Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Qabea]

It's not that I don't think they should be allowed, it's just that I'm tired of some evangelicals trying to preach to me despite my not asking.

Every time that occurred as a lad, it made me less and less receptive to the message.

Through high school, my religious beliefs have always been well-founded, so I'm never receptive to the message because I'm not looking for change. But I could see how their effect could wear off, especially when they say the same things every time they approach you.

[La Xinga]

I don't think in public schools, but for private schools meant to teach religion, that should be allowed.

[Dazchan]

Where I teach, there are two kinds of religious education: General Religious Education (GRE) and Special Religious Education (SRE). GRE is taught as part of social studies and is the study of all religions, what they believe, how those beliefs have shaped the world, etc. It is about history and culture. SRE is instruction in a specific religion, nominated by the students parents, and taught by church volunteers. It is pretty much what I'd imagine a Sunday School class to be like.

I have no problem with GRE, but SRE needs to go. The problem is that we lack politicians who will stand up to the religious lobby groups. We actually had a secular ethics program that ran alongside SRE, so that students who aren't religious (or who are part of a religion that the school does not cater to) could have something useful to do in that time, but the government took steps to ensure that it couldn't be successful (not listing it as an option on the enrolment form, using a one-shot opt-in process, etc).

SRE was actually the first thing to go at my school when COVID-19 hit the fan. It probably won't come back for several months, either. Having that extra half-hour a week to teach is quite nice.

[Qabea]

I don't think in public schools, but for private schools meant to teach religion, that should be allowed.

But what's wrong with secular and informational classes in public schools that teach students interested in religion about the history, tenants, etc. about different sets of belief systems? Seems fine to me as long as instructors don't cross the line and preach or force beliefs on students.

[La Xinga]

I don't think in public schools, but for private schools meant to teach religion, that should be allowed.

But what's wrong with secular and informational classes in public schools that teach students interested in religion about the history, tenants, etc. about different sets of belief systems? Seems fine to me as long as instructors don't cross the line and preach or force beliefs on students.

Public school can do whatever they want, I don't care. Religious schools can and should have the option to filter out stuff that go against their beliefs.

[Jedi Council]

I don't think in public schools, but for private schools meant to teach religion, that should be allowed.

But what's wrong with secular and informational classes in public schools that teach students interested in religion about the history, tenants, etc. about different sets of belief systems? Seems fine to me as long as instructors don't cross the line and preach or force beliefs on students.

Therein lies the problem. I do not trust primary or secondary school teacher enough, and I do not believe they have sufficient resources or training to not "cross the line."

The basics of religion are easy, such as the structures and the very basic beliefs. But the minute you start going into the actual texts, philosophy, theology, and history of each religion, you can get pretty messy.

Religious studies or theology should be left to University, where students can choose to take courses that are conducted, generally, by people who have either expertise in religious affairs, or are well trained enough to not allow bias or confusion enter the class room.

[Jedi Council]

But what's wrong with secular and informational classes in public schools that teach students interested in religion about the history, tenants, etc. about different sets of belief systems? Seems fine to me as long as instructors don't cross the line and preach or force beliefs on students.

Public school can do whatever they want, I don't care. Religious schools can and should have the option to filter out stuff that go against their beliefs.

I have a hard time with that concept. Private religious schools have been high problematic where I live.

In once instance, an all boys catholic school had their entire football program shut down because of what the news said was rampant inappropriate sexual behaviour among the team and other students.

In another, a more personal experience, an acquaintance of mine went to an all girls catholic private school, and was unaware of the basic concepts of evolution, and even more egregiously, was it taught anything about sex education or female biology. It took her until 3rd year University to get a decent understanding of evolution, and it was only that year, at the age of 21, when she learned that penetration is required for conception.

The idea that a 21 year old woman, who went through primary school and high school, in a developed country, but does not know how her own body works or how children are produced is shocking to me, and is a severe indictment of private education.

[Kernen]

But what's wrong with secular and informational classes in public schools that teach students interested in religion about the history, tenants, etc. about different sets of belief systems? Seems fine to me as long as instructors don't cross the line and preach or force beliefs on students.

Public school can do whatever they want, I don't care. Religious schools can and should have the option to filter out stuff that go against their beliefs.

Students should be prepared with a standardized curriculum. Letting religious schools filter out necessary information is an essential failing of their primary purpose as schools: Preparation for adulthood in our society.

[Qabea]

Therein lies the problem. I do not trust primary or secondary school teacher enough, and I do not believe they have sufficient resources or training to not "cross the line."

They have the resources though. The informational religious classes I laid out are part of college-level programs like IB. Even curriculum not part of those programs are usually vetted by boards of teachers across a specific state. So no teacher could make his or her on maverick religion class.

The basics of religion are easy, such as the structures and the very basic beliefs. But the minute you start going into the actual texts, philosophy, theology, and history of each religion, you can get pretty messy.

I don't see anything wrong with learning about both my own and other people's religions; especially when there's a different plethora of belief systems to learn about and not enough time in a school year to ever get into much detail.

These classes lead to more understanding and teach students that we really aren't all that different. Something we desperately need in this world.

Religious studies or theology should be left to University, where students can choose to take courses that are conducted, generally, by people who have either expertise in religious affairs, or are well trained enough to not allow bias or confusion enter the class room.

Because religion classes are usually in public high schools, students have the choice to take them or not anyways, preparing them more for university. So basically students interested in religion and philosophy would be the ones taking the class and others would not waste the slot on their schedule.

[Unifair]

Not in public schools. Maybe private ones associated with a religion,or at religious schools like a Catholic school where you can expect to have religion as part of the curriculum. In the modern secular world,church and state are seperate,as are public schools from religion.

[La Xinga]

Public school can do whatever they want, I don't care. Religious schools can and should have the option to filter out stuff that go against their beliefs.

I have a hard time with that concept. Private religious schools have been high problematic where I live.

In once instance, an all boys catholic school had their entire football program shut down because of what the news said was rampant inappropriate sexual behaviour among the team and other students.

In another, a more personal experience, an acquaintance of mine went to an all girls catholic private school, and was unaware of the basic concepts of evolution, and even more egregiously, was it taught anything about sex education or female biology. It took her until 3rd year University to get a decent understanding of evolution, and it was only that year, at the age of 21, when she learned that penetration is required for conception.

The idea that a 21 year old woman, who went through primary school and high school, in a developed country, but does not know how her own body works or how children are produced is shocking to me, and is a severe indictment of private education.

Sir/madam, not understanding evolution is okay if you don't believe in it like me!

[La Xinga]

Public school can do whatever they want, I don't care. Religious schools can and should have the option to filter out stuff that go against their beliefs.

Students should be prepared with a standardized curriculum. Letting religious schools filter out necessary information is an essential failing of their primary purpose as schools: Preparation for adulthood in our society.

No. What do you mean by necessary info? If they believe G-d controls the world, then his word is all that is necessary!

[Jedi Council]

Therein lies the problem. I do not trust primary or secondary school teacher enough, and I do not believe they have sufficient resources or training to not "cross the line."

They have the resources though. The informational religious classes I laid out are part of college-level programs like IB. Even curriculum not part of those programs are usually vetted by boards of teachers across a specific state. So no teacher could make his or her on maverick religion class.

The basics of religion are easy, such as the structures and the very basic beliefs. But the minute you start going into the actual texts, philosophy, theology, and history of each religion, you can get pretty messy.

I don't see anything wrong with learning about both my own and other people's religions; especially when there's a different plethora of belief systems to learn about and not enough time in a school year to ever get into much detail.

These classes lead to more understanding and teach students that we really aren't all that different. Something we desperately need in this world.

Religious studies or theology should be left to University, where students can choose to take courses that are conducted, generally, by people who have either expertise in religious affairs, or are well trained enough to not allow bias or confusion enter the class room.

Because religion classes are usually in public high schools, students have the choice to take them or not anyways, preparing them more for university. So basically students interested in religion and philosophy would be the ones taking the class and others would not waste the slot on their schedule.

1. Certain advanced highschool programs, as you say, have religious studies classes. But that is why they are advanced, they are for children who are more intelligent or at least have developed faster than their peers. There, the instructors may well have intricate understandings of how to showcase religion without bias.

But in my country, and our big neighbour the US, we seem to have a continually weakening public education system. Its overworked, and adding a new class, which would be highly controversial at any rate unless we discussed literally every religion, would burden the school system even more. I would not trust any of my secondary or primary school teachers or any teacher of that level that I know to teach a full religious studies course. In my experience, religion was touched on in our history classes where lessons were less about complicated theology and more about just the social structure religion brought to life.

2. Classes can lead to more understanding, but again, that is why it should be left to university when people are generally more open minded. Highschool is primarily about retention of knowledge, university is about using that knowledge for critical thinking. Any discussion of religion is best done when people are able to do that latter.

3. If it is not mandatory, then your argument is problematic. If it is optional, why have it in highschool at all? As you say, the kids who are interested in it, will take it and those who dont will ignore it. But that's the issue, as the kids who take it in highschool will likely take it anyways in University, when the classes can be much more comprehensive and interesting. If you want more understanding, optional courses in highschool will not get you there, because the people who either dont care, or are already very biased or indoctrinated into one faith, will ignore the class.

[Jedi Council]

I have a hard time with that concept. Private religious schools have been high problematic where I live.

In once instance, an all boys catholic school had their entire football program shut down because of what the news said was rampant inappropriate sexual behaviour among the team and other students.

In another, a more personal experience, an acquaintance of mine went to an all girls catholic private school, and was unaware of the basic concepts of evolution, and even more egregiously, was it taught anything about sex education or female biology. It took her until 3rd year University to get a decent understanding of evolution, and it was only that year, at the age of 21, when she learned that penetration is required for conception.

The idea that a 21 year old woman, who went through primary school and high school, in a developed country, but does not know how her own body works or how children are produced is shocking to me, and is a severe indictment of private education.

Sir/madam, not understanding evolution is okay if you don't believe in it like me!

While it is besides the point, not believing in evolution by this point is like saying the earth is flat, or that the solar system orbits us and not the Sun.

How about the total lack of family planning or biology? Do you think it's appropriate that a grown woman should not understand how her own body works?

Students should be prepared with a standardized curriculum. Letting religious schools filter out necessary information is an essential failing of their primary purpose as schools: Preparation for adulthood in our society.

No. What do you mean by necessary info? If they believe G-d controls the world, then his word is all that is necessary!

So allowing religious schools a free reign would essentially create an entire strata of people who are functionally illiterate in any subject other than those approved of by their faith. That is a recipe for disaster.

[La Xinga]

They have the resources though. The informational religious classes I laid out are part of college-level programs like IB. Even curriculum not part of those programs are usually vetted by boards of teachers across a specific state. So no teacher could make his or her on maverick religion class.

I don't see anything wrong with learning about both my own and other people's religions; especially when there's a different plethora of belief systems to learn about and not enough time in a school year to ever get into much detail.

These classes lead to more understanding and teach students that we really aren't all that different. Something we desperately need in this world.

Because religion classes are usually in public high schools, students have the choice to take them or not anyways, preparing them more for university. So basically students interested in religion and philosophy would be the ones taking the class and others would not waste the slot on their schedule.

1. Certain advanced highschool programs, as you say, have religious studies classes. But that is why they are advanced, they are for children who are more intelligent or at least have developed faster than their peers. There, the instructors may well have intricate understandings of how to showcase religion without bias.

But in my country, and our big neighbour the US, we seem to have a continually weakening public education system. Its overworked, and adding a new class, which would be highly controversial at any rate unless we discussed literally every religion, would burden the school system even more. I would not trust any of my secondary or primary school teachers or any teacher of that level that I know to teach a full religious studies course. In my experience, religion was touched on in our history classes where lessons were less about complicated theology and more about just the social structure religion brought to life.

2. Classes can lead to more understanding, but again, that is why it should be left to university when people are generally more open minded. Highschool is primarily about retention of knowledge, university is about using that knowledge for critical thinking. Any discussion of religion is best done when people are able to do that latter.

3. If it is not mandatory, then your argument is problematic. If it is optional, why have it in highschool at all? As you say, the kids who are interested in it, will take it and those who dont will ignore it. But that's the issue, as the kids who take it in highschool will likely take it anyways in University, when the classes can be much more comprehensive and interesting. If you want more understanding, optional courses in highschool will not get you there, because the people who either dont care, or are already very biased or indoctrinated into one faith, will ignore the class.

Learning about other people's religion wont help them in life probably, and in some religions not allowed at all!

[Jedi Council]

1. Certain advanced highschool programs, as you say, have religious studies classes. But that is why they are advanced, they are for children who are more intelligent or at least have developed faster than their peers. There, the instructors may well have intricate understandings of how to showcase religion without bias.

But in my country, and our big neighbour the US, we seem to have a continually weakening public education system. Its overworked, and adding a new class, which would be highly controversial at any rate unless we discussed literally every religion, would burden the school system even more. I would not trust any of my secondary or primary school teachers or any teacher of that level that I know to teach a full religious studies course. In my experience, religion was touched on in our history classes where lessons were less about complicated theology and more about just the social structure religion brought to life.

2. Classes can lead to more understanding, but again, that is why it should be left to university when people are generally more open minded. Highschool is primarily about retention of knowledge, university is about using that knowledge for critical thinking. Any discussion of religion is best done when people are able to do that latter.

3. If it is not mandatory, then your argument is problematic. If it is optional, why have it in highschool at all? As you say, the kids who are interested in it, will take it and those who dont will ignore it. But that's the issue, as the kids who take it in highschool will likely take it anyways in University, when the classes can be much more comprehensive and interesting. If you want more understanding, optional courses in highschool will not get you there, because the people who either dont care, or are already very biased or indoctrinated into one faith, will ignore the class.

Learning about other people's religion wont help them in life probably, and in some religions not allowed at all!

That kind of talking leads to Crusdades/Jihads/Genocides.

[La Xinga]

Learning about other people's religion wont help them in life probably, and in some religions not allowed at all!

That kind of talking leads to Crusdades/Jihads/Genocides.

No.

[Jedi Council]

That kind of talking leads to Crusdades/Jihads/Genocides.

No.

Yes.

Misunderstandings between Faith's have invariably led to conflict. During my first religious studies class, a large portion of it was focused on how similar the three primary abrahamic religions really are. Ignornong any dialogue between them will lead to more anger, misrepresentation, and violence.

That's why everyone should take one religious studies class (not Theology) in University.

[Albrenia]

That kind of talking leads to Crusdades/Jihads/Genocides.

No.

Actually, entirely yes. Banning the learning of other religions is the sign of a shit religion.

[La Xinga]

No.

Actually, entirely yes. Banning the learning of other religions is the sign of a shit religion.

Not really.

[Jedi Council]

Actually, entirely yes. Banning the learning of other religions is the sign of a shit religion.

Not really.

Just a heads up, if you post pithy one liners without backing up your claims, most people on these forums will simply ignore you.

While I think yours is an indefensible position, unless you try, talking to you is pointless.

[Estanglia]

That kind of talking leads to Crusdades/Jihads/Genocides.

No.

If you don't understand others, it is so much easier for the hateful to manipulate you, or to manipulate others against you.

[Hanafuridake]

Learning about other people's religion wont help them in life probably, and in some religions not allowed at all!

Being able to understand other culture's worldviews is an incredibly important skill to have. Which religions ban learning about others?

[Kernen]

Students should be prepared with a standardized curriculum. Letting religious schools filter out necessary information is an essential failing of their primary purpose as schools: Preparation for adulthood in our society.

No. What do you mean by necessary info? If they believe G-d controls the world, then his word is all that is necessary!

That makes you nonfunctional in society outside a very insular community. Which, you know, is your call, but forcing people into that position makes it impossible for them to leave.

[La Xinga]

Not really.

Just a heads up, if you post pithy one liners without backing up your claims, most people on these forums will simply ignore you.

While I think yours is an indefensible position, unless you try, talking to you is pointless.

There is no positions, it doesn't mean a **** religion.

Learning about other people's religion wont help them in life probably, and in some religions not allowed at all!

Being able to understand other culture's worldviews is an incredibly important skill to have. Which religions ban learning about others?

I'd rather not say now, but if you are forgetting, some religions don't want you to mingle so much with others, so how is it a important skill?