Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Geneviev]

Yes. God doesn't necessarily create men to always have that role. Sometimes the wife is a better representation of God, and that is his intent. The important thing is that the head of a marriage is an imitation of God over his church.

Exactly what are your credentials as an authority on Christian belief?

Anyone who reads the Bible will see that we should honor God's creation.

[The Alma Mater]

Exactly what are your credentials as an authority on Christian belief?

Anyone who reads the Bible will see that we should honor God's creation.

Many who read the Bible disagree. Christians included.

[The Black Forrest]

Exactly what are your credentials as an authority on Christian belief?

Anyone who reads the Bible will see that we should honor God's creation.

I have read a book on quantum physics. Doesn’t make me an authority on it.

[Ifreann]

Exactly what are your credentials as an authority on Christian belief?

Anyone who reads the Bible will see that we should honor God's creation.

What the Bible said is very clearly subordinate to what you say. So are you the Pope or something?

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

They really aren’t. It’s a scientific impossibility that a blind man can be healed by the touch of another, among other really unbelievable fantastical things.

That's why those things don't claim to be scientific.

But is it really true then?

...on second thought I'm already seeing this thread begin to derail, and I don't want to go further by making my personal "God is impossible" argument, so I'll just stop here.

How 'bout we just remember that school is for education and church is for religion and just leave it at that.

[Menassa]

The verses you cited from Ephesians say that the husband is in charge of the wife, just as God is in charge of the Church. You say that actually anyone can be in charge in a marriage based on their personality.

Yes. God doesn't necessarily create men to always have that role. Sometimes the wife is a better representation of God, and that is his intent. The important thing is that the head of a marriage is an imitation of God over his church.

Wouldn't you argue that since women have the ability to create and sustain life in a way men do not that they are more like God?

[Geneviev]

That's why those things don't claim to be scientific.

But is it really true then?

...on second thought I'm already seeing this thread begin to derail, and I don't want to go further by making my personal "God is impossible" argument, so I'll just stop here.

How 'bout we just remember that school is for education and church is for religion and just leave it at that.

You make a good point, this thread is very much removed from the actual topic by now.

So, religions evangelizing in schools. It's not a good idea, but there can be classes for students who already believe in a religion.

[Last Breath]

But is it really true then?

...on second thought I'm already seeing this thread begin to derail, and I don't want to go further by making my personal "God is impossible" argument, so I'll just stop here.

How 'bout we just remember that school is for education and church is for religion and just leave it at that.

You make a good point, this thread is very much removed from the actual topic by now.

So, religions evangelizing in schools. It's not a good idea, but there can be classes for students who already believe in a religion.

Not sure there should be classes like that in schools, it's not as if there aren't plenty of other opportunities for students to learn about their religion.

[Katganistan]

This is a stupid question. Religion is already taught to some extent in most schools. In history class, where it belongs.

Mmhmm.

[Right Wing Meme Squad]

Learning about religion doesn't automatically imply that one becomes religious later in life.

[Katganistan]

Where is the line exactly ? Scientology ?
And technically christianity is alien worship. God after all is not from earth - he made it.

As soon as you can't take a belief seriously because it's that ridiculous, it shouldn't be taught in schools. And Scientology should be excluded just because it's dangerous.

Not trying to be offensive, but people outside of Christianity find the idea of the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, and Transubstantiation to be more than a little unbelievable.

So what "one finds ridiculous" is not a good parameter.

[Geneviev]

You make a good point, this thread is very much removed from the actual topic by now.

So, religions evangelizing in schools. It's not a good idea, but there can be classes for students who already believe in a religion.

Not sure there should be classes like that in schools, it's not as if there aren't plenty of other opportunities for students to learn about their religion.

It would make that learning a bit more regulated, so they couldn't be indoctrinated to become extremists as easily.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Religious education in the U.S. should be compulsory for everyone. It's unfair for students who don't attend church or faith services in their personal lives to be left out of such a large part of American life, society, culture, history, tradition, etc. Students should learn about religion in the U.S. just like they learn about literature, history, civics, accounting, economics, chemistry, etc.

[Menassa]

Religious education in the U.S. should be compulsory for everyone. It's unfair for students who don't attend church or faith services in their personal lives to be left out of such a large part of American life, society, culture, history, tradition, etc. Students should learn about religion in the U.S. just like they learn about literature, history, civics, accounting, economics, chemistry, etc.

Religion should be taught in the home and sex should be taught in school.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Religious education in the U.S. should be compulsory for everyone. It's unfair for students who don't attend church or faith services in their personal lives to be left out of such a large part of American life, society, culture, history, tradition, etc. Students should learn about religion in the U.S. just like they learn about literature, history, civics, accounting, economics, chemistry, etc.

Religion should be taught in the home and sex should be taught in school.

They should be taught in both because no school can do well without good parent-teacher cooperation.

[Necroghastia]

Religious education in the U.S. should be compulsory for everyone. It's unfair for students who don't attend church or faith services in their personal lives to be left out of such a large part of American life, society, culture, history, tradition, etc. Students should learn about religion in the U.S. just like they learn about literature, history, civics, accounting, economics, chemistry, etc.

Pretty sure the historical and cultural aspects would be best left to history and social studies classes.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Religious education in the U.S. should be compulsory for everyone. It's unfair for students who don't attend church or faith services in their personal lives to be left out of such a large part of American life, society, culture, history, tradition, etc. Students should learn about religion in the U.S. just like they learn about literature, history, civics, accounting, economics, chemistry, etc.

Pretty sure the historical and cultural aspects would be best left to history and social studies classes.

That's how things are done now, and I'd say it's inadequate. People don't even get enough civics education as it is, and cramming religion into an already packed history or social studies curriculum just guarantees it won't make much of an impact. Learning about religion should be considered part of cultural competency, just like learning another language (taking Spanish class) or personal financial literacy (home economics class). Maybe one day you want to open a bank account, school should prepare you for that. Maybe one day you want to join a church, school should also prepare you for that. That's a little different from studying ancient religions in world history or how it's done now.

[Necroghastia]

Pretty sure the historical and cultural aspects would be best left to history and social studies classes.

That's how things are done now, and I'd say it's inadequate. People don't even get enough civics education as it is, and cramming religion into an already packed history or social studies curriculum just guarantees it won't make much of an impact. Learning about religion should be considered part of cultural competency, just like learning another language (taking Spanish class) or personal financial literacy (home economics class). Maybe one day you want to open a bank account, school should prepare you for that. Maybe one day you want to join a church, school should also prepare you for that. That's a little different from studying ancient religions in world history or how it's done now.

What is there to "prepare" for about joining a church? Would your ideal also prepare one to join a mosque, or synagogue, or any other type of place of worship? How is that comparable to personal finance or languages?

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

That's how things are done now, and I'd say it's inadequate. People don't even get enough civics education as it is, and cramming religion into an already packed history or social studies curriculum just guarantees it won't make much of an impact. Learning about religion should be considered part of cultural competency, just like learning another language (taking Spanish class) or personal financial literacy (home economics class). Maybe one day you want to open a bank account, school should prepare you for that. Maybe one day you want to join a church, school should also prepare you for that. That's a little different from studying ancient religions in world history or how it's done now.

What is there to "prepare" for about joining a church? Would your ideal also prepare one to join a mosque, or synagogue, or any other type of place of worship? How is that comparable to personal finance or languages?

Yes, absolutely. People should be able to consider what religion they believe in. Otherwise they don't really have freedom of religion. Religious life is as essential to the United States as personal finance and language.

[Neanderthaland]

As soon as you can't take a belief seriously because it's that ridiculous, it shouldn't be taught in schools. And Scientology should be excluded just because it's dangerous.

Not trying to be offensive, but people outside of Christianity find the idea of the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, and Transubstantiation to be more than a little unbelievable.

So what "one finds ridiculous" is not a good parameter.

I think everybody outside of Christianity finds the Virgin Birth to be... not so much "unbelievable" as "I can't believe her husband bought that!"

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

The Virgin Birth is an idea that can be traced to Jewish notions of the Messiah. Isaiah 7:14 predicts the Messiah Immanuel comes from a Virgin Birth: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This is in the Old Testament, and the Torah.

This prophecy is mirrored in the Gospels, Matthew 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

This shows Jesus is the Messiah who will liberate the Jews and destroy their enemies. Its relevance has more to do with its place in the narrative of the Jewish people and their survival through various trials, during which God promised them deliverance, than it does with female sexual anatomy.

The notion of Miraculous Births were not without precedent in the ancient and classical world, and they often are associated with big beginnings in history, much like the Big Bang or the notion of a Prime Mover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

[La Xinga]

The Virgin Birth is an idea that can be traced to Jewish notions of the Messiah. Isaiah 7:14 predicts the Messiah Immanuel comes from a Virgin Birth: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This is in the Old Testament, and the Torah.

This prophecy is mirrored in the Gospels, Matthew 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

This shows Jesus is the Messiah who will liberate the Jews and destroy their enemies. Its relevance has more to do with its place in the narrative of the Jewish people and their survival through various trials, during which God promised them deliverance, than it does with female sexual anatomy.

The notion of Miraculous Births were not without precedent in the ancient and classical world, and they often are associated with big beginnings in history, much like the Big Bang or the notion of a Prime Mover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

That's the Christian interp, the Jewish original reading says: עִמָּנוּ אֵל, which says more like: Eemunu eil.

But Jews say it does not mean him, rather another person.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Indeed, many Jews have yet to accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior.

[Katganistan]

The Virgin Birth is an idea that can be traced to Jewish notions of the Messiah. Isaiah 7:14 predicts the Messiah Immanuel comes from a Virgin Birth: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This is in the Old Testament, and the Torah.

This prophecy is mirrored in the Gospels, Matthew 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

This shows Jesus is the Messiah who will liberate the Jews and destroy their enemies. Its relevance has more to do with its place in the narrative of the Jewish people and their survival through various trials, during which God promised them deliverance, than it does with female sexual anatomy.

The notion of Miraculous Births were not without precedent in the ancient and classical world, and they often are associated with big beginnings in history, much like the Big Bang or the notion of a Prime Mover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

I am not denying it.
I am saying that if the metric for excluding a religion from being taught about in school is that the beliefs in it are "too ridiculous", that Christianity has some beliefs that some nonbelievers would say "that is ridiculous!" about.

That it also comes from the OT/Torah might lead people to say that Judaism too is too ridiculous to believe.

See what I am saying? The point is, when you are talking about faith, some things we take on faith sound insane to an outsider. So "sounding ridiculous" can't be the measurement of which religions get studied and which don't.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

The Virgin Birth is an idea that can be traced to Jewish notions of the Messiah. Isaiah 7:14 predicts the Messiah Immanuel comes from a Virgin Birth: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This is in the Old Testament, and the Torah.

This prophecy is mirrored in the Gospels, Matthew 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

This shows Jesus is the Messiah who will liberate the Jews and destroy their enemies. Its relevance has more to do with its place in the narrative of the Jewish people and their survival through various trials, during which God promised them deliverance, than it does with female sexual anatomy.

The notion of Miraculous Births were not without precedent in the ancient and classical world, and they often are associated with big beginnings in history, much like the Big Bang or the notion of a Prime Mover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

I am not denying it.
I am saying that if the metric for excluding a religion from being taught about in school is that the beliefs in it are "too ridiculous", that Christianity has some beliefs that some nonbelievers would say "that is ridiculous!" about.

Well I wouldn’t say that subjective incredulity is a good basis for drafting a U.S. religious education curriculum.