Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Saturna1ia]

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

[Geneviev]

That would be going too far.

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.

[Geneviev]

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

My OP is actually referring to letting religions evangelize in schools with student groups or classes. Hopefully that makes the question less stupid.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

You realise that many people believe that about christianity, islam, hinduism etc?
And objectively, believing that there exists intelligent life out there that is studying us is not more ridiculous than believing there is an omnipotent deity who cries when you masturbate.

[Geneviev]

As soon as you can't take a belief seriously because it's that ridiculous, it shouldn't be taught in schools.

You realise that many people believe that about christianity, islam, hinduism etc?
And objectively, believing that there exists intelligent life out there that is studying us is not more ridiculous than believing there is an omnipotent deity who cries when you masturbate.

That isn't exactly what Christianity is, so that might all be based on extreme misunderstandings.

[The Alma Mater]

You realise that many people believe that about christianity, islam, hinduism etc?
And objectively, believing that there exists intelligent life out there that is studying us is not more ridiculous than believing there is an omnipotent deity who cries when you masturbate.

That isn't exactly what Christianity is, so that might all be based on extreme misunderstandings.

Than "believing God took human form and allowed himself to be tortured to lift the burden of sin from men" then.

vs.

"On at least one of the trillions of planets out there, intelligent life developed and found a way to visit us"

One is not more ridiculous than the other.
Believing said aliens will only collect you if you commit suicide on the 25th of may after giving all your money to their emissary otoh...

[Saturna1ia]

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

My OP is actually referring to letting religions evangelize in schools with student groups or classes. Hopefully that makes the question less stupid.

No, it just makes it more stupid. Setting aside the stupidity of diverting education resources for such a thing, the only possible way to implement religious conversion in American public schools wth any chance of it being constitutional is to offer every single religion and spirituality without prejudice or favoritism.

[Geneviev]

That isn't exactly what Christianity is, so that might all be based on extreme misunderstandings.

"Than believing God took human form and allowed himself to be tortured to lift the burden of sin from men" then.

That vs.

"One at least one of the trillions of planets out there, intelligent life developed and found a way to visit us"

One is not more ridiculous that the other.
Believing said aliens will only collect you if you commit suicide on the 25th of may after giving all your money to their emissary otoh...

It's very clear that we haven't seen aliens yet. The events in the Bible are less unlikely.

[Neanderthaland]

My OP is actually referring to letting religions evangelize in schools with student groups or classes. Hopefully that makes the question less stupid.

No, it just makes it more stupid. Setting aside the stupidity of diverting education resources for such a thing, the only possible way to implement religious conversion in American public schools wth any chance if constitutionality is to offer every single religion and spirituality without prejudice or favoritism.

"Alright, we've declared a Flower War on the Chess Club. Then it'll be time to carve out their beating hearts to ensure high SAT scores."

[Geneviev]

My OP is actually referring to letting religions evangelize in schools with student groups or classes. Hopefully that makes the question less stupid.

No, it just makes it more stupid. Setting aside the stupidity of diverting education resources for such a thing, the only possible way to implement religious conversion in American public schools wth any chance of it being constitutional is to offer every single religion and spirituality without prejudice or favoritism.

Or offering a secular alternative, like ethics.

[The Islands of Versilia]

"Than believing God took human form and allowed himself to be tortured to lift the burden of sin from men" then.

That vs.

"One at least one of the trillions of planets out there, intelligent life developed and found a way to visit us"

One is not more ridiculous that the other.
Believing said aliens will only collect you if you commit suicide on the 25th of may after giving all your money to their emissary otoh...

It's very clear that we haven't seen aliens yet. The events in the Bible are less unlikely.

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.

[Geneviev]

It's very clear that we haven't seen aliens yet. The events in the Bible are less unlikely.

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.

[Ifreann]

Yes. Mandatory prayer time and Bible study class.

What about other religions?

Heresy.

I don't think so, but if you want.

What I want is immaterial, you're contradicting the Bible. Personally I don't care, I'm not a Christian, but you are now both citing and contradicting the same passage of the Bible.

[Geneviev]

What about other religions?


I don't think so, but if you want.

What I want is immaterial, you're contradicting the Bible. Personally I don't care, I'm not a Christian, but you are now both citing and contradicting the same passage of the Bible.

The passage is referring to a good way to organize a marriage, and it can be changed to follow the way God created people. Respecting his creation is more important than following the smallest details.

[Rojava Free State]

As soon as you can't take a belief seriously because it's that ridiculous, it shouldn't be taught in schools.

You realise that many people believe that about christianity, islam, hinduism etc?
And objectively, believing that there exists intelligent life out there that is studying us is not more ridiculous than believing there is an omnipotent deity who cries when you masturbate.

It's weird how if I go door to door telling people to prepare for an alien blitzkrieg, they'll think I'm crazy, but if I go door to door telling them to prepare for Jesus's return, at least 30% will be screaming "AMEN!"

I didn't know an invasion by biological lifeforms from another planet is less realistic than an all knowing all powerful deity.

[Right Wing Meme Squad]

Schools should be free to provide additional classes aside from national required ones.

[Ifreann]

What I want is immaterial, you're contradicting the Bible. Personally I don't care, I'm not a Christian, but you are now both citing and contradicting the same passage of the Bible.

The passage is referring to a good way to organize a marriage, and it can be changed to follow the way God created people. Respecting his creation is more important than following the smallest details.

If the Bible can be changed to suit modern sensibilities then citing it as some kind of authority on Christian belief is pointless.

[Geneviev]

The passage is referring to a good way to organize a marriage, and it can be changed to follow the way God created people. Respecting his creation is more important than following the smallest details.

If the Bible can be changed to suit modern sensibilities then citing it as some kind of authority on Christian belief is pointless.

It's not being changed. But it needs to be considered as a whole, and the Bible has several passages about respecting creation. This one isn't separate from those passages.

[Ifreann]

If the Bible can be changed to suit modern sensibilities then citing it as some kind of authority on Christian belief is pointless.

It's not being changed. But it needs to be considered as a whole, and the Bible has several passages about respecting creation. This one isn't separate from those passages.

The passage you cited isn't offering a polite suggestion for Christians to maybe consider in their marriages.

[Geneviev]

It's not being changed. But it needs to be considered as a whole, and the Bible has several passages about respecting creation. This one isn't separate from those passages.

The passage you cited isn't offering a polite suggestion for Christians to maybe consider in their marriages.

No. It should be organized with a head who represents Christ. But if the husband wasn't created to do that, it would not work and both people would be unhappy. God doesn't want anyone to be unhappy and he creates people to fulfill a purpose. This passage shouldn't be used to ignore God's purpose for individual people.

[Ifreann]

The passage you cited isn't offering a polite suggestion for Christians to maybe consider in their marriages.

No. It should be organized with a head who represents Christ. But if the husband wasn't created to do that, it would not work and both people would be unhappy. God doesn't want anyone to be unhappy and he creates people to fulfill a purpose. This passage shouldn't be used to ignore God's purpose for individual people.

Says you. If you get to contradict and clarify the Bible then the Bible is not the authority, you are.

[Geneviev]

No. It should be organized with a head who represents Christ. But if the husband wasn't created to do that, it would not work and both people would be unhappy. God doesn't want anyone to be unhappy and he creates people to fulfill a purpose. This passage shouldn't be used to ignore God's purpose for individual people.

Says you. If you get to contradict and clarify the Bible then the Bible is not the authority, you are.

I'm not contradicting the Bible at all. Ephesians 2:10, Jeremiah 29:11, Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:26, 1 Timothy 4:4, Genesis 5:1, Romans 8:29 all say that God created each person for a purpose. I'm agreeing with them and interpreting the passage from Ephesians 5 according to the other verses.

[Ifreann]

Says you. If you get to contradict and clarify the Bible then the Bible is not the authority, you are.

I'm not contradicting the Bible at all. Ephesians 2:10, Jeremiah 29:11, Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:26, 1 Timothy 4:4, Genesis 5:1, Romans 8:29 all say that God created each person for a purpose. I'm agreeing with them and interpreting the passage from Ephesians 5 according to the other verses.

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.

[Geneviev]

I'm not contradicting the Bible at all. Ephesians 2:10, Jeremiah 29:11, Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:26, 1 Timothy 4:4, Genesis 5:1, Romans 8:29 all say that God created each person for a purpose. I'm agreeing with them and interpreting the passage from Ephesians 5 according to the other verses.

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.

[Ifreann]

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.

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