must be a reason. Is that reason the fact that the majority of our population is Christian? Yes it is. If we teach what the majority wants, ID will be next. And evolution will be mythology.

 

[Kandahar]

I just don't like your analogies, none of them equate to the teaching of a specific religion in schools. I think if you are teaching the history/laws/influence of one religion, there is automatically a bias.

Not necessarily. It is taught objectively in most public universities across the nation, and complaints of teachers preaching are rare.

Why just teach the kids about Christianity, and not the other important faiths? There must be a reason.

Well if the scope of the course is Christianity, it wouldn't make sense to teach other faiths. But like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with classes in Qu'ran literacy or Torah literacy or just general comparitive religious beliefs, if the student interest was there.

Is that reason the fact that the majority of our population is Christian? Yes it is.

Perhaps Bible literacy classes would be more popular than Qu'ran literacy classes for that reason. But don't our schools spend more time on European history than Southeast Asian history? There's nothing wrong with talking about subjects that are important to our culture, more than subjects that aren't.

If we teach what the majority wants, ID will be next. And evolution will be mythology.

I'm not saying we just teach whatever Christians want. But the class can be taught objectively.

 

[Hornburger]

How is it brainwashing to teach "This is what X believes, and this is what Y believes"?

They already do teach religion in social studies classes. If you just want an "this is what x believes and this is what y believes", take a social studies class, you'll get that from there.

What you are talking about is putting in place a religious studies class that focuses just on religion. If you are going to teach that for an entire semester, you're going to have to dive into some religious texts and go beyond just the ideas of the religion. That brainwashes kids.

 

[Kandahar]

They already do teach religion in social studies classes. If you just want an "this is what x believes and this is what y believes", take a social studies class, you'll get that from there.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Glad you agree that there's no problem with it in social studies classes. Extrapolating on that, there's no reason that there would be a problem having a class devoted specifically to that.

What you are talking about is putting in place a religious studies class that focuses just on religion. If you are going to teach that for an entire semester, you're going to have to dive into some religious texts and go beyond just the ideas of the religion. That brainwashes kids.

Why would an entire semester or year-long class necessitate "going beyond just the ideas of the religion?" What does this even mean?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sure, it'll be fun to watch.

Write a course that covers Christianity, defining all the sects of Catholicism, and Protestanism, (Baptists and Devil Worship and Lutherans and Methodists and Episcopalians and Voodoo and Branch Davidians....), Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the American Indian religions, Shinto, Polynesia and Eskimo, and of course don't forget the Norsemen nor the Greeks nor the Romans nor the Mesopotamians nor the Egyptians...and Africa has something to contribute, too.

Are we going to make this a one-semester or two semester course? I can see the debate over the syllabus being one of the most entertaining things around. ESPECIALLY if we insist on objectively describing Christianity.

Shall we also include a discussion of the historical implications of all these belief systems, the waves of unrest that pass when the clash, and the Machiavellian uses all religions are put to? Oh, better make that a four year college history major, eh?

It's a swell idea to teach comparative religion in public school. Working out the course would seem to be impossible, though.

 

[GarzaUK]

I think it is worth noting that why America is so religious and a good portion of these people are fanaticial is ironically BECAUSE of the seperation of church and state.
Churchs do not get any support from the government like they do it Europe, so American churches have to be as aggressive as possible since the birth of America to fill those pews.

I can understand how you can be nervy since Pat Robertson types might try and use the situation for their benefit.

I'm not talking about obscure religions just Christainity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, if their is time maybe Taoism and Confucism. Those are the biggest seven religions in the world.

Nor would I say that it would be taught the same about of hours a week as the sciences, math etc. Maybe 1 hour a week for every year in high school or junior high (whatever one you want).

Americans have a reputation for not knowing what is beyond their own borders. lol Some Americans are surprised when I tell them I have a microwave - I mean seriously.

George I'm not trying to get at America for not being understanding about other religions, I am sure you have these sort of things in college, but what about the people that don't go to college?? I was ignorant about other races and cultures until I went to college. I hear an awful lot of "Muhammed/ Buddha is dead and Jesus is alive", which is quite insulting.

 

[tryreading]

Not necessarily. It is taught objectively in most public universities across the nation, and complaints of teachers preaching are rare.

The universities are a different animal. Kids are not required by law to attend them. They are optional, with no government mandate for all children to attend, no captive audience.

Well if the scope of the course is Christianity, it wouldn't make sense to teach other faiths. But like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with classes in Qu'ran literacy or Torah literacy or just general comparitive religious beliefs, if the student interest was there.

My point is the scope of the course should not ever be limited to Christianity. And limiting the choices to separate classes, each teaching about a different religion, is not proper. It seems to me this is teaching what the majority wants, instead of a well rounded curriculum of what they need to know.

Perhaps Bible literacy classes would be more popular than Qu'ran literacy classes for that reason. But don't our schools spend more time on European history than Southeast Asian history? There's nothing wrong with talking about subjects that are important to our culture, more than subjects that aren't.

But teaching the importance of one religion in public schools with public money and with instruction from a government employee could legally be seen as an establishment. If the 'Bible Literacy Class' thing gets started, for instance, there will be court tests of it, and I don't think it will last in public schools.

 

[tryreading]

I think it is worth noting that why America is so religious and a good portion of these people are fanaticial is ironically BECAUSE of the seperation of church and state.
Churchs do not get any support from the government like they do it Europe, so American churches have to be as aggressive as possible since the birth of America to fill those pews.

The Constitution was a truly revolutionary document, the first of its kind to base law on the opinion of man and the laws of nature:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses....
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
-- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

I can understand how you can be nervy since Pat Robertson types might try and use the situation for their benefit.

If Robertson, Dobson, and other extremists preach from their churches and television formats and practice their freedom of speech other than from a position of power, their fanaticism isn't dangerous. If they acquire political power in this country, which some of them have done, we have to watch them carefully. Dobson was so important to Karl Rove, that Rove, before the announcement that Harriet Miers was going to be nominated to sit on the Supreme Court, met privately with Dobson to assure him that Miers was pro-life, and asked him to align his followers and the divisions of dozens of other religious organizations to pressure the Congress to make sure Miers would be confirmed. Shouldn't Rove have scheduled a meeting with Democrats to solicit their support, and assured Republicans that Miers was a proper choice? Shouldn't he have spoken directly to the American people? The Constitution says that there shall be no religious test to any public office in this country, but there was Rove trying to prove how religious Miers was. This is criminal behavior.

Americans have a reputation for not knowing what is beyond their own borders. lol Some Americans are surprised when I tell them I have a microwave - I mean seriously.

Now you've gone too far. Microwaves in Britain? Come on. Next you'll claim that James Bond was a fictional character and you don't eat haggis.

I was ignorant about other races and cultures until I went to college. I hear an awful lot of "Muhammed/ Buddha is dead and Jesus is alive", which is quite insulting.

This ignorance is shameful, but let's address it by offering a well rounded course teaching the history of all religions including all the good and bad.

 

[Hornburger]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Glad you agree that there's no problem with it in social studies classes. Extrapolating on that, there's no reason that there would be a problem having a class devoted specifically to that.



Why would an entire semester or year-long class necessitate "going beyond just the ideas of the religion?" What does this even mean?

Why would we need to go more specific? The kids would already know what each religion is all about. If they want to go follow that religion, they can go do so on their own time. Frankly, it's a waste of school time when the kids could be studying more important things.

 

[George_Washington]

I think it is worth noting that why America is so religious and a good portion of these people are fanaticial is ironically BECAUSE of the seperation of church and state.
Churchs do not get any support from the government like they do it Europe, so American churches have to be as aggressive as possible since the birth of America to fill those pews.

It might be but then again, some people argue that the reason why the Roman Catholic Church has lasted so long is because it has never been nationalized.

Americans have a reputation for not knowing what is beyond their own borders. lol Some Americans are surprised when I tell them I have a microwave - I mean seriously.

That is probably the *******ed stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.

What Americans are you talking to????? I've never known anybody over here who has never heard of a microwave. Sure, maybe if you go to the absolutely poorest part of rural America-but the same could also be true of the hundreds of poverty ridden areas of Eastern Europe! You really think these people are so well traveled? And what about the poor people in your own country, Garza? What about London's permanent homeless population or the poor people scattered throughout rural England, Wales, and Scotland? These people certainly aren't very worldly. And what about all of the millions of people in China that still don't have running water, Garza? Uh huh.

George I'm not trying to get at America for not being understanding about other religions, I am sure you have these sort of things in college, but what about the people that don't go to college?? I was ignorant about other races and cultures until I went to college. I hear an awful lot of "Muhammed/ Buddha is dead and Jesus is alive", which is quite insulting.

Well, Garza, you may not be deliberately trying to bash America but that's all I ever hear you do. I've always been respectful of your country though, in fact I was just over there a year ago. It's a shame you have no respect for Americans, especially ones like me that give your country business and tourism.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I think it is worth noting that why America is so religious and a good portion of these people are fanaticial is ironically BECAUSE of the seperation of church and state.
Churchs do not get any support from the government like they do it Europe, so American churches have to be as aggressive as possible since the birth of America to fill those pews.

No. It's simply that the most devout escaped from the cesspool Europe was and came here. Since no one was killing each other over religious beliefs here (for the most part), the disease of religion wasn't as deadly so it managed to thrive.

Putting it another way, in the United States, people were free to practice any foolishness they cared to, and have as much fun doing it as they pleased. In Europe, people could only practice state authorized foolishnesses.

There's one thing Europe had that we didn't, I'll note.

A Holocaust.

I'm not talking about obscure religions just Christainity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, if their is time maybe Taoism and Confucism. Those are the biggest seven religions in the world.

So? In this country the minority isn't supposed to be discriminated against. There's more than enough wiccans and druids to cause a fuss if their sillinesses were excluded.

Americans have a reputation for not knowing what is beyond their own borders. lol Some Americans are surprised when I tell them I have a microwave - I mean seriously.

That's just typoical chauvinism. Every nation has it. Everyone has a picture of a place from something they've read or seen. Brazil I always think of as a jungle with a huge river. But I also know that a friend of mine has a girlfriend down there getting an ultrasonic treatment for her kidney stones.

Most of the world thinks everyone in the US is a millionaire, too. Goes both ways.

George I'm not trying to get at America for not being understanding about other religions, I am sure you have these sort of things in college, but what about the people that don't go to college?? I was ignorant about other races and cultures until I went to college. I hear an awful lot of "Muhammed/ Buddha is dead and Jesus is alive", which is quite insulting.

You probably have a point, but the problems in American schools should fix first are math incompetency and basic english illiteracy, then increase the quality of science and technical training, and then basic economics and finance.

It's not that our kids are stupid, of course, it's that our schools serve the unions' and the politicians' interests, not the kids'.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

That is probably the *******ed stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.

What Americans are you talking to????? I've never known anybody over here who has never heard of a microwave. Sure, maybe if you go to the absolutely poorest part of rural America-but the same could also be true of the hundreds of poverty ridden areas of Eastern Europe! You really think these people are so well traveled? And what about the poor people in your own country, Garza? What about London's permanent homeless population or the poor people scattered throughout rural England, Wales, and Scotland? These people certainly aren't very worldly. And what about all of the millions of people in China that still don't have running water, Garza? Uh huh.

You're not understanding what he said. It's not that people here don't know what a microwave is, it's that people here don't think of other places as having them.

And people don't have to be well traveled for that, all they have to do is pay attention and use that fatty mass between their ears. So few Americans do either, its scary.



Well, Garza, you may not be deliberately trying to bash America but that's all I ever hear you do. I've always been respectful of your country though, in fact I was just over there a year ago. It's a shame you have no respect for Americans, especially ones like me that give your country business and tourism.[/QUOTE]

 

[GarzaUK]

oh dear it looks like I opened a few wounds with my last post, so let me explain.

Seperation of Church and State, i totally agree with this. And I commend America being the first country to have it! But the reason that Christainity is so healthy in America is because of the seperation of Church and State over the last few century's. Religion has had to battle in America like no other country against the State. Religion has always wanted to be part of politics, the battle between religion and state has produced "Pat Robertson" types who concentrate more on the old testament rather than the teachings of Christ. How many European Pat Robertson's are there, maybe there are a few but they have NO voice and NO audience.

Georgie Boy I've heard these things from people who have been to America recently. One American in Georgia thought Ireland was somewhere in the US. One wasn't amazed that we owned microwaves over here. One thought we lived in thatched cottages like in Braveheart. In this country I know their are kids who couldn't point to London on the map. :roll:

I'm not bashing America, I'm trying to point out America's ills - if you are too blindly patriotic that you can't handle that, it's not my problem. I know my societies ills and accept them, hopefully one day I might be able to change them.
I will say that the average European knows more about the world beyond it's borders than the average American does.

On another topic. My mate said Pat Robertson was a Republican Presidental candidate. Was he?? :shock:

 

[steen]

There's one thing Europe had that we didn't, I'll note.

A Holocaust.

American Indians might beg to differ?

 

[tryreading]

One American in Georgia thought Ireland was somewhere in the US. :

There's a Georgia here?

On another topic. My mate said Pat Robertson was a Republican Presidental candidate. Was he?? :shock:

Yes he was. Thank God he didn't win the primaries.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

American Indians might beg to differ?

They could. Half of 'em are on welfare anyway.

 

[steen]

Well, of the ones who are left, maybe!