NationStates

Rojava Free State wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
That’s not true at all, and if you’ve ever been stereotyped you’d know how naive it is to think “basic manners” can magically end ignorant misconceptions about various religious faiths in America.

I mean basic manners can at least keep people from saying stupid shit. Doesn't mean they won't think it.

For most people, but there are dangerous elements of society that will not mix well with ignorance, and education is supposed to mitigate that kind of danger.

Kernen wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
That’s not true at all, and if you’ve ever been stereotyped you’d know how naive it is to think “basic manners” can magically end ignorant misconceptions about various religious faiths in America.

Bigotry is taught. Ignorance is not bigotry.

You can deal with bigotry without teaching religion.

This is like thinking you can deal with racism without teaching about slavery, colonialism, or the civil rights movement.

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:

Kernen wrote:Bigotry is taught. Ignorance is not bigotry.

You can deal with bigotry without teaching religion.

This is like thinking you can deal with racism without teaching about slavery, colonialism, or the civil rights movement.

Of course not. Those are useful topics in their own right.

Kernen wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
This is like thinking you can deal with racism without teaching about slavery, colonialism, or the civil rights movement.

Of course not. Those are useful topics in their own right.

So how do you deal with antisemitism and Islamophobia if your school doesn’t teach religion?

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:

Kernen wrote:Of course not. Those are useful topics in their own right.

So how do you deal with antisemitism and Islamophobia if your school doesn’t teach religion?

My school had no notable issues with antisemitism and islamophobia back when I attended, really. Violations of the rules were punished, and students were permitted to think what they willed, provided they kept quiet about them. Everybody had the basic tenants of Wheaton's Law handled from kindergarten.

Kernen wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
So how do you deal with antisemitism and Islamophobia if your school doesn’t teach religion?

My school had no notable issues with antisemitism and islamophobia back when I attended, really. Violations of the rules were punished, and students were permitted to think what they willed, provided they kept quiet about them. Everybody had the basic tenants of Wheaton's Law handled from kindergarten.

If only we could all go to your school.

Kernen wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
So how do you deal with antisemitism and Islamophobia if your school doesn’t teach religion?

My school had no notable issues with antisemitism and islamophobia back when I attended, really. Violations of the rules were punished, and students were permitted to think what they willed, provided they kept quiet about them. Everybody had the basic tenants of Wheaton's Law handled from kindergarten.

Also this is just absurd. Did you go to school in Narnia?

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:

Kernen wrote:My school had no notable issues with antisemitism and islamophobia back when I attended, really. Violations of the rules were punished, and students were permitted to think what they willed, provided they kept quiet about them. Everybody had the basic tenants of Wheaton's Law handled from kindergarten.

Also this is just absurd. Did you go to school in Narnia?

I wish.

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:

Kernen wrote:No, it isnt.

Maybe not to you, but your kids will have to interact with religious people in their lives and I don’t want them to make bigoted arses of themselves.

Why? Plenty of my fellow religious people make bigoted asses of themselves all the time.

Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire wrote:

Geneviev wrote:To be fair, it is a huge part of the culture here, much more than in Germany.

But also to be fair, we don't teach things in school based on culture, we teach them based on knowledgeable academic subjects.

Religion might be cultural, but it isn't too useful for the purposes of school, if it's even useful at all.

Things in school are taught based on creating functional members of society. If that society is extremely religious, like America, religion should be taught to make sure children really understand it. That way they might avoid indoctrination.

Katganistan wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
Maybe not to you, but your kids will have to interact with religious people in their lives and I don’t want them to make bigoted arses of themselves.

Why? Plenty of my fellow religious people make bigoted asses of themselves all the time.

I’m sure they could benefit from better education about other people’s religions, too.

Geneviev wrote:

Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire wrote:But also to be fair, we don't teach things in school based on culture, we teach them based on knowledgeable academic subjects.

Religion might be cultural, but it isn't too useful for the purposes of school, if it's even useful at all.

Things in school are taught based on creating functional members of society. If that society is extremely religious, like America, religion should be taught to make sure children really understand it. That way they might avoid indoctrination.

Assuming this education would be academic, as in the study of the religion as a phenomenon with discussion about its history and doctrine rather than teaching it as truth, the big question arises around whether or not it would be optional.

It would not be hard to imagine some religious families being appalled by the idea of their children being taught about Islam, for example. Similarly, if we discuss religion in this sterile, academic way, should we also not explore atheism and secular humanism as well, so as to not predispose children to a belief in a deity?

If the answer is yes, then I can only imagine even more problems when the devout realize schools are talking about atheism in the same breath as the Abrahamic religions.

Jedi Council wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Things in school are taught based on creating functional members of society. If that society is extremely religious, like America, religion should be taught to make sure children really understand it. That way they might avoid indoctrination.

1
Assuming this education would be academic, as in the study of the religion as a phenomenon with discussion about its history and doctrine rather than teaching it as truth, the big question arises around whether or not it would be optional.

It would not be hard to imagine some religious families being appalled by the idea of their children being taught about Islam, for example. Similarly, if we discuss religion in this sterile, academic way, should we also not explore atheism and secular humanism as well, so as to not predispose children to a belief in a deity?

If the answer is yes, then I can only imagine even more problems when the devout realize schools are talking about atheism in the same breath as the Abrahamic religions.

Would be interesting if they discussed how the bible has changed over the centuries as scribes/councils have added or removed stuffs. Wonder how parents would react the the Mark 16 ended at verse 8 and everything after that was added by scribes later.

Neutraligon wrote:

Jedi Council wrote:1
Assuming this education would be academic, as in the study of the religion as a phenomenon with discussion about its history and doctrine rather than teaching it as truth, the big question arises around whether or not it would be optional.

It would not be hard to imagine some religious families being appalled by the idea of their children being taught about Islam, for example. Similarly, if we discuss religion in this sterile, academic way, should we also not explore atheism and secular humanism as well, so as to not predispose children to a belief in a deity?

If the answer is yes, then I can only imagine even more problems when the devout realize schools are talking about atheism in the same breath as the Abrahamic religions.

Would be interesting if they discussed how the bible has changed over the centuries as scribes/councils have added or removed stuffs. Wonder how parents would react the the Mark 16 ended at verse 8 and everything after that was added by scribes later.

That brings up another question about modern day church functions and teachings. Would students learn about a religions entire history, or just the basics?

Another problem lies in teaching about sensitive subjects. Imagine a unit on the Catholic church, what if questions are raised about homosexuality? Does the teacher ignore them? Or do they explain the complex and often discriminatory beliefs of the church towards homosexuals? How would that make LGBTQ children feel in that class? Can they teach units about religions without hitting these troublesome topics?

It opens up a huge can of worms that really is best left at home.

Jedi Council wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Would be interesting if they discussed how the bible has changed over the centuries as scribes/councils have added or removed stuffs. Wonder how parents would react the the Mark 16 ended at verse 8 and everything after that was added by scribes later.

That brings up another question about modern day church functions and teachings. Would students learn about a religions entire history, or just the basics?

Another problem lies in teaching about sensitive subjects. Imagine a unit on the Catholic church, what if questions are raised about homosexuality? Does the teacher ignore them? Or do they explain the complex and often discriminatory beliefs of the church towards homosexuals? How would that make LGBTQ children feel in that class? Can they teach units about religions without hitting these troublesome topics?

It opens up a huge can of worms that really is best left at home.

It shouldn’t be ignored at all. Churches are different, and not even all Catholics agree with the Catholic church on everything. That’s something people should know. I don’t think that education would be better taught at home, especially not from certain parents, and that goes double for LGBTQ subject matter. Without learning about such subjects through school, kids will learn about them through family prejudices, rumors, hearsay, biases, Fox News, the playground, etc.

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:

Jedi Council wrote:That brings up another question about modern day church functions and teachings. Would students learn about a religions entire history, or just the basics?

Another problem lies in teaching about sensitive subjects. Imagine a unit on the Catholic church, what if questions are raised about homosexuality? Does the teacher ignore them? Or do they explain the complex and often discriminatory beliefs of the church towards homosexuals? How would that make LGBTQ children feel in that class? Can they teach units about religions without hitting these troublesome topics?

It opens up a huge can of worms that really is best left at home.

It shouldn’t be ignored at all. Churches are different, and not even all Catholics agree with the Catholic church on everything. That’s something people should know. I don’t think that education would be better taught at home, especially not from certain parents, and that goes double for LGBTQ subject matter. Without learning about such subjects through school, kids will learn about them through family prejudices, rumors, hearsay, biases, Fox News, the playground, etc.

Yes any churches are different of course, and many denominations have their own views on homosexuality. This can be said for many religions.

But taking the example of the Catholic Church again, the 1992 report on homosexuality by a Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, a report which I believe is still the official word from the Church on the subject, says that homosexuality is a "moral disorder," that in some instances it is "obligatory" to discriminate against homosexuals, that it would be acceptable to curtail their rights as one might do towards the extremely mentally I'll or those with a "contagious persons," and that the entire idea of homosexuality evokes "moral concern."

Now if the teacher was good at their job, they would obviously know this, or at least, the basic gist of it. But if this hypothetical teacher spends say half an hour explaining the Church's teachings on homosexuality, there will inevitably be questions over whether the Church is right. The children will be curious. What is the teacher to say?

If the teacher says no, they could risk offending the Catholic students in the class. If they say nothing, it leaves the door open for children to take the lesson that groups of people are discriminatory against the LGBTQ community, and that that is fine. And if they say yes then that defeats the academic study of the topic.

Similarly, in my experience, most schools do teach units on homosexuality and gender issues, curriculum which is largely based in anti-discrimination, acceptance and understanding. How are students supposed to square the schools curriculum with the teachings of the religions they learn about, especially when they directly conflict with one another?

Again, while I support optional religious study classes, they really should be left in University. Primary and secondary school resources are already spread thin, and religion, being a private matter, should remain in the home.

Jedi Council wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Things in school are taught based on creating functional members of society. If that society is extremely religious, like America, religion should be taught to make sure children really understand it. That way they might avoid indoctrination.

Assuming this education would be academic, as in the study of the religion as a phenomenon with discussion about its history and doctrine rather than teaching it as truth, the big question arises around whether or not it would be optional.

It would not be hard to imagine some religious families being appalled by the idea of their children being taught about Islam, for example. Similarly, if we discuss religion in this sterile, academic way, should we also not explore atheism and secular humanism as well, so as to not predispose children to a belief in a deity?

If the answer is yes, then I can only imagine even more problems when the devout realize schools are talking about atheism in the same breath as the Abrahamic religions.

There should be a secular alternative, so those parents would not need their child to hear about atheism. That should help with their panic about society being destroyed. The students would only have to learn about their own religion so they can think about it critically.

I'd support a scholarly religion class that attempts to dive into a smorgasbord of faiths and belief systems. I'm uncomfortable with letting folks evangelize, though.

The students would only have to learn about their own religion so they can think about it critically.

I don't think that would work, it would be very easy for biased teachers to turn that in evangelization.
Schools should either teach all or teach none.

Hobbes dystopia wrote:

The students would only have to learn about their own religion so they can think about it critically.

I don't think that would work, it would be very easy for biased teachers to turn that in evangelization.
Schools should either teach all or teach none.

The teachers should be required to teach it objectively, as they do with everything else. It is important that kids don't learn about something like their religion from people who would want to manipulate them.

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
I mean basic manners can at least keep people from saying stupid shit. Doesn't mean they won't think it.

For most people, but there are dangerous elements of society that will not mix well with ignorance, and education is supposed to mitigate that kind of danger.

Case in point being the gun nuts

Rojava Free State wrote:

Brunswick-upon-Raritan wrote:
For most people, but there are dangerous elements of society that will not mix well with ignorance, and education is supposed to mitigate that kind of danger.

Case in point being the gun nuts

In my experience, gun nuts are pretty on the ball on the subject. Perhaps not off the topic of gunsand firearm law, but who among us isn't ignorant of something?

Yes - everyone should be taught to embrace Reformed Calvinism.

The fact is that religion is one of the cornerstones of the civilization and society. School doesn't serve only to spread knowledge or teach useful skills. It's duty is also to prepare for the life in the society. Now, religion is not a private matter. Faith is a private matter, but religion is social, cultural and historical reality. If the school is supposed to help children enter the society as fully responsible members of such organism, then it mustn't pretend to be some kind of scientific and neutral vacuum. Subjects such as mother tongue and literature, History and Religion serve this purpose the best.

Medwedgrad wrote:The fact is that religion is one of the cornerstones of the civilization and society. School doesn't serve only to spread knowledge or teach useful skills. It's duty is also to prepare for the life in the society. Now, religion is not a private matter. Faith is a private matter, but religion is social, cultural and historical reality. If the school is supposed to help children enter the society as fully responsible members of such organism, then it mustn't pretend to be some kind of scientific and neutral vacuum. Subjects such as mother tongue and literature, History and Religion serve this purpose the best.

You can successfully navigate American society with only the most rudimentary understanding of christianity. You probably learn more than you need watching south park. Religion may be pervasive, but it is not necessary to operate in U.S. society.