Unibot wrote:Non-religious and atheistic nations can include religion in their teachings in a variety of ways than just exclusively theologically, anthropology classes are a particularly good way of doing so while still separating the classroom or students from belief and relying on observation and critical analysis instead.
An understanding of religion even in its most abstract form provides an understanding of those who believe in their faith that may otherwise be misunderstood by aggressively atheistic nations. We're not talking about mandating that we teach our children straight from the good book, and beat them into believing in the divine walrus ... unless you want to, that is.
IC:
Those are your intentions. Noble. However, we do see an issue: it could be used by nations that hold low or little regard for religion as a blank cheque for further demonising all religions. The same clause could be used by theocratic nations to promote their single faith in a shining light while painting others as grotesque, genocidal beliefs that mandate that you eat babies.
That aside, ambassador, why mandate basic subjects? It assumes that all nations follow a primary-secondary-tertiary system. Should this draft not account for non-tradition systems?