Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Nakena]

Or, y'know, doing the smart thing to ensure continued freedom of their ability to live as they wish.

Surely if they fought for their freedom of religion they would despise secularism; because it is a bargain with the devil; he delivers but with a not inconsiderable payment: the Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist will say, ‘Grant us freedom, and we will pay you its destruction!’

Good because abrahamism ought to be destroyed. Thats the whole idea. I am not even denying it.

It's not an bug. It's a feature.

Buddhism though comes not into play.

[Eudea]

Yes, religions should be free to evangelize in schools.

I hope the majority of America's youth adopts Hinduism and Shintoism.

Why stop at America?

[Kernen]

If law demands abortion and drug use, then you would get abortions and shoot up?

Perhaps, just maybe, law and morality are separate.

My soul truly waiteth still upon God; for of Him comes my salvation.

This is a non answer. If you would not so comply, you admit law and morality are separate. And that I am correct.

You don't have to answer. That you won't rather makes my point.

[Polding]

How can you tell? a veil has been cast over your eyes so that you cannot see! And your heart was dulled by sin so that it cannot hear Him...

Uh huh... what sin? Unless you somehow can see my “soul” and know me better than myself?
And I can see perfectly fine, thank you, though I admittedly sometimes need glasses to see things further afield.

You reveal yourself, like a chicken that has lost its head. You confess atheism, what a terrible blindfold on the narrow tightrope that we walk!

[Region of Dwipantara]

Or, y'know, doing the smart thing to ensure continued freedom of their ability to live as they wish.

Surely if they fought for their freedom of religion they would despise secularism; because it is a bargain with the devil; he delivers but with a not inconsiderable payment: the Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist will say, ‘Grant us freedom, and we will pay you its destruction!’

Not if they are well-educated, after which they will know that tolerance and respect are the things that benefit civilization. Without proper education, such people might become the stupid and short-tempered religious zealot, kinds of which usually ending up stabbing my country's Minister of Security.

[SangMar]

Or, y'know, doing the smart thing to ensure continued freedom of their ability to live as they wish.

Surely if they fought for their freedom of religion they would despise secularism; because it is a bargain with the devil; he delivers but with a not inconsiderable payment: the Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist will say, ‘Grant us freedom, and we will pay you its destruction!’

If secularism leads to destruction, I’ll take it. Seeing a paedophilic organisation like the Catholic Church be uprooted branch by branch would grant me far greater pleasure than believing in a nonsensical “God”. If “God” wasn’t a complete sham, there’d be no paedophiles within the Catholic Church - he’d prevent that. He doesn’t, so either he doesn’t exist, or he’s the Devil. There is no middle ground.

On the topic of religion in schools, go ahead - teach about it - but teach it like a history lesson, say what it is, some of its beliefs, some of its mistakes, what people think about it and then move on. To evangelise students with it puts them in harm’s way - (See, the Catholic Church and altar boys)

[Eudea]

Surely if they fought for their freedom of religion they would despise secularism; because it is a bargain with the devil; he delivers but with a not inconsiderable payment: the Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist will say, ‘Grant us freedom, and we will pay you its destruction!’

Good because abrahamism ought to be destroyed. Thats the whole idea. I am not even denying it.

It's not an bug. It's a feature.

Buddhism though comes not into play.

Eh, I would rather see the reformation of Abrahamic religion back into good ol’ Levantine Judaism and respectful localised variants.

[Neutraligon]

Surely if they fought for their freedom of religion they would despise secularism; because it is a bargain with the devil; he delivers but with a not inconsiderable payment: the Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist will say, ‘Grant us freedom, and we will pay you its destruction!’

Not if they are well-educated, after which they will know that tolerance and respect are the things that benefit civilization. Without proper education, such people might become the stupid and short-tempered religious zealot, kinds of which usually ending up stabbing my country's Minister of Security.

Or, they could recognize that secularism protects their religion from the state. It need not be selfless.

[VW53Aland]

I am not going to make a choice in the poll, but I will answer the question "Should religions be taught in schools?"
My answer is yes. For people to understand each other, it is necessary to know about each other. To know about people's differences and about what they have in common. To know about their demography, their history, their ancestors, their culture, and their surroundings in the widest sense of the word. This also includes their beliefs and their religions.
People need to be informed to have at least a basic understanding of what moves another person, how they became as they have become, why they do what they do.
So I'm not talking about one specific religion being forced onto children, but I am talking about children learning at least a little bit about all kinds of religions, even about science and atheism.
Only with understanding and respecting each other, we will have a slight chance of creating peace in the world.

[Eudea]

Uh huh... what sin? Unless you somehow can see my “soul” and know me better than myself?
And I can see perfectly fine, thank you, though I admittedly sometimes need glasses to see things further afield.

You reveal yourself, like a chicken that has lost its head. You confess atheism, what a terrible blindfold on the narrow tightrope that we walk!

Speaking in a proto-poetic manner isn’t getting your point across and isn’t doing you any favours. Plain English just works fine.
But yeah, good observation: I’m atheist, though it doesn’t form a central piece of my identity.

[Kernen]

You reveal yourself, like a chicken that has lost its head. You confess atheism, what a terrible blindfold on the narrow tightrope that we walk!

Speaking in a proto-poetic manner isn’t getting your point across and isn’t doing you any favours. Plain English just works fine.
But yeah, good observation: I’m atheist, though it doesn’t form a central piece of my identity.

Imagine thinking that's a secret to be hidden.

[Polding]

My soul truly waiteth still upon God; for of Him comets my salvation.

I think you require a different kind of salvation, my friend. Perhaps a little more reading and research could help.

What will reading and research profit you if you lose the soul? Read what is good and holy, not that which will make you haughty. You esteem reading but what if I were to read Siege by James Mason? You will call to me and say, ‘Do not read it because this or that.’

[Eudea]

Speaking in a proto-poetic manner isn’t getting your point across and isn’t doing you any favours. Plain English just works fine.
But yeah, good observation: I’m atheist, though it doesn’t form a central piece of my identity.

Imagine thinking that's a secret to be hidden.

If I’m being told nonsense I’d at least like it to be intelligible nonsense.

[Kernen]

I think you require a different kind of salvation, my friend. Perhaps a little more reading and research could help.

What will reading and research profit you if you lose the soul? Read what is good and holy, not that which will make you haughty. You esteem reading but what if I were to read Siege by James Mason? You will call to me and say, ‘Do not read it because this or that.’

Read what you want bud. No skin off our noses.

[Eudea]

I think you require a different kind of salvation, my friend. Perhaps a little more reading and research could help.

What will reading and research profit you if you lose the soul? Read what is good and holy, not that which will make you haughty. You esteem reading but what if I were to read Siege by James Mason? You will call to me and say, ‘Do not read it because this or that.’

I wouldn’t tell you to not read it. I’d straight say it’s bullshit to me but sure, knock yourself out.

[Polding]

You reveal yourself, like a chicken that has lost its head. You confess atheism, what a terrible blindfold on the narrow tightrope that we walk!

Speaking in a proto-poetic manner isn’t getting your point across and isn’t doing you any favours. Plain English just works fine.
But yeah, good observation: I’m atheist, though it doesn’t form a central piece of my identity.

Do you not realise this irony? The point?

[Kernen]

Speaking in a proto-poetic manner isn’t getting your point across and isn’t doing you any favours. Plain English just works fine.
But yeah, good observation: I’m atheist, though it doesn’t form a central piece of my identity.

Do you not realise this irony? The point?

I was today years old when I learned that school secularism can only be supported by atheists. Who, by the way, are also restrained by secularism.

[Eudea]

Speaking in a proto-poetic manner isn’t getting your point across and isn’t doing you any favours. Plain English just works fine.
But yeah, good observation: I’m atheist, though it doesn’t form a central piece of my identity.

Do you not realise this irony? The point?

All I see is a religious fanatic rambling on about superstitious nonsense. No offence, of course.

[Nakena]

Do you not realise this irony? The point?

Do you realize how nobody here gives a dime about your words?

[Polding]

Do you not realise this irony? The point?

All I see is a religious fanatic rambling on about superstitious nonsense. No offence, of course.

I have no point, I am an ass! Beyond the first, it means nothing; I am dumb! You say that my posts are rambling, superstitious nonsense. It is a correct observation, for the most part, but ironic: all that you have uttered in this thread is nonsense too. You earnestly, like a dog, argue with me and others on an internet forum, extolling yourself as well-read like a peacock, yet you’ve achieved nothing and I have your attention; I am a troll!

I could entertain you by replying cohesively, but that’d be beside the point. Fool! Fool! Fool!

[Region of Dwipantara]

Not if they are well-educated, after which they will know that tolerance and respect are the things that benefit civilization. Without proper education, such people might become the stupid and short-tempered religious zealot, kinds of which usually ending up stabbing my country's Minister of Security.

Or, they could recognize that secularism protects their religion from the state. It need not be selfless.

Depend on the definition of 'protect'. For the majority of us, it meant "protect any religion from being quashed by the state". For him, maybe "greatly support a very specific strain of a specific religion using taxpayer's money at the expense of the rest of the non-Catholic majority whose belief is quashed by government power."

[New Jewlan]

The New Jewlan missionaries of the One True Faith would be happy to evangelise schools everywhere :-)

[Eudea]

All I see is a religious fanatic rambling on about superstitious nonsense. No offence, of course.

I have no point, I am an ass! Beyond the first, it means nothing; I am dumb! You say that my posts are rambling, superstitious nonsense. It is a correct observation, for the most part, but ironic: all that you have uttered in this thread is nonsense too. You earnestly, like a dog, argue with me and others on an internet forum, extolling yourself as well-read like a peacock, yet you’ve achieved nothing and I have your attention; I am a troll!

I could entertain you by replying cohesively, but that’d be beside the point. Fool! Fool! Fool!

Cool beans.

[Eudea]

The New Jewlan missionaries of the One True Faith would be happy to evangelise schools everywhere :-)

NSG is out of character, not in character.

[Eudea]

Or, they could recognize that secularism protects their religion from the state. It need not be selfless.

Depend on the definition of 'protect'. For the majority of us, it meant "protect any religion from being quashed by the state". For him, maybe "greatly support a very specific strain of a specific religion using taxpayer's money at the expense of the rest of the non-Catholic majority whose belief is quashed by government power."

I personally see it more as protecting the citizenry and the state from religious fanaticism infesting government policy.