Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[The Archregimancy]

It rather depends on the country, and whether the schools in question are public or private.

Let's take the US and the UK as just two examples.

In the United States, there's strict constitutional separation of church and state, so there's no role for favouring any religion over another in the public school system; where religion is unavoidably a subject of a class - for example in a history lesson on the Crusades, or in a law lesson on US abortion law - then it should be as neutrally as possible. There can be no role for school-sponsored prayer or school-sponsored religious activity in public schools.

In the United Kingdom, the largest constituent nation has an established state church whose leaders sit in the upper house of Parliament, and state-funded faith schools operate in all four nations of the UK alongside secular schools; these need not be affiliated with the established church, though in practice the overwhelming majority of Faith Schools across the UK as a whole are run by either the Anglican or Catholic churches. In England specifically, in 2011 "68% were Church of England schools and 30% were Roman Catholic. There were 42 Jewish, 12 Muslim, 3 Sikh and 1 Hindu faith schools". One significant point of difference with American evangelical attempts to get religious faith into the American public school system is that the Department of Education "will not approve any application where we have any concerns about creationism being taught as a valid scientific theory, or about schools failing to teach evolution adequately as part of their science curricula". More details.

So assuming that the OP is universally transferable to any education system under any circumstances is problematic, not least because the debates about what constitutes faith-based teaching in schools, and what topics should be permitted where it does exist, aren't themselves universally transferable.

[Grahnol]

I think explicit religious values shouldn't be taught in school. There should either be separate classes for those or perhaps completely different schools for teaching religious matter. I think public schools are kind of meant to be an all-around institution and what it teaches should best be a neutral middle ground between all groups and opinions. Of course, I have very mixed feelings about education system primarily with how it teaches subjective matters and how they are presented, often in a way that forces young students to think of it in a specific way and hushes them when they look at different ways of interpreting an event, which is especially bad since children and teenagers are still young and impressionable and I'm against a public education that explicitly tries to enforce opinion conformism when it comes to matters like that. My criticisms also applies to both private and public universities when talking about adults by the way.

AFAIK they worship the same god, just with different interpretations or something like that. Which is kind of funny.

While the Islamic Allah is *supposed* to be the same as the Christian God, some Christians would probably argue he's an amalgamated character between the true God and the false figure who Muhammad proclaimed he received revelations from.

Then again Islam also criticises Christianity for believing in a Trinity and believing Jesus as being one of God's persons, an essential component to the Christian God, so it somewhat evens out. And I mean, Muslims also say that they worship the same God as Christians, they just believe Christians have the wrong idea about one of their very important prophets being outright part of that God.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

AFAIK they worship the same god, just with different interpretations or something like that. Which is kind of funny.

While the Islamic Allah is *supposed* to be the same as the Christian God, some Christians would probably argue he's an amalgamated character between the true God and the false figure who Muhammad proclaimed he received revelations from.

Christianity and Islam are both really just heretical forms of Judaism. Judaism being a heretical form of Canaanite polytheism. Its heresy all the way down... or religions just evolve from one another.

[Vistulange]

For my country, absolutely not, at least, not in the way the OP seems to have put it. Teach the children about the existence of different faiths and their practices, but never in a manner that evangelises - otherwise, they learn from people who might be interested in evangelising, which we really don't need more of. Back it up with plenty of historical context, and over time, the child will mature into a person who can choose his faith - or lack of - for himself or herself, without the added pressure from the state.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It shouldn't be a forbidden topic, but it is one that has to be approached very carefully.

An education that doesn't teach you basic facts about common religions is a poor education. And education that encourages you to adopt unverified beliefs is indoctrination.

This is pretty much my view on it as well. Basic theology of the most common religions should be taught but it shouldn't be encouraged (as if schools can really encourage that kind of thing anyway). It's important information to know about the social context of a lot of human interaction, so theology can be justifiably taught, but people should always be free to explore their religious belief on their own without feeling pressured into doing so.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I mean we still have situations like this. https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-lib ... heir-life/

That is NOT COOL.

I think the bible is garbage and even I think that's the right answer.

Then try the King James version. It is arguably one of the most beautiful uses of language in the world.

Yeah, the KJV isn't my favorite translation as far as meaning, but it's one of the most beautiful uses of the English language, so I always use it when reading the gospel.

[Greenwichian Arcadia]

Religious indoctrination?
In my public school curriculum?

---

Though I cannot deny the impact of religions on our culture and I think that various historical aspects of religions should be mentioned in sync with history classes, I am concerned that in-depth religion history classes, when left unchecked and without (at least!) parental moderation, would end up indoctrinating the students.
Staff present on these classes shouldn't hold any active rank in any church or religious community.

[The Alma Mater]

I mean we still have situations like this. https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-lib ... heir-life/

That is NOT COOL.

I think the bible is garbage and even I think that's the right answer.

Then try the King James version. It is arguably one of the most beautiful uses of language in the world.

It is indeed beautiful. It is also a translation that was written with specific orders to convey a message King James found pleasing.

[Grahnol]

While the Islamic Allah is *supposed* to be the same as the Christian God, some Christians would probably argue he's an amalgamated character between the true God and the false figure who Muhammad proclaimed he received revelations from.

Christianity and Islam are both really just heretical forms of Judaism. Judaism being a heretical form of Canaanite polytheism. Its heresy all the way down... or religions just evolve from one another.

Then whether or not you are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, the progenitor religion where all heresies come from is either an incomplete form of Judaism or Islam. And the exact same thing could be said for a lot of other religions. Or you could be an atheist and say that all religions are all heretical and that heresy literally has no meaning when all religions have some derivation from another.

It shouldn't be a forbidden topic, but it is one that has to be approached very carefully.

An education that doesn't teach you basic facts about common religions is a poor education. And education that encourages you to adopt unverified beliefs is indoctrination.

This is pretty much my view on it as well. Basic theology of the most common religions should be taught but it shouldn't be encouraged (as if schools can really encourage that kind of thing anyway). It's important information to know about the social context of a lot of human interaction, so theology can be justifiably taught, but people should always be free to explore their religious belief on their own without feeling pressured into doing so.

Definitely agreed. Basic information about religions should be taught as part of the usual classes about societies. As I said in my post, no explicit religious values should be instilled but information about what religions are can and should be taught.

[United Muscovite Nations]

what?

Both of those are used to indoctrinate kids with values, worldviews, etc. I mean, all education does this but generally we don't like to think of it as such because indoctrination is for "uncivilized" types in popular Western discourse.

This is a really good point. If you're not teaching historiography along with your history classes, then you're really doing a lot of harm in doing so. History isn't just a series of facts, there's an underlying framework to the interpretation of those facts that massively influences how you view them.

[Grahnol]

Both of those are used to indoctrinate kids with values, worldviews, etc. I mean, all education does this but generally we don't like to think of it as such because indoctrination is for "uncivilized" types in popular Western discourse.

This is a really good point. If you're not teaching historiography along with your history classes, then you're really doing a lot of harm in doing so. History isn't just a series of facts, there's an underlying framework to the interpretation of those facts that massively influences how you view them.

tbh, this is a huge dilemma I face with, well, the entire education system in general, because of the way facts are presented to the listener, they always have some inherent structure intertwined with the person saying the facts that might unintentionally promote a certain view. Honestly, my best solution is to simply show multiple sides of history in school and give schoolchildren the chance to research and question what the opinion and view of the matter is and what they have found out, but I understand that this kind of solution could potentially overwhelm them. These are questions I keep asking but I'm not really ready to answer though I'm still of the opinion we should teach history to children, I'm just really confused as to how to do so without enforcing conformism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

This is a really good point. If you're not teaching historiography along with your history classes, then you're really doing a lot of harm in doing so. History isn't just a series of facts, there's an underlying framework to the interpretation of those facts that massively influences how you view them.

tbh, this is a huge dilemma I face with, well, the entire education system in general, because of the way facts are presented to the listener, they always have some inherent structure intertwined with the person saying the facts that might unintentionally promote a certain view. Honestly, my best solution is to simply show multiple sides of history in school and give schoolchildren the chance to research and question what the opinion and view of the matter is and what they have found out, but I understand that this kind of solution could potentially overwhelm them. These are questions I keep asking but I'm not really ready to answer though I'm still of the opinion we should teach history to children, I'm just really confused as to how to do so without enforcing conformism.

Honestly, I'd just teach the more historically influential schools of history in chronological order, Whig history, Hegelianism, Marxism, revisionism, etc.

[Geneviev]

Religion should indeed be taught in schools, since it has a profound impact on humanity.
However, schools should mention there are hundreds, pick at least 5 different* ones to teach about, and teach about them equally. So if the lesson about christianity is 200 hours long and includes a talk by a local priest and a visit to a church, they cannot shoehorn Hinduism or Islam in with a 15 minute talk, "any questions, no, good".

Is that evangelisation? It can be. But at least then it is fair.

The alternative is to treat religion like alcohol or sex and attach an age limit to it.

* And different should be actually different. So no "Today, we are going to learn about Lutherans. Tomorrow Calvinists" etc.

Therein lies the problem however. We already have issues teaching children simpler, less controversial topics like history. Why add a new topic when most kids only have the basics of the original ones?

Similarly, who decided what 5 religions you focus on, even if there is also mention of the existence of others. What happens when the religion that is left out gets uppity that their children, and other children,n are learning about Islam, but not hinduism, or about Zoroastrianism but not Christianity?

Religion in public schools, especially primary and secondary schools is just a pandoras box and should just be left until students get to Theology or comparative religious studies classes in University.

There are countries that have no problems with religion in schools. The easy solution in Germany is to let the kids choose their religion. That way, they can learn about the basic ideas of the religion when they're young and more complicated theology when they are ready for it later, instead of just a basic summary of every religion. It's more interesting and meaningful that way, but can seem like evangelizing.

[Grahnol]

tbh, this is a huge dilemma I face with, well, the entire education system in general, because of the way facts are presented to the listener, they always have some inherent structure intertwined with the person saying the facts that might unintentionally promote a certain view. Honestly, my best solution is to simply show multiple sides of history in school and give schoolchildren the chance to research and question what the opinion and view of the matter is and what they have found out, but I understand that this kind of solution could potentially overwhelm them. These are questions I keep asking but I'm not really ready to answer though I'm still of the opinion we should teach history to children, I'm just really confused as to how to do so without enforcing conformism.

Honestly, I'd just teach the more historically influential schools of history in chronological order, Whig history, Hegelianism, Marxism, revisionism, etc.

I mean, there is still somewhat of a vague semblance of conformism in that as you are picking from the most 'influential' schools of history, which kind of reenforces the idea that the most influential should be the most prioritised and therefore preferred but I guess the wide variety in those schools of history that it offsets that fact and makes the student more curious about the other views of history out there. Then again, none of those are exactly traditionally presented in a full, big picture sort of view of history but I guess students don't really think of the 'big picture' though I would like to make them do so.

And tbh, I do realise that what I realise about presenting a historical event or history in general from multiple different angles does have its shortcomings depending on if the system has to decide which to show and how it's presented. The best solution I can think of is to present it as not absolute and potentially not right and make students curious and find other angles of history that they might deem valid but whether or not they would kind of depends on how heavily the angles of history they were shown were heavily talked about and left an impression on the student which is a huge branching dilemma in of itself.

[Rojava Free State]

Therein lies the problem however. We already have issues teaching children simpler, less controversial topics like history. Why add a new topic when most kids only have the basics of the original ones?

Similarly, who decided what 5 religions you focus on, even if there is also mention of the existence of others. What happens when the religion that is left out gets uppity that their children, and other children,n are learning about Islam, but not hinduism, or about Zoroastrianism but not Christianity?

Religion in public schools, especially primary and secondary schools is just a pandoras box and should just be left until students get to Theology or comparative religious studies classes in University.

There are countries that have no problems with religion in schools. The easy solution in Germany is to let the kids choose their religion. That way, they can learn about the basic ideas of the religion when they're young and more complicated theology when they are ready for it later, instead of just a basic summary of every religion. It's more interesting and meaningful that way, but can seem like evangelizing.

I have a feeling Germany did that cause the Muslim parents were like "PANDER TO OUR FAITH!" Just like how Evangelicals constantly make things hard in America, die hard fundamentalist Muslims make shit difficult in otherwise secular Europe.

[Geneviev]

There are countries that have no problems with religion in schools. The easy solution in Germany is to let the kids choose their religion. That way, they can learn about the basic ideas of the religion when they're young and more complicated theology when they are ready for it later, instead of just a basic summary of every religion. It's more interesting and meaningful that way, but can seem like evangelizing.

I have a feeling Germany did that cause the Muslim parents were like "PANDER TO OUR FAITH!" Just like how Evangelicals constantly make things hard in America, die hard fundamentalist Muslims make shit difficult in otherwise secular Europe.

Religion classes have barely changed for Muslims. Very few schools offer Islam. Germany has just always done things that way.

[Eudea]

There are countries that have no problems with religion in schools. The easy solution in Germany is to let the kids choose their religion. That way, they can learn about the basic ideas of the religion when they're young and more complicated theology when they are ready for it later, instead of just a basic summary of every religion. It's more interesting and meaningful that way, but can seem like evangelizing.

I have a feeling Germany did that cause the Muslim parents were like "PANDER TO OUR FAITH!" Just like how Evangelicals constantly make things hard in America, die hard fundamentalist Muslims make shit difficult in otherwise secular Europe.

We had an issue here in the UK over Muslim parents and even non-parents kicking up a riot (figuratively, not literally) over a school teaching kids about homosexuality and whatnot. So we’ve got that.

On its relation to religion in education, I think some of the less savoury parts of a religion shouldn’t be ignored if it is being discussed, as just talking about the positive bits and ignoring the bad wouldn’t give youths the full picture.

[Region of Dwipantara]

For my country, absolutely not, at least, not in the way the OP seems to have put it. Teach the children about the existence of different faiths and their practices, but never in a manner that evangelises - otherwise, they learn from people who might be interested in evangelising, which we really don't need more of. Back it up with plenty of historical context, and over time, the child will mature into a person who can choose his faith - or lack of - for himself or herself, without the added pressure from the state.

Yeah, teaching religion in the school is kinda a slippery slope, especially with teacher and environmental biases and all that. We don't wanna end up like here, where e.g. discussion about Hinduism usually starts from 'yeah they worship cows' before descending into a lecture on how one particular religion is superior, and then how one particular faction of that religion is superior.

[Rojava Free State]

I have a feeling Germany did that cause the Muslim parents were like "PANDER TO OUR FAITH!" Just like how Evangelicals constantly make things hard in America, die hard fundamentalist Muslims make shit difficult in otherwise secular Europe.

We had an issue here in the UK over Muslim parents and even non-parents kicking up a riot (figuratively, not literally) over a school teaching kids about homosexuality and whatnot. So we’ve got that.

On its relation to religion in education, I think some of the less savoury parts of a religion shouldn’t be ignored if it is being discussed, as just talking about the positive bits and ignoring the bad wouldn’t give youths the full picture.

Yeah but the UK is more like America than the rest of Europe, and in a lot of really bad ways.

In fact, certain parts of the UK are worse in some respects, like Northern Ireland.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I have a feeling Germany did that cause the Muslim parents were like "PANDER TO OUR FAITH!" Just like how Evangelicals constantly make things hard in America, die hard fundamentalist Muslims make shit difficult in otherwise secular Europe.

We had an issue here in the UK over Muslim parents and even non-parents kicking up a riot (figuratively, not literally) over a school teaching kids about homosexuality and whatnot. So we’ve got that.

On its relation to religion in education, I think some of the less savoury parts of a religion shouldn’t be ignored if it is being discussed, as just talking about the positive bits and ignoring the bad wouldn’t give youths the full picture.

Being a secular state, those kinds of things MUST be taught. A government cannot let a portion of the population indoctrinate their kids to be lethally hateful to another portion of the population.

[Rojava Free State]

For my country, absolutely not, at least, not in the way the OP seems to have put it. Teach the children about the existence of different faiths and their practices, but never in a manner that evangelises - otherwise, they learn from people who might be interested in evangelising, which we really don't need more of. Back it up with plenty of historical context, and over time, the child will mature into a person who can choose his faith - or lack of - for himself or herself, without the added pressure from the state.

Yeah, teaching religion in the school is kinda a slippery slope, especially with teacher and environmental biases and all that. We don't wanna end up like here, where e.g. discussion about Hinduism usually starts from 'yeah they worship cows' before descending into a lecture on how one particular religion is superior, and then how one particular faction of that religion is superior.

It reminds me of how when my mom was in school, nordicism was still a bit of a thing and the teacher talked about how much more advanced Northern Europe was compared to Southern Europe. If we teach about religion, it must be in an unbiased manner and it must focus on the bad and good parts. That means:

•Focusing on Moses's alleged leadership in the Midianite genocide

•Talking about how Mohammed was said to have married a 9 year old

•Revealing the truth of king Solomon's harem.

•Telling the story of the time Mohammed kicked a bunch of Jews out of a city

[Eudea]

We had an issue here in the UK over Muslim parents and even non-parents kicking up a riot (figuratively, not literally) over a school teaching kids about homosexuality and whatnot. So we’ve got that.

On its relation to religion in education, I think some of the less savoury parts of a religion shouldn’t be ignored if it is being discussed, as just talking about the positive bits and ignoring the bad wouldn’t give youths the full picture.

Yeah but the UK is more like America than the rest of Europe, and in a lot of really bad ways.

In fact, certain parts of the UK are worse in some respects, like Northern Ireland.

I admittedly am not very knowledgeable about Northern Ireland, but I do recall that religion fuels a lot of the hatred there. I can’t say from experience, only from what I’ve heard/read, but I fear religion interfering with schools and youths’ minds certainly doesn’t help.

We had an issue here in the UK over Muslim parents and even non-parents kicking up a riot (figuratively, not literally) over a school teaching kids about homosexuality and whatnot. So we’ve got that.

On its relation to religion in education, I think some of the less savoury parts of a religion shouldn’t be ignored if it is being discussed, as just talking about the positive bits and ignoring the bad wouldn’t give youths the full picture.

Being a secular state, those kinds of things MUST be taught. A government cannot let a portion of the population indoctrinate their kids to be lethally hateful to another portion of the population.

Agreed. One must know both the good and bad, and how that is expressed in society. One shouldn’t tolerate one person’s hatred towards another because the latter individual “goes against my religion”, and youths need to recognise that.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Yeah, teaching religion in the school is kinda a slippery slope, especially with teacher and environmental biases and all that. We don't wanna end up like here, where e.g. discussion about Hinduism usually starts from 'yeah they worship cows' before descending into a lecture on how one particular religion is superior, and then how one particular faction of that religion is superior.

It reminds me of how when my mom was in school, nordicism was still a bit of a thing and the teacher talked about how much more advanced Northern Europe was compared to Southern Europe. If we teach about religion, it must be in an unbiased manner and it must focus on the bad and good parts. That means:

•Focusing on Moses's alleged leadership in the Midianite genocide

•Talking about how Mohammed was said to have married a 9 year old

•Revealing the truth of king Solomon's harem.

•Telling the story of the time Mohammed kicked a bunch of Jews out of a city

Some will result in noticable impacts such as rioting, some not so much. King Solomon's harem? Succeeding caliphs party in wild harems on their vast palaces, yet this haven't stop those caliphate-supporters from stabbing my country's security minister. Also, we are already taught that the h*rny prophet Daud (or David) have 99 wives and wanted to marry another one before Allah had stepped in to prevent that.

But it can work. Open-minded, highly educated Indonesians generally has the 'disapprove, but let live' attitude towards LGBT. If nothing is done, then the throw-the-gays-off-buildings mosque imam near my dad's office and his insane sermons will rein unchallenged.

[Cameroi]

depends on how but mostly not, and only if all of them equally. that all of them exist and have played a role in shaping human history, that much yes.

but the lie that humans know what they don't, that the unknown is magically known because humans have written books claiming to, should not be taught.
schools aren't for teaching lies.

they are for learning how to make beautiful things and not screw up our surroundings, where and how everyone else, and our selves too, have to live.

religions get right that our egos, collectively as well as individually are what damage, distort and destroy everything, but they also get wrong,
that fawning over unseen hierarchies is the only alternative to their doing so, or even one at all.

responsibility for our behavior and example and the influence of both need to be taught and learned,
(and in ways that don't make everyone want to kill themselves either)
and that doesn't happen by teaching hatred of logic in the service of consideration of all that is experienced by everyone and every thing that experiences it.

the underlying principals (of all religious beliefs) are a fine thing,
but the habit of blindly following a dominant assumption is exactly the wrong and opposite thing schools are for teaching.
and unfortunately, far too much of what passes for "religious teaching" is exactly that.

(if kids want to get together after class and pray to the flying spaghetti monster, that's a separate issue entirely and entirely up to them.
which its not up to teachers or administrators to take a position on. allowing school facilities to be used for this, is perhaps a matter of local consensus)

[Rojava Free State]

It reminds me of how when my mom was in school, nordicism was still a bit of a thing and the teacher talked about how much more advanced Northern Europe was compared to Southern Europe. If we teach about religion, it must be in an unbiased manner and it must focus on the bad and good parts. That means:

•Focusing on Moses's alleged leadership in the Midianite genocide

•Talking about how Mohammed was said to have married a 9 year old

•Revealing the truth of king Solomon's harem.

•Telling the story of the time Mohammed kicked a bunch of Jews out of a city

Some will result in noticable impacts such as rioting, some not so much. King Solomon's harem? Succeeding caliphs party in wild harems on their vast palaces, yet this haven't stop those caliphate-supporters from stabbing my country's security minister. Also, we are already taught that the h*rny prophet Daud (or David) have 99 wives and wanted to marry another one before Allah had stepped in to prevent that.

But it can work. Open-minded, highly educated Indonesians generally has the 'disapprove, but let live' attitude towards LGBT. If nothing is done, then the throw-the-gays-off-buildings mosque imam near my dad's office and his insane sermons will rein unchallenged.

Nothing should be off the table. We gotta discuss everything, like the time Jesus accidentally swallowed a puzzle piece and the man in the yellow hat had to take him to the doctor.