The educational standards in today’s public schools are, for the most part, under par when compared with the education received by other students across the world. As a high school senior getting ready for graduation, it amazes me sometimes to hear the utter lack knowledge that many American teens have once you leave the subject of Hollywood.
America has a great heritage of religious expression of every kind in the public and private sector, and this heritage came from generation which were taught in school the values and ideas which religion upholds. The founders of our countries all learned in their schools the values upon which they founded our country, and yet those same schools, by refusing to teach about any kind of religion, now shun the teaching of the morals that made this country great.
When people complain that our society is going downhill morally or ethically, all I can say is, “What else can you expect when the government refuses to let school teach the standard for this morality that they hold so dear?” Until schools start teaching our children about religion, the morals for which it stands and the ideas it represents, than we can expect not only that our kids will be behind others when it comes to a basic understanding of religions, but also that they will continue to stray from the basic morals that make society work.
Any American who has spent much time in parts of the world where Christianity is not the dominant religion have to be impressed, and in turn ashamed, about the breadth of knowledge about basic Judeo-Christian tenets among even moderately educated believers of other faiths.
Many of the millions of non-Western people with a working command of French, English or Spanish, which implies a reasonable exposure to Western culture, can recount the basics of the life of Jesus Christ, and many have at least a glimmer of understanding about the meaning of his death and resurrection.
Would that our own children (and adults!) knew as much about Mohammed, Buddha, Brahman, Confucius, etc., sufficient to converse about them with their adherents as readily as they can with us about Jesus. The world would be a much better, and safer place.
I think teaching comparative religion in school is as vital as teaching music, art and philosophy. Granted many of these subjects have been cut as well, but what a loss. The examples I am reading about what Cahtolics believe is case in point. I am a product of Catholic education from K-12 and have worked 20 years at a Catholic University. I have never been told not to read the Bible, in fact is been encouraged at every level. It is also at these institutions that I have had my best conversations on what others believe and why, and yes athiests and agonstics had free reign to speak as well. It is this very freedom to speak and discuss that makes religious choice (or lack there of)truly a freedom of choice.
No, this should not be mandatory but it should be held as an option. I am in the 9th grade and I feel we should be able to actually pray over our meal before eating if that is what we practice. In some schools across the US they feel that it is inapproprate to pray while in a public school. Although I am very happy to say that at my high school we have 2 clubs that meet once a week, these clubs are called Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and Christian Youth Fellowship (CYF). These two clubs are very active in the school and have many members. I am also doing a research paper on this topic and i need to know all the sides of this debate.
No, this should not be mandatory but it should be held as an option. I am in the 9th grade and I feel we should be able to actually pray over our meal before eating if that is what we practice. In some schools across the US they feel that it is inapproprate to pray while in a public school. Although I am very happy to say that at my high school we have 2 clubs that meet once a week, these clubs are called Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and Christian Youth Fellowship (CYF). These two clubs are very active in the school and have many members. I am also doing a research paper on this topic and i need to know all the sides of this debate.
No, this should not be mandatory but it should be held as an option. I am in the 9th grade and I feel we should be able to actually pray over our meal before eating if that is what we practice. In some schools across the US they feel that it is inapproprate to pray while in a public school. Although I am very happy to say that at my high school we have 2 clubs that meet once a week, these clubs are called Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and Christian Youth Fellowship (CYF). These two clubs are very active in the school and have many members. I am also doing a research paper on this topic and i need to know all the sides of this debate.
Comparative religion, in a strict sense, is valid *elective* subject matter IF it also includes information about Atheism and Freethought, IF all views on religion are treated fairly and neutrally, AND IF it is not advocating a particular cult or pushing of a stealth religious agenda.
However, it seems that 'comparative religion' can be, and has been, used as a beard for the dogmatic xians who are intent on using the public schools as extended ministries and who do not give much of a damn about the finer points of our Constitution.
Follow the money. Who is championing these courses, who is teaching it, and what is the syllabus? Is it fair and neutral? And is Atheism treated dispassionately and as a valid alternative viewpoint with a long and distinguished history of its own?
Anything less is just religion pissing on the Constitution.
So many of the conflicts in the world are based on religion in this day and age, and I think we would be foolish not to educate our children about it. When I was in high school, I took a course on world history that included an objective view of the world's major religions and their belief systems. If we educate our children about all religions without indoctrinating them, we will be moving one step closer to understanding and compassion for others, and perhaps world peace.
What a great idea for preserving our heritage of free religious expression, non-establishment, and pluralism in the public sphere. Such luxuries did not emerge in a vaccuum. They flowed out of a biblical, Christian tradition. Preserving these freedoms requires re-sourcing them.
The de facto establishment of atheism as a state religion through a (politically mandated) religiously sanitized public square has left a brutal trail of heartache and carnage in our recent cultural history. (Talk about "problematic.") Why would we impose this on yet another generation? We can't afford such a wasteful expenditure of cultural and human capital.
Rebuild the cultural supports for pluralism, political freedom, and religious freedom. Teach Bible in the schools. Start yesterday. Let atheists privatize their own faith. They can well afford to pay for their own narrow, freedom-hostile religious indoctrination.
Students in this modern world are constantly
challenged to keep pace with ever evolving technology so adding religion would only help to set us farther behind the developing countries that are now in the lead as per math and science.
What is there to learn about various religions that teach about fairy tale entities.
If religion is to be taught in our school system
it should be done so with an eye to elimination
of all religions thoughout the world.
Organized religion is the cause of this world's
problems not the answer.
Catzie, fearing that "courses in religion [might] include the vicious, violent stories such as in Deuteronomy," wrote that "Catholics are discouraged from reading the Bible themselves for that very reason."
That's hardly the reason. Catholics who became acquainted with the Bible for themselves might come to realize how much of Church doctrine is contra scriptural. I once heard an obviously devoted but troubled Catholic woman struggling to get an explanation from a Catholic "apologist," on a late-night talk show, of why Church doctrine still professes the "perpetual virginity" of Mary--that she remained a virgin not only during the conception of Jesus, but also during his birth, and for the rest of her life--in view of the several Biblical references to Jesus' many brothers and sisters, in particular his brother James. The "apologist" finally cut her off.
There are many other examples. In Hosea 9:1-16, it is clear that the Lord, angry at the Israelites, clearly regards the slaughter of a born child as a more severe punishment that a forced abortion ("miscarrying womb")--which directly contradicts the position of recent popes, that abortion is not merely homicide, but an especially grievous, "aggravated" kind of homicide. There are two other passages (Ex 21:22-23, Num 5:11-13) that clearly show that abortion was not considered homicide at all in Old Testament times; and nothing to support the contrary position, in either the Old or New Testaments.
While popes have styled themselves as the successors of St Peter, the supposed first bishop of Rome, it is clear from the New Testament that if any apostolic figure could be called the first bishop of Rome, it was Paul, not Peter. There is not a shred of credible historical evidence (as distinct from myth) that Peter ever reached Rome; but even if he did, it would have after Paul, who for two years, in the early 60s, was the first known, identifiable head of the Roman Christians community. Peter, on a missionary journey in the eastern Mediterranean, was probably in Babylon (Iraq), from where he wrote 1 Peter.
This is opening a can of worms that I hope will happen.
I am a 2ed generation Unitarian. Try teaching religion to a liberal and there are a lot of us. First religion does not have to have a god. Nor does religion have to have dogma. Nor does religion have to have ridiculous stories that could not possible be. Like the great white bear that brought rain. Or the four corners of the earth.
The Evangelicals will be calling for teachers to be fired if we really had a discussion on religion in the schools. You understand with more knowledge comes enlightenment which begets the disappearance of a god and superstition.
Just remember what happens when some kid in the 1st grade tells the other kids there is no santa claus.
This is opening a can of worms that I hope will happen.
I am a 2ed generation Unitarian. Try teaching religion to a liberal and there are a lot of us. First religion does not have to have a god. Nor does religion have to have dogma. Nor does religion have to have ridiculous stories that could not possible be. Like the great white bear that brought rain. Or the four corners of the earth.
The Evangelicals will be calling for teachers to be fired if we really had a discussion on religion in the schools. You understand with more knowledge comes enlightenment which begets the disappearance of a god and superstition.
Just remember what happens when some kid in the 1st grade tells the other kids there is no santa claus.
Teaching comparative religion in a philosophical sense is fine. However, it must include secularism: atheists, agnostics, humanists for example. Otherwise you are leaving out a significant percentage of the population who do not subscribe to religious beliefs (and who don't grow horns!)
Including the latter would give students the opporunity to debate not only specific religions but the ideas of those who choose not to believe in the supernational - their lives guided by a set of ethics, rather than old religious tracs of debatable origin.
Teaching comparative religion in a philosophical sense is fine. However, it must include secularism: atheists, agnostics, humanists for example. Otherwise you are leaving out a significant percentage of the population who do not subscribe to religious beliefs (and who don't grow horns!)
Including the latter would give students the opporunity to debate not only specific religions but the ideas of those who choose not to believe in the supernational - their lives guided by a set of ethics, rather than old religious tracs of debatable origin.
Unfortunately a lot of the latest comments are garbled on my screen.
Since I don't know if someone else has asked this, I will do it.
Would these courses in religion, in particular about the Bible, include the vicious, violent stories such as in Deuteronomy where God tells the Israelites to go to war, and then when victorious, kill all the POW's, rape all the women and girls, or alternatively, kill all the POW's, and their women and children, and take all their assets.
Would it be possible to discuss the Bible's support of slavery, including Jesus admonition that a slave should obey his master?
Catholics are discouraged from reading the Bible themselves for that very reason.
And how would that fit with the moral values that Christians say the Bible teaches?
I think the kind of courses taught at top state or secular private universities in comparative religion and religious texts as literature would be acceptable. The thing is, this is exactly what the narrow minded right doesn't want. They want their own version of ultimate truth presented as such in schools.
Intellectually honest course work dealing with comparative philosophies in differing religions would help students compare and contrast their varying claims. True literary analysis using the Historical Critical Literary Method and employing source, form, text, and redaction criticisms would expose these so called sacred cannons as the prescientific phenomenological mythologies that they really are. A Philosophy class in Epistomology would allow students to see that claims of personal revelation, papal authority, and even highly sophisticated systematic theologies based on dilectic and syllogistic logic are all inadequate "ways of knowing" Ontology (truth). The Hypothetico-Deductive Model of Scientific Investigation is the only philosophy which has any means by which to actually verify that which one claims to be "true".
So, if one wants indoctrination and proselitization in the classroom, no. If, however, one wants to bring intellectual honesty and freedom of thought as found in high quality collegiate courses in Comparative Religion, Historical Critical Literary Analysis, and Epistomological Analysis, then by all means, bring it on. The thing is, the fundamentalists know they could never survive such a true rigorous examination. They know students would turn away from religion as the lies were exposed, and thus, they would never allow it.
Making electives available to high school students on religion as literature, history of religion(s), comparative religion, etc. is an excellent idea. Mandating any course about religion is, at least implicitly, a forbidden form of establishing religion -- a requirement that students must learn certain things about religion mandated by the state. I can just picture the SOL exam in religious studies now: good luck defining the "right" answers to the standard questions.
"I don't want the government teaching my children how idol worshippers worship their idols"
Well, I might not believe that those idols are holy, but I have no fear of my children knowing that they exist and that some people worship them. I have a strong enough confidence in my faith and the faith of my family that I know it would not be threatened by the mere knowledge of other ideas.
I am terribly sad and puzzled by the assumption that teaching that something exists is akin to indoctrination. I learned that slavery existed without being made to believe that it was right and true. I learned that people in some cultures eat meat from dogs without being forced to eat it myself or believe that it is tasty.
What possible good can it do to shield your children from facts of things that exist in the world? Isn't that the *opposite* of education?
When a public school teacher is teaching, that's the government teaching. And I don't want the government teaching my children how idol worshippers worship their idols, whether those idols are made of wood and bronze and stone, or whether they are intangible concepts like "Blood and Soil" or "Kumbaya."
When you're in the Army, you can live on base or off base. On base, you live in the government's barracks and eat whatever is on the menu in the government mess hall. Off base, you can live in private quarters and eat what you cook yourself, and the government will give you basic allowances to pay for rent and groceries.
Why not do the same for education? If you pick public school for your children, the government will provide the classrooms, textbooks and teachers, and there'll be no indoctrination -- whether from the Vatican, Al-Azhar University, or the Secular Humanist Institute of Theology. If you pick private school, you can choose a Catholic school or a Madrassa or a Yeshiva or a local Darwin Academy, and the government will give you basic allowances to pay for tuition and textbooks.
What's the difference between the Catholic school and the Yeshiva on the one hand, and the Madrassa and the Darwin Academy on the other? The first two teach that Jews are descended from Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah. The second two teach that Jews are the descendants of apes.
What's the difference between government enabling families to choose what to eat and where to live, and enabling families to choose how their children are to be indoctrinated? As long as my children don't have to learn how the idol-worshippers worship their idols, it's no skin off my nose if other parents are getting vouchers for schools where their kids learn to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or the Goddess.
I am a little amazed at the outpouring of religious bigotry that strays so far from the central theme of the original debate. It does however highlight the extreme views that make it impossible to even consider teaching a "Bible Only" class.
The ignorance of our political leaders is their and their advisors, failings. The notion that this nation entered into a conflict in Iraq without understanding the underlying religious divides simply demonstrates once again the short-sightedness of this administrations foreign policy. If one is intent on following a career path to the Foreign Service, it is their responsibility to educate themselves in all facets of the societies they hope to interact with, and that includes the religious aspects as well.
There is nothing wrong with a true comparative religion class. It helps to dispel ignorance and illuminate the fact that most religions are actually more similar than not. There must, however, be a distinct difference between examining broad concepts and actual proselytizing.
There is no place in public schools for mandated courses on any specific belief. If there are, I agree, send in the lawyers!
I was in the second grade when the question of prayer in school was first raised. We were not a particularly religious family (small Texas town and my farther was Greek Orthodox). I was confused because I did not understand the argument. What was the big deal with the morning prayer? The conversation I had with my father has shaped my whole life. He asked me "what would you do is the class prayed to a different god? How would you feel?" As a very shy little girl I saw myself sitting out in the hall every morning while the rest of the class prayed. I knew I would feel like a cast out. This one conversation has made me very tolerant of all other humans and their beliefs.
Having said that - I do not believe any religion belongs in school where the child is still too young to handle being humiliated if they are different. Peer pressure is a powerful thing.
However I do believe world history classes should include the impacts all religions have had on human history - when the children are old enough to grasp the concepts.
The problem with this conversation (which probably started with Georgia's discussion of teaching a Bible class) is that I believe this is just a way for Christian conservatives to get their foot in the door. I do not believe the concept was ever meant to teach about all religions - just Christianity. And that would be wrong.
While unbiased teaching of religions seems like a good idea, I for one would dread a Southern Baptist or a conservative Catholic teaching my children any religion course. There is no way anyone with those or similar religious views could teach an unbiased course. (I was a mostly practicing Catholic for my first 54 years.)
Unbiased teaching of religion sounds like many other ideas: fine in theory but not in practice. This reminds me of a what I read once -- to say that something is fine in theory but not in practice means it is a lousy theory.
I will fight the teaching of religion in public schools with my last breath.
Keep this superstitious idiocy out of the public schools.
The world will be a better place indeed when all the world's religions are where they belong, on the scrapheap of history.
And something from the Peanut Gallery. Osvoldo says: "Morons go by the evolution THEORY"
Is this part of the tolerance religion teaches?
Osvoldo also mentions the soul. Just where exactly in the body does that exist. C'mon moron, tell everyone where the soul is.
My most mind expanding school lesson was a course called "History of Ideas." This history is well and dispassionately related in many histories. History necessarily includes orgins of religions and their main concepts. It also includes other important ideas in the history of influential ideas which have shaped our civiliations and values. Any history of ideas awakens us to the diversity of ideas seriously and widely held. Lack of awareness (ignorance by another name) pits one narrowly educated people against other narrowly educated people and their beliefs. Simply teaching the Bible in our schools only buries another generation in the unworkable notion that the Bible holds the only Truth, counterpart to Wahhabism extremism taught in some Islamic schools.
The majority of Americans are Christian. The Bible is chock full of contradictions (how did Judas die?), unpopular positions (women are to keep quiet in church), and brutality (killing innocents on God's command). A fair study of the Bible in public schools would set of a firestorm.
It is the obligation of public schools to prepare students to become informed and engaged citizens of the United States and members of the world community at large. Religion plays a significant role in national and world events; so to deny students formal religious education, particularly that which teaches the objective phenomenology of major world religions, would leave a large portion of young citizens unprepared to handle and comprehend the vicissitudes and complexities of current events. Public schools would be remiss to deny their students such a critical part of our modern condition.
In sum, schools should teach the objective phenomenology of major world religions. Leave it to other institutions, such as parenthood and churches, to teach the subjective faith-based facets of religion.
No, a separate class for religious learning should be just OPTIONAL. Though it is a good understanding to know about religion, but some people beliefs vary. The only good place to learn religion is local religious houses, priests.
I think comparative religious classes should be mandatory for anyone who believes his or her religious belief is somehow more valid or "true" than any other religious belief.
The quicker this type of person understands that his or her irrationalism is just as crazy as the next version of religious "truth", the better off all of humanity will be.
Read through these discussions and you'll hear teachers and students examples of successful classes “about” religion (i.e., comparative religion) in middle school and high school.
Certainly people's first exposure to religion is usually indoctrination -- and it often stays that way - indoctrination only, via family and religious institution, with no input from the secular educational system. No wonder people are so ignorant about religions and no wonder they confuse indoctrination with education. Most “religious education” IS indoctrination. What a pity. What a disgrace. It has to change soon. Here’s my guess – ultimately the people fighting the hardest against it will be parents who only want indoctrination for their children. Won’t that be a sight! Parents demanding that their children remain ignorant.
The major hurdle is the religious indoctrination most children receive before they hit kindergarten. Whatever their home-taught religion is, it will be seen as "the" religion to follow - all others are evil or poor imitations (that even works its way down to the sectarian level).
Religion is unique in this respect. If any other subject were taught at home before kindergarten - math, science, history, language - one might have a chance of establishing a basis for further learning, for even if people's prejudices are taken into account in discussing those subjects (and aren't the prejudices always based on a person's religion?) there's a decent chance that the basics are neutral. Math is math, science is science, language is language and historical facts are what they are, even if one wants to interpret the facts of history.
Then there is the counter that we all know would be coming, ie: different sects would push their folllowers to instill their sectarian beliefs even more firmly in their children before the public discussion of religion kicked in. What is now - in many cases - a relatively passive indoctrination of religious belief would quickly turn to a radical and unweilding indoctrination. Religion does not abide democracy, in its teachings or its heirarchy (democracy doesn't speak of kings, religion does, and freedom isn't exclusive to democracies). The last thing religions would sanction would be for the public schools to get about the business of dismantling their fairy tales and power structures. Hell, even religious equivalency among the belief systems is an attack that most most religions would not abide, let alone encourage.
I think this question has it backwards. People need to be disencumbered of their fairy tale beliefs first - the rest will get sorted out later. I may not see that in my lifetime, but if the natural order of things is any indicator, religion will eventually go the way of most devices that have outlived their usefulness.
Humanity is better than religion or what our religions allow. How much easier it would be to prove that statement true were religious belief to be eliminated from the equation.
You noted: "in islam we are commanded to extend charity to our neighbors".
Do you live in some fantasy world?? What charity do the the Sunnis extend to their Shiite neighbors? And vice versa? What charity does the the Taliban extend to the women of Afghanistan?
And Mohammed's "care" for his Jewish neighbor? Well documented? Please provide references.
well thats the poit here liberated-
there are no judgements made-
since people come willingly to learn there is no reason to waste time with subjective issues-
there is a mutual respect for all of the religions presented-
thats an interesting thing lib- i was thinking about the time that i spend in my mosque-
and the conversations ihave there- you know politics are really not much of a topic- often there are alot of highly educated immigrants (muslims are the highest educated immigrant group in america) and the conversations generally are community oriented- how we can be more positive forces in serving our own communities-
in islam we are commanded to extend charity to our neighbors- it is one of the 5 pillars of our religion it is that important-
when the Prophet(pbuh) was asked how we should distribute our wealth and what our obligations were-he said- 1)first your nuclear family- then 2)
your extended family and 3) your neighbors.
when asked who our neighbors are he said 7 houses in all 4 directions- in front back and on the sides.
an interesting well documented story is that Muhammad(pbuh) had a next door neighbor who was jewish- every day when he left hishouse his neighbor used to throw waste and garbage on him.
One day his neighbor didnt show up to throw garbage on him.
So he went to the neighbors house and discovered him sick and nursed him back to health-
when the neighbor was healthy again he took shahada (became a muslim).
so there is enough good and beautiful things to find about each religion that there isnt any need to disparage anyone about anything.
sorry your hopes for spreading disinformation and prejudice arent met but there is no place for it among reasonable people
peace lib
One can only hope that you are teaching all the aspects of Islam to your students especially the true history of Islam's foundations. e.g. the Koran was written by warmongering, women-hating scribes who convinced their readers they were somehow in communication with Heaven via some "pretty wingy thingie".
Duckphup,
Thanks for your historical article on Christianity. I think you covered it pretty accurately. It seems consistent with what I have read. It's a pity most Christians are completely ignorant of the history of Christianity.
If it is teaching religious dogma or gravitates under political pressure to teaching any aspect of religion other then e.g. love thy neighbor as thyself, that is the most dangerous thing we can do. It does look like creationism, my opinion just another fairy tale, you're entitled to your own beliefs, has been rejected, but don't worry, it'll try again.
As someone mentioned, look at Islam. Religion and Government in conspiracy brought us 9/11 and the terrible mess the world is in today. Religion moves towards absolutes and absolute power, because it is nothing but 'faith' , or pehaps we might say much of it is fairy tales from writings long ago in an age of ignorance and superstition. Islam is simply a religion that still lives in the middle ages. Lots of Muslims will say that Islam is good, God is good, we are all his people, and there is so much that binds us together, and that is true. Unfortunately, just like the Bible, the Qu'ran can also be used selectively to create fear and hence it's cousin hatred.
I'd like to suggest there is another kind of religious teaching needed in our public schools. It needs to examine 'faith'. It needs to get our children questioning their religion. Does religion support the ten commandments, or does it blind the eye, cause one to check their brain with their coat at the church cloak room? Ony by teaching critical thinking, explaining brainwashing, the history of most religions - usually anything but Godly - will our children be able to go forth and move religions, especially right wing conservative religions, into the sphere of what they should be doing, creating God's Kingdom here on earth. For religions, those that can't change will wither away, for competition for the heart and mind will triumph over all, in time.
I am not sure if this has been brought up yet, because I have been reading the posts for several hours and haven't finished them yet, but here it goes.
Comparative Religion should be tauhgt in schools, and one thing that I think everyone should remember is that FREEDOM is NOT FREE.
When you talk about freedom and say that you will fight for it and that you will sue for it remember what it is. Freedom (I am taking speech right now) is being able to burn a flag in protest. It is being able to scream at the top of your lungs the the Christian GOD is the root of all evil. This is free speach, and I, for one, will die to defend that right for you. Freedom (of Relgion now) is being able to worship SATAN in the middle of a Southern Baptist town on your own property, and everyone know about about it and leave you in peace, physically. As long as your speech or religion does not PHYSICALLY harm anyone or cause an undo panic (like screaming fire in a crowded theater) it should be allowed, no matter what anyone else says. Until you are ready to die to protect the rights of others to insult you and drag your name through the dirt (which people do about the people I work for all the time) don't complain to me about freedom.
It shoudn't be making religion be studied but allowing religion to be studied and understood by all who desire. Children or rather young adults have the choice to choose almost any other subject freely without going to college except religion or God. Why is that? When something believed to be so crucial to their existance why is it kept cloaked in mystery as if it is taboo for them to choose and know about the beliefs concerning God. Allow them the right to be taught and investigate religious belief systems in public school.
Defining religion is more important than teaching religion. Religion need to be defined clearly, scientifically and in a manner that is understandable by general public.
obviously in educating our children we go way beyond simply hard science- we teach literature- social studies- art- music- even history cant be labled as a hard science- we teach other languages to our children- we try to expose them to learning and knowledge in many fields that extend past simple science which is one ofmany subjects taught to provide a holistic adult- with the ability to think critically and even abstractly.
i teach religion to aduls and children- but it is voluntary on their part to be there- and i have a greater leeway in the amount of time spent on individual beliefs-
since cyndy is already doing what is being proposed- and it seems successfully-
i applaud all efforts to teach religion from an objective non-judemental perspective-
we are all experiencing what lack of knowledge about religion can engender-
it is a true mystery to me how one could condone lack of knowledge and fear to comprehension and understanding.
as were constantly bombarded by the media with misinformation on this topic- a little rational education will only foster more tolerance of the 'other' in our kids.
peace
David Taylor :
"A teacher is not going to be knowledgeable enought to effectively teach about the breadth of the worlds religion, nor are they going to be neutral enough not to bias their instruction with the faith to which they adhere. It simply cannot be done. Therefore nothing must be taught.
Our public school systems are not about religion, they are about teaching our children hard facts and hard science and skills to prepare them for adulthood. "
As a teacher of Comparative Religions, I really have to take issue with these comments.
For each belief system my class talks about, we spend the same amount of time (within about 10%), we have the same amount of "points" available in each belief system. I organized my class this way so that the idea of predominance could not be argued. I spend 3 weeks on each religion, we have 2 quizzes, 1 graded class discussion, 1 project, and 2 journals.
My students would love to know what religion I profess; however, they have not been able to discover because not only will I not tell them, but also I know quite a bit about each of them. I have spent a LONG time researching, reading, discussing, and investigating each tradition. (My students are pretty sure I am not some things due to dress, speech, etc -- but even with that they are aware that different divisions follow different guidelines).
How is teaching a student the hard facts about a religion -- how a belief answers general questions about life, death, afterlife, war, etc. -- and asking them to critically think about the scriptures presented without relying on outside information not preparing them for life after school? In order to understand ourselves better, we need to understand how we fit into the world as a whole.
I have never asked my students to BELIEVE something; I ask them to look at the beliefs and explain them in conjunction with the culture and society that holds them. How does the Confucian idea of chun-tzu (superior, learned gentleman) affect the politics and education in China? How is the Taoist idea of "unlearning" operate in a similar society? How are these connected? Is there a connection between knowledge and wisdom?
I support exploring beliefs of all religions, of all spiritual paths, and other ways of viewing the world. I believe we can all be enriched by studying and understanding a variety of viewpoints. We must all explore our own truths and values to live and life rich with meaning and purpose. We must think, question and feel what is right for us. No one knows our truth and what is meaningful to us but ourselves. This self-discovery is an essential part of growing up and being a whole person. The more ideas the better, the more questions the wiser we will be. Rigid thinking and doctrine will never serve humankind as well as an open minded diversity of thought. We are a amazing creations who when free to think and explore can be real forces for positive, compassionate and growthful change on the planet.
religion without revelation???
darwinism evoluted to pragmatism,pragmatism busted into securalism and liberalism,along with the mass refugees who fled and ran from the church,all erected the church of(mighty science and prophet logic)the church and doctrine of( reason age),they say nop to dop(religion),they are no joke every thing has to go thru ((expermental)) every thing under the microscop,every thing on the scientific scale ,even god himself??? it canot be more ignorance than this!
limiting and dwarfing this univers to the lizard hole of (rationalism )is so irrational so unscientific so un realistic so unnatural so misleading.
those who they are so scientific need to use their rational machine in understanding the big huge diference between divine revelation and human (reason).
scholars of religion need to explaain to mankind the termnology of religion,there is no religion without revelation,there is no religion without text book.man kind seriously need to be exposed to the beauty of divine religion.
adults need to work on their ignorance first ,then when they get it togther they can pass it to their childern.
NO WAY. I wonder if people understand the main reason why the Middle East breeds religious fundamentalists and extremists. Well for those that do not seem to understand let me lay it out point blank. A very good example would be that religion (Islam) is has been taught in Saudi Arabian schools as part of the core curriculum... with this integration of religion in schools, young men have been bred as terrorists using religion to justify the fundamentalism and extremism that these schools teach (i.e. 9/ll was caused by these misdirected men). I am not saying that we will automatically breed terrorists and extremists, but this definitely gives room for this kind of negative repercussion. The United States has been founded with the understanding (even in writing) that there is a separation of church and state and integrating religion into a public institution is going against this fundamental law. Maybe next constitution! (in the words of Colbert).
It is the choice of the individual to follow religion. This is a personal path, not required knowledge for every person. Let's practice some reason guys.
We need to really concentrate on the separation of Church and State here in the U.S. But I do not think that anyone could argue if a religion class was an elective, and taught of various religions, their beliefs and history. For many peoples, religion is a large part of their history.
i was enjoying the crafting of constructive ideas and the dialogue- frankly- i get bored when the deconstructors show up- it takes little intelligence to tear down what others have created- be they fairy tales- dogma or belief systems.
Duckphup -- Thanks for the great short course in the Judaic-Christian tradition. While it is both accurate and colorful, I think it needs to be simplified and toned down for public high school use. Don't you? It’s perfect, as is, though for a college elective. I wish I’d had your essay inserted with my high school diploma. I think I would have been ready for it by then.
I have just begun work on a proposed public school course outline for the part of the 'About Religion...' curriculum that would deal with:
"The Abrahamic Death Cults of Desert Monotheism"
Judaism
* Static agrarian societies formed communities which were centers of trade, craft (metalworking, carpentry, stone-working, weaving, ceramics, weapons-making, etc.), agriculture, worship (temples, idol-making, prayer, sacrifice, etc.) and mutual protection.
* Communities typically had 'local' gods and goddesses.
* It was the custom for visitors to 'adopt' and honor the religious practices and gods of the communities in which they (temporarily) dwelt.
* The early Hebrew tribes were essentially peripatetic (wandering) herdsmen... aggressive and militant.
* The Hebrews had no static foundations to support crafts, agriculture and religion. They had to rely on trade with the static communities... albeit, only if they were unable to just rush in and kill all the men in their sleep, rape their women, enslave their children and take their stuff.
* The Hebrews found it inconvenient and annoying that they had to keep changing their religion every time the camped outside of a community for an extended period. They recognized that religion had a cohesive influence on society... but changing all the time to comply with local beliefs made consistency and cohesion impossible. Since they did not have the infrastructure, resources or craft skills to build temples, manufacture idols, etc. (besides... heavy idols were inconvenient things to have to tote around in the desert), they were forced to innovate.
* The Jewish innovation was to invent a god that they could "take with them"... a god that was everywhere (eliminated the need for temples)... a god that eschewed 'graven images' (relieving them of the necessity to tote idols around)... a god that was the one 'true' god, 'above' all the 'local' gods that they encountered in their travels (thus relieving them of the necessity to temporarily adopt local religious customs.) At one point, they even constructed a mobile home for their god to live in ('Ark of the Covenant'), so they could tote him around with them. (We don't need no steenkin' temple... our god lives right here, in this here fancy-lookin' box.")
* The Hebrews had all kinds of tall tales (oral tradition)... 'Paul Bunyan' stories (Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc.) that they made up to white-wash and justify their atrocities, genocide and depredations, to account for the 'deal' they made with their 'god-in-a-box', and lay down some vicious, Puritanical rules of behavior... including specifications for how to very messily slaughter those who did not comply. After a thousand years or so, when some of them finally settled down in communities, and started building things, they decided to compile their oral traditions and write them down. Over the next 800 years or so, they added some other tall tales and poetry, finally ending up with what we now call the 'Old Testament'.
* When they finally did get around to building an actual temple, god supposedly told 'em something like "Aw, shucks... you guys don't need to go doin' sumpthin' like that." But, they went ahead and did it , anyway. It is unclear whether god was pleased or pissed about it.
Christianity
* It came to pass that the Hebrews got their collective butts whipped, on multiple occasions, by multiple oppressors. Eventually, their culture came under the influence of sophisticated thinking from the outside world. The most influential, by far, were the Greeks. Various 'thinkers' in Jewish society, mainly under the influence of the Greek 'Stoic' and 'Cynic' philosophies, sought to update their religious boilerplate. At this same time, the whole region was awash with 'salvation cults' (Attis, Mithras, Tammuz, Osiris and Adonis... among others).
* These cults had consistent thematic elements... suffering hero, virgin birth, son of a deity, ritualistic meal in which the flesh and blood of the god-man is symbolically consumed, scourging, horrible death nailed to a tree, resurrection after 3-days, ascension into heaven, prophesied triumphant return from the great-beyond to destroy his foes and emancipate and redeem his believers... i.e., salvation. These ideas appealed to the Hebrews, since they had been under the thumb of outsiders for a few hundred years, and were danged-well ready for a little 'salvation'... and in a process known as 'midrash', they sought to reinterpret and update scripture, incorporating these new ideas. Thus, they came up with a 'Judaized' version of these new, foreign ideas, inventing a supernatural 'Christ' character as their redeemer. They invented a story-line to go along with it... a story-line which played out in spiritual realms... just like all the other 'salvation cults' of the time; i.e., their 'Christ' character was non-earthly, non-human, and existed only in 'heavenly' realms. In line with the 'modern' thinking, they had to view god as 'transcendent'... and as such, they could not commune with him directly. So, the invented the 'Holy Spirit'... an 'emanation' from the godhead which could serve as an intermediary; sort of like the Greek 'Logos'.
(SIDEBAR: After Christianity had achieved a modicum of success, and the endorsement of the Roman emperor, they set about trying to convert the whole world. When Pagans kept pointing out to early Christian churchmen that their religion was really no different, in detail, from the other 'salvation cults' of the time, they began answering this accusation by acknowledging that the observation was true. Then, they would go on to explain that Satan, in the past, had recognized that Christianity would arise, so he had started all those other salvation cults in order to spread confusion and doubt, when the time was ripe. And his plan would work... unless you Heathen MoFos start having 'faith', and believe in the 'word'... else you will burn in eternal hellfire.)
* Around 40 A.D., Saul of Tarsus (a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin), who had made a recent career out of hounding and persecuting followers of the heretical, blasphemous 'Christ cult', claimed to have a 'vision' on the road to Damascus, wherein the spiritual Christ appeared to him and chastised him for pestering his followers. Saul became a 'believer', changed his name to Paul, and (upon the authority bestowed upon him by virtue of having hallucinated), he changed his career to preacher, and set about to tell everyone who would listen the 'good news' that if they did what he said, Christ would 'save' them.
* The most interesting about Paul's preaching is that absolutely NONE of it has anything to do with the idea that Christ had ever existed as an actual person in recent history. The ONLY thing in his writings that can even be interpreted as possibly having something to do with a real person who existed in recent history, pertains to the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34) and to the crucifixion and resurrection (1 Cor 15)... although there is just as much reason to think that he was referring to mythical events that took place in a spiritual realm, consistent with all of the other 'salvation cults' which were mimicked by the Christ cultists.
* The idea that Jesus Christ was an actual person seems to have emerged near the end of the first century. It is interesting to note that most Christians today think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were members of Jesus' posse... the 'Twelve Apostles'... and that they were actual witnesses to the events that are recounted in their respective 'Gospels'. That idea is quite nonsensical. The first Gospel account (Mark) was written some time after 70 AD. This has been firmly established by biblical historical scholars, based on the fact that it makes reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem... an event that occurred in 70 AD. Mark presents a sketchy outline of the life of Jesus.
* The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written some time after Mark... perhaps even after the beginning of the second century. This is well established by biblical scholars, since they have irrefutably shown that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template, and then fleshed out the story. (Look up 'synoptic gospels'.) They incorporated 'sayings' of Jesus, the source of which is the so-called 'Q-Document'... a compilation of 'wisdom' that was essentially a Judaized version of some elements of the Greek 'Cynic' philosophy. The differences between Matthew and Luke lie mainly in the different ways that they embellished the 'Mark' outline, and the totally different settings and circumstances that they created through which to make the sayings of the 'Q-Document' come out of the mouth of Jesus.
* The Gospel of John was probably written some time after the beginning of the second century. It bears little in common with the other three canonical gospels, beyond the bare outlines of the story.
* The gospels combine 'savior myth' elements (from the extant 'salvation cults') with midrashic elements of old testament scripture; i.e., they cherry-picked old scriptural references and prophecies, and then inserted them as story-elements.
* The entire time span of the 'Life of Jesus' accounted for in the bible (not counting the supposed 40-days that he spent wandering in the wilderness) amounts to no more than 3-weeks.
Ahhh... that's enough. This would take hours, if I keep going. Haven't even gotten to the good stuff, yet, and haven't even begun to touch upon Islam.
Anyway... it would be a real hoot to be a fly-on-the-wall in an evangelical Christian household, when the kiddies came home and said "Hi, Mommy. Hi, Daddy. Guess what I learned in school today!"
Religion should be taught only in courses dealing with religion. Publicly-funded courses on religion should not promote any particular religion and should be taught as a branch of anthropology or history. Courses on religion should be optional.
N DENNY (MARCH 9, 2007 11:59 AM) wrote: "Yes, This Countries Founding Fathers prayed over every decision they made. Your contry needs to wake up and see this. We need to have not just religion but Christianity taught."
ERIC (MARCH 9, 2007 11:01 AM) wrote: "No matter what happens, religion will always be taught in schools. If you remove our good Christian faith that our founding fathers held to you will have atheism by implication and that in itself is a religion."
DEANNA (MARCH 9, 2007 10:26 AM) wrote: "Anyone who has taken and RETAINED American history knows our country's foundation is built on chistian beliefs. I am proud of our ancestors who were brave enough to fight for the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted today. If not for their strong faith we would not have all we do today. What is so terrible about teaching the ten commandments? Our country was far better off when our school teachers did not have to hide their faith. Children were not shooting up their peers when the day started out with prayer."
-- All of you (above) have fallen for the lies that are consistently promulgated by your religious puppet-masters. The US was NOT founded upon Christian beliefs. No... the USA is NOT a Christian nation. Our Founding fathers went to great lengths to assure that would be the case. The 'law of the land' is NOT based on any Christian or biblical doctrine or writings... it is rooted in the secular humanist ideals of the 'Age of Reason', and based on 'The Code of Hammurabi', English Common Law and the constitution of the Iroquois Confederation.
The 'Treaty of Tripoli' (June 7, 1797) specifically states, in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen (Moslems); and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation (Islam), it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams only a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, is taken by constitutional scholars to be a clear and unambiguous declaration of the intent of the founders.
The most influential of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheists. Here are some of their thoughts about Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." ~ Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again: "Christianity... (has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
More Jefferson: "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves... these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
John Adams: "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Also Adams: "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins... and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
Let's hear from James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
MELISSA (MARCH 9, 2007 11:41 AM) wrote: "If you'll remember back in the days of old when schools taught of God and his work things were a whole lot better. You never heard of such crimes, gangs and killings like today. I believe that schools should bring Christianity back because when it was taken away, well just look at todays children and you tell me, "Where are the children today"? It doesn't matter what religion you are, just kowing that there's a higher power and where will you spend eternity."
-- I presume that you are trying to make the point that Christianity is the source of all morality, and that absent the influence of Christianity, immorality will predominate. You need to chew on this for a while:
Christians make up about 75% of the US population and 75% of the US prison population. No big surprise there.
Atheists, on the other hand, make up about 10% of the US population... but they only make up 0.2% of the US prison population. Now, isn't THAT a surprise? That means that atheists are FIFTY (50) times LESS LIKELY to be incarcerated than Christians. Pretty strange, huh, for a group that has no god-given guiding moral principals?
I can only think of two possibilities that might reasonably be said to account for this discrepancy:
1. Atheists are of a higher ethical and moral caliber than Christians, and thus are less prone to do the same kinds of nasty things that land so many Christians in the slammer;
OR,
2. Atheists are, overall, a lot smarter than Christians and thus, they are less likely to get caught in the course of their transgressions.
It's GOT to be one or the other... take your pick. --
DOUGLAS (MARCH 10, 2007 9:30 AM) wrote: "In the USA it is required to pass science classes that require a basic understanding of biology and evolution. While biology rests in factual truths evolution from beginning to end is theory and hypothesis, changed and rewritten more often than any religious documents are translated."
-- Douglas... you do not seem to realize that the Theory of Evolution lies at the core of modern biology, and is the basis for modern biology... and genetics... and paleontology, etc. --
OSVALDO (MARCH 9, 2007 12:47 PM) wrote: "Morons go by the evolution THEORY, pretty lies, big gimmicks and all, truth is they are sitting in the windows of a house with rotten foundation if any at all. How sad that the pittifull situation of the few would serve as a Religious guide for the majority; like it or not.
DEANNA (MARCH 9, 2007 10:26 AM) wrote: "Evolution is a theory. It is not fact. You only believe it because you have faith in the missing pieces. If evolution is taught so should christianity."
-- You are right, Deanna (and others). Evolution is a 'theory', not a 'fact' (something that is indisputably the case). But what you do NOT seem to realize is that in science, 'theories' occupy a higher tier of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution explains the FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time. These observed facts are NOT in dispute, and they are readily evident in the fossil record, biology, genetics, paleontology, etc.... more-so now than they were in Darwin's day.
The theory of evolution identifies two primary mechanisms which ACCOUNT FOR the OBSERVED FACTS:
* genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequencies, over time.
* natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators (Dawkins' excellent phrase).
While the FACTS are not in dispute, there is ongoing conversation about OTHER possible mechanisms which might ALSO account, in part, for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time... ideas such as 'punctuated equilibrium'.
However, the word 'fact' CAN BE applied to evolution in the sense of COMMON USAGE in science... that being:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'." ~ Stephen J. Gould
In THAT sense, 'evolution' is, indeed, 'fact'. --
DEANNA (MARCH 9, 2007 10:26 AM) wrote: "(evolution theory states there were no people during the dinosaur ages, then explain how the cave drawings show pictures of dinosaurs. Who drew them?)"
-- Deanna, that is simply not true. I can only presume that you gathered that misinformation from one of those goofy 'LFJ' (Liars For Jesus) web sited, such as www.answersingenesis.com. You need to find better sources for your information. --
I fear that before introducing religion in the public school curriculum, it whould be necessary to subject roughly half the population to courses remedial reading comprehension. I say this (with dismay) because I have taken note that roughly half of the respondents to this question are quite unable to parse a simple sentence such as "Should teaching ABOUT religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?"
I think that it would be quite useful to teach ABOUT religion in a historical/cultural context... with one caveat: Before subjecting children to courses ABOUT religion, they should have had several years of study on CRITICAL THINKING, and they should be old and mentally mature enough (14+) to parse the information rationally and critically. Imagine, if instead of being indoctrinated (brainwashed?) to believe that the following things are TRUE, children were taught to rationally and critically evaluate...
* a universe in which all that exists are the earth and heaven (Genesis)
* solid 'firmament' structure (the sky) separating the earth from heaven (terrarium earth - Genesis)
* talking snakes (with legs) and donkeys
* shepherd staff turning into an asp
* demons chased out of people and into pigs
* woman magically turning into a pillar of salt
* friendly spirits
* evil spirits
* walking on water
* magically multiplying loaves and fishes
* food falling from the sky
* conception by a ghost
* people raising from the dead
* the sun stopping in its tracks
* parting the sea
* people being bodily sucked up into heaven (which, by the way, lies on the 'other side' of the sky)
* world-wide flood that drowned the earth to a depth of 40 feet above the tallest mountain
* creating people from dust bunnies and ribs
* magical tree of knowledge
* god speaking from a burning bush
* ritual cannibalism, by eating god in the form of a cracker (thank you Sam Harris)
I am amazed to know that over 60% of the population of the USA thinks that there is something wrong with those of us who DON'T believe all of this ridiculous codswallop.
school of live stock.
darwinism+securalism+liberalism=human rusty leaky rotten think tankism who they form and frame the eduction process ,where they faten children and adults for the market consumption,more species for the zoo,more fossil fuel, more sources for energey ,deligent looking for chalenge?you flip the coin,it says in god we trust?
to raise and educate human being you need divine supervision.human vision is so limited,so ignorant,so agressive ,so unjust,so mortal son of mortal.
scholars of religion need to explain to childern as well as adults the big huge difference between what is divine and what is human,who created this world and why he is whorthy of worship and why his guidance is absolutly neccessary in raising and educating human being.
raising and educating and maturing human being is life job.
Dinah wrote:
"It may be more than a coincidence that since the removal of the concept of God from education, the character strengths of our leaders,--the ideals and personal convictions that moved America toward scientific and academic progress,social compatibility and international respect fade,--and take the American Dream with them."
I agree. It might be more than a coincidence. The religious right can't subvert the education system directly by distorting science education because to do that they have to prove that their views are supported by science - which they are not. So instead, they are trying, quite successfully so far, to gain control of the whole country, because in politics, money and propaganda are more effective than truth.
This explains the current US government and why it has no credibility with the rest of the world.
Seperation of Church and State was ascribed to educate the mind in Public Schools without interference from or discrimination of Church doctrine. Conversely, Churches don't teach reading, writing and arthmetic. All American children have the right to be educated without being indoctrinated. For those that want their children to be taught church doctrine in school, you are free to pay for church based education, exclusive of tax payer dollars.
It may be more than a coincidence that since the removal of the concept of God from education, the character strengths of our leaders,--the ideals and personal convictions that moved America toward scientific and academic progress,social compatibility and international respect fade,--and take the American Dream with them.
There is also no question that the bond of the Republican Party to the controlling Christian religious establishment has returned us to an oppressor-oppressed relationship at home, and abroad.
Allegiance to God through personal prayer seems to evoke awareness of behavioral RIGHTS. Realization of entities as equality, truth, freedom, peace, love, personal talent, everlasting life or justice happens only within personal consciousness. The words escape academic definition, and can't be communicated in the usual manner of physical instruction. Stll, at the end of the day, our happiness is entirely dependent on these conscious senses of social exchange. When social focus was on personal character maturation through prayer, environmental and behavioral truths that always existed, came into view; personal talents were released,and direction was toward common welfare!
Where religions must be credited for guiding us to this compatible world within our deepest thought; they do not seem to recognize it as the natural mental component it is. I believe these common ideals are our distinction; separate us from a predator-prey biological existence; move our identity beyond physiological machines; define us as conscious 'beings'. These ideals are everlasting needs; have thrived in the heart of humanity throughout all the eras. Seem to be unlimited conscious energies. Ideals are steadfast natural behavioral laws, so it seems right to continue religious education; otherwise this potential will again be buried under an oppressive mentality.
I believe a mistake has been made by both academic and religious leadership. Academia has focused entirely on the intellectual machine; where our history suggests optimum performance of the machine is dependent on the nature of conscious energy flow. Thought moves the body; and the energy that has moved us forward has flowed from a place deep within personal character. In essence the American difference seems 'a government with potential to release this inner energy'. From the American Revolution to the 20th century, this energy seems almost supernatural; effecting compatible social changes, and introducing truths--despite overwhelming physical obstacles. Truths entered our world from within personal character. Thoughts contrary to the environmentally acquired mind of an era; and a social behavior, contrary to oppressive environmental activity.
Now that we have permeated the surface of our environment, and our thought; it becomes evident that power control is an anomaly in the natural scheme; where each cell has value, matters to the whole, energy flows from the inside out, and all depends on harmonious inter-relationship. That this is a contrast to the deleterious outer motions, could suggest those motions are not original; and that the intrinsic nature reflects a different mind, could exemplify the nature of the mind of its Creator, or God; and that the intrinsic mind is compatible to our nature; could reflect our 'likeness' to that Creator.
Our inner conscious ideals are not acquired through the physical senses. Where theoretic education requires memorization and repetition, and obedience to authoritarian rules; despite the same practice, the primary focus of religious education was personal prayer. What I think is needed is for personal meditation to be a mandatory part of world-wide public education; and to begin at a very early age. And for religions to abandon their primitive oppressive mentality; unite through their 'common soul'; promote not 'charity', where the oppressors aid the oppressed; but common welfare!
Within each person exists a world of justice. It is a contrast to the world created by mankind. The inhibitory factor to justice is power control. A state of justice is dependent on abandonment of oppressive mentality in its entirety. The social world we live in could have been effected by conscious separation from God. Everything in the human mind has a REAL source. The realization of human ideals is not acquired from the physical environment; but from a place deep in thought.
So, I believe it is absolutely vital the concept of God be returned to the classroom. Not through the theory of any religion, but its basic component of personal meditation and prayer. Because since its removal corporate power rapidly consumes all the 'good' that arrived from the heart. A corporation has been given the RIGHTS of a person. Unfortunately it goes without recognition that those rights in America all surround ideals, as integrity, equality and justice; which although these conscious energies are the origins of corporate growth and success; the 'will' of what was believed to be God is abandoned; enabling the oppressive mentality to again dominate. Eventually they will fight each other for supremecy. Every predator eventually succumbs to a greater predator. Predator-prey is a futile system. We should not allow our children to be swept into such a world. A world where not the person; but intellectual and material gain matter!
Human IDEALS are not the property of any religion or government; but are an endowment of nature. Ideals are the road to the conscious environment---the "Heaven on Earth"-- needed by all the people of the world. I feel educators should feel a responsibility to release this compatible world that remains primarily a dream,--continues to exist only in deepest thought.
To receive 'guidance from God through personal prayer' may well be the natural means!
Jerry wrote: "What I find so frustrating about this subject is it is OK for an exchange student from Israel to come here and they discuss the Jewish religion in my daughter's fifth grade class, but it is tabu for my daughter to talk about the Christian faith."
At that age, your daughter is not capable of talking about her 'Christian faith'... all she is capable of discussing is her 'Chrisitan indoctrination'.
Of course schools should teach "about"religion. The subject is called History. American History must teach that our first settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution. This is teaching "about" religion. World History must teach about the Crusades in early centuries. This is not teaching religion; it is teaching historical facts. How in the world can history be taught without these facts? Religion must not be taught in our public schools. There are schools financed by private funds for the purpose of strengthening specific religions, and there are seminaries for the student who wants to pursue the study of a certain religion. I am a Christian who does not understand why we can't keep government, religion and education separate in our society.
Even teaching ABOUT religion, is fraught with pitfalls.
In the public classroom, there would be too great a temptation for zealots to preach religion or teach it in a biased way for, and against particular religions.
In addition, teachers may be tempted to whitewash the negative aspects of religion, such as religious bigotry, willfully ignorant attitudes towards science, and religious tribalism. In front of a classroom of children, would the teacher be willing to talk about the negative aspects of religion also? Or even if bias for/against any religion was removed, would teaching ABOUT religion be reduced to just a pleasant, whitewashed, general advocacy of religion?
Religion is a personal choice and not a state choice. What each person chooses to believe is a personal choice, and should not be influenced by the state. State controlled religion is the outcome.
The choices we make as American's regarding our religius beliefs and our carrer goals and desires should not be combined into one activity. The separation of church and state is infused into our democracy for the pourpose to allow each of us to flower and flourish, independant of anything other than personal choices and personal beliefs.
Religion's will flourish if the teaching of that religion is correct and brings happiness to the people practicing that religion; actual proof of the teaching. It is not the responsibilty of the state to assist specific religion's sustainment or growth due to a a lack of actual proof.
Religion should be taught in religious settings and not in school settings; while educational learning should be encountered in a school setting and not a religious setting; as each system teaches a different set of standard's and value's. American's do not need a one stop standard's shop, because we are too diverse of a people to not think in a broad-minded fashion, and restrict our choices to combined religion and eductaion learning.
In the USA it is required to pass science classes that require a basic understanding of biology and evolution. While biology rests in factual truths evolution from beginning to end is theory and hypothesis, changed and rewritten more often than any religious documents are translated.
I disagree with prayer in our schools, but agree with other posts here that in order for history to be taught with any accuracy religion must be at least in the overview. Japan without the Samurai? Europe without the druids, the rise of Catholisism, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the reformation, the Magna Carta? The middle east without the Pyramids, Ashura, the Hebrew, the Islamic hordes under Mohomaud(spelling?), Saracens without Saliden, the Ottoman Empire? The America's without the Spanish Inquisition,the Jesuit missionaries, the Salem witch hunts, the US constitution (freedom of religion is not a christain thing),the aboriginal slaughtered, the Divine Destiny Manifesto?
We teach to much 'well maybe it happened this way ' and not enough Historical fact. Then again history is tainted by whoever wins the wars.
I have to believe with John Stuart Mill and John Milton that the best way to eliminate error is by confronting it with the truth.
Christianity is egregious nonsense. The only way to destroy its hold on people is for them to be educated about it. They truly know nothing about its lack of historic validation, its gross distortion of truth, its irrationality, its sado-masochism.
But who will teach the truth? How many teachers will have the ability, the knowledge -- and most importantly, the courage -- to tell the truth about religion in general and Christianity in particular?
Yes, I believe that religion should be taught in school. There should be one required class at the High School level that would be similar to a Humanities-type class that gives an insight into early philosophies, Judaism, Christianity, & Islam. This would allow students a greater understanding of others' beliefs as well as allowing them an opportunity to gain some knowledge for their own decision making. Religion is a large part of the world's culture and if it is not taught in bias would be a valuable class for students.
Now I'd prefer that schools only taught the grace of Jesus Christ and his teaching but that would not happen here.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the question.
First of all, the many commenters who want religion taught in public schools as a means to perpetuate their own faith, are misreading the question (I think!). I agree with the majority of commenters who talk about comparitive teaching of religions. That is what the question is asking (I sincerely hope!!!). There is a big difference between TEACHING ABOUT religion versus TEACHING religion, as some of you have aptly pointed out.
Secondly, since I was not educated in the US I don't little about what the curriculum involves. However, in Germany (where I was educated) discussion of religion as a natural extension of world history was always part of the teaching plan. How else can you teach history? I can only hope that this is true for American schools as well. If not the students are not being taught history appropriately.
MICHELLE, my hat off to you. You sound like a good teacher.
"Carolyn Hutchins :
Religion being taught is not the problem. Parents not raising their children and leaving them to raise themselves in a corrupt world, not teaching values and respect just might be a problem. A teacher not being able to discipline students is a MAJOR part in school problems. Children need something or someone to believe in and they WANT someone to SHOW that they care for them.
YES, they should put prayer back in school and the Pledge of Allegiance. This is AMERICA and OUR country was founded on the Pledge and In God We Trust.
The belief of ONE person or even a few should NOT have the power to change a belief that is so powerful (or another way to put It. that the majority of the people believe in). We vote on all sorts of futile issues every year, why not vote on an issue of this caliber? Well, we all know why they don’t let the PEOPLE vote.
People come to AMERICA because of OUR PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE and what it stands for not because of what their beliefs were wherever they lived. They would have stayed put if it was so wonderful.
Sorry for the ramble, this is a very touchy subject. I say put it to a vote! And not just by congress or a small minority. ALL TRUE AMERICANS should have a say in this law."
The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892.
"In God We Trust" is the current national motto of the United States. It was declared as such by an act of Congress in 1956, displacing the existing national motto, E Pluribus Unum.
Carolyn- our country was NOT founded on these two statements, nor will a return to Christian prayer in the schools transport us back to the mythical days of Ozzie and Harriett. And I, a Wiccan, would take great umbrage if anyone tried to force my child to pray to Jesus. My faith is just as precious to me as yours is to you. If tomorrow 95% of America decided they were Wiccan, would it be right to force you or your children to recite the Charge of the Goddess?
Anonymous:
When you talk about "Family Values" one can only assume you are chanting the Republican FoxNews mantra correct? I mean that's what you people do right? And part of that is treating others as you would like to be treated along with all the other stuff including those 10 rule thingys right?
Well one would assume that Newt Gingrich a.k.a. "Mr. Family Values" would be the poster boy for your crap right? Well then we can all assume that ALL biblethumping folks believe that when you are heading up a MOB trying to dispose of a foe you are free to do have sex with whomever you please! So, not only are you acting in a un-christian way by leading a political witch hunt you yourself are breaking one of those 10 rule things you people seem to care so much about.
Religion is a way to control people. Christianity lives by the fact that no one is accountable except the so called sinner in the eyes of some yahoo that has been appointed by some other yahoos as the Grand poo-bah and authority on all things religious (sacred handshakes, rituals and gathering of the cash!) If ever anyone with a mind questions the non-sense, the answer is always, "you must take it on faith."
Case in point, when we left one of the major cities in Iraq (it may have been Falluja) upon the request of the Iraqi government, the local whackjobs (their own version of the Christian right) told the worshipers that they saw "Angels" rising from the dead Iraqis and that those angels "ran the Americans off!" Is this the type of Religion we are talking about?? YES of course it is! If you need to believe in something this ridiculous that bad, you have worse problems than terrorism to worry about.
Sure, and while we're at it lets teach astrology, tarot-card reading, tea-leaf reading and the secrets of the owegee(sic) board.
The only good that could come from teaching religion in school would be if they taught about all the horrific things that have been done in the name of religion.
If anything, people should be taught not to have blind faith in anything ... least of all ... religion!
Let's take a lesson from what's happening in the Middle East where religion is pounded in at an early age.
Actually, people come to the U.S. to escape religious persecution they faced in their homeland. People come to the U.S. because they can easily cross the border to find better work with higher wages than what they can in their homeland. Who would come here because of our Pledge of Allegiance? It's actually kind of dull.
Religion being taught is not the problem. Parents not raising their children and leaving them to raise themselves in a corrupt world, not teaching values and respect just might be a problem. A teacher not being able to discipline students is a MAJOR part in school problems. Children need something or someone to believe in and they WANT someone to SHOW that they care for them.
YES, they should put prayer back in school and the Pledge of Allegiance. This is AMERICA and OUR country was founded on the Pledge and In God We Trust.
The belief of ONE person or even a few should NOT have the power to change a belief that is so powerful (or another way to put It. that the majority of the people believe in). We vote on all sorts of futile issues every year, why not vote on an issue of this caliber? Well, we all know why they don’t let the PEOPLE vote.
People come to AMERICA because of OUR PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE and what it stands for not because of what their beliefs were wherever they lived. They would have stayed put if it was so wonderful.
Sorry for the ramble, this is a very touchy subject. I say put it to a vote! And not just by congress or a small minority. ALL TRUE AMERICANS should have a say in this law.
"Anonymous :
about time we come to our senses and reinstall values and faith in our children. we seem to have forgotten the ties that bind family. respect and humble are good things. they shouldnt be frowned upon. children are falling through the cracks and noone seems to be tieing this to families and faith being pushed aside and considered not as important as it used to be.
ther is nothing wrong with teaching our children to treat your fellow man as you wish to be treated. in this society, we need to install values again to get back on track, otherwise we are going to be lost ones wondering where we went wrong as a whole. to love another is one of the best words of wisdom. respect is almost a thing of the past. it should be the present and future."
Values and treating your fellow human with respect has nothing to do with religion in school. You can teach children good values without it having to be religious. And what is good family values? A mother and father still married and fighting but fighting all the time in front of the children but won't divorce because of their religion? Please don't say all good values have to be religious. That is feeding the othersides arguement that religion is bad. It is not.
I like the idea that religions of all kinds can be taught on a historical, and cultural understanding basis in our public schools as some have already mentioned. Regarding the practicing of faith, I do not have a problem with the fact that this is not taught in our public schools, but I do have a problem when educators feel it is their responsibility to squash it. "We don't talk about Jesus here". "We don't do that here, that is something only for church/synagogue/temple/mosque"... As if it was something really, really, bad. How can I feel that my child will be truly educated when some of their knowledge is censored? As long as these things are forbidden I am forced to send my child to private school, which is unfortunate because their exposure to persons of other faiths and creedos will not be as broad as I would like.
No. If you want to be taught religion along with your ABC's, then go to a christian/muslim/jewish school that incorporates it into their curriculum. There are too many mixtures of faith in public schools.
For many districts in this country, our schools are fighting to keep kids attending and keeping them up to speed in math, english, science, etc. Now they'd have to save their souls as well? Yikes! We also have a hard enough time attracting people to both teaching and the priesthood/faith-based work. I don't see it happening.
about time we come to our senses and reinstall values and faith in our children. we seem to have forgotten the ties that bind family. respect and humble are good things. they shouldnt be frowned upon. children are falling through the cracks and noone seems to be tieing this to families and faith being pushed aside and considered not as important as it used to be.
ther is nothing wrong with teaching our children to treat your fellow man as you wish to be treated. in this society, we need to install values again to get back on track, otherwise we are going to be lost ones wondering where we went wrong as a whole. to love another is one of the best words of wisdom. respect is almost a thing of the past. it should be the present and future.
If religion is taught in school it should only be in advanced AP classes, for possible future college course credit. A student should be allowed to discuss his or her own religious preferences in school without persecution, but should not be taught religion as a general requirment, general requirments should be reserved for Math History and Science. There is plenty of time in college to take religous courses.
"PAT :
Why are we not concerned about teaching mathematics and science?
Our education system is crumbling and we are worried about teaching about religion.
If the United States wants to maintain its competitive advantage over emerging nations, we must focus tangible subject matter.
Keep religion in Sunday school."
Exactly!!!!
"JERRY :
What I find so frustrating about this subject is it is OK for an exchange student from Israel to come here and they discuss the Jewish religion in my daughter's fifth grade class, but it is tabu for my daughter to talk about the Christian faith.
MARCH 9, 2007 3:21 PM"
This is a prime example of why we shouldn’t have religion in school. One religion would be offended when it is not taught.
And to the person that said that school violence it a result of removing mandatory prayer in school and this just ridiculous. It took quite a while for the violence levels in school to rise since mandatory prayer was removed. The rise in violence has nothing to do with that. It is due to bad parenting.
If religion were to be taught in schools, it should be done on a "world religions" basis, not just the dominant religions in our U.S. culture. Further, the studies should include full disclosure of the ravaging of humankind that has occurred in the name of religion, to include that by and within Christianity.
No. If you want to be taught religion along with your ABC's, then go to a christian/muslim/jewish school that incorporates it into their curriculum. There are too many mixtures of faith in public schools.
For many districts in this country, our schools are fighting to keep kids attending and keeping them up to speed in math, english, science, etc. Now they'd have to save their souls as well? Yikes! We also have a hard enough time attracting people to both teaching and the priesthood/faith-based work. I don't see it happening.
I agree with some of those above, religion is a personal matter and should not be mandatorily taught in public school. I would be supportive of elective courses that taught major world religions equally in which comparisons and contrast could be openly discussed. Putting those discussions in the context of world history would be most important also...
Schools should NOT pick and choose which religions they want to teach, but such discussions should be left to students to decide (give them the options and let them choose what they'd like to discuss).
Why are we not concerned about teaching mathematics and science?
Our education system is crumbling and we are worried about teaching about religion.
If the United States wants to maintain its competitive advantage over emerging nations, we must focus tangible subject matter.
Religion certainly should be taught in schools as part of history, literature, art and social studies. It always was taught this way in the past and that's how I learned about Greek mythology. I see no reason not to learn about Christian, Jewish or Islamic mythology in the same manner.
Why are we not concerned about teaching mathematics and science?
Our education system is crumbling and we are worried about teaching about religion.
If the United States wants to maintain its competitive advantage over emerging nations, we must focus tangible subject matter.
What I find so frustrating about this subject is it is OK for an exchange student from Israel to come here and they discuss the Jewish religion in my daughter's fifth grade class, but it is tabu for my daughter to talk about the Christian faith.
Teaching of global religion should be mandatory. Without such historical knowledge one is not educated. It should cover native and indigenous religions, as well as, atheism and agnosticism. The idea that we don't know how to teach religion in an objective manner is just not true. We have mastered that at the university level. Structuring such an objective curriculum in the public school should and can be done in a way that respects everyone with a truthful presentation of all of our diverse religios positions.
Recently, Harvard rejected making religion a mandatory subject for all students at the university level. That simply tells me that Harvard is deciding to forfeit its world leadership role where religion is being used to define world events.
Using a historical and comparative approach is simply part of being educated. No one should be asked to change their beliefs. If it happens, that is up to the individual.
May we become confident enough to expose outselves to the best and worst of world culture!
Religions as well as the Darwin theory should be taught. It is the right of everyone to decide on what they belive based on all the information available. We have enough fanatical people in the world because they have not been properly educated.
RK
Public schools should teach about world religions so students may understand history and the development of societies and cultures.
To force a belief system on children and young adults of course undermines the U.S.Constitution and our freedom.
It appears we still have not learned from history if we still have these issues to debate.It is the threat of American freedom by our current political administration and religious sects that require us to even discuss this in 2007.
Absolutely not in public schools. Doing so would open a door for debate with closeminded, self-righteous people. I'd rather spend my time in more productive pursuits.
As for colleges and universities, religion should be a theme in history and social science courses to demonstrate its influence on international and interpersonal relations - so mandatory, no. Keep mandatory study of religion in religious colleges and universities where it is appreciated most.
RK
Public schools should teach about world religions so students may understand history and the development of societies and cultures.
To force a belief system on children and young adults of course undermines the U.S.Constitution and our freedom.
It appears we still have not learned from history if we still have these issues to debate.It is the threat of American freedom by our current political administration and religious sects that require us to even discuss this in 2007.
There is nothing wrong with offering, as an elective, a class on the various religions of the world. There is, however, something intrinsically wrong in only offering faith-based lessons or only offering lessons on one single religion.
The understanding of religions is integral in the comprehension of writing, art, politics, and society within all the cultures of the world.
Example:To understand the vast majority of Classic English Lit. one must have a basic working knowledge of the Bible. This is not to say that anyone who reads these selected novels need believe in the doctrines of the Bible. As a graduate of English and an amature writer I have made it my duty to understand and study much of the Bible, though I am an athiest.
Any study on the West,Mid East, or the Far East and their political evolution must include basic instruction on the religious doctrines, taboos, and values which were inherent in the birth of all these societal structures.
So long as a public school does not mandate a specific belief structure there is nothing wrong with this form of education, in fact it will serve to only create a more worldly and accepting student.
Example of how not teach a religious doctrine: "You will go to Hell if you covet your neighbors wife."
Example of how to submit the same point: "Under the Judeau/Christian belief structure, it is widely accepted that to covet, to desire in a lustful manner, your neighbor's wife is a sin which will result in eternal punishment lest the sinner be redeemed."
The first was a statement of belief, the second was a factual statement of the way in which a certain religious group practices their belief.
Pretty simple to me.
I understand the temptation to believe that restoring mandatory prayer in schools would do away with school violence. It's part of human nature to feel afraid and powerless when confronted with horrific events such as Columbine and 9/11, and to long for easy, comfortable explanations for such events. I've been guilty of that, too. But I believe that most things in life have no easy, comfortable explanations. In the case of Columbine, prayer wouldn't have stopped Klebold and Harris - one was suffering from severe depression and the other was psychotic.
Theology is an important part of sociology and understanding humans as a whole. It would be wonderful to teach our children about the different faiths. However, to be fair, the instruction would have to include Druidism and Wiccan, Santeria,etc and miscellaneous non Judeo/Christian/Buddan religions. It is important for all people to have a basic understanding of their fellow humans. I received such an education in my college prep program at a public high school and it makes understanding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict,current Islamic terrorism and the current issues in Iraq and all over the world much easier to understand. Had all the people who represent us in government, including the president, had this type of education, they may have made better decisions. I learned about Chalabi in high school and college and on ABC news. Shame Cheney and the Department of Defense did not know anything about the history of crimes and lies associated with this man... 3K+ American lived may have been saved.
No, because in this country, teaching religion really means teaching Christianity. Joe Biblethumper would through an absolute hissy fit if other religions were taught. I still remember what it was like being a non-Christian in a non-Christian area when I was in high school and don't want to allow it to happen to other non-Christians, least not my children.
Public schools should teach about world religions so students may understand history and the development of societies and cultures.
To force a belief system on children and young adults of course undermines the U.S.Constitution and our freedom.
It appears we still have not learned from history if we still have these issues to debate.It is the threat of American freedom by our current political administration and religious sects that require us to even discuss this in 2007.
Religion is a PRIVATE matter and should remain that way. It's fine to teach about how various religions have influenced history and culture, but it is NOT okay to preach that religion in any public forum, whether school, government, or otherwise. If allowed, Christianity would be favored by default, and children who are not Christian (or non-religious) would be singled out and ridiculed -- and not just by the students. Teachers and administrators would discriminate, too.
I don't believe religion should be taught in school. That would infringe upon the rights of the Atheist and Agnostics in this country. It is up to the parents of each child to teach their own child about religion. Take them to church and sunday schools. My public tax dollars should not go to teach a child about any religion. I do not believe in religion and wish that my children will not be taught anything that will undermine the values i instill in my child. Publically funded schools are mandated by the federal and state governments, therefore religion cannot step foot inside. Seperation of church and state goes both ways. The religious right cannot have everything they want. i will not have them via public schools filling my child with the lies of creation, some omnipotent God, people rising from the dead, and burning bushes talking to a man in the desert. All religions are filled with HATE and I will not have my child taught this in school. All religious texts contain tons of prejudice and I prefer that to be taught by the people whom know so much about hate, the churches...let the pros do it...leave public funds out of religious hands....or you can go ahead and teach it....then they should make every religious organization pay taxes....YEAH...make them pay taxes on all the money they have CONNED out of the blindly folowing masses.
Christianity's most important holiday is not Christmas. It's Easter. Christmas is the financial perversion taking over American society during the months of November and December.
World Religions should be taught in schools. I'm a teacher. I want my children to know about the religions that are out there. Do I want them being taught to practice that faith? No. However, denying children access to the source of most conflict in our world today is denying them the cure for the conflict as well.
Do I want to see my child with a Menorah or a copy of the Koran? No. However, I do want my child to know the basic principles behind the major religions of the world.
We should NEVER deny our children education. It just doesn't make sense to force our children to grow up as ignorantly as we have.
They have been teaching religion in schools in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. for centuries and look how great that turned out. What could go wrong?
this is about another subject that i saw but was unable to read, and i would like to know how i can get that information. it was about the first coins being printed without "in God we trust" on it...can someone direct me to a sight that has that information? Also, this country was built on Christian Judaeo ethics. Yes religion should be taught in school if we are to be equal in educating our children in all aspects of religion.
I can see the pros and cons...but I think the cons far outweigh the pros. Raise your hand if you went to a public school that was 100% Christian. Odds are, at a public school, you learned side-by-side with a Catholic, a Jew, etc...this is starting to sound like a bad joke...but my point is this: how would it work? Are you teaching Christianity? Or are you teaching a comprehensive class on world history with an emphasis on world religions? Where would the funding come from? I liked one poster's answer of the community churches...but that would lend a definate bias. Who would teach the class? An overworked, underpaid teacher with an already overwhelming workload? How would objections be handled?
We'll never agree on who is right. I just want to know how it would be handled if it were seriously proposed. I was raised in a small, religious (Mennonite) community; actually, the one enduring the recent bus tragedy, and our elementary school had religious education. The students who participated simply walked across the street to one of the town's many churches. Those who elected not to stayed in the school for independent study. Though it alienated those who stayed behind (me), I didn't have to sit through instruction of something I did not believe in.
I believe it can be handled in a better way than the automatic reaction of religious zealots brainwashing our children. Let it be optional. Give the students who opt-out a better alternative than study hall (maybe they can all suggest a weekly lesson of their own interests or beliefs?). Just let it be a personal choice between the student and his/her family. To each his/her own.
Hell no! I am a 23 year old who has always gone to church, and who tries to believe in what others believe in as well as what I have been taught. I however do not think that religion should be taught within the school ciriculum. It is not the schools place or right to do so. Judging that there is such a diversity of people in the US. It may offend someone who does not believe in the same "idea" And to me that is an infringment of ones own right. They were seperated for a reason, leave it that way. Until you get to college, then you can decide if you want to study religion. Other then college and private schools of the such religion it should not be taught in public schools.
I think it is wonderful to bring religion back to the schools. My daughter currently attends private scholl where she is taught about religion. She is always so happy to learn more and more. i was not raised to be involved in the churh and religion, but I think it is wonderful to see my bright 5 year old want to learn so much more. Maybe if there were more people out there that cared, maybe we would not be having our children killing each other or robbing people for things they have worked very hard for.
I believe religion should be taught in school. But not on a one sided bases and not as a alternative to other forms of science. It should however just be a class based on histories, societies, and beliefs relating to a broad spectrum of different riligions.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? WE ARE FREE TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE...IT'S NOT MANDATORY. EACH FAMILY SHOULD CHOOSE THEIR BELIEFS AND AS THEIR CHILDREN BECOME ADULTS, THEY MAY DECIDE THEIR OWN BELIEFS. THE ONLY RELIGION THAT SHOULD BE ENFORCED SHOULD COME FROM HOME, DEFINATELY NOT SCHOOL!
"Charlie :
In the sense that any religion is a faith-based worldview substantially unprovable by scientific observation, one would have to conclude that religion is already taught in the public schools under the name of Darwinism."
Charlie, you shame the name Charles. Religious moderates--wake up. Your defense of radicals like Charlie allows lies like this to be propagated. Evolution is completely based on piles and piles of observable evidence. It is not a religion, it's called the scientific method. Religion has no place in our school unless is has to do with our history classes, which it does. I believe that the authors might be asking if a church-like religion class should be taught, and the answer is NO. In college, feel free to elect whatever you want to take, but don't force my elementary aged child to take your "How to be a good Christian" class. There's separation of church and state for a reason. If you want to make an effort to bring them together, you can start by giving up your tax-exempt status. Oh, and as far as morals go, why don't you just teach your child those at home. ( Although preliminary studies are showing that evolution has done more to shape our morals than our religion has. Evolution:2, Religion:0 )
Religion should be taught in public school, but only as an anthropology, sociology, or most preferably, a mythology class. No preference should be given to islam, mithraism, hinduism, christianity, or Eddie the Magical Electric Panda. Every tenet of any religion should always be prefaced with "some people believe, despite the lack of observable evidence or scientific modeling, that . . . "
Give me a break.
Until Columbine, school shootings and school violence were simply never reported. I remember going to school where we had silent prayer and religious clubs, where a lot of our teachers didn't fear speaking about their faith.. and yet we had one of the worst school shootings in the area when several kids got into a fight and brought rifles and shotguns to school.
Did it even make the local news? Did it make the local newspaper? No, it was kept completely under wraps.
And how about those private Catholic School high school kids in Virginia who PUBLICALLY harassed a local Jewish School's sports team because they didn't believe in Jesus? Remember these are kids who are going to schools founded on faith and religion yet, in what was supposed to be a friendly sporting contest, they resorted to outright bigotry.
If parents want their children to have religion in their lives, they should teach them at home. There is a distinct danger teaching K-12 religion - whose religion would be taught? Christian? Judiasm? What about Buddhism, Islam and the many other religions? Would ALL religions be covered, or only those who teachers and administrators deem the "correct" one?
Religion has no place in public education, and this is coming from someone who is deeply Catholic. If parents cannot afford to send their kids to religious schools, teach them yourselves! Take them to after school religion classes (i.e. CCD). Don't expect the public school system to do your job! What if parents don't like the way religion is taught in public schools? What then? Would there be an entire set of rules and regulations - time and energy wasted - on how to appropriately teach religion? What a mess this would be if church and state are mixed together.
I'm an atheist but strongly believe that religion should be taught in school. On a sociological base, religion really rules the laws and ways of lives of many.
However, I also believe that the religious curiculum should be more varied. For example the base of the most common religions of the world would inform of the people surrounding us. I would suggest: Christianity (including protestantism), Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and smaller groups such as Shintoism, Wicca etc...
The classes should not try to have debates on who has the "true" religion, but mainly an informative one.
I am intrigued when individuals say they will quit reading a post which quotes the bible. Do you (the quitters) not realise you reveal yourselves as the very bigots you claim to despise? What difference does it make if you want to quote the rig veda,the
diamond sutra or what your spirit animal told you at the last sweat lodge?I find your objections strangely and hatefully religious in their own right.
Question: Before religion and prayer were removed from schools, how many school shootings occured, how many schools had armed security guards walking the halls and metal detectors installed at the doors? I do believe religion(s) teach children to value themselves and others. Believing in a higher power gives you strength to know that you are never alone in this world and you can make it through whatever life throws at you. Unfortunately, some children only have access to support groups that only exist at school.
Is this a serious question? I think our Constitution, and many years of jurisprudence, has already given us an answer. Parents, not schools, should teach their children religion.
As a philosophy, and as it relates to history (which is usually not in a very positive way), and as it relates to the many, many geopolitical problems we face today (very often as a cause of those problems rather than a solution), it should be taught, preferably at the college level. Otherwise, religion has no place in public schools.
Religion should only be taught with perspective being toward the fact that all religions are the roots of all evil.
What's needed is an intensive effort toward building a scientifically based system of intellectual development that would preclude any further development of the religious nonsense being practiced by all of the current "faiths".
Religious faith is pure nonsense, the teaching, of any, simply perpetuates the continuum.
You may as well pray to Michael Jackson . . . nonsense!
To the question. Yes and no. The problem with teaching religion in school, as pointed out many times, is that the personal beliefs of the teacher will show no matter what they do to try and conceal it. Whether your atheist, buddist, or pagan, if you teach about religion, your going to explain yours most. Most times, it is not even concious, or on purpose, but it does happen.
Bear with me for a minute. EX: Schools have decided to make a course on religion available (required or not). Now, when teaching it, who is to decide what religions are taught, and which ones arent. Christanity will be a part of it, thats painfully obvious, but what about when it comes to religions like Wicca and Paganism? If the teacher is Christain, he/she might decide to cut that section down to a day, if at all, and still add their own bias to it because of what they believe. To Wiccans and Pagans, that is not only un-fair, but unjust and wrong. When teaching, what about Satanism? Though it is a very contraversial religion, it is one none the less.
People today just aren't ready to have that kind of access to religion because they could not look past their own beliefs and teach the subject with complete indifference. Even an atheist would make it seem as if he is right by thinking religions are all wrong. We must start to teach our young about different religions and how to not only tolerate, but embrace them as part of what makes this country so great. As for teaching them in schools though, we still have a ways to come, but if we never start trying, nothing will ever be accomplished.
Religion, Yes. Theology, No. Religion is about the underpinning philosophies of most societies in human history. That needs to be a part of everyone's education. Theology is about belief in supreme beings and belongs within one's family educational structure. It is akin to teaching sex education in school. Children need to understand the physical process and the possible outcomes. Parents need to teach the ethics of sexual behavior.
If you want to teach religion to children, are you going to teach them how the Catholics in charge in the Vatican threw out entire books of the Bible? Or how Christianity's major holiday, um..Christmas? is not Jesus' true birthday? Or how Christianity is basically converted pegan rituals? No. Our children would be preached to.
I think that broad of a question is unfair. Of course if you just say "religion" everyone automatically thinks "Christianity." I'm all for religion being taught in an historical context, and giving equal time to all major religions. I'm vehemently against impressionable children being preached to. Leave the teaching of morality to the parents.
PS. Please don't quote scripture. I stop reading your posts when I see that.
Very true, we don't want religion as that is truly man's effort to reach God which he can never do. What we want is a personal, life changing relationship with Jesus Christ, the only one who defeated death, sickness and sin and the only one who came down to us to reach us. No other "god" ever did that. He is the only one and withholding the only way or teaching the deception that we can save ourselves by means of manmade religions is unexcusable. We WILL be held accountable one day, regardless of the fact if we believe or not. It will be too late then...
Would a cancer patient refuse a new medication that may rescue him? Would an alcoholic who lost everything refuse to be rescued? Would a child not want to know his parent loves him? God is our parent, our father, our daddy, our best friend. Would a lost person deny the only Savior and Lord? Most of us do but we all need to know there is a way out. Refusing that love and hope, well, we'll have to live with the consequences for eternity. And that is a VERY long time. However, we should all have the benefit of having that choice.
Of course it's alright, provided it is a course in history of religion. Otherwise it becomes the flavor of the day depending on who is on the school board and how outspoken the local religious zealots are in campaigning for their particular brand of religion. Oh, and the extra work load/extra teachers should be paid for by the local churches who want this, not the general populace. Requirements for this course for the instructors should be a national standard that demonstrates that the teacher has had a full educational background in religion as far back as anthropologists and archaeologists can take us.
i think in colleges and universaties there should already be classes to teach people about other religions. As long as any religion is not being forced onto anyone, people should be able to choose what the want to learn about, religion or other.
In my opinion, Religion should only be taught as it coincides with World History in the K-12 levels of Public Schools. It would be very hard to teach world history, including the westward expansion that led to the colonization of the United States, without being able to teach that "Group X believed Faith Y".
However, that's as far as K-12 public school should ever teach about religion. I would be quite against having electives that teach nothing BUT world religion in a K-12 environment.
Likewise, I'm against the idea of high school religion clubs using K-12 Public School grounds. As an Eagle Scout, I recall a time when all our meetings were allowed to be done in Public Schools. However, due to a large debate between some communities and the BSA about Public Schools and the Boy Scout law of Reverence, Scout Troops were ousted from Public Schools. Why, then, should the same Public School systems who ousted the Boy Scouts (who, if you'll look into their religious emblem program are quite tolerant of any religion, just not tolerant of atheists and agnostics [to my dismay]) think it's OK to use their facilities for extracurricular religion clubs?!
In Public Colleges and Universities, however, where the attendees are legally ADULTS who can choose their own curriculum, I believe we would be remiss to include complete course studies in the major world religions. Again, in Colleges and Universities, students as adults can simply choose (or choose not) to take a course to explore various faiths or to improve their own. This does, of course, come with a caveat: Public Colleges and Universities would not be able to offer studies in ONE religion only. Either they offer course studies in all, or they offer course studies in none.
I'm Buddhist and I'm certainly not offended that we're not teaching middle- and high-schoolers about Bodhisattva or the Dali Llama. I just don't think it would be appropriate if we taught them about him, or Mohammad, or Jesus. Conversely, I'd be DEEPLY concerned if we didn't offer the ability to students of higher education to explore faith simply because they get state or federal dollars.
Personally I am not the biggest fan of religion or ultra religious folk. I find that religion has caused more problems throughout history than good. I think Christian Fundamentalists should be locked up in a large dark room and forgotten.
However, religion exists in the world in many forms and as a society we have to deal with it. I went to both a Catholic grammer/prep school and a Lutheran college. One thing to note is that we were not inundated with religous rhetoric. Yes, we did have the standard Cathlolic religous class in those earlier years; however, we also had many classes teaching us about all other mainstream religions in the world. The final outcome was a general knowlege of other religions/cultures/customs that helped educate us, not convert us.
Therefore, I am in favor of religion taught in schools, not a religous experience of any kind, but rather from a sociological/historical perspective under strict guidlines. It is imperative that students learn about other cultures, religions, and the like. If you look at Islam for example, it is hard to separate the culture from the relgion. Many misunderstandings could have been averted if only people had a clue.
i think in colleges and universaties there should already be classes to teach people about other religions. As long as any religion is not being forced onto anyone, people should be able to choose what the want to learn about, religion or other.
Yes. It should be mandatory to teach children that religions are dangerous cults and instruments of mind control, much like early drug and sex education teaches the dangers associated with those activities.
Major religions' central claims (virgin births, prophet relationships with gods, thunderbolt throwing, reincarnation) should be revealed as false, quaint, modes of thinking of un-evolved humankind. At the very least, religion should have an age of majority, like voting, pornography, and alcohol. I suspect if children were not allowed to be indoctrinated at such young ages, claims of religious truth would evanesce in a generation or two.
The posted question is: "Should teaching about religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?"
I'm not sure what this really means. Religion, of one sort or another, has been a part of the human experience throughout recorded history.
In most history classes you'll find information pertaining to the religious beliefs associated with the historical period and geographical location of whatever subject is being taught.
Religion itself shouldn't be something scholars shy away from. It should simply be presented as the contemporary beliefs of the people who are the topic of the lesson; whether they be ancient Greeks, Norsemen, or Native Americans.
If the original question means to ask whether or not the dominant religious belief (let's say...Christianity) of a particular region on today's map (let's say...the U.S.) should be presented in schools as "fact", or as an "alternative to science" (referring to the creation debate of recent years) then my answer is, without a doubt, a resounding NO!
Religious beliefs, all religious beliefs, have their place in history, and they should be recognized and respected as such.
In today's day and age (to be cliche), I find it appalling that there are those who would like to see their personal religious beliefs (usually defined by geography and an inherent need to believe in magic) taught as the law of the land.
No, because all religions are simply man made inventions. Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and all the rest of these heroes never really existed in real life and are a waste of time. What folks are really worshiping on faith is "The Sun" in the sky, not someone that was ever a real person..
No. Religions are all man made inventions and should not be taught in public schools. Jesus, Buddha, Kristna and all the rest of the heroes that man has worshipped on faith have never existed as real people. They are all personifications of "The Sun" in the sky that has been worshipped for thousands of years. Teach astrology not bogus religions.
Hey Michele: EXCELLENT POST!! (The one from March 9, 2007 1:51 PM.) You especially hit the nail on the head when you say that "They just end up parrotting what they have heard and using the same circular logic to defend that which they have not deeply thought out." That pretty much sums up the way Conservatives AND Liberals debate these days: using the same tired arguments they hear from their suppossed "leaders".... what a joke.
It's good to see that many people do understand that teaching a comparative course in religion is truly a neccesity to be considered and educated person.
As I read through more and more of the comments it amazes how "programmed" some sound. I've heard these same, tired rants for as long as I can remember. Why are so many people threatened by religion or better yet, why do so many people hate religion (especially Christianity)? Please no excuses about how it causes war and prejudices. There are PLENTY of individuals who aren't religious that are hateful, warmongers and are extremely prejudiced.
The entire question is based on a false premise. The question can only be WHAT religion is taught in the classroom.The reflexively egalitarin, enlightenment mish-mash presently offered seems to serve neither the republic nor it's individual citizens very well.
Culture derives from CULTUS-what is believed. We say we are a melting pot but that is no longer true.We are a temporary alliance of misfitted ideologies and peace is not going to last for long.
It is funny to read all those comments from anti-religious people. Seems they are just involved in themselves and have no scope of anything. "I am free to do this and that", "if it feels good ...". Of course it is easy to live with no limits, paramenters or well defined rules. Religion (in my case Christianity) teaches only respect, love, care and commitment. Remember history, all the big cultures since humanity ended the same way we are heading, in selfishness. One day we will all learn to appreciate what we have, the most powerful country that was built on religious believes. Unfortunatelly, that will be too late, and all of those non-believers will be the first ones to pray "Oh god, please help me...".
How can anyone honestly believe that these group of individuals want to educate our children about anything other than christianity?
This boils down to another attempt by christians to spread christianity through our educational system and government.
It's the moral obligation of "good" christians in their own minds to save us all from ourselves. Such arrogance and ignorance should never be tolerated. You have to be disconnected from reality to think that evolution is a myth when a world of facts and information is all around you.
To me this is like someone teaching my children that Santa is real...
I would welcome an unbiased curriculum teaching religion from a cultural standpoint but not if it only provided the last several thousand years and the more popular religions of today like christianity.
We teach nothing about pre-christian religions in our schools such as shamanism, paganism that were global in proportion and were just as significant in humans sociological, cultural and spiritual development.
I can guarantee you that no one would be pushing this idea if it excluded christianity and opted to teach Taoism, Buddism, Shamanism etc.
But this will never be discussed because its not about education it's about christianity.
No. For two reasons. Teachers are already are expected to fill in for parents in today’s society (IE sex ed). We do not need to add more to their workload and parents need to take more responsibility in educating their children. I see this happen one too many times in the library I work. Library employees are expected to be everyone parent. Parents drop off their kids and leave them for hours. The kid’s checkout a book or view something on a website that the parent objects to and the library staff is in the wrong? It is not their responsibility to parent other people’s children. The second is the number of religions that would DESERVE EQUAL representation in the classroom. There is not one religion that has been PROVEN to be the correct religion. On the same note there has not been one religion that has been PROVEN to be the wrong religion. Repressing one religion because someone else believes different then you is wrong. What would happen would be one religion would be forced while others would be briefly discussed or ignored all together. The people who are pushing this are the ones who want their religion and their religion only to be taught. Religion belongs outside the educational system. It is that simple. If this was forced on public schools I would home school or private school my children. What’s next? We teach only the war in Iraq rather than all the other wars? I know that sounds outrageous but if you start with one thing all others situations can happen.
Recently a mission team from my church and a couple of others went to the Philippines for two weeks. They held worship services but also were given access to go into public schools and share the gospel. Sometimes they spoke one on one with students, and sometimes they were allowed to address all students in the school auditorium. Over 5,000 decided to become Christians! That is an incredible number.
While allowing religion to be taught in schools is a controversial subject, I found it sad to think that in the US, where we boast freedom of relgion, these kind of results would never be achievable here in the country that claims to be the most Christian of all. If you tried to gain access to US public schools to proclaim the gospel, the first words you would hear is "separation of church and state". In the mean time millions of children grow up without Christ or without a moral compass.
Yes, please teach religion in Public Schools! I don't understand why this should pose a problem for those who think religion is simply old superstitions that won't go away. If you don't believe in anything, beyond the belief that you are your own master, why even worry about this? Usually those who don't want any form of religion forced down there throats, are usually the strongest advocates for being open minded and letting people live and let live. Surprising how close minded these same folks become when what they believe is challenged. And actually no one is even challenging their beliefs; the idea is that knowledge expands when shared. The more we learn about other religions, the easier it is to empathize and understand what motivates people to do the things they do.
CONFLICTS STEMMING FROM THE DIFFERENT BELIEFS WITHIN THE ORGANIZED RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN AROUND FRO THOUSANDS OF YEARS. THESE CONFLICTS HAVE HAD A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE WORLD. THEY HAVE DETERMINED BORDERS, AND LAWS AND INFLUENCED GOVERNMENTS AND POLITICS. FOR THESE REASONS I THINK IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR KIDS TO LEARN THE BASIC BELIEFS OF ALL MAJOR ORGANIZED RELIGION. I TOOK A WORLD RELIGIONS COURSE IN COLLEGE AT FOUND IT TO BE VERY INTERESTING. I THINK THE BIGGEST REASON PEOPLE DO NOT WANT ALL RELIGIONS TAUGHT IS THAT MORE KIDS WOULD DECIDE NOT TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN FAITH IF THEY FOUND OUT THAT ALL MAJOR RELGIONS BELIEVE IN THE SAME GOD AND THAT THIS ONE GOD HAS DIFFERENT RULES FOR EACH RELIGION.
Yes, please teach religion in Public Schools! I don't understand why this should pose a problem for those who think religion is simply old superstitions that won't go away. If you don't believe in anything, beyond the belief that you are your own master, why even worry about this? Usually those who don't want any form of religion forced down there throats, are usually the strongest advocates for being open minded and letting people live and let live. Surprising how close minded these same folks become when what they believe is challenged. And actually no one is even challenging their beliefs; the idea is that knowledge expands when shared. The more we learn about other religions, the easier it is to empathize and understand what motivates people to do the things they do.
As a teacher it is not religion that should be taught in school, but the respect for religions. No one should feel they are better then someone else because theyare a certain religion. In our school we teach that everyone is of value as a person regardleaa of there ses, religion, or IQ. If more people respected others we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Response to questions addressed to me:
1. I found my content to teach ABOUT the "major" world religions on the internet. I was very careful to teach factual content about what members of particular religions believe and do, never what I, they, or anyone else thinks anyone should believe. I told my students that faith, which they had to define, was a personal matter and in this country, they had the right to believe or not believe anything, provided they acted within our laws.
2. I am in southern Arizona, Sierra Vista and Tucson. Sierra Vista curriculm requires sixth graders to learn world history, in which is included the "major" religions of the world. I taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. I know there are hundreds of others, so I focused on the most common religions.
3. I saw someone had written in the teaching religion is illegal. No, it is not. Avocating a religion is most definately illegal in a public school, but teaching ABOUT religion is not, provided it is in the context of your curiiculm. Teachers must be exceedingly careful when they teach about religion, so as not to cross the line between fact and opinion. I have found that most students are quite interested in what other people believe, and tolerant of beliefs different than their own. I believe that one of the best ways to deepen your belief/opinion on something is to hear and debate against another opinion opposite yours. If children never hear an opposing idea, how can they truly understand their own beliefs/opinions? They just end up parrotting what they have heard and using the same circular logic to defend that which they have not deeply thought out.
Public school is as the name implies: public. Our general populous is composed of many different and diverse faiths and those who do not adhere to a religous doctrine. Religion is a matter of personal choice and opinion, but that opinion has no right to be imposed on others. In teaching kids in a general public school you have to either teach every religion equally, with no bias or predominance of one or another, or teach none at all. The idea that this ideal teach them all approach could work is preposterous. A teacher is not going to be knowledgeable enought to effectively teach about the breadth of the worlds religion, nor are they going to be neutral enough not to bias their instruction with the faith to which they adhere. It simply cannot be done. Therefore nothing must be taught.
Our public school systems are not about religion, they are about teaching our children hard facts and hard science and skills to prepare them for adulthood. Religion is a completely separate and personal matter and should in no way be introduced to a general public school in a way that would influence the children. There are, however, alternatives: private school.
If you want your child to be taught religion along side their usual cirriculum, then send your child to a private school that caters to your belief system. I would never want my child to be taught in a school that teaches any religion, or tries to instill religion into them. Faith is not the perogative of the state to teach my child. It is my perogative. If someone else would like such a thing, then you need to send your child to a private school. That is the answer. People want to talk about "removing God" from our schools - no - it was moved to where it is appropriate: private schools. If you cannot be bothered to teach your children your own lessons on religion, then this is the price you must pay. This indoctrination doesn not belong in the public school.
People like to talk about separation of church and state, but here's what it boils down to: the Constitiution guarantees that the State will not impose an official, standard, state enforced and mandated religion. It provides freedom OF religion, for people to worship and believe as the please; but that also guarantees freedom FROM religion. Just as you are free to believe as you choose, I am free to not beleive, and to not have others faith forced on me or my children. If however you want an institiution to teach religion to your child, then put them in private school.
Public school is as the name implies: public. Our general populous is composed of many different and diverse faiths and those who do not adhere to a religous doctrine. Religion is a matter of personal choice and opinion, but that opinion has no right to be imposed on others. In teaching kids in a general public school you have to either teach every religion equally, with no bias or predominance of one or another, or teach none at all. The idea that this ideal teach them all approach could work is preposterous. A teacher is not going to be knowledgeable enought to effectively teach about the breadth of the worlds religion, nor are they going to be neutral enough not to bias their instruction with the faith to which they adhere. It simply cannot be done. Therefore nothing must be taught.
Our public school systems are not about religion, they are about teaching our children hard facts and hard science and skills to prepare them for adulthood. Religion is a completely separate and personal matter and should in no way be introduced to a general public school in a way that would influence the children. There are, however, alternatives: private school.
If you want your child to be taught religion along side their usual cirriculum, then send your child to a public school that caters to your belief system. I would never want my child to be taught in a school that teaches any religion, or tries to instill religion into them. Faith is not the perogative of the state to teach my child. It is my perogative. If someone else would like such a thing, then you need to send your child to a private school. That is the answer. People want to talk about "removing God" from our schools - no - it was moved to where it is appropriate: private schools. If you cannot be bothered to teach your children your own lessons on religion, then this is the price you must pay. This indoctrination doesn not belong in the public school.
People like to talk about separation of church and state, but here's what it boils down to: the Constitiution guarantees that the State will not impose an official, standard, state enforced and mandated religion. It provides freedom OF religion, for people to worship and believe as the please; but that also guarantees freedom FROM religion. Just as you are free to believe as you choose, I am free to not beleive, and to not have others faith forced on me or my children. If however you want an institiution to teach religion to your child, then put them in private school.
Only a couple of brainless idiots would even ask such a stupid question. Why in the world would you even think of doing something like this? It shouldn't even be a debate.
Organized religion is not the only path available for spiritual expression. There are athiests and agnostics. There are people who have spiritual practices which they do not name or who do not join organized religions. If schools are to teach about religion, they also must teach about non-religious choices. It would be appropriate to offer elective classes for young people who are interested in exploring such issues. However, to be fair, unbiased information about all options should be made available to the students.
Organized religion is not the only path available for spiritual expression. There are athiests and agnostics. There are people who have spiritual practices which they do not name or who do not join organized religions. If schools are to teach about religion, they also must teach about non-religious choices. At the high school level, it would be appropriate to offer elective classes for young people who are interested in exploring such issues. However, to be fair, unbiased information about all options should be made available to the students.
In the sense that any religion is a faith-based worldview substantially unprovable by scientific observation, one would have to conclude that religion is already taught in the public schools under the name of Darwinism.
I think people tend to blow things out of proportion. I think religion as a topic should be taught, but not a specific religion. Teach students what religion is, not a faith to follow. Remember it used to be illegal to teach evolution, now we've made it illegal to teach religion. We as a people are too uptight about topics we don't practice ourselves, but that doesn't mean we should "protect" our kids from them. That's a lack of education.
I agree with the many who have pointed out that the people who push for religion in school mean THEIR religion, primarily, christianity.
Start a campaign in your town to have buddism taught in your schools and see what kind of reaction you get to from the hard-line, right-wing christians.
ABSOLOUTELY! But only, as some have already said, if all religions are taught from a comparative standpoint. I think a lot of the "religion is evil and must not be taught in schools" is based ONLY on the Christian religion. As a Christian, I see no problem with religion being taught in school as their is MUCH wisdom in religion and wisdom is definitely missing from our world today.
ABSOLOUTELY! But only, as some have already said, if all religions are taught from a comparative standpoint. I think a lot of the "religion is evil and must not be taught in schools" is based ONLY on the Christian religion. As a Christian, I see no problem with religion being taught in school as their is MUCH wisdom in religion and wisdom is definitely missing from our world today.
Religion is an important part of our culture and the world's culture, no one can deny that. A well rounded curriculum spanning across all religions would be a good way for our children to learn and respect other religions other than the one they may be practicing at home/religious institution.
Religion is an important part of our culture and the world's culture, no one can deny that. A well rounded curriculum spanning across all religions would be a good way for our children to learn and respect other religions other than the one they may be practicing at home/religious institution.
Of course we should teach religion in public schools. The problems involved in teaching religion in public schools are no different from problems in teaching science or literature. In deciding which sciences to teach and which kinds of literature to teach, standards have to be developed. Just as optics is a valuable science but not generally taught in a high-school physics class, Santeria is a valuable religion historically but one not generally taught in an introductory religion class. We train people (like me) to teach and understand religious studies just as we teach people to understand rhetoric and literature. The problems are no different, but only seem different because many people are already so judgemental about religion. We already have an entire discipline of studying religion called "Religious Studies" at most secular U.S. universities. Why not take advantage of those skilled people and put them to work in the public schools to teach the cross-cultural importance of rituals, symbols and myths? Its a fundamental par of humanistic education. "Religious Literacy" is not optional for a globalized economy. It is a fundamental requirement.
people, stop quoting the bible...it isn't fact. god didn't write it. if you think quoting the bible will give some umph to your argument..i might as well start quoting myspace blogs.
no to religion being taught in public schools. tax-payer dollars fund the institutions.
Ever hear of Sunday School? That's where I learned about religion, and from my parents in our home. That should be more than enough opportunity to learn religion. American children are already at a disadvantage when it comes to education in comparison to most countries in the world. We're sadly lacking in science and math skills. We need more education, but religion should not be in the curriculum. It should be taught in your home, churches, synagogues, Mosques, etc...Lord knows, we need more scientists, doctors and engineers than we need preachers...the latter didn't stop Hurricane Katrina, and the lack of the former has impeded with cleaning up the aftermath!
No, and how many times does issue need to be brought up? ....if you teach one ...you teach them all....but the Christian zealots wouldn't have any of that now would they?
dose anyone rember PASTOR JIM JONES !!!!!!! how about send me your money I WILL SAVE YOUR SOUL . OH BY THE WAY I NEED MILLIONS OF DOLARS FOR MY NEW HOME . CAR'S . BOOZE . CAN'T YOU HELP , Ps. oh yea save the children
In my view, it's important that students be exposed to the fact that society is, in large part, held together by the moral and spiritual values that are a part of religious teachings. I believe that should be taught in such a way that students see the need to develop personal spiritua/moral values. Developing such a curriculum would be a major challenge and, as others have suggested, it would be difficult to hold back the teachers who feel compelled to "save" students by "converting" them to their personal beliefs. I don't believe we can assume that teachers are educated, responsible people who would not do such a thing. I know of educators with advanced degrees who insist on making a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
The problem with teaching religion in schools, is in choosing which religions to teach. Do we just teach the big ones? Islam, Christianity? But shouldn't we include other, less-followed religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Atheism etc...?
See, the problem is, many proponents of teaching religion in schools want their religion taught, but balk when it comes to other beliefs. And if you teach one religion, you have to include, not all, but a fairly good sampling of beliefs other than Christianity.
And how to we guard against teachers who view preach instead of teach religion? It's a slippery slope and I'm not sure we should stand so close to the edge.
firm & resounding NO NO NO!!! Reason being, who will do the teaching and who's book will they use? And what religion specifically will be taught? Baptist? (if so, which one?) Catholic? Weslian? Protistant? Methodist? And what about all the folks of different faiths such as Islam or the Jewish faith? What about Mormon? Or Hindu, or Buddist? And what if you're a Witness? The prospect of teaching religion will just create an environment for bigotry, bias and intolerance...our kids don't need any more reasons to ridicule each other. Faith should be taught at home - PERIOD! If you want your child to have faith taught at school, send them to a religious based school.
It's OK to teach comparative religion as long as students are also taught that religion has caused more war and more deaths than any other historical reason. Place it in perspective.
And, of course, comparative religion should encompass those religions no longer practiced, like the worship of Zeus, to clarify that nonadherents to any one religion are viewed by the adherents as believing in mythology only. That way, the universal basis of religion will be clearer to students.
A person's religion is a big part of who they are and how they act. As shown in Iraq and other places, failure to know something about a person's religion leads to very bad relations, bad decisions, and huge trouble. So I think we should teach comparative religion in school just like we teach history, geography, and biology.
I do not believe in any of the organized religions. I was raised in the RC faith, but no longer practice or believe it. Neither do I believe any of the Christian doctrines as taught by the major religions. As such, I do not want my children subjected, taught, instructed, or in any other way brought in contact with the topic of religion, expecially in a public school where I have NO idea of the viewpoint of the teacher and their prejudices. If accommodations can be made so that my children can be removed from this indoctrination, then I'm fine. If not, I would probably bring a lawsuit to stop the school from teaching my kids their brand of mythology. Lawsuits have stopped sex ed, and they will stop this nonsense.
ONLY if all religions can be taught, from a non-biased, non-judgemental viewpoint, by an educator who has done his/her homework. Religious intolerance and persecution are alive and well today in this country, my friends. Teaching about different spiritual paths in school may be one way of reversing the damage done by people who think that their religion is the only correct one, and who therefore judge others' religions.
Religion should not be preached, but students should be taught about the world's religions. They should be able to explain what the difference is between hinduism and buddhism; between protestant, catholic and orthodox Christianity; and between sunni and shiite Islam, etc. Just as they need to understand the different forms of government and the differing political philosophies, they are not fully prepared if they don't understand religious motivations as well.
The difficulty with this, of course, is that people like the Scientologists, Moonies, and Christian fundamentalists will try to pervert this kind of lesson into a recruiting tactic. I still think it's worth the risk.
all religions need to be taught in all schools at every level. religion has played a major role in our history. jamestown was settled by people leaving england for religious persocution. witches beening condemned in salem ma. how do you teachabout WWII and the Holocust and not teach religion. and the list goes on. and how do you go to war with a country who entire govt. and belief system are solely based on religion, and we know nothing about there religion.
Only comparative world religion should be taught in schools. This is the only legitimate reaso to present religon in school, and at the same time benefit the educational experience.
Prior commentators have stated the situation quite well: There are light years of separation involved in TEACHING ABOUT religion/non-religion/un-religion/anti-religion versus being INDOCTRINATED IN any of these venues. The broad concepts eliminate the potentially offending particulars that prevent total assimilation of knowledge as we comprend it now. It would appear that TEACHING ABOUT various economic theories would generate just as much controversy when being intellectually confused with being INDOCTRINATED IN some specific perspective thereof. Perhaps a critical caveat would be the repeated, rigorous assertion that any set of beliefs (no matter what the subject matter might be) is subject to being hijacked and perverted by any one entity at any given point in time. With respect to "religion" (whatever that is), to expound beyond the basic precepts is to enter a mine field of no return. The first commentator said it well...turn to anthropology/geography for a truly world view.
hell no religion should not be tought in public schools. Church and state should always be kept separate. If you want to learn religion then goto church like every body else. Religion is a choice and should not be tested on because no one know's what religion is right or wrong. It's about taking what you belive to be right and applying it to your life.
I feel it should be taught in school. It should not be preached. All forms of religion should be taught in school. There is nothing wrong with educating the children of today about the diffrnt forms of religion. I wish I knew more about diffrent religions. We know little in this country about the Muslem Faith. With everything going on in that area of the world it would be nice to be more educated about it and all religions.
While I appreciate the idea of teaching an objective comparative religious course in K-12, it can't be done. If science teachers can't teach their courses without religious, and political, pressure to include or exclude material, like evolution or global warming, then what hope is there for objective religious courses.
I took a Philosophy course in high school and with other classes learned to think for myself and make my own choice to go from default-Christian to Atheist and later to real Christianity. So I think teaching kids how to think, in particular about religion, is very advantageous, but unfortunately their parents and teachers aren't mature enough to let it happen.
No. This is our job as parents. This is a subject that any teacher would have a hard time not injecting their own beliefs into, which would fly in the face of what some children are being taught at home. I pay quite a bit of taxes for the local public schools that my son, and in several years twin daughters go to. We all know what religion the majority of teachers would be teaching, and I don't think that is fair to other tax paying Americans of different faiths. Add to the discussion that they will be using valuable time in what many believe, me included, is all mythology.
If they're going to teach about the Bible, they should teach that it advocates sexism, racism, genocide, slavery (or something very close to it), slaughtering children, and religious intolerance. Numbers 31:7-18 is a prime example for a few of these.
They should teach that most of the key stories can be found worded differently in previous works. For example, the Greeks of Jesus' day (assuming there was such a person) believed in many entities that had a heavenly dad and earthly mom.
They should also use the book of Matthew as a counter-example in logic. It is almost full of various kinds of errors: counting, translation, analogy, etc. For example, Matthew cites the OT as saying that a virgin will give birth. That's a mistranslation; it says a young (unmarried?) woman will give birth. He has some error in almost every reference to the OT.
They should also teach that there are variations on much of the "original" text and there is no way to know what the original text said. Read "Misquoting Jesus".
In other words, if they don't gloss over the atrocities, contradictions, and changes, I have nothing against them teaching ABOUT the Bible.
No, but if religion is taught, atheism should also be taught. Everyone should read Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and An Open Letter to a Christian Nation.
The problem with teaching religion in public schools is that the “factual” basis for Christianity and Judaism – where its oldest existent scriptures are located and their age - is not addressed. Christianity and Judaism and the existence of God would be taught as being true.
If the material was taught as being myths, just as the ancient Roman and Greek religions are taught as being myths, then it would fine, but that is not very likely to happen. We are even having difficulty teaching evolution in our science classes because it challenges the Christian view that Jesus came to redeem us from the original sin of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. Evidently, these Christians are more enamored with preserving their faith than with knowledge. If religion had to be taught in public schools, these battles would be intensified and would be very destructive to whatever social harmony we are still able to maintain.
Until everyone agrees that knowledge gained by objective scientific investigation proves that we are here due to natural selection via a long evolutionary process, and is more reliable than faith in scriptures of unknown authorship and authenticity, we should keep religion out of our public schools.
No, please. I am religious myself and I enjoy my religion, but it has no place in the public schools. School is for teaching kids the knowledge they need to be good, functioning citizens of a state that exists as a political entity-- not a religious "nation" with codes of law interpreted by religious ministers. Religion and the like are for the home or "religious institution of choice" environment.
The school curriculum is crowded enough already without having to make room for one more thing. Get back on track with reading & writing, math, science, and civics.
As H. L. Mencken quite correctly said, "Religion is the greatest fomenter of hatred in the history of mankind." Even a passing glance at Europe's bloody history supports that assertion. The moment we let religion into the public classroom, the wrangling begins: Whose interpretation? Whose text? Whose analysis? Why take the first step down this treacherous path when the teachings of all religions are freely available in safer contexts throughout our great land? Our ancestors escaped religious persecution; is it our destiny to rekindle it? God save us from the well-intentioned zealots. Civilization is a thin veneer. It was not so long ago that French Catholics and Protestants were throwing each other's babies into roaring bonfires... or that religious terrorism gripped Ireland. Religion is a private matter. Let's not put ourselves in the position of force-feeding our deepest beliefs to others. If America is to remain a haven for democracy, free thought and open religious activity, religion should be kept in our hearts and in our churches but out of our public schools! Let's not encroach on the very freedoms that make us a nation of one -- a nation that will endure because we adhere to our founding principles. ###
If religion become mandatory in public schools I will pick up my family and move out of this country. That would be a very sad day for this country and would most likely start moving us into a direction similar to one in the middle ages. Next thing you know they will have hangings in Union Sqare for heresy. Our founding fathers started a government based on separation between church and state. They where trying to escape this. Oh, and to James there is a difference between learning about religions around the world and a bible study in class. One is pushing a philosophy on you the other is just education related to understanding history and culture around the world. Which America is slowly writing one of imperalism, war, and distruction all in the name of Jesus? Go see the movie Jesus Camp. That is 25% of our population right there.
Religion should certainly be a subject in school from a historical or humanities context. If, for example, one is in class learning about the middle east, it would be pertinent to learn a little somehting about the Islamic faith since it dominates so much of their culture. The same for Christian religion. Such things have a deep historical impact, evertything from a Roman Emporer declaring the christian faith as the state religion to the selling of indulgences and the papacy being the main political power back in the day.
However, religion should not be taught in schools in regards to theological studies. When people say "Should religion be taught in school" they really mean should christian religion be taught. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian myself and attend church most weekends along with my wife. However, the place to learn your chosen religion is in church. Public school should not be a place for such things. That is not the purpose of school. School is for learning the knowledges you need for life: Science, Mathematics, Literature, History, Languages, etc. Your moral upbringing and your faith should come from your family and from your church upbringing.
Trying to foist it into the public schools is just an excuse to make someone else do the work of raising a child.
There definitely is a great need for moral values to be taught at any school at any time. Waiting for everyone's approval hinders every humans need and right to nourish the soul. The mere fact that we can reflect upon these issues, ponder these spiritual thoughts is a vindication that we are created in God's own image. Every great structure needs a solid foundation weather that be the physical universe, the tallest building in the world or Wall Street's best offerings. The same goes for the family and society as a whole. Morons go by the evolution THEORY, pretty lies, big gimmicks and all, truth is they are sitting in the windows of a house with rotten foundation if any at all. How sad that the pittifull situation of the few would serve as a Religious guide for the majority; like it or not. The wisest man that ever lived (no, it wasn't Solomon) once said: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Both will tumble into a pit, will they not?" (Luke 6:39;Rbi8) Believe 2Pt3:13
Should teaching about religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?
An interesting question--but no doubt everyone will agree that the question could not even have been framed if the questioners were not from a society that has something of a higher perspective from which a person can compare and contrast religions.
The question is really what we mean by teaching of religion and whether this means a continued comparison and contrast or a collapse back into undue influence and control by religion...and the latter should not be taken as a distant possibility.
In fact my belief is that there really is no such thing as education and it is far more likely a person will be broken down and destroyed mentally in some collective rather than be truly educated and independent...
Every sort of collective weighs on a person whether it be religious or the political party sort. How are we going to honestly teach about religion in America if people cannot even truly be honest and compare and contrast the Republican and Democratic political parties? Or is it more human and intelligent to be partisan with regard to political parties?
I doubt it...Once again, I really have no belief in education--I doubt the concept, the possibility there is such a thing. I stand on the side of genetics. Our educational system claims to be able to elevate and mold people but the truth is the standards are such to disguise the fact the system really makes nothing of the lower 20% of people and certainly cannot claim responsibility for having created the gifted. In short, the standards are firmly set in the middle and the relationship of teacher to student amounts to the average having a conversation with itself.
There is no such thing as education. A person cannot really be made into anything he is genetically incapable of becoming. All we call reason was born of exception. And that a society can bring itself to such a position as to ask whether religion can be taught in school--and I assume compare and contrast and be informed by reason--is by society having achieved a critical mass of intelligent people.
Furthermore, the question posed makes sense only if society has something of a historical, philosophical sense by which it is firmly time-oriented and is not a geographical location subjected to the whims of mixing and matching peoples and views of the world which defeat the time sense.
Society has to be something of a machine which processes people in the direction of reason and constantly picks from among its citizens those who can increase and reinforce this project--and that in itself is arguably more difficult than any present religion...
My belief is teaching religion in schools makes sense only if we have the contrast of genetics, evolution, and constant respect for the gifted in place--otherwise religion just creeps back in schools...
But to emphasize the above and create an environment in which religions will be compared and contrasted and not prove a detriment to schools is to become ruthless in selecting the best minds and to move all of time and history onto the track of man making himself apart from all religions so far--and is to come into conflict with all political parties so far.
I really see no easy answer. And if people say I am absurd for suggesting there is no such thing as education, all I can say is study the characteristics of the gifted...it is well known they have an increased capacity to educate themselves...Imagine if all of society had I.Q.s above 120...would we even have the family and educational system of today? Would we not instead have a rapid integration with workplace, something of apprenticeship rapidly leading to mastery?
The goal really is the integrative society, the one in which the immigrant experience is constantly overcome in superior synthesis. This means decline of ethnic groups, religions, etc. and the elevation of caliber people. Emigration from respective inferior countries not to a superior which welcomes us as immigrants but emigration to a superior social method and ultimately a superior state of mind.
If all this and so much more is not taken into consideration then it is folly to introduce religon into schools.
If religion become mandatory in public schools I will pick up my family and move out of this country. That would be a very sad day for this country and would most likely start moving us into a direction similar to one in the middle ages. Next thing you know they will have hangings in Union Sqare for heresy. Our founding fathers started a government based on separation between church and state. They where trying to escape this.
Absolutely NOT! Religion is a belief, you can't 'teach' beliefs, you can only 'preach' it and that belongs in a church. Teaching religion, let's say christianity, would they also dissect the bible for all it's flaws, inaccuracies and expose it for the fiction that it is? Will they teach all religions in the same class so that close minded believers of one faith can be taught that others believe in something completely different and that no one's belief is more true than the others? Will Atheism also be taught so that does who were brainwashed into believing only because they were taught such beliefs can then open their mind to the world of science? ANd try to imagine that factual evidence, and not fictional stories can better help them understand their place in this life? Finding piece within and around you does not take a religion or a god to achieve.
How about classes in anthropology instead? Most are very objective, and I've attended many college courses that studied different religions, how they came about, and how they may have failed.
Also, I found anthropology did a great job of teaching people about other cultures and societies. Understanding fosters tolerance.
HELL NO!!!! Organized religion is for the weakest of the weak. Let kids grow up and they can decide if that what they want. More than likely, it's their parents that forcing the fantastic fiction on them in the first place and they should not be allowed to force it on others.
Has anyone ever heard of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
A class in comparative religion is a great idea. A class that would not advocate any one religion, but one that would teach the similarities, differences, and each religion's view of creation. Included should be such things as the top 10 or 15 most popular religions as well as humanism. Atheism and agnosticism too.
Not forgotten should be the role that religion played in the dark ages.
It would be a great way to educate our children to the fact that not everyone believes the same way. Not that any way is right or wrong, but that others believe differently. Then they can choose to accept that fact or not.
There definitely is a great need for moral values to be taught at any school at any time. Waiting for everyone's approval hinders every humans need and right to nourish the soul. The mere fact that we can reflect upon these issues, ponder these spiritual thoughts is a vindication that we are created in God's own image. Every great structure needs a solid foundation weather that be the physical universe, the tallest building in the world or Wall Street's best offerings. The same goes for the family and society as a whole. Morons go by the evolution THEORY, pretty lies, big gimmicks and all, truth is they are sitting in the windows of a house with rotten foundation if any at all. How sad that the pittifull situation of the few would serve as a Religious guide for the majority; like it or not. The wisest man that ever lived (no, it wasn't Solomon) once said: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Both will tumble into a pit, will they not?" (Luke 6:39;Rbi8) Believe 2Pt3:13
Religion is nothing more than old school politics. It's a means of controlling the masses. The only purpose for teaching it in schools would be to brainwash children to create a society of similarly thinking and acting, subservient people.
There's a reason our founders put separation of church and state in the constitution. It was not a whim! Religion has killed and destroyed many things, and they knew this. So why do we question it now?
Religion can be a find thing, in context. But it has no place in schools. Let children learn it outside of school.
Religion = Murder? Matt, get some therapy. Really.
Ignorance is never good and it should never be the business of our schools. An understanding of the belief systems that have shaped our society and continue to shape world events is critical if we are to have an educated electorate. Though this topic sounds more like an elective than a mandatory course . . .
I agree with the writer that religion paired with economics are the two strongest forces shaping the political world. And when religion and economics are joined - look out! !
The only way would be to teach comparative religions and to include agnostic, aethism, and pagan wiccan religions not just "organized" religions. Attempt to do that and the religious right would go nuts. They need several hours meditation on the phrase "Be careful what you wish for."
I am a religious person who believes that religion should be taught in schools. But I don't believe that scripture should be taught in schools. Lets leave that to personal study and private prayer to determine the truth. I see nothing wriong with teaching religious beliefs in schools, but all to often, religious discussion becomes religious contention, which is not helpful at all
As a Christian, I say religion should not be taught in public schools. Religion, and good morals and values, should be taught at home. We dont' "shove" Christianity down our child's throat because we do our best to live our religious convictions all the time, not just on Sunday. Poorly behaved children are a reflection of level of stubborness and poor parenting, not lack of exposure to religion.
You might say that I hope my child practices his religion all the time, not just at school, in his behavior towards others, but he doesn't need to waste valuable time in school learning religion. Just as I wouldn't want to waste my valuable time teaching Algebra to him. And so far his willingness to discuss Jesus and God in the classroom has lead to great conversations with his Jewish teacher, who is unable to discuss religion unless the children bring it up. He's learned a lot about shared values and new traditions. So for those who want more religion in school, ask yourself if you're teaching your child to live- actually live- their religion every way, every day. Because when the example is set, they will follow, and you will have religion in school. Every way, every day.
And if each of the children from different religions did so, rather than feel that they have to hide any difference or be smothered by the majority (not very Christianly, at least), then what a richer society we would live in. Without having to worry about the legality of the issue.
Tolerance needs to be taught before we even consider teaching religion.
HELL NO!!!! Organized religion is for the weakest of the weak. Let kids grow up and they can decide if that what they want. More than likely, it's their parents that forcing the fantastic fiction on them in the first place and they should be allowed to force it on others.
Has anyone ever heard of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
Religion has always been a problem. Stemming all the way back to Jesus’ time on earth. His biggest problem was the well respected religious LEADERS, as incredible as that might sound.
So no, do not teach about religion with all its rules and regulations. If we are serious about protecting the future, and not just interested in adding some subject to the curriculum which undoubtedly will induce strife and division, then it is imperative to teach about RELATIONSHIP. i.e. relationship with ou
RSS Feed
The educational standards in today’s public schools are, for the most part, under par when compared with the education received by other students across the world. As a high school senior getting ready for graduation, it amazes me sometimes to hear the utter lack knowledge that many American teens have once you leave the subject of Hollywood.
America has a great heritage of religious expression of every kind in the public and private sector, and this heritage came from generation which were taught in school the values and ideas which religion upholds. The founders of our countries all learned in their schools the values upon which they founded our country, and yet those same schools, by refusing to teach about any kind of religion, now shun the teaching of the morals that made this country great.
When people complain that our society is going downhill morally or ethically, all I can say is, “What else can you expect when the government refuses to let school teach the standard for this morality that they hold so dear?” Until schools start teaching our children about religion, the morals for which it stands and the ideas it represents, than we can expect not only that our kids will be behind others when it comes to a basic understanding of religions, but also that they will continue to stray from the basic morals that make society work.
April 4, 2008 9:22 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Any American who has spent much time in parts of the world where Christianity is not the dominant religion have to be impressed, and in turn ashamed, about the breadth of knowledge about basic Judeo-Christian tenets among even moderately educated believers of other faiths.
Many of the millions of non-Western people with a working command of French, English or Spanish, which implies a reasonable exposure to Western culture, can recount the basics of the life of Jesus Christ, and many have at least a glimmer of understanding about the meaning of his death and resurrection.
Would that our own children (and adults!) knew as much about Mohammed, Buddha, Brahman, Confucius, etc., sufficient to converse about them with their adherents as readily as they can with us about Jesus. The world would be a much better, and safer place.
November 29, 2007 10:59 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I think teaching comparative religion in school is as vital as teaching music, art and philosophy. Granted many of these subjects have been cut as well, but what a loss. The examples I am reading about what Cahtolics believe is case in point. I am a product of Catholic education from K-12 and have worked 20 years at a Catholic University. I have never been told not to read the Bible, in fact is been encouraged at every level. It is also at these institutions that I have had my best conversations on what others believe and why, and yes athiests and agonstics had free reign to speak as well. It is this very freedom to speak and discuss that makes religious choice (or lack there of)truly a freedom of choice.
November 28, 2007 9:30 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, this should not be mandatory but it should be held as an option. I am in the 9th grade and I feel we should be able to actually pray over our meal before eating if that is what we practice. In some schools across the US they feel that it is inapproprate to pray while in a public school. Although I am very happy to say that at my high school we have 2 clubs that meet once a week, these clubs are called Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and Christian Youth Fellowship (CYF). These two clubs are very active in the school and have many members. I am also doing a research paper on this topic and i need to know all the sides of this debate.
Thanks, Emily
November 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, this should not be mandatory but it should be held as an option. I am in the 9th grade and I feel we should be able to actually pray over our meal before eating if that is what we practice. In some schools across the US they feel that it is inapproprate to pray while in a public school. Although I am very happy to say that at my high school we have 2 clubs that meet once a week, these clubs are called Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and Christian Youth Fellowship (CYF). These two clubs are very active in the school and have many members. I am also doing a research paper on this topic and i need to know all the sides of this debate.
Thanks, Emily
November 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, this should not be mandatory but it should be held as an option. I am in the 9th grade and I feel we should be able to actually pray over our meal before eating if that is what we practice. In some schools across the US they feel that it is inapproprate to pray while in a public school. Although I am very happy to say that at my high school we have 2 clubs that meet once a week, these clubs are called Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and Christian Youth Fellowship (CYF). These two clubs are very active in the school and have many members. I am also doing a research paper on this topic and i need to know all the sides of this debate.
Thanks, Emily
November 28, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
no
November 11, 2007 7:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
dzust hbpdjqg suibqxc tqeui cnauo zaogmilk ufmnlbcqy [URL=http://www.nswxqivec.fnsweudaz.com]zowbus abzut[/URL]
July 6, 2007 2:28 AM | Report Offensive Comment
dzust hbpdjqg suibqxc tqeui cnauo zaogmilk ufmnlbcqy [URL=http://www.nswxqivec.fnsweudaz.com]zowbus abzut[/URL]
July 6, 2007 2:27 AM | Report Offensive Comment
dzust hbpdjqg suibqxc tqeui cnauo zaogmilk ufmnlbcqy [URL=http://www.nswxqivec.fnsweudaz.com]zowbus abzut[/URL]
July 6, 2007 2:26 AM | Report Offensive Comment
dzust hbpdjqg suibqxc tqeui cnauo zaogmilk ufmnlbcqy [URL=http://www.nswxqivec.fnsweudaz.com]zowbus abzut[/URL]
July 6, 2007 2:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
iogtd volrt xjiv cdykh zbdjxsemc xzhabw hxwbv sovez nrmxdyjb
July 6, 2007 2:23 AM | Report Offensive Comment
iogtd volrt xjiv cdykh zbdjxsemc xzhabw hxwbv sovez nrmxdyjb
July 6, 2007 2:22 AM | Report Offensive Comment
iogtd volrt xjiv cdykh zbdjxsemc xzhabw hxwbv sovez nrmxdyjb
July 6, 2007 2:21 AM | Report Offensive Comment
mcworixfv cdskjm jadrz csax ilmhxtpou vnrac xspjzfg http://www.mfuibsvce.lyijw.com
July 6, 2007 2:19 AM | Report Offensive Comment
mcworixfv cdskjm jadrz csax ilmhxtpou vnrac xspjzfg http://www.mfuibsvce.lyijw.com
July 6, 2007 2:17 AM | Report Offensive Comment
vptqgd ikelcwuqs kzqsjuadl wpsmey luvcf bwreu yxhwgtru
July 6, 2007 2:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Comparative religion, in a strict sense, is valid *elective* subject matter IF it also includes information about Atheism and Freethought, IF all views on religion are treated fairly and neutrally, AND IF it is not advocating a particular cult or pushing of a stealth religious agenda.
However, it seems that 'comparative religion' can be, and has been, used as a beard for the dogmatic xians who are intent on using the public schools as extended ministries and who do not give much of a damn about the finer points of our Constitution.
Follow the money. Who is championing these courses, who is teaching it, and what is the syllabus? Is it fair and neutral? And is Atheism treated dispassionately and as a valid alternative viewpoint with a long and distinguished history of its own?
Anything less is just religion pissing on the Constitution.
April 19, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
So many of the conflicts in the world are based on religion in this day and age, and I think we would be foolish not to educate our children about it. When I was in high school, I took a course on world history that included an objective view of the world's major religions and their belief systems. If we educate our children about all religions without indoctrinating them, we will be moving one step closer to understanding and compassion for others, and perhaps world peace.
March 27, 2007 6:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
What a great idea for preserving our heritage of free religious expression, non-establishment, and pluralism in the public sphere. Such luxuries did not emerge in a vaccuum. They flowed out of a biblical, Christian tradition. Preserving these freedoms requires re-sourcing them.
The de facto establishment of atheism as a state religion through a (politically mandated) religiously sanitized public square has left a brutal trail of heartache and carnage in our recent cultural history. (Talk about "problematic.") Why would we impose this on yet another generation? We can't afford such a wasteful expenditure of cultural and human capital.
Rebuild the cultural supports for pluralism, political freedom, and religious freedom. Teach Bible in the schools. Start yesterday. Let atheists privatize their own faith. They can well afford to pay for their own narrow, freedom-hostile religious indoctrination.
March 22, 2007 11:50 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i hate all u possers
March 20, 2007 12:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Students in this modern world are constantly
challenged to keep pace with ever evolving technology so adding religion would only help to set us farther behind the developing countries that are now in the lead as per math and science.
What is there to learn about various religions that teach about fairy tale entities.
If religion is to be taught in our school system
it should be done so with an eye to elimination
of all religions thoughout the world.
Organized religion is the cause of this world's
problems not the answer.
March 18, 2007 11:34 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Catzie, fearing that "courses in religion [might] include the vicious, violent stories such as in Deuteronomy," wrote that "Catholics are discouraged from reading the Bible themselves for that very reason."
That's hardly the reason. Catholics who became acquainted with the Bible for themselves might come to realize how much of Church doctrine is contra scriptural. I once heard an obviously devoted but troubled Catholic woman struggling to get an explanation from a Catholic "apologist," on a late-night talk show, of why Church doctrine still professes the "perpetual virginity" of Mary--that she remained a virgin not only during the conception of Jesus, but also during his birth, and for the rest of her life--in view of the several Biblical references to Jesus' many brothers and sisters, in particular his brother James. The "apologist" finally cut her off.
There are many other examples. In Hosea 9:1-16, it is clear that the Lord, angry at the Israelites, clearly regards the slaughter of a born child as a more severe punishment that a forced abortion ("miscarrying womb")--which directly contradicts the position of recent popes, that abortion is not merely homicide, but an especially grievous, "aggravated" kind of homicide. There are two other passages (Ex 21:22-23, Num 5:11-13) that clearly show that abortion was not considered homicide at all in Old Testament times; and nothing to support the contrary position, in either the Old or New Testaments.
While popes have styled themselves as the successors of St Peter, the supposed first bishop of Rome, it is clear from the New Testament that if any apostolic figure could be called the first bishop of Rome, it was Paul, not Peter. There is not a shred of credible historical evidence (as distinct from myth) that Peter ever reached Rome; but even if he did, it would have after Paul, who for two years, in the early 60s, was the first known, identifiable head of the Roman Christians community. Peter, on a missionary journey in the eastern Mediterranean, was probably in Babylon (Iraq), from where he wrote 1 Peter.
March 16, 2007 9:37 AM | Report Offensive Comment
This is opening a can of worms that I hope will happen.
I am a 2ed generation Unitarian. Try teaching religion to a liberal and there are a lot of us. First religion does not have to have a god. Nor does religion have to have dogma. Nor does religion have to have ridiculous stories that could not possible be. Like the great white bear that brought rain. Or the four corners of the earth.
The Evangelicals will be calling for teachers to be fired if we really had a discussion on religion in the schools. You understand with more knowledge comes enlightenment which begets the disappearance of a god and superstition.
Just remember what happens when some kid in the 1st grade tells the other kids there is no santa claus.
March 15, 2007 5:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
This is opening a can of worms that I hope will happen.
I am a 2ed generation Unitarian. Try teaching religion to a liberal and there are a lot of us. First religion does not have to have a god. Nor does religion have to have dogma. Nor does religion have to have ridiculous stories that could not possible be. Like the great white bear that brought rain. Or the four corners of the earth.
The Evangelicals will be calling for teachers to be fired if we really had a discussion on religion in the schools. You understand with more knowledge comes enlightenment which begets the disappearance of a god and superstition.
Just remember what happens when some kid in the 1st grade tells the other kids there is no santa claus.
March 15, 2007 5:50 PM | Report Offensive Comment
What we need in schools is more courses on critical thinking.
I've been reading Carl Sagan again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
March 15, 2007 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Teaching comparative religion in a philosophical sense is fine. However, it must include secularism: atheists, agnostics, humanists for example. Otherwise you are leaving out a significant percentage of the population who do not subscribe to religious beliefs (and who don't grow horns!)
Including the latter would give students the opporunity to debate not only specific religions but the ideas of those who choose not to believe in the supernational - their lives guided by a set of ethics, rather than old religious tracs of debatable origin.
March 15, 2007 9:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Teaching comparative religion in a philosophical sense is fine. However, it must include secularism: atheists, agnostics, humanists for example. Otherwise you are leaving out a significant percentage of the population who do not subscribe to religious beliefs (and who don't grow horns!)
Including the latter would give students the opporunity to debate not only specific religions but the ideas of those who choose not to believe in the supernational - their lives guided by a set of ethics, rather than old religious tracs of debatable origin.
March 15, 2007 9:07 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Unfortunately a lot of the latest comments are garbled on my screen.
Since I don't know if someone else has asked this, I will do it.
Would these courses in religion, in particular about the Bible, include the vicious, violent stories such as in Deuteronomy where God tells the Israelites to go to war, and then when victorious, kill all the POW's, rape all the women and girls, or alternatively, kill all the POW's, and their women and children, and take all their assets.
Would it be possible to discuss the Bible's support of slavery, including Jesus admonition that a slave should obey his master?
Catholics are discouraged from reading the Bible themselves for that very reason.
And how would that fit with the moral values that Christians say the Bible teaches?
March 14, 2007 7:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think the kind of courses taught at top state or secular private universities in comparative religion and religious texts as literature would be acceptable. The thing is, this is exactly what the narrow minded right doesn't want. They want their own version of ultimate truth presented as such in schools.
Intellectually honest course work dealing with comparative philosophies in differing religions would help students compare and contrast their varying claims. True literary analysis using the Historical Critical Literary Method and employing source, form, text, and redaction criticisms would expose these so called sacred cannons as the prescientific phenomenological mythologies that they really are. A Philosophy class in Epistomology would allow students to see that claims of personal revelation, papal authority, and even highly sophisticated systematic theologies based on dilectic and syllogistic logic are all inadequate "ways of knowing" Ontology (truth). The Hypothetico-Deductive Model of Scientific Investigation is the only philosophy which has any means by which to actually verify that which one claims to be "true".
So, if one wants indoctrination and proselitization in the classroom, no. If, however, one wants to bring intellectual honesty and freedom of thought as found in high quality collegiate courses in Comparative Religion, Historical Critical Literary Analysis, and Epistomological Analysis, then by all means, bring it on. The thing is, the fundamentalists know they could never survive such a true rigorous examination. They know students would turn away from religion as the lies were exposed, and thus, they would never allow it.
March 14, 2007 6:10 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Making electives available to high school students on religion as literature, history of religion(s), comparative religion, etc. is an excellent idea. Mandating any course about religion is, at least implicitly, a forbidden form of establishing religion -- a requirement that students must learn certain things about religion mandated by the state. I can just picture the SOL exam in religious studies now: good luck defining the "right" answers to the standard questions.
March 14, 2007 5:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"I don't want the government teaching my children how idol worshippers worship their idols"
Well, I might not believe that those idols are holy, but I have no fear of my children knowing that they exist and that some people worship them. I have a strong enough confidence in my faith and the faith of my family that I know it would not be threatened by the mere knowledge of other ideas.
I am terribly sad and puzzled by the assumption that teaching that something exists is akin to indoctrination. I learned that slavery existed without being made to believe that it was right and true. I learned that people in some cultures eat meat from dogs without being forced to eat it myself or believe that it is tasty.
What possible good can it do to shield your children from facts of things that exist in the world? Isn't that the *opposite* of education?
March 14, 2007 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
When a public school teacher is teaching, that's the government teaching. And I don't want the government teaching my children how idol worshippers worship their idols, whether those idols are made of wood and bronze and stone, or whether they are intangible concepts like "Blood and Soil" or "Kumbaya."
When you're in the Army, you can live on base or off base. On base, you live in the government's barracks and eat whatever is on the menu in the government mess hall. Off base, you can live in private quarters and eat what you cook yourself, and the government will give you basic allowances to pay for rent and groceries.
Why not do the same for education? If you pick public school for your children, the government will provide the classrooms, textbooks and teachers, and there'll be no indoctrination -- whether from the Vatican, Al-Azhar University, or the Secular Humanist Institute of Theology. If you pick private school, you can choose a Catholic school or a Madrassa or a Yeshiva or a local Darwin Academy, and the government will give you basic allowances to pay for tuition and textbooks.
What's the difference between the Catholic school and the Yeshiva on the one hand, and the Madrassa and the Darwin Academy on the other? The first two teach that Jews are descended from Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah. The second two teach that Jews are the descendants of apes.
What's the difference between government enabling families to choose what to eat and where to live, and enabling families to choose how their children are to be indoctrinated? As long as my children don't have to learn how the idol-worshippers worship their idols, it's no skin off my nose if other parents are getting vouchers for schools where their kids learn to worship Thor, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or the Goddess.
March 14, 2007 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am a little amazed at the outpouring of religious bigotry that strays so far from the central theme of the original debate. It does however highlight the extreme views that make it impossible to even consider teaching a "Bible Only" class.
The ignorance of our political leaders is their and their advisors, failings. The notion that this nation entered into a conflict in Iraq without understanding the underlying religious divides simply demonstrates once again the short-sightedness of this administrations foreign policy. If one is intent on following a career path to the Foreign Service, it is their responsibility to educate themselves in all facets of the societies they hope to interact with, and that includes the religious aspects as well.
There is nothing wrong with a true comparative religion class. It helps to dispel ignorance and illuminate the fact that most religions are actually more similar than not. There must, however, be a distinct difference between examining broad concepts and actual proselytizing.
There is no place in public schools for mandated courses on any specific belief. If there are, I agree, send in the lawyers!
March 14, 2007 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I was in the second grade when the question of prayer in school was first raised. We were not a particularly religious family (small Texas town and my farther was Greek Orthodox). I was confused because I did not understand the argument. What was the big deal with the morning prayer? The conversation I had with my father has shaped my whole life. He asked me "what would you do is the class prayed to a different god? How would you feel?" As a very shy little girl I saw myself sitting out in the hall every morning while the rest of the class prayed. I knew I would feel like a cast out. This one conversation has made me very tolerant of all other humans and their beliefs.
Having said that - I do not believe any religion belongs in school where the child is still too young to handle being humiliated if they are different. Peer pressure is a powerful thing.
However I do believe world history classes should include the impacts all religions have had on human history - when the children are old enough to grasp the concepts.
The problem with this conversation (which probably started with Georgia's discussion of teaching a Bible class) is that I believe this is just a way for Christian conservatives to get their foot in the door. I do not believe the concept was ever meant to teach about all religions - just Christianity. And that would be wrong.
March 14, 2007 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
While unbiased teaching of religions seems like a good idea, I for one would dread a Southern Baptist or a conservative Catholic teaching my children any religion course. There is no way anyone with those or similar religious views could teach an unbiased course. (I was a mostly practicing Catholic for my first 54 years.)
Unbiased teaching of religion sounds like many other ideas: fine in theory but not in practice. This reminds me of a what I read once -- to say that something is fine in theory but not in practice means it is a lousy theory.
March 14, 2007 3:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I will fight the teaching of religion in public schools with my last breath.
Keep this superstitious idiocy out of the public schools.
The world will be a better place indeed when all the world's religions are where they belong, on the scrapheap of history.
And something from the Peanut Gallery. Osvoldo says: "Morons go by the evolution THEORY"
Is this part of the tolerance religion teaches?
Osvoldo also mentions the soul. Just where exactly in the body does that exist. C'mon moron, tell everyone where the soul is.
March 14, 2007 3:07 PM | Report Offensive Comment
My most mind expanding school lesson was a course called "History of Ideas." This history is well and dispassionately related in many histories. History necessarily includes orgins of religions and their main concepts. It also includes other important ideas in the history of influential ideas which have shaped our civiliations and values. Any history of ideas awakens us to the diversity of ideas seriously and widely held. Lack of awareness (ignorance by another name) pits one narrowly educated people against other narrowly educated people and their beliefs. Simply teaching the Bible in our schools only buries another generation in the unworkable notion that the Bible holds the only Truth, counterpart to Wahhabism extremism taught in some Islamic schools.
March 14, 2007 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The majority of Americans are Christian. The Bible is chock full of contradictions (how did Judas die?), unpopular positions (women are to keep quiet in church), and brutality (killing innocents on God's command). A fair study of the Bible in public schools would set of a firestorm.
March 14, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It is the obligation of public schools to prepare students to become informed and engaged citizens of the United States and members of the world community at large. Religion plays a significant role in national and world events; so to deny students formal religious education, particularly that which teaches the objective phenomenology of major world religions, would leave a large portion of young citizens unprepared to handle and comprehend the vicissitudes and complexities of current events. Public schools would be remiss to deny their students such a critical part of our modern condition.
In sum, schools should teach the objective phenomenology of major world religions. Leave it to other institutions, such as parenthood and churches, to teach the subjective faith-based facets of religion.
(Full disclosure: I am an atheist.)
March 13, 2007 11:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, a separate class for religious learning should be just OPTIONAL. Though it is a good understanding to know about religion, but some people beliefs vary. The only good place to learn religion is local religious houses, priests.
March 13, 2007 11:15 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think comparative religious classes should be mandatory for anyone who believes his or her religious belief is somehow more valid or "true" than any other religious belief.
The quicker this type of person understands that his or her irrationalism is just as crazy as the next version of religious "truth", the better off all of humanity will be.
Thank you.
March 13, 2007 7:22 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark - Cheer up - don't be so pessimistic!
Read through these discussions and you'll hear teachers and students examples of successful classes “about” religion (i.e., comparative religion) in middle school and high school.
Certainly people's first exposure to religion is usually indoctrination -- and it often stays that way - indoctrination only, via family and religious institution, with no input from the secular educational system. No wonder people are so ignorant about religions and no wonder they confuse indoctrination with education. Most “religious education” IS indoctrination. What a pity. What a disgrace. It has to change soon. Here’s my guess – ultimately the people fighting the hardest against it will be parents who only want indoctrination for their children. Won’t that be a sight! Parents demanding that their children remain ignorant.
March 13, 2007 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The major hurdle is the religious indoctrination most children receive before they hit kindergarten. Whatever their home-taught religion is, it will be seen as "the" religion to follow - all others are evil or poor imitations (that even works its way down to the sectarian level).
Religion is unique in this respect. If any other subject were taught at home before kindergarten - math, science, history, language - one might have a chance of establishing a basis for further learning, for even if people's prejudices are taken into account in discussing those subjects (and aren't the prejudices always based on a person's religion?) there's a decent chance that the basics are neutral. Math is math, science is science, language is language and historical facts are what they are, even if one wants to interpret the facts of history.
Then there is the counter that we all know would be coming, ie: different sects would push their folllowers to instill their sectarian beliefs even more firmly in their children before the public discussion of religion kicked in. What is now - in many cases - a relatively passive indoctrination of religious belief would quickly turn to a radical and unweilding indoctrination. Religion does not abide democracy, in its teachings or its heirarchy (democracy doesn't speak of kings, religion does, and freedom isn't exclusive to democracies). The last thing religions would sanction would be for the public schools to get about the business of dismantling their fairy tales and power structures. Hell, even religious equivalency among the belief systems is an attack that most most religions would not abide, let alone encourage.
I think this question has it backwards. People need to be disencumbered of their fairy tale beliefs first - the rest will get sorted out later. I may not see that in my lifetime, but if the natural order of things is any indicator, religion will eventually go the way of most devices that have outlived their usefulness.
Humanity is better than religion or what our religions allow. How much easier it would be to prove that statement true were religious belief to be eliminated from the equation.
March 13, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
You noted: "in islam we are commanded to extend charity to our neighbors".
Do you live in some fantasy world?? What charity do the the Sunnis extend to their Shiite neighbors? And vice versa? What charity does the the Taliban extend to the women of Afghanistan?
And Mohammed's "care" for his Jewish neighbor? Well documented? Please provide references.
March 13, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
well thats the poit here liberated-
there are no judgements made-
since people come willingly to learn there is no reason to waste time with subjective issues-
there is a mutual respect for all of the religions presented-
thats an interesting thing lib- i was thinking about the time that i spend in my mosque-
and the conversations ihave there- you know politics are really not much of a topic- often there are alot of highly educated immigrants (muslims are the highest educated immigrant group in america) and the conversations generally are community oriented- how we can be more positive forces in serving our own communities-
in islam we are commanded to extend charity to our neighbors- it is one of the 5 pillars of our religion it is that important-
when the Prophet(pbuh) was asked how we should distribute our wealth and what our obligations were-he said- 1)first your nuclear family- then 2)
your extended family and 3) your neighbors.
when asked who our neighbors are he said 7 houses in all 4 directions- in front back and on the sides.
an interesting well documented story is that Muhammad(pbuh) had a next door neighbor who was jewish- every day when he left hishouse his neighbor used to throw waste and garbage on him.
One day his neighbor didnt show up to throw garbage on him.
So he went to the neighbors house and discovered him sick and nursed him back to health-
when the neighbor was healthy again he took shahada (became a muslim).
so there is enough good and beautiful things to find about each religion that there isnt any need to disparage anyone about anything.
sorry your hopes for spreading disinformation and prejudice arent met but there is no place for it among reasonable people
peace lib
March 13, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
One can only hope that you are teaching all the aspects of Islam to your students especially the true history of Islam's foundations. e.g. the Koran was written by warmongering, women-hating scribes who convinced their readers they were somehow in communication with Heaven via some "pretty wingy thingie".
March 12, 2007 11:28 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Duckphup,
Thanks for your historical article on Christianity. I think you covered it pretty accurately. It seems consistent with what I have read. It's a pity most Christians are completely ignorant of the history of Christianity.
Regards,
Realist
March 12, 2007 10:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion in schools:
If it is teaching religious dogma or gravitates under political pressure to teaching any aspect of religion other then e.g. love thy neighbor as thyself, that is the most dangerous thing we can do. It does look like creationism, my opinion just another fairy tale, you're entitled to your own beliefs, has been rejected, but don't worry, it'll try again.
As someone mentioned, look at Islam. Religion and Government in conspiracy brought us 9/11 and the terrible mess the world is in today. Religion moves towards absolutes and absolute power, because it is nothing but 'faith' , or pehaps we might say much of it is fairy tales from writings long ago in an age of ignorance and superstition. Islam is simply a religion that still lives in the middle ages. Lots of Muslims will say that Islam is good, God is good, we are all his people, and there is so much that binds us together, and that is true. Unfortunately, just like the Bible, the Qu'ran can also be used selectively to create fear and hence it's cousin hatred.
I'd like to suggest there is another kind of religious teaching needed in our public schools. It needs to examine 'faith'. It needs to get our children questioning their religion. Does religion support the ten commandments, or does it blind the eye, cause one to check their brain with their coat at the church cloak room? Ony by teaching critical thinking, explaining brainwashing, the history of most religions - usually anything but Godly - will our children be able to go forth and move religions, especially right wing conservative religions, into the sphere of what they should be doing, creating God's Kingdom here on earth. For religions, those that can't change will wither away, for competition for the heart and mind will triumph over all, in time.
March 12, 2007 6:10 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am not sure if this has been brought up yet, because I have been reading the posts for several hours and haven't finished them yet, but here it goes.
Comparative Religion should be tauhgt in schools, and one thing that I think everyone should remember is that FREEDOM is NOT FREE.
When you talk about freedom and say that you will fight for it and that you will sue for it remember what it is. Freedom (I am taking speech right now) is being able to burn a flag in protest. It is being able to scream at the top of your lungs the the Christian GOD is the root of all evil. This is free speach, and I, for one, will die to defend that right for you. Freedom (of Relgion now) is being able to worship SATAN in the middle of a Southern Baptist town on your own property, and everyone know about about it and leave you in peace, physically. As long as your speech or religion does not PHYSICALLY harm anyone or cause an undo panic (like screaming fire in a crowded theater) it should be allowed, no matter what anyone else says. Until you are ready to die to protect the rights of others to insult you and drag your name through the dirt (which people do about the people I work for all the time) don't complain to me about freedom.
March 12, 2007 5:29 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It shoudn't be making religion be studied but allowing religion to be studied and understood by all who desire. Children or rather young adults have the choice to choose almost any other subject freely without going to college except religion or God. Why is that? When something believed to be so crucial to their existance why is it kept cloaked in mystery as if it is taboo for them to choose and know about the beliefs concerning God. Allow them the right to be taught and investigate religious belief systems in public school.
March 12, 2007 4:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Defining religion is more important than teaching religion. Religion need to be defined clearly, scientifically and in a manner that is understandable by general public.
March 12, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
excellent post cyndy-
obviously in educating our children we go way beyond simply hard science- we teach literature- social studies- art- music- even history cant be labled as a hard science- we teach other languages to our children- we try to expose them to learning and knowledge in many fields that extend past simple science which is one ofmany subjects taught to provide a holistic adult- with the ability to think critically and even abstractly.
i teach religion to aduls and children- but it is voluntary on their part to be there- and i have a greater leeway in the amount of time spent on individual beliefs-
since cyndy is already doing what is being proposed- and it seems successfully-
i applaud all efforts to teach religion from an objective non-judemental perspective-
we are all experiencing what lack of knowledge about religion can engender-
it is a true mystery to me how one could condone lack of knowledge and fear to comprehension and understanding.
as were constantly bombarded by the media with misinformation on this topic- a little rational education will only foster more tolerance of the 'other' in our kids.
peace
March 12, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comment
David Taylor :
"A teacher is not going to be knowledgeable enought to effectively teach about the breadth of the worlds religion, nor are they going to be neutral enough not to bias their instruction with the faith to which they adhere. It simply cannot be done. Therefore nothing must be taught.
Our public school systems are not about religion, they are about teaching our children hard facts and hard science and skills to prepare them for adulthood. "
As a teacher of Comparative Religions, I really have to take issue with these comments.
For each belief system my class talks about, we spend the same amount of time (within about 10%), we have the same amount of "points" available in each belief system. I organized my class this way so that the idea of predominance could not be argued. I spend 3 weeks on each religion, we have 2 quizzes, 1 graded class discussion, 1 project, and 2 journals.
My students would love to know what religion I profess; however, they have not been able to discover because not only will I not tell them, but also I know quite a bit about each of them. I have spent a LONG time researching, reading, discussing, and investigating each tradition. (My students are pretty sure I am not some things due to dress, speech, etc -- but even with that they are aware that different divisions follow different guidelines).
How is teaching a student the hard facts about a religion -- how a belief answers general questions about life, death, afterlife, war, etc. -- and asking them to critically think about the scriptures presented without relying on outside information not preparing them for life after school? In order to understand ourselves better, we need to understand how we fit into the world as a whole.
I have never asked my students to BELIEVE something; I ask them to look at the beliefs and explain them in conjunction with the culture and society that holds them. How does the Confucian idea of chun-tzu (superior, learned gentleman) affect the politics and education in China? How is the Taoist idea of "unlearning" operate in a similar society? How are these connected? Is there a connection between knowledge and wisdom?
March 12, 2007 2:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
DuckPhup -- I like the way you think! Keep it coming, it's fun reading your posts!
March 12, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I support exploring beliefs of all religions, of all spiritual paths, and other ways of viewing the world. I believe we can all be enriched by studying and understanding a variety of viewpoints. We must all explore our own truths and values to live and life rich with meaning and purpose. We must think, question and feel what is right for us. No one knows our truth and what is meaningful to us but ourselves. This self-discovery is an essential part of growing up and being a whole person. The more ideas the better, the more questions the wiser we will be. Rigid thinking and doctrine will never serve humankind as well as an open minded diversity of thought. We are a amazing creations who when free to think and explore can be real forces for positive, compassionate and growthful change on the planet.
March 12, 2007 1:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
religion without revelation???
darwinism evoluted to pragmatism,pragmatism busted into securalism and liberalism,along with the mass refugees who fled and ran from the church,all erected the church of(mighty science and prophet logic)the church and doctrine of( reason age),they say nop to dop(religion),they are no joke every thing has to go thru ((expermental)) every thing under the microscop,every thing on the scientific scale ,even god himself??? it canot be more ignorance than this!
limiting and dwarfing this univers to the lizard hole of (rationalism )is so irrational so unscientific so un realistic so unnatural so misleading.
those who they are so scientific need to use their rational machine in understanding the big huge diference between divine revelation and human (reason).
scholars of religion need to explaain to mankind the termnology of religion,there is no religion without revelation,there is no religion without text book.man kind seriously need to be exposed to the beauty of divine religion.
adults need to work on their ignorance first ,then when they get it togther they can pass it to their childern.
March 12, 2007 1:23 AM | Report Offensive Comment
NO WAY. I wonder if people understand the main reason why the Middle East breeds religious fundamentalists and extremists. Well for those that do not seem to understand let me lay it out point blank. A very good example would be that religion (Islam) is has been taught in Saudi Arabian schools as part of the core curriculum... with this integration of religion in schools, young men have been bred as terrorists using religion to justify the fundamentalism and extremism that these schools teach (i.e. 9/ll was caused by these misdirected men). I am not saying that we will automatically breed terrorists and extremists, but this definitely gives room for this kind of negative repercussion. The United States has been founded with the understanding (even in writing) that there is a separation of church and state and integrating religion into a public institution is going against this fundamental law. Maybe next constitution! (in the words of Colbert).
It is the choice of the individual to follow religion. This is a personal path, not required knowledge for every person. Let's practice some reason guys.
March 11, 2007 10:15 PM | Report Offensive Comment
We need to really concentrate on the separation of Church and State here in the U.S. But I do not think that anyone could argue if a religion class was an elective, and taught of various religions, their beliefs and history. For many peoples, religion is a large part of their history.
March 11, 2007 7:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
well i guess this thread is dead-
i was enjoying the crafting of constructive ideas and the dialogue- frankly- i get bored when the deconstructors show up- it takes little intelligence to tear down what others have created- be they fairy tales- dogma or belief systems.
March 11, 2007 7:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Duckphup -- Thanks for the great short course in the Judaic-Christian tradition. While it is both accurate and colorful, I think it needs to be simplified and toned down for public high school use. Don't you? It’s perfect, as is, though for a college elective. I wish I’d had your essay inserted with my high school diploma. I think I would have been ready for it by then.
March 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I have just begun work on a proposed public school course outline for the part of the 'About Religion...' curriculum that would deal with:
"The Abrahamic Death Cults of Desert Monotheism"
Judaism
* Static agrarian societies formed communities which were centers of trade, craft (metalworking, carpentry, stone-working, weaving, ceramics, weapons-making, etc.), agriculture, worship (temples, idol-making, prayer, sacrifice, etc.) and mutual protection.
* Communities typically had 'local' gods and goddesses.
* It was the custom for visitors to 'adopt' and honor the religious practices and gods of the communities in which they (temporarily) dwelt.
* The early Hebrew tribes were essentially peripatetic (wandering) herdsmen... aggressive and militant.
* The Hebrews had no static foundations to support crafts, agriculture and religion. They had to rely on trade with the static communities... albeit, only if they were unable to just rush in and kill all the men in their sleep, rape their women, enslave their children and take their stuff.
* The Hebrews found it inconvenient and annoying that they had to keep changing their religion every time the camped outside of a community for an extended period. They recognized that religion had a cohesive influence on society... but changing all the time to comply with local beliefs made consistency and cohesion impossible. Since they did not have the infrastructure, resources or craft skills to build temples, manufacture idols, etc. (besides... heavy idols were inconvenient things to have to tote around in the desert), they were forced to innovate.
* The Jewish innovation was to invent a god that they could "take with them"... a god that was everywhere (eliminated the need for temples)... a god that eschewed 'graven images' (relieving them of the necessity to tote idols around)... a god that was the one 'true' god, 'above' all the 'local' gods that they encountered in their travels (thus relieving them of the necessity to temporarily adopt local religious customs.) At one point, they even constructed a mobile home for their god to live in ('Ark of the Covenant'), so they could tote him around with them. (We don't need no steenkin' temple... our god lives right here, in this here fancy-lookin' box.")
* The Hebrews had all kinds of tall tales (oral tradition)... 'Paul Bunyan' stories (Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc.) that they made up to white-wash and justify their atrocities, genocide and depredations, to account for the 'deal' they made with their 'god-in-a-box', and lay down some vicious, Puritanical rules of behavior... including specifications for how to very messily slaughter those who did not comply. After a thousand years or so, when some of them finally settled down in communities, and started building things, they decided to compile their oral traditions and write them down. Over the next 800 years or so, they added some other tall tales and poetry, finally ending up with what we now call the 'Old Testament'.
* When they finally did get around to building an actual temple, god supposedly told 'em something like "Aw, shucks... you guys don't need to go doin' sumpthin' like that." But, they went ahead and did it , anyway. It is unclear whether god was pleased or pissed about it.
Christianity
* It came to pass that the Hebrews got their collective butts whipped, on multiple occasions, by multiple oppressors. Eventually, their culture came under the influence of sophisticated thinking from the outside world. The most influential, by far, were the Greeks. Various 'thinkers' in Jewish society, mainly under the influence of the Greek 'Stoic' and 'Cynic' philosophies, sought to update their religious boilerplate. At this same time, the whole region was awash with 'salvation cults' (Attis, Mithras, Tammuz, Osiris and Adonis... among others).
* These cults had consistent thematic elements... suffering hero, virgin birth, son of a deity, ritualistic meal in which the flesh and blood of the god-man is symbolically consumed, scourging, horrible death nailed to a tree, resurrection after 3-days, ascension into heaven, prophesied triumphant return from the great-beyond to destroy his foes and emancipate and redeem his believers... i.e., salvation. These ideas appealed to the Hebrews, since they had been under the thumb of outsiders for a few hundred years, and were danged-well ready for a little 'salvation'... and in a process known as 'midrash', they sought to reinterpret and update scripture, incorporating these new ideas. Thus, they came up with a 'Judaized' version of these new, foreign ideas, inventing a supernatural 'Christ' character as their redeemer. They invented a story-line to go along with it... a story-line which played out in spiritual realms... just like all the other 'salvation cults' of the time; i.e., their 'Christ' character was non-earthly, non-human, and existed only in 'heavenly' realms. In line with the 'modern' thinking, they had to view god as 'transcendent'... and as such, they could not commune with him directly. So, the invented the 'Holy Spirit'... an 'emanation' from the godhead which could serve as an intermediary; sort of like the Greek 'Logos'.
(SIDEBAR: After Christianity had achieved a modicum of success, and the endorsement of the Roman emperor, they set about trying to convert the whole world. When Pagans kept pointing out to early Christian churchmen that their religion was really no different, in detail, from the other 'salvation cults' of the time, they began answering this accusation by acknowledging that the observation was true. Then, they would go on to explain that Satan, in the past, had recognized that Christianity would arise, so he had started all those other salvation cults in order to spread confusion and doubt, when the time was ripe. And his plan would work... unless you Heathen MoFos start having 'faith', and believe in the 'word'... else you will burn in eternal hellfire.)
* Around 40 A.D., Saul of Tarsus (a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin), who had made a recent career out of hounding and persecuting followers of the heretical, blasphemous 'Christ cult', claimed to have a 'vision' on the road to Damascus, wherein the spiritual Christ appeared to him and chastised him for pestering his followers. Saul became a 'believer', changed his name to Paul, and (upon the authority bestowed upon him by virtue of having hallucinated), he changed his career to preacher, and set about to tell everyone who would listen the 'good news' that if they did what he said, Christ would 'save' them.
* The most interesting about Paul's preaching is that absolutely NONE of it has anything to do with the idea that Christ had ever existed as an actual person in recent history. The ONLY thing in his writings that can even be interpreted as possibly having something to do with a real person who existed in recent history, pertains to the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34) and to the crucifixion and resurrection (1 Cor 15)... although there is just as much reason to think that he was referring to mythical events that took place in a spiritual realm, consistent with all of the other 'salvation cults' which were mimicked by the Christ cultists.
* The idea that Jesus Christ was an actual person seems to have emerged near the end of the first century. It is interesting to note that most Christians today think that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were members of Jesus' posse... the 'Twelve Apostles'... and that they were actual witnesses to the events that are recounted in their respective 'Gospels'. That idea is quite nonsensical. The first Gospel account (Mark) was written some time after 70 AD. This has been firmly established by biblical historical scholars, based on the fact that it makes reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem... an event that occurred in 70 AD. Mark presents a sketchy outline of the life of Jesus.
* The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written some time after Mark... perhaps even after the beginning of the second century. This is well established by biblical scholars, since they have irrefutably shown that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template, and then fleshed out the story. (Look up 'synoptic gospels'.) They incorporated 'sayings' of Jesus, the source of which is the so-called 'Q-Document'... a compilation of 'wisdom' that was essentially a Judaized version of some elements of the Greek 'Cynic' philosophy. The differences between Matthew and Luke lie mainly in the different ways that they embellished the 'Mark' outline, and the totally different settings and circumstances that they created through which to make the sayings of the 'Q-Document' come out of the mouth of Jesus.
* The Gospel of John was probably written some time after the beginning of the second century. It bears little in common with the other three canonical gospels, beyond the bare outlines of the story.
* The gospels combine 'savior myth' elements (from the extant 'salvation cults') with midrashic elements of old testament scripture; i.e., they cherry-picked old scriptural references and prophecies, and then inserted them as story-elements.
* The entire time span of the 'Life of Jesus' accounted for in the bible (not counting the supposed 40-days that he spent wandering in the wilderness) amounts to no more than 3-weeks.
Ahhh... that's enough. This would take hours, if I keep going. Haven't even gotten to the good stuff, yet, and haven't even begun to touch upon Islam.
Anyway... it would be a real hoot to be a fly-on-the-wall in an evangelical Christian household, when the kiddies came home and said "Hi, Mommy. Hi, Daddy. Guess what I learned in school today!"
March 11, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion should be taught only in courses dealing with religion. Publicly-funded courses on religion should not promote any particular religion and should be taught as a branch of anthropology or history. Courses on religion should be optional.
March 11, 2007 10:44 AM | Report Offensive Comment
N DENNY (MARCH 9, 2007 11:59 AM) wrote: "Yes, This Countries Founding Fathers prayed over every decision they made. Your contry needs to wake up and see this. We need to have not just religion but Christianity taught."
ERIC (MARCH 9, 2007 11:01 AM) wrote: "No matter what happens, religion will always be taught in schools. If you remove our good Christian faith that our founding fathers held to you will have atheism by implication and that in itself is a religion."
DEANNA (MARCH 9, 2007 10:26 AM) wrote: "Anyone who has taken and RETAINED American history knows our country's foundation is built on chistian beliefs. I am proud of our ancestors who were brave enough to fight for the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted today. If not for their strong faith we would not have all we do today. What is so terrible about teaching the ten commandments? Our country was far better off when our school teachers did not have to hide their faith. Children were not shooting up their peers when the day started out with prayer."
-- All of you (above) have fallen for the lies that are consistently promulgated by your religious puppet-masters. The US was NOT founded upon Christian beliefs. No... the USA is NOT a Christian nation. Our Founding fathers went to great lengths to assure that would be the case. The 'law of the land' is NOT based on any Christian or biblical doctrine or writings... it is rooted in the secular humanist ideals of the 'Age of Reason', and based on 'The Code of Hammurabi', English Common Law and the constitution of the Iroquois Confederation.
The 'Treaty of Tripoli' (June 7, 1797) specifically states, in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen (Moslems); and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation (Islam), it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This treaty, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams only a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, is taken by constitutional scholars to be a clear and unambiguous declaration of the intent of the founders.
The most influential of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheists. Here are some of their thoughts about Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." ~ Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again: "Christianity... (has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
More Jefferson: "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves... these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."
John Adams: "Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
Also Adams: "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins... and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
Let's hear from James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
March 11, 2007 10:10 AM | Report Offensive Comment
MELISSA (MARCH 9, 2007 11:41 AM) wrote: "If you'll remember back in the days of old when schools taught of God and his work things were a whole lot better. You never heard of such crimes, gangs and killings like today. I believe that schools should bring Christianity back because when it was taken away, well just look at todays children and you tell me, "Where are the children today"? It doesn't matter what religion you are, just kowing that there's a higher power and where will you spend eternity."
-- I presume that you are trying to make the point that Christianity is the source of all morality, and that absent the influence of Christianity, immorality will predominate. You need to chew on this for a while:
Christians make up about 75% of the US population and 75% of the US prison population. No big surprise there.
Atheists, on the other hand, make up about 10% of the US population... but they only make up 0.2% of the US prison population. Now, isn't THAT a surprise? That means that atheists are FIFTY (50) times LESS LIKELY to be incarcerated than Christians. Pretty strange, huh, for a group that has no god-given guiding moral principals?
I can only think of two possibilities that might reasonably be said to account for this discrepancy:
1. Atheists are of a higher ethical and moral caliber than Christians, and thus are less prone to do the same kinds of nasty things that land so many Christians in the slammer;
OR,
2. Atheists are, overall, a lot smarter than Christians and thus, they are less likely to get caught in the course of their transgressions.
It's GOT to be one or the other... take your pick. --
March 11, 2007 9:50 AM | Report Offensive Comment
DOUGLAS (MARCH 10, 2007 9:30 AM) wrote: "In the USA it is required to pass science classes that require a basic understanding of biology and evolution. While biology rests in factual truths evolution from beginning to end is theory and hypothesis, changed and rewritten more often than any religious documents are translated."
-- Douglas... you do not seem to realize that the Theory of Evolution lies at the core of modern biology, and is the basis for modern biology... and genetics... and paleontology, etc. --
OSVALDO (MARCH 9, 2007 12:47 PM) wrote: "Morons go by the evolution THEORY, pretty lies, big gimmicks and all, truth is they are sitting in the windows of a house with rotten foundation if any at all. How sad that the pittifull situation of the few would serve as a Religious guide for the majority; like it or not.
DEANNA (MARCH 9, 2007 10:26 AM) wrote: "Evolution is a theory. It is not fact. You only believe it because you have faith in the missing pieces. If evolution is taught so should christianity."
-- You are right, Deanna (and others). Evolution is a 'theory', not a 'fact' (something that is indisputably the case). But what you do NOT seem to realize is that in science, 'theories' occupy a higher tier of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The theory of evolution explains the FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time. These observed facts are NOT in dispute, and they are readily evident in the fossil record, biology, genetics, paleontology, etc.... more-so now than they were in Darwin's day.
The theory of evolution identifies two primary mechanisms which ACCOUNT FOR the OBSERVED FACTS:
* genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequencies, over time.
* natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators (Dawkins' excellent phrase).
While the FACTS are not in dispute, there is ongoing conversation about OTHER possible mechanisms which might ALSO account, in part, for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time... ideas such as 'punctuated equilibrium'.
However, the word 'fact' CAN BE applied to evolution in the sense of COMMON USAGE in science... that being:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'." ~ Stephen J. Gould
In THAT sense, 'evolution' is, indeed, 'fact'. --
DEANNA (MARCH 9, 2007 10:26 AM) wrote: "(evolution theory states there were no people during the dinosaur ages, then explain how the cave drawings show pictures of dinosaurs. Who drew them?)"
-- Deanna, that is simply not true. I can only presume that you gathered that misinformation from one of those goofy 'LFJ' (Liars For Jesus) web sited, such as www.answersingenesis.com. You need to find better sources for your information. --
March 11, 2007 9:44 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I fear that before introducing religion in the public school curriculum, it whould be necessary to subject roughly half the population to courses remedial reading comprehension. I say this (with dismay) because I have taken note that roughly half of the respondents to this question are quite unable to parse a simple sentence such as "Should teaching ABOUT religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?"
I think that it would be quite useful to teach ABOUT religion in a historical/cultural context... with one caveat: Before subjecting children to courses ABOUT religion, they should have had several years of study on CRITICAL THINKING, and they should be old and mentally mature enough (14+) to parse the information rationally and critically. Imagine, if instead of being indoctrinated (brainwashed?) to believe that the following things are TRUE, children were taught to rationally and critically evaluate...
* a universe in which all that exists are the earth and heaven (Genesis)
* solid 'firmament' structure (the sky) separating the earth from heaven (terrarium earth - Genesis)
* talking snakes (with legs) and donkeys
* shepherd staff turning into an asp
* demons chased out of people and into pigs
* woman magically turning into a pillar of salt
* friendly spirits
* evil spirits
* walking on water
* magically multiplying loaves and fishes
* food falling from the sky
* conception by a ghost
* people raising from the dead
* the sun stopping in its tracks
* parting the sea
* people being bodily sucked up into heaven (which, by the way, lies on the 'other side' of the sky)
* world-wide flood that drowned the earth to a depth of 40 feet above the tallest mountain
* creating people from dust bunnies and ribs
* magical tree of knowledge
* god speaking from a burning bush
* ritual cannibalism, by eating god in the form of a cracker (thank you Sam Harris)
I am amazed to know that over 60% of the population of the USA thinks that there is something wrong with those of us who DON'T believe all of this ridiculous codswallop.
March 11, 2007 9:03 AM | Report Offensive Comment
school of live stock.
darwinism+securalism+liberalism=human rusty leaky rotten think tankism who they form and frame the eduction process ,where they faten children and adults for the market consumption,more species for the zoo,more fossil fuel, more sources for energey ,deligent looking for chalenge?you flip the coin,it says in god we trust?
to raise and educate human being you need divine supervision.human vision is so limited,so ignorant,so agressive ,so unjust,so mortal son of mortal.
scholars of religion need to explain to childern as well as adults the big huge difference between what is divine and what is human,who created this world and why he is whorthy of worship and why his guidance is absolutly neccessary in raising and educating human being.
raising and educating and maturing human being is life job.
March 11, 2007 12:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Dinah wrote:
"It may be more than a coincidence that since the removal of the concept of God from education, the character strengths of our leaders,--the ideals and personal convictions that moved America toward scientific and academic progress,social compatibility and international respect fade,--and take the American Dream with them."
I agree. It might be more than a coincidence. The religious right can't subvert the education system directly by distorting science education because to do that they have to prove that their views are supported by science - which they are not. So instead, they are trying, quite successfully so far, to gain control of the whole country, because in politics, money and propaganda are more effective than truth.
This explains the current US government and why it has no credibility with the rest of the world.
March 10, 2007 9:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Seperation of Church and State was ascribed to educate the mind in Public Schools without interference from or discrimination of Church doctrine. Conversely, Churches don't teach reading, writing and arthmetic. All American children have the right to be educated without being indoctrinated. For those that want their children to be taught church doctrine in school, you are free to pay for church based education, exclusive of tax payer dollars.
March 10, 2007 5:26 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It may be more than a coincidence that since the removal of the concept of God from education, the character strengths of our leaders,--the ideals and personal convictions that moved America toward scientific and academic progress,social compatibility and international respect fade,--and take the American Dream with them.
There is also no question that the bond of the Republican Party to the controlling Christian religious establishment has returned us to an oppressor-oppressed relationship at home, and abroad.
Allegiance to God through personal prayer seems to evoke awareness of behavioral RIGHTS. Realization of entities as equality, truth, freedom, peace, love, personal talent, everlasting life or justice happens only within personal consciousness. The words escape academic definition, and can't be communicated in the usual manner of physical instruction. Stll, at the end of the day, our happiness is entirely dependent on these conscious senses of social exchange. When social focus was on personal character maturation through prayer, environmental and behavioral truths that always existed, came into view; personal talents were released,and direction was toward common welfare!
Where religions must be credited for guiding us to this compatible world within our deepest thought; they do not seem to recognize it as the natural mental component it is. I believe these common ideals are our distinction; separate us from a predator-prey biological existence; move our identity beyond physiological machines; define us as conscious 'beings'. These ideals are everlasting needs; have thrived in the heart of humanity throughout all the eras. Seem to be unlimited conscious energies. Ideals are steadfast natural behavioral laws, so it seems right to continue religious education; otherwise this potential will again be buried under an oppressive mentality.
I believe a mistake has been made by both academic and religious leadership. Academia has focused entirely on the intellectual machine; where our history suggests optimum performance of the machine is dependent on the nature of conscious energy flow. Thought moves the body; and the energy that has moved us forward has flowed from a place deep within personal character. In essence the American difference seems 'a government with potential to release this inner energy'. From the American Revolution to the 20th century, this energy seems almost supernatural; effecting compatible social changes, and introducing truths--despite overwhelming physical obstacles. Truths entered our world from within personal character. Thoughts contrary to the environmentally acquired mind of an era; and a social behavior, contrary to oppressive environmental activity.
Now that we have permeated the surface of our environment, and our thought; it becomes evident that power control is an anomaly in the natural scheme; where each cell has value, matters to the whole, energy flows from the inside out, and all depends on harmonious inter-relationship. That this is a contrast to the deleterious outer motions, could suggest those motions are not original; and that the intrinsic nature reflects a different mind, could exemplify the nature of the mind of its Creator, or God; and that the intrinsic mind is compatible to our nature; could reflect our 'likeness' to that Creator.
Our inner conscious ideals are not acquired through the physical senses. Where theoretic education requires memorization and repetition, and obedience to authoritarian rules; despite the same practice, the primary focus of religious education was personal prayer. What I think is needed is for personal meditation to be a mandatory part of world-wide public education; and to begin at a very early age. And for religions to abandon their primitive oppressive mentality; unite through their 'common soul'; promote not 'charity', where the oppressors aid the oppressed; but common welfare!
Within each person exists a world of justice. It is a contrast to the world created by mankind. The inhibitory factor to justice is power control. A state of justice is dependent on abandonment of oppressive mentality in its entirety. The social world we live in could have been effected by conscious separation from God. Everything in the human mind has a REAL source. The realization of human ideals is not acquired from the physical environment; but from a place deep in thought.
So, I believe it is absolutely vital the concept of God be returned to the classroom. Not through the theory of any religion, but its basic component of personal meditation and prayer. Because since its removal corporate power rapidly consumes all the 'good' that arrived from the heart. A corporation has been given the RIGHTS of a person. Unfortunately it goes without recognition that those rights in America all surround ideals, as integrity, equality and justice; which although these conscious energies are the origins of corporate growth and success; the 'will' of what was believed to be God is abandoned; enabling the oppressive mentality to again dominate. Eventually they will fight each other for supremecy. Every predator eventually succumbs to a greater predator. Predator-prey is a futile system. We should not allow our children to be swept into such a world. A world where not the person; but intellectual and material gain matter!
Human IDEALS are not the property of any religion or government; but are an endowment of nature. Ideals are the road to the conscious environment---the "Heaven on Earth"-- needed by all the people of the world. I feel educators should feel a responsibility to release this compatible world that remains primarily a dream,--continues to exist only in deepest thought.
To receive 'guidance from God through personal prayer' may well be the natural means!
March 10, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Jerry wrote: "What I find so frustrating about this subject is it is OK for an exchange student from Israel to come here and they discuss the Jewish religion in my daughter's fifth grade class, but it is tabu for my daughter to talk about the Christian faith."
At that age, your daughter is not capable of talking about her 'Christian faith'... all she is capable of discussing is her 'Chrisitan indoctrination'.
March 10, 2007 2:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Of course schools should teach "about"religion. The subject is called History. American History must teach that our first settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution. This is teaching "about" religion. World History must teach about the Crusades in early centuries. This is not teaching religion; it is teaching historical facts. How in the world can history be taught without these facts? Religion must not be taught in our public schools. There are schools financed by private funds for the purpose of strengthening specific religions, and there are seminaries for the student who wants to pursue the study of a certain religion. I am a Christian who does not understand why we can't keep government, religion and education separate in our society.
March 10, 2007 10:45 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Even teaching ABOUT religion, is fraught with pitfalls.
In the public classroom, there would be too great a temptation for zealots to preach religion or teach it in a biased way for, and against particular religions.
In addition, teachers may be tempted to whitewash the negative aspects of religion, such as religious bigotry, willfully ignorant attitudes towards science, and religious tribalism. In front of a classroom of children, would the teacher be willing to talk about the negative aspects of religion also? Or even if bias for/against any religion was removed, would teaching ABOUT religion be reduced to just a pleasant, whitewashed, general advocacy of religion?
March 10, 2007 10:21 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion is a personal choice and not a state choice. What each person chooses to believe is a personal choice, and should not be influenced by the state. State controlled religion is the outcome.
The choices we make as American's regarding our religius beliefs and our carrer goals and desires should not be combined into one activity. The separation of church and state is infused into our democracy for the pourpose to allow each of us to flower and flourish, independant of anything other than personal choices and personal beliefs.
Religion's will flourish if the teaching of that religion is correct and brings happiness to the people practicing that religion; actual proof of the teaching. It is not the responsibilty of the state to assist specific religion's sustainment or growth due to a a lack of actual proof.
Religion should be taught in religious settings and not in school settings; while educational learning should be encountered in a school setting and not a religious setting; as each system teaches a different set of standard's and value's. American's do not need a one stop standard's shop, because we are too diverse of a people to not think in a broad-minded fashion, and restrict our choices to combined religion and eductaion learning.
March 10, 2007 9:48 AM | Report Offensive Comment
In the USA it is required to pass science classes that require a basic understanding of biology and evolution. While biology rests in factual truths evolution from beginning to end is theory and hypothesis, changed and rewritten more often than any religious documents are translated.
I disagree with prayer in our schools, but agree with other posts here that in order for history to be taught with any accuracy religion must be at least in the overview. Japan without the Samurai? Europe without the druids, the rise of Catholisism, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the reformation, the Magna Carta? The middle east without the Pyramids, Ashura, the Hebrew, the Islamic hordes under Mohomaud(spelling?), Saracens without Saliden, the Ottoman Empire? The America's without the Spanish Inquisition,the Jesuit missionaries, the Salem witch hunts, the US constitution (freedom of religion is not a christain thing),the aboriginal slaughtered, the Divine Destiny Manifesto?
We teach to much 'well maybe it happened this way ' and not enough Historical fact. Then again history is tainted by whoever wins the wars.
March 10, 2007 9:30 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I have to believe with John Stuart Mill and John Milton that the best way to eliminate error is by confronting it with the truth.
Christianity is egregious nonsense. The only way to destroy its hold on people is for them to be educated about it. They truly know nothing about its lack of historic validation, its gross distortion of truth, its irrationality, its sado-masochism.
But who will teach the truth? How many teachers will have the ability, the knowledge -- and most importantly, the courage -- to tell the truth about religion in general and Christianity in particular?
March 10, 2007 7:32 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes, I believe that religion should be taught in school. There should be one required class at the High School level that would be similar to a Humanities-type class that gives an insight into early philosophies, Judaism, Christianity, & Islam. This would allow students a greater understanding of others' beliefs as well as allowing them an opportunity to gain some knowledge for their own decision making. Religion is a large part of the world's culture and if it is not taught in bias would be a valuable class for students.
Now I'd prefer that schools only taught the grace of Jesus Christ and his teaching but that would not happen here.
March 10, 2007 7:08 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the question.
First of all, the many commenters who want religion taught in public schools as a means to perpetuate their own faith, are misreading the question (I think!). I agree with the majority of commenters who talk about comparitive teaching of religions. That is what the question is asking (I sincerely hope!!!). There is a big difference between TEACHING ABOUT religion versus TEACHING religion, as some of you have aptly pointed out.
Secondly, since I was not educated in the US I don't little about what the curriculum involves. However, in Germany (where I was educated) discussion of religion as a natural extension of world history was always part of the teaching plan. How else can you teach history? I can only hope that this is true for American schools as well. If not the students are not being taught history appropriately.
MICHELLE, my hat off to you. You sound like a good teacher.
March 9, 2007 4:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"Carolyn Hutchins :
Religion being taught is not the problem. Parents not raising their children and leaving them to raise themselves in a corrupt world, not teaching values and respect just might be a problem. A teacher not being able to discipline students is a MAJOR part in school problems. Children need something or someone to believe in and they WANT someone to SHOW that they care for them.
YES, they should put prayer back in school and the Pledge of Allegiance. This is AMERICA and OUR country was founded on the Pledge and In God We Trust.
The belief of ONE person or even a few should NOT have the power to change a belief that is so powerful (or another way to put It. that the majority of the people believe in). We vote on all sorts of futile issues every year, why not vote on an issue of this caliber? Well, we all know why they don’t let the PEOPLE vote.
People come to AMERICA because of OUR PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE and what it stands for not because of what their beliefs were wherever they lived. They would have stayed put if it was so wonderful.
Sorry for the ramble, this is a very touchy subject. I say put it to a vote! And not just by congress or a small minority. ALL TRUE AMERICANS should have a say in this law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular children's magazine Youth's Companion by socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
"In God We Trust" is the current national motto of the United States. It was declared as such by an act of Congress in 1956, displacing the existing national motto, E Pluribus Unum.
Carolyn- our country was NOT founded on these two statements, nor will a return to Christian prayer in the schools transport us back to the mythical days of Ozzie and Harriett. And I, a Wiccan, would take great umbrage if anyone tried to force my child to pray to Jesus. My faith is just as precious to me as yours is to you. If tomorrow 95% of America decided they were Wiccan, would it be right to force you or your children to recite the Charge of the Goddess?
March 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous:
When you talk about "Family Values" one can only assume you are chanting the Republican FoxNews mantra correct? I mean that's what you people do right? And part of that is treating others as you would like to be treated along with all the other stuff including those 10 rule thingys right?
Well one would assume that Newt Gingrich a.k.a. "Mr. Family Values" would be the poster boy for your crap right? Well then we can all assume that ALL biblethumping folks believe that when you are heading up a MOB trying to dispose of a foe you are free to do have sex with whomever you please! So, not only are you acting in a un-christian way by leading a political witch hunt you yourself are breaking one of those 10 rule things you people seem to care so much about.
Religion is a way to control people. Christianity lives by the fact that no one is accountable except the so called sinner in the eyes of some yahoo that has been appointed by some other yahoos as the Grand poo-bah and authority on all things religious (sacred handshakes, rituals and gathering of the cash!) If ever anyone with a mind questions the non-sense, the answer is always, "you must take it on faith."
Case in point, when we left one of the major cities in Iraq (it may have been Falluja) upon the request of the Iraqi government, the local whackjobs (their own version of the Christian right) told the worshipers that they saw "Angels" rising from the dead Iraqis and that those angels "ran the Americans off!" Is this the type of Religion we are talking about?? YES of course it is! If you need to believe in something this ridiculous that bad, you have worse problems than terrorism to worry about.
March 9, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Sure, and while we're at it lets teach astrology, tarot-card reading, tea-leaf reading and the secrets of the owegee(sic) board.
The only good that could come from teaching religion in school would be if they taught about all the horrific things that have been done in the name of religion.
If anything, people should be taught not to have blind faith in anything ... least of all ... religion!
Let's take a lesson from what's happening in the Middle East where religion is pounded in at an early age.
March 9, 2007 4:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Actually, people come to the U.S. to escape religious persecution they faced in their homeland. People come to the U.S. because they can easily cross the border to find better work with higher wages than what they can in their homeland. Who would come here because of our Pledge of Allegiance? It's actually kind of dull.
March 9, 2007 4:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion being taught is not the problem. Parents not raising their children and leaving them to raise themselves in a corrupt world, not teaching values and respect just might be a problem. A teacher not being able to discipline students is a MAJOR part in school problems. Children need something or someone to believe in and they WANT someone to SHOW that they care for them.
YES, they should put prayer back in school and the Pledge of Allegiance. This is AMERICA and OUR country was founded on the Pledge and In God We Trust.
The belief of ONE person or even a few should NOT have the power to change a belief that is so powerful (or another way to put It. that the majority of the people believe in). We vote on all sorts of futile issues every year, why not vote on an issue of this caliber? Well, we all know why they don’t let the PEOPLE vote.
People come to AMERICA because of OUR PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE and what it stands for not because of what their beliefs were wherever they lived. They would have stayed put if it was so wonderful.
Sorry for the ramble, this is a very touchy subject. I say put it to a vote! And not just by congress or a small minority. ALL TRUE AMERICANS should have a say in this law.
March 9, 2007 3:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"Anonymous :
about time we come to our senses and reinstall values and faith in our children. we seem to have forgotten the ties that bind family. respect and humble are good things. they shouldnt be frowned upon. children are falling through the cracks and noone seems to be tieing this to families and faith being pushed aside and considered not as important as it used to be.
ther is nothing wrong with teaching our children to treat your fellow man as you wish to be treated. in this society, we need to install values again to get back on track, otherwise we are going to be lost ones wondering where we went wrong as a whole. to love another is one of the best words of wisdom. respect is almost a thing of the past. it should be the present and future."
Values and treating your fellow human with respect has nothing to do with religion in school. You can teach children good values without it having to be religious. And what is good family values? A mother and father still married and fighting but fighting all the time in front of the children but won't divorce because of their religion? Please don't say all good values have to be religious. That is feeding the othersides arguement that religion is bad. It is not.
March 9, 2007 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I like the idea that religions of all kinds can be taught on a historical, and cultural understanding basis in our public schools as some have already mentioned. Regarding the practicing of faith, I do not have a problem with the fact that this is not taught in our public schools, but I do have a problem when educators feel it is their responsibility to squash it. "We don't talk about Jesus here". "We don't do that here, that is something only for church/synagogue/temple/mosque"... As if it was something really, really, bad. How can I feel that my child will be truly educated when some of their knowledge is censored? As long as these things are forbidden I am forced to send my child to private school, which is unfortunate because their exposure to persons of other faiths and creedos will not be as broad as I would like.
March 9, 2007 3:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No. If you want to be taught religion along with your ABC's, then go to a christian/muslim/jewish school that incorporates it into their curriculum. There are too many mixtures of faith in public schools.
For many districts in this country, our schools are fighting to keep kids attending and keeping them up to speed in math, english, science, etc. Now they'd have to save their souls as well? Yikes! We also have a hard enough time attracting people to both teaching and the priesthood/faith-based work. I don't see it happening.
March 9, 2007 3:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
about time we come to our senses and reinstall values and faith in our children. we seem to have forgotten the ties that bind family. respect and humble are good things. they shouldnt be frowned upon. children are falling through the cracks and noone seems to be tieing this to families and faith being pushed aside and considered not as important as it used to be.
ther is nothing wrong with teaching our children to treat your fellow man as you wish to be treated. in this society, we need to install values again to get back on track, otherwise we are going to be lost ones wondering where we went wrong as a whole. to love another is one of the best words of wisdom. respect is almost a thing of the past. it should be the present and future.
March 9, 2007 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If religion is taught in school it should only be in advanced AP classes, for possible future college course credit. A student should be allowed to discuss his or her own religious preferences in school without persecution, but should not be taught religion as a general requirment, general requirments should be reserved for Math History and Science. There is plenty of time in college to take religous courses.
March 9, 2007 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"PAT :
Why are we not concerned about teaching mathematics and science?
Our education system is crumbling and we are worried about teaching about religion.
If the United States wants to maintain its competitive advantage over emerging nations, we must focus tangible subject matter.
Keep religion in Sunday school."
Exactly!!!!
"JERRY :
What I find so frustrating about this subject is it is OK for an exchange student from Israel to come here and they discuss the Jewish religion in my daughter's fifth grade class, but it is tabu for my daughter to talk about the Christian faith.
MARCH 9, 2007 3:21 PM"
This is a prime example of why we shouldn’t have religion in school. One religion would be offended when it is not taught.
And to the person that said that school violence it a result of removing mandatory prayer in school and this just ridiculous. It took quite a while for the violence levels in school to rise since mandatory prayer was removed. The rise in violence has nothing to do with that. It is due to bad parenting.
March 9, 2007 3:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If religion were to be taught in schools, it should be done on a "world religions" basis, not just the dominant religions in our U.S. culture. Further, the studies should include full disclosure of the ravaging of humankind that has occurred in the name of religion, to include that by and within Christianity.
March 9, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No. If you want to be taught religion along with your ABC's, then go to a christian/muslim/jewish school that incorporates it into their curriculum. There are too many mixtures of faith in public schools.
For many districts in this country, our schools are fighting to keep kids attending and keeping them up to speed in math, english, science, etc. Now they'd have to save their souls as well? Yikes! We also have a hard enough time attracting people to both teaching and the priesthood/faith-based work. I don't see it happening.
March 9, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I agree with some of those above, religion is a personal matter and should not be mandatorily taught in public school. I would be supportive of elective courses that taught major world religions equally in which comparisons and contrast could be openly discussed. Putting those discussions in the context of world history would be most important also...
Schools should NOT pick and choose which religions they want to teach, but such discussions should be left to students to decide (give them the options and let them choose what they'd like to discuss).
March 9, 2007 3:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The truth about Gods name or teach thing like Santa Clause. If not the truth then what good could it possibly do?
March 9, 2007 3:30 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Why are we not concerned about teaching mathematics and science?
Our education system is crumbling and we are worried about teaching about religion.
If the United States wants to maintain its competitive advantage over emerging nations, we must focus tangible subject matter.
Keep religion in Sunday school.
March 9, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comment
the question is will they teach truth or not?
March 9, 2007 3:26 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion certainly should be taught in schools as part of history, literature, art and social studies. It always was taught this way in the past and that's how I learned about Greek mythology. I see no reason not to learn about Christian, Jewish or Islamic mythology in the same manner.
March 9, 2007 3:25 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Why are we not concerned about teaching mathematics and science?
Our education system is crumbling and we are worried about teaching about religion.
If the United States wants to maintain its competitive advantage over emerging nations, we must focus tangible subject matter.
Keep religion in Sunday school.
March 9, 2007 3:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
What I find so frustrating about this subject is it is OK for an exchange student from Israel to come here and they discuss the Jewish religion in my daughter's fifth grade class, but it is tabu for my daughter to talk about the Christian faith.
March 9, 2007 3:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Teaching of global religion should be mandatory. Without such historical knowledge one is not educated. It should cover native and indigenous religions, as well as, atheism and agnosticism. The idea that we don't know how to teach religion in an objective manner is just not true. We have mastered that at the university level. Structuring such an objective curriculum in the public school should and can be done in a way that respects everyone with a truthful presentation of all of our diverse religios positions.
Recently, Harvard rejected making religion a mandatory subject for all students at the university level. That simply tells me that Harvard is deciding to forfeit its world leadership role where religion is being used to define world events.
Using a historical and comparative approach is simply part of being educated. No one should be asked to change their beliefs. If it happens, that is up to the individual.
May we become confident enough to expose outselves to the best and worst of world culture!
March 9, 2007 3:20 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religions as well as the Darwin theory should be taught. It is the right of everyone to decide on what they belive based on all the information available. We have enough fanatical people in the world because they have not been properly educated.
March 9, 2007 3:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
RK
Public schools should teach about world religions so students may understand history and the development of societies and cultures.
To force a belief system on children and young adults of course undermines the U.S.Constitution and our freedom.
It appears we still have not learned from history if we still have these issues to debate.It is the threat of American freedom by our current political administration and religious sects that require us to even discuss this in 2007.
March 9, 2007 3:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Absolutely not in public schools. Doing so would open a door for debate with closeminded, self-righteous people. I'd rather spend my time in more productive pursuits.
As for colleges and universities, religion should be a theme in history and social science courses to demonstrate its influence on international and interpersonal relations - so mandatory, no. Keep mandatory study of religion in religious colleges and universities where it is appreciated most.
March 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comment
RK
Public schools should teach about world religions so students may understand history and the development of societies and cultures.
To force a belief system on children and young adults of course undermines the U.S.Constitution and our freedom.
It appears we still have not learned from history if we still have these issues to debate.It is the threat of American freedom by our current political administration and religious sects that require us to even discuss this in 2007.
March 9, 2007 3:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
There is nothing wrong with offering, as an elective, a class on the various religions of the world. There is, however, something intrinsically wrong in only offering faith-based lessons or only offering lessons on one single religion.
The understanding of religions is integral in the comprehension of writing, art, politics, and society within all the cultures of the world.
Example:To understand the vast majority of Classic English Lit. one must have a basic working knowledge of the Bible. This is not to say that anyone who reads these selected novels need believe in the doctrines of the Bible. As a graduate of English and an amature writer I have made it my duty to understand and study much of the Bible, though I am an athiest.
Any study on the West,Mid East, or the Far East and their political evolution must include basic instruction on the religious doctrines, taboos, and values which were inherent in the birth of all these societal structures.
So long as a public school does not mandate a specific belief structure there is nothing wrong with this form of education, in fact it will serve to only create a more worldly and accepting student.
Example of how not teach a religious doctrine: "You will go to Hell if you covet your neighbors wife."
Example of how to submit the same point: "Under the Judeau/Christian belief structure, it is widely accepted that to covet, to desire in a lustful manner, your neighbor's wife is a sin which will result in eternal punishment lest the sinner be redeemed."
The first was a statement of belief, the second was a factual statement of the way in which a certain religious group practices their belief.
Pretty simple to me.
March 9, 2007 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Michelle,
I understand the temptation to believe that restoring mandatory prayer in schools would do away with school violence. It's part of human nature to feel afraid and powerless when confronted with horrific events such as Columbine and 9/11, and to long for easy, comfortable explanations for such events. I've been guilty of that, too. But I believe that most things in life have no easy, comfortable explanations. In the case of Columbine, prayer wouldn't have stopped Klebold and Harris - one was suffering from severe depression and the other was psychotic.
March 9, 2007 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Theology is an important part of sociology and understanding humans as a whole. It would be wonderful to teach our children about the different faiths. However, to be fair, the instruction would have to include Druidism and Wiccan, Santeria,etc and miscellaneous non Judeo/Christian/Buddan religions. It is important for all people to have a basic understanding of their fellow humans. I received such an education in my college prep program at a public high school and it makes understanding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict,current Islamic terrorism and the current issues in Iraq and all over the world much easier to understand. Had all the people who represent us in government, including the president, had this type of education, they may have made better decisions. I learned about Chalabi in high school and college and on ABC news. Shame Cheney and the Department of Defense did not know anything about the history of crimes and lies associated with this man... 3K+ American lived may have been saved.
March 9, 2007 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, because in this country, teaching religion really means teaching Christianity. Joe Biblethumper would through an absolute hissy fit if other religions were taught. I still remember what it was like being a non-Christian in a non-Christian area when I was in high school and don't want to allow it to happen to other non-Christians, least not my children.
March 9, 2007 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Public schools should teach about world religions so students may understand history and the development of societies and cultures.
To force a belief system on children and young adults of course undermines the U.S.Constitution and our freedom.
It appears we still have not learned from history if we still have these issues to debate.It is the threat of American freedom by our current political administration and religious sects that require us to even discuss this in 2007.
March 9, 2007 3:06 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion is a PRIVATE matter and should remain that way. It's fine to teach about how various religions have influenced history and culture, but it is NOT okay to preach that religion in any public forum, whether school, government, or otherwise. If allowed, Christianity would be favored by default, and children who are not Christian (or non-religious) would be singled out and ridiculed -- and not just by the students. Teachers and administrators would discriminate, too.
March 9, 2007 3:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I don't believe religion should be taught in school. That would infringe upon the rights of the Atheist and Agnostics in this country. It is up to the parents of each child to teach their own child about religion. Take them to church and sunday schools. My public tax dollars should not go to teach a child about any religion. I do not believe in religion and wish that my children will not be taught anything that will undermine the values i instill in my child. Publically funded schools are mandated by the federal and state governments, therefore religion cannot step foot inside. Seperation of church and state goes both ways. The religious right cannot have everything they want. i will not have them via public schools filling my child with the lies of creation, some omnipotent God, people rising from the dead, and burning bushes talking to a man in the desert. All religions are filled with HATE and I will not have my child taught this in school. All religious texts contain tons of prejudice and I prefer that to be taught by the people whom know so much about hate, the churches...let the pros do it...leave public funds out of religious hands....or you can go ahead and teach it....then they should make every religious organization pay taxes....YEAH...make them pay taxes on all the money they have CONNED out of the blindly folowing masses.
March 9, 2007 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Christianity's most important holiday is not Christmas. It's Easter. Christmas is the financial perversion taking over American society during the months of November and December.
World Religions should be taught in schools. I'm a teacher. I want my children to know about the religions that are out there. Do I want them being taught to practice that faith? No. However, denying children access to the source of most conflict in our world today is denying them the cure for the conflict as well.
Do I want to see my child with a Menorah or a copy of the Koran? No. However, I do want my child to know the basic principles behind the major religions of the world.
We should NEVER deny our children education. It just doesn't make sense to force our children to grow up as ignorantly as we have.
March 9, 2007 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
They have been teaching religion in schools in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. for centuries and look how great that turned out. What could go wrong?
March 9, 2007 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
this is about another subject that i saw but was unable to read, and i would like to know how i can get that information. it was about the first coins being printed without "in God we trust" on it...can someone direct me to a sight that has that information? Also, this country was built on Christian Judaeo ethics. Yes religion should be taught in school if we are to be equal in educating our children in all aspects of religion.
March 9, 2007 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I can see the pros and cons...but I think the cons far outweigh the pros. Raise your hand if you went to a public school that was 100% Christian. Odds are, at a public school, you learned side-by-side with a Catholic, a Jew, etc...this is starting to sound like a bad joke...but my point is this: how would it work? Are you teaching Christianity? Or are you teaching a comprehensive class on world history with an emphasis on world religions? Where would the funding come from? I liked one poster's answer of the community churches...but that would lend a definate bias. Who would teach the class? An overworked, underpaid teacher with an already overwhelming workload? How would objections be handled?
We'll never agree on who is right. I just want to know how it would be handled if it were seriously proposed. I was raised in a small, religious (Mennonite) community; actually, the one enduring the recent bus tragedy, and our elementary school had religious education. The students who participated simply walked across the street to one of the town's many churches. Those who elected not to stayed in the school for independent study. Though it alienated those who stayed behind (me), I didn't have to sit through instruction of something I did not believe in.
I believe it can be handled in a better way than the automatic reaction of religious zealots brainwashing our children. Let it be optional. Give the students who opt-out a better alternative than study hall (maybe they can all suggest a weekly lesson of their own interests or beliefs?). Just let it be a personal choice between the student and his/her family. To each his/her own.
March 9, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Hell no! I am a 23 year old who has always gone to church, and who tries to believe in what others believe in as well as what I have been taught. I however do not think that religion should be taught within the school ciriculum. It is not the schools place or right to do so. Judging that there is such a diversity of people in the US. It may offend someone who does not believe in the same "idea" And to me that is an infringment of ones own right. They were seperated for a reason, leave it that way. Until you get to college, then you can decide if you want to study religion. Other then college and private schools of the such religion it should not be taught in public schools.
March 9, 2007 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think it is wonderful to bring religion back to the schools. My daughter currently attends private scholl where she is taught about religion. She is always so happy to learn more and more. i was not raised to be involved in the churh and religion, but I think it is wonderful to see my bright 5 year old want to learn so much more. Maybe if there were more people out there that cared, maybe we would not be having our children killing each other or robbing people for things they have worked very hard for.
March 9, 2007 2:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I believe religion should be taught in school. But not on a one sided bases and not as a alternative to other forms of science. It should however just be a class based on histories, societies, and beliefs relating to a broad spectrum of different riligions.
March 9, 2007 2:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? WE ARE FREE TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE...IT'S NOT MANDATORY. EACH FAMILY SHOULD CHOOSE THEIR BELIEFS AND AS THEIR CHILDREN BECOME ADULTS, THEY MAY DECIDE THEIR OWN BELIEFS. THE ONLY RELIGION THAT SHOULD BE ENFORCED SHOULD COME FROM HOME, DEFINATELY NOT SCHOOL!
March 9, 2007 2:45 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I have a comment on this:
"Charlie :
In the sense that any religion is a faith-based worldview substantially unprovable by scientific observation, one would have to conclude that religion is already taught in the public schools under the name of Darwinism."
Charlie, you shame the name Charles. Religious moderates--wake up. Your defense of radicals like Charlie allows lies like this to be propagated. Evolution is completely based on piles and piles of observable evidence. It is not a religion, it's called the scientific method. Religion has no place in our school unless is has to do with our history classes, which it does. I believe that the authors might be asking if a church-like religion class should be taught, and the answer is NO. In college, feel free to elect whatever you want to take, but don't force my elementary aged child to take your "How to be a good Christian" class. There's separation of church and state for a reason. If you want to make an effort to bring them together, you can start by giving up your tax-exempt status. Oh, and as far as morals go, why don't you just teach your child those at home. ( Although preliminary studies are showing that evolution has done more to shape our morals than our religion has. Evolution:2, Religion:0 )
March 9, 2007 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion should be taught in public school, but only as an anthropology, sociology, or most preferably, a mythology class. No preference should be given to islam, mithraism, hinduism, christianity, or Eddie the Magical Electric Panda. Every tenet of any religion should always be prefaced with "some people believe, despite the lack of observable evidence or scientific modeling, that . . . "
March 9, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment
@Michelle, regarding school violence:
Give me a break.
Until Columbine, school shootings and school violence were simply never reported. I remember going to school where we had silent prayer and religious clubs, where a lot of our teachers didn't fear speaking about their faith.. and yet we had one of the worst school shootings in the area when several kids got into a fight and brought rifles and shotguns to school.
Did it even make the local news? Did it make the local newspaper? No, it was kept completely under wraps.
And how about those private Catholic School high school kids in Virginia who PUBLICALLY harassed a local Jewish School's sports team because they didn't believe in Jesus? Remember these are kids who are going to schools founded on faith and religion yet, in what was supposed to be a friendly sporting contest, they resorted to outright bigotry.
March 9, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes. Religion is an integral part of world history and cultural awareness. Broad exposure to world religions is essential in today's society.
March 9, 2007 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If parents want their children to have religion in their lives, they should teach them at home. There is a distinct danger teaching K-12 religion - whose religion would be taught? Christian? Judiasm? What about Buddhism, Islam and the many other religions? Would ALL religions be covered, or only those who teachers and administrators deem the "correct" one?
Religion has no place in public education, and this is coming from someone who is deeply Catholic. If parents cannot afford to send their kids to religious schools, teach them yourselves! Take them to after school religion classes (i.e. CCD). Don't expect the public school system to do your job! What if parents don't like the way religion is taught in public schools? What then? Would there be an entire set of rules and regulations - time and energy wasted - on how to appropriately teach religion? What a mess this would be if church and state are mixed together.
March 9, 2007 2:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I'm an atheist but strongly believe that religion should be taught in school. On a sociological base, religion really rules the laws and ways of lives of many.
However, I also believe that the religious curiculum should be more varied. For example the base of the most common religions of the world would inform of the people surrounding us. I would suggest: Christianity (including protestantism), Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and smaller groups such as Shintoism, Wicca etc...
The classes should not try to have debates on who has the "true" religion, but mainly an informative one.
Norm Edwards
Montreal, Canada
March 9, 2007 2:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
A religous education within the context of the liberal arts, history, language, and philosophy, should be encouraged. Theology should not.
March 9, 2007 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am intrigued when individuals say they will quit reading a post which quotes the bible. Do you (the quitters) not realise you reveal yourselves as the very bigots you claim to despise? What difference does it make if you want to quote the rig veda,the
diamond sutra or what your spirit animal told you at the last sweat lodge?I find your objections strangely and hatefully religious in their own right.
March 9, 2007 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Question: Before religion and prayer were removed from schools, how many school shootings occured, how many schools had armed security guards walking the halls and metal detectors installed at the doors? I do believe religion(s) teach children to value themselves and others. Believing in a higher power gives you strength to know that you are never alone in this world and you can make it through whatever life throws at you. Unfortunately, some children only have access to support groups that only exist at school.
March 9, 2007 2:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Is this a serious question? I think our Constitution, and many years of jurisprudence, has already given us an answer. Parents, not schools, should teach their children religion.
As a philosophy, and as it relates to history (which is usually not in a very positive way), and as it relates to the many, many geopolitical problems we face today (very often as a cause of those problems rather than a solution), it should be taught, preferably at the college level. Otherwise, religion has no place in public schools.
March 9, 2007 2:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion should only be taught with perspective being toward the fact that all religions are the roots of all evil.
What's needed is an intensive effort toward building a scientifically based system of intellectual development that would preclude any further development of the religious nonsense being practiced by all of the current "faiths".
Religious faith is pure nonsense, the teaching, of any, simply perpetuates the continuum.
You may as well pray to Michael Jackson . . . nonsense!
March 9, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To the question. Yes and no. The problem with teaching religion in school, as pointed out many times, is that the personal beliefs of the teacher will show no matter what they do to try and conceal it. Whether your atheist, buddist, or pagan, if you teach about religion, your going to explain yours most. Most times, it is not even concious, or on purpose, but it does happen.
Bear with me for a minute. EX: Schools have decided to make a course on religion available (required or not). Now, when teaching it, who is to decide what religions are taught, and which ones arent. Christanity will be a part of it, thats painfully obvious, but what about when it comes to religions like Wicca and Paganism? If the teacher is Christain, he/she might decide to cut that section down to a day, if at all, and still add their own bias to it because of what they believe. To Wiccans and Pagans, that is not only un-fair, but unjust and wrong. When teaching, what about Satanism? Though it is a very contraversial religion, it is one none the less.
People today just aren't ready to have that kind of access to religion because they could not look past their own beliefs and teach the subject with complete indifference. Even an atheist would make it seem as if he is right by thinking religions are all wrong. We must start to teach our young about different religions and how to not only tolerate, but embrace them as part of what makes this country so great. As for teaching them in schools though, we still have a ways to come, but if we never start trying, nothing will ever be accomplished.
March 9, 2007 2:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion, Yes. Theology, No. Religion is about the underpinning philosophies of most societies in human history. That needs to be a part of everyone's education. Theology is about belief in supreme beings and belongs within one's family educational structure. It is akin to teaching sex education in school. Children need to understand the physical process and the possible outcomes. Parents need to teach the ethics of sexual behavior.
March 9, 2007 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If you want to teach religion to children, are you going to teach them how the Catholics in charge in the Vatican threw out entire books of the Bible? Or how Christianity's major holiday, um..Christmas? is not Jesus' true birthday? Or how Christianity is basically converted pegan rituals? No. Our children would be preached to.
I think that broad of a question is unfair. Of course if you just say "religion" everyone automatically thinks "Christianity." I'm all for religion being taught in an historical context, and giving equal time to all major religions. I'm vehemently against impressionable children being preached to. Leave the teaching of morality to the parents.
PS. Please don't quote scripture. I stop reading your posts when I see that.
March 9, 2007 2:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Very true, we don't want religion as that is truly man's effort to reach God which he can never do. What we want is a personal, life changing relationship with Jesus Christ, the only one who defeated death, sickness and sin and the only one who came down to us to reach us. No other "god" ever did that. He is the only one and withholding the only way or teaching the deception that we can save ourselves by means of manmade religions is unexcusable. We WILL be held accountable one day, regardless of the fact if we believe or not. It will be too late then...
Would a cancer patient refuse a new medication that may rescue him? Would an alcoholic who lost everything refuse to be rescued? Would a child not want to know his parent loves him? God is our parent, our father, our daddy, our best friend. Would a lost person deny the only Savior and Lord? Most of us do but we all need to know there is a way out. Refusing that love and hope, well, we'll have to live with the consequences for eternity. And that is a VERY long time. However, we should all have the benefit of having that choice.
March 9, 2007 2:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Of course it's alright, provided it is a course in history of religion. Otherwise it becomes the flavor of the day depending on who is on the school board and how outspoken the local religious zealots are in campaigning for their particular brand of religion. Oh, and the extra work load/extra teachers should be paid for by the local churches who want this, not the general populace. Requirements for this course for the instructors should be a national standard that demonstrates that the teacher has had a full educational background in religion as far back as anthropologists and archaeologists can take us.
March 9, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
i think in colleges and universaties there should already be classes to teach people about other religions. As long as any religion is not being forced onto anyone, people should be able to choose what the want to learn about, religion or other.
March 9, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In my opinion, Religion should only be taught as it coincides with World History in the K-12 levels of Public Schools. It would be very hard to teach world history, including the westward expansion that led to the colonization of the United States, without being able to teach that "Group X believed Faith Y".
However, that's as far as K-12 public school should ever teach about religion. I would be quite against having electives that teach nothing BUT world religion in a K-12 environment.
Likewise, I'm against the idea of high school religion clubs using K-12 Public School grounds. As an Eagle Scout, I recall a time when all our meetings were allowed to be done in Public Schools. However, due to a large debate between some communities and the BSA about Public Schools and the Boy Scout law of Reverence, Scout Troops were ousted from Public Schools. Why, then, should the same Public School systems who ousted the Boy Scouts (who, if you'll look into their religious emblem program are quite tolerant of any religion, just not tolerant of atheists and agnostics [to my dismay]) think it's OK to use their facilities for extracurricular religion clubs?!
In Public Colleges and Universities, however, where the attendees are legally ADULTS who can choose their own curriculum, I believe we would be remiss to include complete course studies in the major world religions. Again, in Colleges and Universities, students as adults can simply choose (or choose not) to take a course to explore various faiths or to improve their own. This does, of course, come with a caveat: Public Colleges and Universities would not be able to offer studies in ONE religion only. Either they offer course studies in all, or they offer course studies in none.
I'm Buddhist and I'm certainly not offended that we're not teaching middle- and high-schoolers about Bodhisattva or the Dali Llama. I just don't think it would be appropriate if we taught them about him, or Mohammad, or Jesus. Conversely, I'd be DEEPLY concerned if we didn't offer the ability to students of higher education to explore faith simply because they get state or federal dollars.
March 9, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Personally I am not the biggest fan of religion or ultra religious folk. I find that religion has caused more problems throughout history than good. I think Christian Fundamentalists should be locked up in a large dark room and forgotten.
However, religion exists in the world in many forms and as a society we have to deal with it. I went to both a Catholic grammer/prep school and a Lutheran college. One thing to note is that we were not inundated with religous rhetoric. Yes, we did have the standard Cathlolic religous class in those earlier years; however, we also had many classes teaching us about all other mainstream religions in the world. The final outcome was a general knowlege of other religions/cultures/customs that helped educate us, not convert us.
Therefore, I am in favor of religion taught in schools, not a religous experience of any kind, but rather from a sociological/historical perspective under strict guidlines. It is imperative that students learn about other cultures, religions, and the like. If you look at Islam for example, it is hard to separate the culture from the relgion. Many misunderstandings could have been averted if only people had a clue.
March 9, 2007 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comment
i think in colleges and universaties there should already be classes to teach people about other religions. As long as any religion is not being forced onto anyone, people should be able to choose what the want to learn about, religion or other.
March 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes. It should be mandatory to teach children that religions are dangerous cults and instruments of mind control, much like early drug and sex education teaches the dangers associated with those activities.
Major religions' central claims (virgin births, prophet relationships with gods, thunderbolt throwing, reincarnation) should be revealed as false, quaint, modes of thinking of un-evolved humankind. At the very least, religion should have an age of majority, like voting, pornography, and alcohol. I suspect if children were not allowed to be indoctrinated at such young ages, claims of religious truth would evanesce in a generation or two.
March 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
This topic is a bit vague, to say the least.
The posted question is: "Should teaching about religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?"
I'm not sure what this really means. Religion, of one sort or another, has been a part of the human experience throughout recorded history.
In most history classes you'll find information pertaining to the religious beliefs associated with the historical period and geographical location of whatever subject is being taught.
Religion itself shouldn't be something scholars shy away from. It should simply be presented as the contemporary beliefs of the people who are the topic of the lesson; whether they be ancient Greeks, Norsemen, or Native Americans.
If the original question means to ask whether or not the dominant religious belief (let's say...Christianity) of a particular region on today's map (let's say...the U.S.) should be presented in schools as "fact", or as an "alternative to science" (referring to the creation debate of recent years) then my answer is, without a doubt, a resounding NO!
Religious beliefs, all religious beliefs, have their place in history, and they should be recognized and respected as such.
In today's day and age (to be cliche), I find it appalling that there are those who would like to see their personal religious beliefs (usually defined by geography and an inherent need to believe in magic) taught as the law of the land.
Religion, in the context of history is required.
Religion superposed as fact is not.
March 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, because all religions are simply man made inventions. Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and all the rest of these heroes never really existed in real life and are a waste of time. What folks are really worshiping on faith is "The Sun" in the sky, not someone that was ever a real person..
March 9, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No. Religions are all man made inventions and should not be taught in public schools. Jesus, Buddha, Kristna and all the rest of the heroes that man has worshipped on faith have never existed as real people. They are all personifications of "The Sun" in the sky that has been worshipped for thousands of years. Teach astrology not bogus religions.
March 9, 2007 2:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Hey Michele: EXCELLENT POST!! (The one from March 9, 2007 1:51 PM.) You especially hit the nail on the head when you say that "They just end up parrotting what they have heard and using the same circular logic to defend that which they have not deeply thought out." That pretty much sums up the way Conservatives AND Liberals debate these days: using the same tired arguments they hear from their suppossed "leaders".... what a joke.
It's good to see that many people do understand that teaching a comparative course in religion is truly a neccesity to be considered and educated person.
As I read through more and more of the comments it amazes how "programmed" some sound. I've heard these same, tired rants for as long as I can remember. Why are so many people threatened by religion or better yet, why do so many people hate religion (especially Christianity)? Please no excuses about how it causes war and prejudices. There are PLENTY of individuals who aren't religious that are hateful, warmongers and are extremely prejudiced.
March 9, 2007 2:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The entire question is based on a false premise. The question can only be WHAT religion is taught in the classroom.The reflexively egalitarin, enlightenment mish-mash presently offered seems to serve neither the republic nor it's individual citizens very well.
Culture derives from CULTUS-what is believed. We say we are a melting pot but that is no longer true.We are a temporary alliance of misfitted ideologies and peace is not going to last for long.
March 9, 2007 2:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It is funny to read all those comments from anti-religious people. Seems they are just involved in themselves and have no scope of anything. "I am free to do this and that", "if it feels good ...". Of course it is easy to live with no limits, paramenters or well defined rules. Religion (in my case Christianity) teaches only respect, love, care and commitment. Remember history, all the big cultures since humanity ended the same way we are heading, in selfishness. One day we will all learn to appreciate what we have, the most powerful country that was built on religious believes. Unfortunatelly, that will be too late, and all of those non-believers will be the first ones to pray "Oh god, please help me...".
March 9, 2007 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
How can anyone honestly believe that these group of individuals want to educate our children about anything other than christianity?
This boils down to another attempt by christians to spread christianity through our educational system and government.
It's the moral obligation of "good" christians in their own minds to save us all from ourselves. Such arrogance and ignorance should never be tolerated. You have to be disconnected from reality to think that evolution is a myth when a world of facts and information is all around you.
To me this is like someone teaching my children that Santa is real...
I would welcome an unbiased curriculum teaching religion from a cultural standpoint but not if it only provided the last several thousand years and the more popular religions of today like christianity.
We teach nothing about pre-christian religions in our schools such as shamanism, paganism that were global in proportion and were just as significant in humans sociological, cultural and spiritual development.
I can guarantee you that no one would be pushing this idea if it excluded christianity and opted to teach Taoism, Buddism, Shamanism etc.
But this will never be discussed because its not about education it's about christianity.
March 9, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No. For two reasons. Teachers are already are expected to fill in for parents in today’s society (IE sex ed). We do not need to add more to their workload and parents need to take more responsibility in educating their children. I see this happen one too many times in the library I work. Library employees are expected to be everyone parent. Parents drop off their kids and leave them for hours. The kid’s checkout a book or view something on a website that the parent objects to and the library staff is in the wrong? It is not their responsibility to parent other people’s children. The second is the number of religions that would DESERVE EQUAL representation in the classroom. There is not one religion that has been PROVEN to be the correct religion. On the same note there has not been one religion that has been PROVEN to be the wrong religion. Repressing one religion because someone else believes different then you is wrong. What would happen would be one religion would be forced while others would be briefly discussed or ignored all together. The people who are pushing this are the ones who want their religion and their religion only to be taught. Religion belongs outside the educational system. It is that simple. If this was forced on public schools I would home school or private school my children. What’s next? We teach only the war in Iraq rather than all the other wars? I know that sounds outrageous but if you start with one thing all others situations can happen.
March 9, 2007 1:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Recently a mission team from my church and a couple of others went to the Philippines for two weeks. They held worship services but also were given access to go into public schools and share the gospel. Sometimes they spoke one on one with students, and sometimes they were allowed to address all students in the school auditorium. Over 5,000 decided to become Christians! That is an incredible number.
While allowing religion to be taught in schools is a controversial subject, I found it sad to think that in the US, where we boast freedom of relgion, these kind of results would never be achievable here in the country that claims to be the most Christian of all. If you tried to gain access to US public schools to proclaim the gospel, the first words you would hear is "separation of church and state". In the mean time millions of children grow up without Christ or without a moral compass.
March 9, 2007 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes, please teach religion in Public Schools! I don't understand why this should pose a problem for those who think religion is simply old superstitions that won't go away. If you don't believe in anything, beyond the belief that you are your own master, why even worry about this? Usually those who don't want any form of religion forced down there throats, are usually the strongest advocates for being open minded and letting people live and let live. Surprising how close minded these same folks become when what they believe is challenged. And actually no one is even challenging their beliefs; the idea is that knowledge expands when shared. The more we learn about other religions, the easier it is to empathize and understand what motivates people to do the things they do.
March 9, 2007 1:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
CONFLICTS STEMMING FROM THE DIFFERENT BELIEFS WITHIN THE ORGANIZED RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN AROUND FRO THOUSANDS OF YEARS. THESE CONFLICTS HAVE HAD A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE WORLD. THEY HAVE DETERMINED BORDERS, AND LAWS AND INFLUENCED GOVERNMENTS AND POLITICS. FOR THESE REASONS I THINK IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR KIDS TO LEARN THE BASIC BELIEFS OF ALL MAJOR ORGANIZED RELIGION. I TOOK A WORLD RELIGIONS COURSE IN COLLEGE AT FOUND IT TO BE VERY INTERESTING. I THINK THE BIGGEST REASON PEOPLE DO NOT WANT ALL RELIGIONS TAUGHT IS THAT MORE KIDS WOULD DECIDE NOT TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN FAITH IF THEY FOUND OUT THAT ALL MAJOR RELGIONS BELIEVE IN THE SAME GOD AND THAT THIS ONE GOD HAS DIFFERENT RULES FOR EACH RELIGION.
March 9, 2007 1:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes, please teach religion in Public Schools! I don't understand why this should pose a problem for those who think religion is simply old superstitions that won't go away. If you don't believe in anything, beyond the belief that you are your own master, why even worry about this? Usually those who don't want any form of religion forced down there throats, are usually the strongest advocates for being open minded and letting people live and let live. Surprising how close minded these same folks become when what they believe is challenged. And actually no one is even challenging their beliefs; the idea is that knowledge expands when shared. The more we learn about other religions, the easier it is to empathize and understand what motivates people to do the things they do.
March 9, 2007 1:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
As a teacher it is not religion that should be taught in school, but the respect for religions. No one should feel they are better then someone else because theyare a certain religion. In our school we teach that everyone is of value as a person regardleaa of there ses, religion, or IQ. If more people respected others we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
March 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Response to questions addressed to me:
1. I found my content to teach ABOUT the "major" world religions on the internet. I was very careful to teach factual content about what members of particular religions believe and do, never what I, they, or anyone else thinks anyone should believe. I told my students that faith, which they had to define, was a personal matter and in this country, they had the right to believe or not believe anything, provided they acted within our laws.
2. I am in southern Arizona, Sierra Vista and Tucson. Sierra Vista curriculm requires sixth graders to learn world history, in which is included the "major" religions of the world. I taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. I know there are hundreds of others, so I focused on the most common religions.
3. I saw someone had written in the teaching religion is illegal. No, it is not. Avocating a religion is most definately illegal in a public school, but teaching ABOUT religion is not, provided it is in the context of your curiiculm. Teachers must be exceedingly careful when they teach about religion, so as not to cross the line between fact and opinion. I have found that most students are quite interested in what other people believe, and tolerant of beliefs different than their own. I believe that one of the best ways to deepen your belief/opinion on something is to hear and debate against another opinion opposite yours. If children never hear an opposing idea, how can they truly understand their own beliefs/opinions? They just end up parrotting what they have heard and using the same circular logic to defend that which they have not deeply thought out.
March 9, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Public school is as the name implies: public. Our general populous is composed of many different and diverse faiths and those who do not adhere to a religous doctrine. Religion is a matter of personal choice and opinion, but that opinion has no right to be imposed on others. In teaching kids in a general public school you have to either teach every religion equally, with no bias or predominance of one or another, or teach none at all. The idea that this ideal teach them all approach could work is preposterous. A teacher is not going to be knowledgeable enought to effectively teach about the breadth of the worlds religion, nor are they going to be neutral enough not to bias their instruction with the faith to which they adhere. It simply cannot be done. Therefore nothing must be taught.
Our public school systems are not about religion, they are about teaching our children hard facts and hard science and skills to prepare them for adulthood. Religion is a completely separate and personal matter and should in no way be introduced to a general public school in a way that would influence the children. There are, however, alternatives: private school.
If you want your child to be taught religion along side their usual cirriculum, then send your child to a private school that caters to your belief system. I would never want my child to be taught in a school that teaches any religion, or tries to instill religion into them. Faith is not the perogative of the state to teach my child. It is my perogative. If someone else would like such a thing, then you need to send your child to a private school. That is the answer. People want to talk about "removing God" from our schools - no - it was moved to where it is appropriate: private schools. If you cannot be bothered to teach your children your own lessons on religion, then this is the price you must pay. This indoctrination doesn not belong in the public school.
People like to talk about separation of church and state, but here's what it boils down to: the Constitiution guarantees that the State will not impose an official, standard, state enforced and mandated religion. It provides freedom OF religion, for people to worship and believe as the please; but that also guarantees freedom FROM religion. Just as you are free to believe as you choose, I am free to not beleive, and to not have others faith forced on me or my children. If however you want an institiution to teach religion to your child, then put them in private school.
March 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Public school is as the name implies: public. Our general populous is composed of many different and diverse faiths and those who do not adhere to a religous doctrine. Religion is a matter of personal choice and opinion, but that opinion has no right to be imposed on others. In teaching kids in a general public school you have to either teach every religion equally, with no bias or predominance of one or another, or teach none at all. The idea that this ideal teach them all approach could work is preposterous. A teacher is not going to be knowledgeable enought to effectively teach about the breadth of the worlds religion, nor are they going to be neutral enough not to bias their instruction with the faith to which they adhere. It simply cannot be done. Therefore nothing must be taught.
Our public school systems are not about religion, they are about teaching our children hard facts and hard science and skills to prepare them for adulthood. Religion is a completely separate and personal matter and should in no way be introduced to a general public school in a way that would influence the children. There are, however, alternatives: private school.
If you want your child to be taught religion along side their usual cirriculum, then send your child to a public school that caters to your belief system. I would never want my child to be taught in a school that teaches any religion, or tries to instill religion into them. Faith is not the perogative of the state to teach my child. It is my perogative. If someone else would like such a thing, then you need to send your child to a private school. That is the answer. People want to talk about "removing God" from our schools - no - it was moved to where it is appropriate: private schools. If you cannot be bothered to teach your children your own lessons on religion, then this is the price you must pay. This indoctrination doesn not belong in the public school.
People like to talk about separation of church and state, but here's what it boils down to: the Constitiution guarantees that the State will not impose an official, standard, state enforced and mandated religion. It provides freedom OF religion, for people to worship and believe as the please; but that also guarantees freedom FROM religion. Just as you are free to believe as you choose, I am free to not beleive, and to not have others faith forced on me or my children. If however you want an institiution to teach religion to your child, then put them in private school.
March 9, 2007 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Only a couple of brainless idiots would even ask such a stupid question. Why in the world would you even think of doing something like this? It shouldn't even be a debate.
March 9, 2007 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Organized religion is not the only path available for spiritual expression. There are athiests and agnostics. There are people who have spiritual practices which they do not name or who do not join organized religions. If schools are to teach about religion, they also must teach about non-religious choices. It would be appropriate to offer elective classes for young people who are interested in exploring such issues. However, to be fair, unbiased information about all options should be made available to the students.
March 9, 2007 1:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes...as long as you teach about the Tooth Fairy, the boogeyman and Santa Claus.
Religion is the scourge of the earth and has way more violent and suppressive behaviour enacted in it's name than paganism.
Those that believe in gods are mentally deranged.
Get a grip.
March 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Organized religion is not the only path available for spiritual expression. There are athiests and agnostics. There are people who have spiritual practices which they do not name or who do not join organized religions. If schools are to teach about religion, they also must teach about non-religious choices. At the high school level, it would be appropriate to offer elective classes for young people who are interested in exploring such issues. However, to be fair, unbiased information about all options should be made available to the students.
March 9, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the sense that any religion is a faith-based worldview substantially unprovable by scientific observation, one would have to conclude that religion is already taught in the public schools under the name of Darwinism.
March 9, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think people tend to blow things out of proportion. I think religion as a topic should be taught, but not a specific religion. Teach students what religion is, not a faith to follow. Remember it used to be illegal to teach evolution, now we've made it illegal to teach religion. We as a people are too uptight about topics we don't practice ourselves, but that doesn't mean we should "protect" our kids from them. That's a lack of education.
March 9, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I agree with the many who have pointed out that the people who push for religion in school mean THEIR religion, primarily, christianity.
Start a campaign in your town to have buddism taught in your schools and see what kind of reaction you get to from the hard-line, right-wing christians.
Me, I'll stay a devout aethist.
March 9, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment
ABSOLOUTELY! But only, as some have already said, if all religions are taught from a comparative standpoint. I think a lot of the "religion is evil and must not be taught in schools" is based ONLY on the Christian religion. As a Christian, I see no problem with religion being taught in school as their is MUCH wisdom in religion and wisdom is definitely missing from our world today.
March 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
ABSOLOUTELY! But only, as some have already said, if all religions are taught from a comparative standpoint. I think a lot of the "religion is evil and must not be taught in schools" is based ONLY on the Christian religion. As a Christian, I see no problem with religion being taught in school as their is MUCH wisdom in religion and wisdom is definitely missing from our world today.
March 9, 2007 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion is an important part of our culture and the world's culture, no one can deny that. A well rounded curriculum spanning across all religions would be a good way for our children to learn and respect other religions other than the one they may be practicing at home/religious institution.
March 9, 2007 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion is an important part of our culture and the world's culture, no one can deny that. A well rounded curriculum spanning across all religions would be a good way for our children to learn and respect other religions other than the one they may be practicing at home/religious institution.
March 9, 2007 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
ALL RELIGIONS ARE ANCIENT MOMUMENTS TO SUPERSTITION, IGNORANCE, FEROCITY; AND MODERN RELIGIONS ARE ONLY ANCIENT FOLIES."
BARON D'HOLACH
March 9, 2007 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I wish it could be--like at European public schools. But I don't trust American school boards (and/or some teachers) to get it right.
March 9, 2007 1:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Keep your religion out of my life!
March 9, 2007 1:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Of course we should teach religion in public schools. The problems involved in teaching religion in public schools are no different from problems in teaching science or literature. In deciding which sciences to teach and which kinds of literature to teach, standards have to be developed. Just as optics is a valuable science but not generally taught in a high-school physics class, Santeria is a valuable religion historically but one not generally taught in an introductory religion class. We train people (like me) to teach and understand religious studies just as we teach people to understand rhetoric and literature. The problems are no different, but only seem different because many people are already so judgemental about religion. We already have an entire discipline of studying religion called "Religious Studies" at most secular U.S. universities. Why not take advantage of those skilled people and put them to work in the public schools to teach the cross-cultural importance of rituals, symbols and myths? Its a fundamental par of humanistic education. "Religious Literacy" is not optional for a globalized economy. It is a fundamental requirement.
March 9, 2007 1:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
people, stop quoting the bible...it isn't fact. god didn't write it. if you think quoting the bible will give some umph to your argument..i might as well start quoting myspace blogs.
no to religion being taught in public schools. tax-payer dollars fund the institutions.
March 9, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ever hear of Sunday School? That's where I learned about religion, and from my parents in our home. That should be more than enough opportunity to learn religion. American children are already at a disadvantage when it comes to education in comparison to most countries in the world. We're sadly lacking in science and math skills. We need more education, but religion should not be in the curriculum. It should be taught in your home, churches, synagogues, Mosques, etc...Lord knows, we need more scientists, doctors and engineers than we need preachers...the latter didn't stop Hurricane Katrina, and the lack of the former has impeded with cleaning up the aftermath!
March 9, 2007 1:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, and how many times does issue need to be brought up? ....if you teach one ...you teach them all....but the Christian zealots wouldn't have any of that now would they?
March 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Report Offensive Comment
dose anyone rember PASTOR JIM JONES !!!!!!! how about send me your money I WILL SAVE YOUR SOUL . OH BY THE WAY I NEED MILLIONS OF DOLARS FOR MY NEW HOME . CAR'S . BOOZE . CAN'T YOU HELP , Ps. oh yea save the children
March 9, 2007 1:25 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In my view, it's important that students be exposed to the fact that society is, in large part, held together by the moral and spiritual values that are a part of religious teachings. I believe that should be taught in such a way that students see the need to develop personal spiritua/moral values. Developing such a curriculum would be a major challenge and, as others have suggested, it would be difficult to hold back the teachers who feel compelled to "save" students by "converting" them to their personal beliefs. I don't believe we can assume that teachers are educated, responsible people who would not do such a thing. I know of educators with advanced degrees who insist on making a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
March 9, 2007 1:25 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The problem with teaching religion in schools, is in choosing which religions to teach. Do we just teach the big ones? Islam, Christianity? But shouldn't we include other, less-followed religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Atheism etc...?
See, the problem is, many proponents of teaching religion in schools want their religion taught, but balk when it comes to other beliefs. And if you teach one religion, you have to include, not all, but a fairly good sampling of beliefs other than Christianity.
And how to we guard against teachers who view preach instead of teach religion? It's a slippery slope and I'm not sure we should stand so close to the edge.
March 9, 2007 1:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
firm & resounding NO NO NO!!! Reason being, who will do the teaching and who's book will they use? And what religion specifically will be taught? Baptist? (if so, which one?) Catholic? Weslian? Protistant? Methodist? And what about all the folks of different faiths such as Islam or the Jewish faith? What about Mormon? Or Hindu, or Buddist? And what if you're a Witness? The prospect of teaching religion will just create an environment for bigotry, bias and intolerance...our kids don't need any more reasons to ridicule each other. Faith should be taught at home - PERIOD! If you want your child to have faith taught at school, send them to a religious based school.
March 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It's OK to teach comparative religion as long as students are also taught that religion has caused more war and more deaths than any other historical reason. Place it in perspective.
And, of course, comparative religion should encompass those religions no longer practiced, like the worship of Zeus, to clarify that nonadherents to any one religion are viewed by the adherents as believing in mythology only. That way, the universal basis of religion will be clearer to students.
March 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
A person's religion is a big part of who they are and how they act. As shown in Iraq and other places, failure to know something about a person's religion leads to very bad relations, bad decisions, and huge trouble. So I think we should teach comparative religion in school just like we teach history, geography, and biology.
March 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I do not believe in any of the organized religions. I was raised in the RC faith, but no longer practice or believe it. Neither do I believe any of the Christian doctrines as taught by the major religions. As such, I do not want my children subjected, taught, instructed, or in any other way brought in contact with the topic of religion, expecially in a public school where I have NO idea of the viewpoint of the teacher and their prejudices. If accommodations can be made so that my children can be removed from this indoctrination, then I'm fine. If not, I would probably bring a lawsuit to stop the school from teaching my kids their brand of mythology. Lawsuits have stopped sex ed, and they will stop this nonsense.
March 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
ONLY if all religions can be taught, from a non-biased, non-judgemental viewpoint, by an educator who has done his/her homework. Religious intolerance and persecution are alive and well today in this country, my friends. Teaching about different spiritual paths in school may be one way of reversing the damage done by people who think that their religion is the only correct one, and who therefore judge others' religions.
March 9, 2007 1:20 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion should not be preached, but students should be taught about the world's religions. They should be able to explain what the difference is between hinduism and buddhism; between protestant, catholic and orthodox Christianity; and between sunni and shiite Islam, etc. Just as they need to understand the different forms of government and the differing political philosophies, they are not fully prepared if they don't understand religious motivations as well.
The difficulty with this, of course, is that people like the Scientologists, Moonies, and Christian fundamentalists will try to pervert this kind of lesson into a recruiting tactic. I still think it's worth the risk.
March 9, 2007 1:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Whose religion? Yours or mine?
March 9, 2007 1:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
NO! NO!
Religion is only another way for the government to further brain wash the children who already have enough problems.
March 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
all religions need to be taught in all schools at every level. religion has played a major role in our history. jamestown was settled by people leaving england for religious persocution. witches beening condemned in salem ma. how do you teachabout WWII and the Holocust and not teach religion. and the list goes on. and how do you go to war with a country who entire govt. and belief system are solely based on religion, and we know nothing about there religion.
March 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Only comparative world religion should be taught in schools. This is the only legitimate reaso to present religon in school, and at the same time benefit the educational experience.
March 9, 2007 1:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Prior commentators have stated the situation quite well: There are light years of separation involved in TEACHING ABOUT religion/non-religion/un-religion/anti-religion versus being INDOCTRINATED IN any of these venues. The broad concepts eliminate the potentially offending particulars that prevent total assimilation of knowledge as we comprend it now. It would appear that TEACHING ABOUT various economic theories would generate just as much controversy when being intellectually confused with being INDOCTRINATED IN some specific perspective thereof. Perhaps a critical caveat would be the repeated, rigorous assertion that any set of beliefs (no matter what the subject matter might be) is subject to being hijacked and perverted by any one entity at any given point in time. With respect to "religion" (whatever that is), to expound beyond the basic precepts is to enter a mine field of no return. The first commentator said it well...turn to anthropology/geography for a truly world view.
March 9, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
hell no religion should not be tought in public schools. Church and state should always be kept separate. If you want to learn religion then goto church like every body else. Religion is a choice and should not be tested on because no one know's what religion is right or wrong. It's about taking what you belive to be right and applying it to your life.
March 9, 2007 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I feel it should be taught in school. It should not be preached. All forms of religion should be taught in school. There is nothing wrong with educating the children of today about the diffrnt forms of religion. I wish I knew more about diffrent religions. We know little in this country about the Muslem Faith. With everything going on in that area of the world it would be nice to be more educated about it and all religions.
March 9, 2007 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
While I appreciate the idea of teaching an objective comparative religious course in K-12, it can't be done. If science teachers can't teach their courses without religious, and political, pressure to include or exclude material, like evolution or global warming, then what hope is there for objective religious courses.
I took a Philosophy course in high school and with other classes learned to think for myself and make my own choice to go from default-Christian to Atheist and later to real Christianity. So I think teaching kids how to think, in particular about religion, is very advantageous, but unfortunately their parents and teachers aren't mature enough to let it happen.
March 9, 2007 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No. This is our job as parents. This is a subject that any teacher would have a hard time not injecting their own beliefs into, which would fly in the face of what some children are being taught at home. I pay quite a bit of taxes for the local public schools that my son, and in several years twin daughters go to. We all know what religion the majority of teachers would be teaching, and I don't think that is fair to other tax paying Americans of different faiths. Add to the discussion that they will be using valuable time in what many believe, me included, is all mythology.
March 9, 2007 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If they're going to teach about the Bible, they should teach that it advocates sexism, racism, genocide, slavery (or something very close to it), slaughtering children, and religious intolerance. Numbers 31:7-18 is a prime example for a few of these.
They should teach that most of the key stories can be found worded differently in previous works. For example, the Greeks of Jesus' day (assuming there was such a person) believed in many entities that had a heavenly dad and earthly mom.
They should also use the book of Matthew as a counter-example in logic. It is almost full of various kinds of errors: counting, translation, analogy, etc. For example, Matthew cites the OT as saying that a virgin will give birth. That's a mistranslation; it says a young (unmarried?) woman will give birth. He has some error in almost every reference to the OT.
They should also teach that there are variations on much of the "original" text and there is no way to know what the original text said. Read "Misquoting Jesus".
In other words, if they don't gloss over the atrocities, contradictions, and changes, I have nothing against them teaching ABOUT the Bible.
March 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am fascinated by the number of people who intepret separation of church and state to mean no disucssion of religion whatsoever.
Should a particular religion be taught in public schools? Obviously not.
But should public schools teach everyone about religious beliefs? Absolutely.
We stick our heads in the sand at our own peril.
Tom Paine
Ohio
March 9, 2007 12:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, but if religion is taught, atheism should also be taught. Everyone should read Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and An Open Letter to a Christian Nation.
The problem with teaching religion in public schools is that the “factual” basis for Christianity and Judaism – where its oldest existent scriptures are located and their age - is not addressed. Christianity and Judaism and the existence of God would be taught as being true.
If the material was taught as being myths, just as the ancient Roman and Greek religions are taught as being myths, then it would fine, but that is not very likely to happen. We are even having difficulty teaching evolution in our science classes because it challenges the Christian view that Jesus came to redeem us from the original sin of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. Evidently, these Christians are more enamored with preserving their faith than with knowledge. If religion had to be taught in public schools, these battles would be intensified and would be very destructive to whatever social harmony we are still able to maintain.
Until everyone agrees that knowledge gained by objective scientific investigation proves that we are here due to natural selection via a long evolutionary process, and is more reliable than faith in scriptures of unknown authorship and authenticity, we should keep religion out of our public schools.
March 9, 2007 12:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No, please. I am religious myself and I enjoy my religion, but it has no place in the public schools. School is for teaching kids the knowledge they need to be good, functioning citizens of a state that exists as a political entity-- not a religious "nation" with codes of law interpreted by religious ministers. Religion and the like are for the home or "religious institution of choice" environment.
The school curriculum is crowded enough already without having to make room for one more thing. Get back on track with reading & writing, math, science, and civics.
March 9, 2007 12:50 PM | Report Offensive Comment
As H. L. Mencken quite correctly said, "Religion is the greatest fomenter of hatred in the history of mankind." Even a passing glance at Europe's bloody history supports that assertion. The moment we let religion into the public classroom, the wrangling begins: Whose interpretation? Whose text? Whose analysis? Why take the first step down this treacherous path when the teachings of all religions are freely available in safer contexts throughout our great land? Our ancestors escaped religious persecution; is it our destiny to rekindle it? God save us from the well-intentioned zealots. Civilization is a thin veneer. It was not so long ago that French Catholics and Protestants were throwing each other's babies into roaring bonfires... or that religious terrorism gripped Ireland. Religion is a private matter. Let's not put ourselves in the position of force-feeding our deepest beliefs to others. If America is to remain a haven for democracy, free thought and open religious activity, religion should be kept in our hearts and in our churches but out of our public schools! Let's not encroach on the very freedoms that make us a nation of one -- a nation that will endure because we adhere to our founding principles. ###
March 9, 2007 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If religion become mandatory in public schools I will pick up my family and move out of this country. That would be a very sad day for this country and would most likely start moving us into a direction similar to one in the middle ages. Next thing you know they will have hangings in Union Sqare for heresy. Our founding fathers started a government based on separation between church and state. They where trying to escape this. Oh, and to James there is a difference between learning about religions around the world and a bible study in class. One is pushing a philosophy on you the other is just education related to understanding history and culture around the world. Which America is slowly writing one of imperalism, war, and distruction all in the name of Jesus? Go see the movie Jesus Camp. That is 25% of our population right there.
March 9, 2007 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion should certainly be a subject in school from a historical or humanities context. If, for example, one is in class learning about the middle east, it would be pertinent to learn a little somehting about the Islamic faith since it dominates so much of their culture. The same for Christian religion. Such things have a deep historical impact, evertything from a Roman Emporer declaring the christian faith as the state religion to the selling of indulgences and the papacy being the main political power back in the day.
However, religion should not be taught in schools in regards to theological studies. When people say "Should religion be taught in school" they really mean should christian religion be taught. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian myself and attend church most weekends along with my wife. However, the place to learn your chosen religion is in church. Public school should not be a place for such things. That is not the purpose of school. School is for learning the knowledges you need for life: Science, Mathematics, Literature, History, Languages, etc. Your moral upbringing and your faith should come from your family and from your church upbringing.
Trying to foist it into the public schools is just an excuse to make someone else do the work of raising a child.
March 9, 2007 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"Should teaching religious beliefs be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?"
One would think that is the question being asked based on many of these responses.
March 9, 2007 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
There definitely is a great need for moral values to be taught at any school at any time. Waiting for everyone's approval hinders every humans need and right to nourish the soul. The mere fact that we can reflect upon these issues, ponder these spiritual thoughts is a vindication that we are created in God's own image. Every great structure needs a solid foundation weather that be the physical universe, the tallest building in the world or Wall Street's best offerings. The same goes for the family and society as a whole. Morons go by the evolution THEORY, pretty lies, big gimmicks and all, truth is they are sitting in the windows of a house with rotten foundation if any at all. How sad that the pittifull situation of the few would serve as a Religious guide for the majority; like it or not. The wisest man that ever lived (no, it wasn't Solomon) once said: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Both will tumble into a pit, will they not?" (Luke 6:39;Rbi8) Believe 2Pt3:13
March 9, 2007 12:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Should teaching about religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?
An interesting question--but no doubt everyone will agree that the question could not even have been framed if the questioners were not from a society that has something of a higher perspective from which a person can compare and contrast religions.
The question is really what we mean by teaching of religion and whether this means a continued comparison and contrast or a collapse back into undue influence and control by religion...and the latter should not be taken as a distant possibility.
In fact my belief is that there really is no such thing as education and it is far more likely a person will be broken down and destroyed mentally in some collective rather than be truly educated and independent...
Every sort of collective weighs on a person whether it be religious or the political party sort. How are we going to honestly teach about religion in America if people cannot even truly be honest and compare and contrast the Republican and Democratic political parties? Or is it more human and intelligent to be partisan with regard to political parties?
I doubt it...Once again, I really have no belief in education--I doubt the concept, the possibility there is such a thing. I stand on the side of genetics. Our educational system claims to be able to elevate and mold people but the truth is the standards are such to disguise the fact the system really makes nothing of the lower 20% of people and certainly cannot claim responsibility for having created the gifted. In short, the standards are firmly set in the middle and the relationship of teacher to student amounts to the average having a conversation with itself.
There is no such thing as education. A person cannot really be made into anything he is genetically incapable of becoming. All we call reason was born of exception. And that a society can bring itself to such a position as to ask whether religion can be taught in school--and I assume compare and contrast and be informed by reason--is by society having achieved a critical mass of intelligent people.
Furthermore, the question posed makes sense only if society has something of a historical, philosophical sense by which it is firmly time-oriented and is not a geographical location subjected to the whims of mixing and matching peoples and views of the world which defeat the time sense.
Society has to be something of a machine which processes people in the direction of reason and constantly picks from among its citizens those who can increase and reinforce this project--and that in itself is arguably more difficult than any present religion...
My belief is teaching religion in schools makes sense only if we have the contrast of genetics, evolution, and constant respect for the gifted in place--otherwise religion just creeps back in schools...
But to emphasize the above and create an environment in which religions will be compared and contrasted and not prove a detriment to schools is to become ruthless in selecting the best minds and to move all of time and history onto the track of man making himself apart from all religions so far--and is to come into conflict with all political parties so far.
I really see no easy answer. And if people say I am absurd for suggesting there is no such thing as education, all I can say is study the characteristics of the gifted...it is well known they have an increased capacity to educate themselves...Imagine if all of society had I.Q.s above 120...would we even have the family and educational system of today? Would we not instead have a rapid integration with workplace, something of apprenticeship rapidly leading to mastery?
The goal really is the integrative society, the one in which the immigrant experience is constantly overcome in superior synthesis. This means decline of ethnic groups, religions, etc. and the elevation of caliber people. Emigration from respective inferior countries not to a superior which welcomes us as immigrants but emigration to a superior social method and ultimately a superior state of mind.
If all this and so much more is not taken into consideration then it is folly to introduce religon into schools.
March 9, 2007 12:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If religion become mandatory in public schools I will pick up my family and move out of this country. That would be a very sad day for this country and would most likely start moving us into a direction similar to one in the middle ages. Next thing you know they will have hangings in Union Sqare for heresy. Our founding fathers started a government based on separation between church and state. They where trying to escape this.
joe San Francisco
March 9, 2007 12:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Absolutely NOT! Religion is a belief, you can't 'teach' beliefs, you can only 'preach' it and that belongs in a church. Teaching religion, let's say christianity, would they also dissect the bible for all it's flaws, inaccuracies and expose it for the fiction that it is? Will they teach all religions in the same class so that close minded believers of one faith can be taught that others believe in something completely different and that no one's belief is more true than the others? Will Atheism also be taught so that does who were brainwashed into believing only because they were taught such beliefs can then open their mind to the world of science? ANd try to imagine that factual evidence, and not fictional stories can better help them understand their place in this life? Finding piece within and around you does not take a religion or a god to achieve.
March 9, 2007 12:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
How about classes in anthropology instead? Most are very objective, and I've attended many college courses that studied different religions, how they came about, and how they may have failed.
Also, I found anthropology did a great job of teaching people about other cultures and societies. Understanding fosters tolerance.
March 9, 2007 12:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
HELL NO!!!! Organized religion is for the weakest of the weak. Let kids grow up and they can decide if that what they want. More than likely, it's their parents that forcing the fantastic fiction on them in the first place and they should not be allowed to force it on others.
Has anyone ever heard of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
March 9, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
A class in comparative religion is a great idea. A class that would not advocate any one religion, but one that would teach the similarities, differences, and each religion's view of creation. Included should be such things as the top 10 or 15 most popular religions as well as humanism. Atheism and agnosticism too.
Not forgotten should be the role that religion played in the dark ages.
It would be a great way to educate our children to the fact that not everyone believes the same way. Not that any way is right or wrong, but that others believe differently. Then they can choose to accept that fact or not.
March 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
There definitely is a great need for moral values to be taught at any school at any time. Waiting for everyone's approval hinders every humans need and right to nourish the soul. The mere fact that we can reflect upon these issues, ponder these spiritual thoughts is a vindication that we are created in God's own image. Every great structure needs a solid foundation weather that be the physical universe, the tallest building in the world or Wall Street's best offerings. The same goes for the family and society as a whole. Morons go by the evolution THEORY, pretty lies, big gimmicks and all, truth is they are sitting in the windows of a house with rotten foundation if any at all. How sad that the pittifull situation of the few would serve as a Religious guide for the majority; like it or not. The wisest man that ever lived (no, it wasn't Solomon) once said: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Both will tumble into a pit, will they not?" (Luke 6:39;Rbi8) Believe 2Pt3:13
March 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion is nothing more than old school politics. It's a means of controlling the masses. The only purpose for teaching it in schools would be to brainwash children to create a society of similarly thinking and acting, subservient people.
There's a reason our founders put separation of church and state in the constitution. It was not a whim! Religion has killed and destroyed many things, and they knew this. So why do we question it now?
Religion can be a find thing, in context. But it has no place in schools. Let children learn it outside of school.
March 9, 2007 12:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion = Murder? Matt, get some therapy. Really.
Ignorance is never good and it should never be the business of our schools. An understanding of the belief systems that have shaped our society and continue to shape world events is critical if we are to have an educated electorate. Though this topic sounds more like an elective than a mandatory course . . .
I agree with the writer that religion paired with economics are the two strongest forces shaping the political world. And when religion and economics are joined - look out! !
March 9, 2007 12:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The only way would be to teach comparative religions and to include agnostic, aethism, and pagan wiccan religions not just "organized" religions. Attempt to do that and the religious right would go nuts. They need several hours meditation on the phrase "Be careful what you wish for."
March 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am a religious person who believes that religion should be taught in schools. But I don't believe that scripture should be taught in schools. Lets leave that to personal study and private prayer to determine the truth. I see nothing wriong with teaching religious beliefs in schools, but all to often, religious discussion becomes religious contention, which is not helpful at all
March 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
As a Christian, I say religion should not be taught in public schools. Religion, and good morals and values, should be taught at home. We dont' "shove" Christianity down our child's throat because we do our best to live our religious convictions all the time, not just on Sunday. Poorly behaved children are a reflection of level of stubborness and poor parenting, not lack of exposure to religion.
You might say that I hope my child practices his religion all the time, not just at school, in his behavior towards others, but he doesn't need to waste valuable time in school learning religion. Just as I wouldn't want to waste my valuable time teaching Algebra to him. And so far his willingness to discuss Jesus and God in the classroom has lead to great conversations with his Jewish teacher, who is unable to discuss religion unless the children bring it up. He's learned a lot about shared values and new traditions. So for those who want more religion in school, ask yourself if you're teaching your child to live- actually live- their religion every way, every day. Because when the example is set, they will follow, and you will have religion in school. Every way, every day.
And if each of the children from different religions did so, rather than feel that they have to hide any difference or be smothered by the majority (not very Christianly, at least), then what a richer society we would live in. Without having to worry about the legality of the issue.
Tolerance needs to be taught before we even consider teaching religion.
March 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
HELL NO!!!! Organized religion is for the weakest of the weak. Let kids grow up and they can decide if that what they want. More than likely, it's their parents that forcing the fantastic fiction on them in the first place and they should be allowed to force it on others.
Has anyone ever heard of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
March 9, 2007 12:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion has always been a problem. Stemming all the way back to Jesus’ time on earth. His biggest problem was the well respected religious LEADERS, as incredible as that might sound.
So no, do not teach about religion with all its rules and regulations. If we are serious about protecting the future, and not just interested in adding some subject to the curriculum which undoubtedly will induce strife and division, then it is imperative to teach about RELATIONSHIP. i.e. relationship with ou