Thread: Religion in Schools

Children should be able to think for themselves what they believe in, and the best way to do that is to learn as much as possible about both sides.

Let me ready my texts on Flat Earth theory. Because we shouldn't devote our time to teaching more useful things.

Also, I don't care if only one religion is represented in a school, as long as the religion class is a class of religious history, and not a prayer/practice hour. As with foreign language course availability, depending on your funding, those are the breaks. I wouldn't remove Spanish from a school just because French isn't offered, nor would I remove History of Christianity from a school just because History of Judaism isn't offered.

Originally Posted by Abra

Also, I don't care if only one religion is represented in a school, as long as the religion class is a class of religious history, and not a prayer/practice hour. As with foreign language course availability, depending on your funding, those are the breaks. I wouldn't remove Spanish from a school just because French isn't offered, nor would I remove History of Christianity from a school just because History of Judaism isn't offered.

That's a very valid point, but what if it wasn't a History of Christianity class, but rather a class dedicated to teaching and practicing the Christian religion?

At least, I think that's the kind of class that davej was describing.

Originally Posted by Abra

I wouldn't remove Spanish from a school just because French isn't offered, nor would I remove History of Christianity from a school just because History of Judaism isn't offered.

I don't think the argument is valid, because the comparison isn't proper. Let me use an example:

It is okay to teach only one religion in schools, just as it is okay to teach about America but not about Africa.

See the problem here? Religion is a unique thing to discuss, you can't really compare it to languages. I know about all major religions in the world, yet I only know 3 languages. And that doesn't mean I'm not well-versed in languages (much to the contrary, actually). You get me?

Teaching only one religion, even if only its history, is like not teaching another country's culture. It is impossible to study Japan without learning about Shintoism. Giving priority to one religion or the other is hypocrisy.

Mario, no I wouldn't and I am positive she wouldn't want to either but hey that would be our CHOICE. I don't have a problem with those classes being taught but would not participate or allow my daughter to participate in them.

Originally Posted by davej

Mario, no I wouldn't and I am positive she wouldn't want to either but hey that would be our CHOICE. I don't have a problem with those classes being taught but would not participate or allow my daughter to participate in them.

Then what in all the world makes you think it's a good idea? Why not a general course encompassing many religions and their histories, instead of just a single one? You may go as far as to fine-tune courses to region (Western, Eastern, Middle East, etc.) but I would be incredibly cautious of teaching courses focusing on a single religion. That role is best suited to the religious institutes.

if someone wants to take a muslim or buddha or hindu class or whatever great, i would opt out of it for my daughter.

What about those who can not afford to send their children to religious institutes? Luckly my wife and I can afford to send our daughter to a private christian school.

Originally Posted by davej

if someone wants to take a muslim or buddha or hindu class or whatever great, i would opt out of it for my daughter.

What about those who can not afford to send their children to religious institutes? Luckly my wife and I can afford to send our daughter to a private christian school.

I'm talking about churches, mosques, temples, all that. Failing that, there is always the internet. It should not, however, be the school's responsibility to preach the tenets of any religion.

Originally Posted by davej

if someone wants to take a muslim or buddha or hindu class or whatever great, i would opt out of it for my daughter.

What about those who can not afford to send their children to religious institutes? Luckly my wife and I can afford to send our daughter to a private christian school.

Do you see anything frightening about the idea of representatives of the government sponsoring a religion in the course of their employment? In other words, do you see anything freaky about the government promoting a religion? I think it sets a horribly dangerous precedent. Theocracy is a true threat. Let's not give the government even a millimeter more in that direction. If the country ever does become a theocracy, it will not necessarily be a Christian one. Church and state should NEVER mix. Religion is for the private world, and representatives of the government can be as religious as they feel the need to be as long as they are not acting out their job descriptions with it.

UM, either I'm not understanding you or, you are taking this way to far. I'm not talking about religion in government, I'm simply saying that there would be no harm with schools offering a course on religion. it could be something as simple as a religion of the worlds cousre or a course on the new or old testimant or a course on the Qur'an or a course on buddhism or whatever. Where is the problem in that. Where is the problem with a group of Christian students who takes an elective on the new testiment. What would be the difference inbetween that and a large group of students holding a Bible study during lunch? the only difference would be a teacher teaching it. I see nothing wrong with a school having a religion class as an elective (not a required course).

Originally Posted by davej

UM, either I'm not understanding you or, you are taking this way to far. I'm not talking about religion in government, I'm simply saying that there would be no harm with schools offering a course on religion. it could be something as simple as a religion of the worlds cousre or a course on the new or old testimant or a course on the Qur'an or a course on buddhism or whatever. Where is the problem in that. Where is the problem with a group of Christian students who takes an elective on the new testiment. What would be the difference inbetween that and a large group of students holding a Bible study during lunch? the only difference would be a teacher teaching it. I see nothing wrong with a school having a religion class as an elective (not a required course).

He means that the school is a Government institute, and religion and the state should never, ever mix, as it would set a dangerous precedent that could very well lead to a series of events ultimately establishing a theocracy. If it becomes okay for the government to intervene in religion, especially the teaching of religion in schools, it would be okay for them to interfere in other areas of religion. Eventually, we may either end up with a theocracy, or a nation totally devoid of any religion at all. If a person wants to learn about any religion, it should be done on their own time. The internet is a truly wonderful resource, and in this day and age, you'd be surprised how much can be accomplished with a few key words and a google search. If someone wants to learn about Islam, let them join a discussion forum on Islam. It's just that easy, and opens up many fewer cans of worms than allowing schools to teach any sort of religion.

What problems would it open up if it was an elective... a course not required. You would have a choice to take it if you wanted.

I'm okay with public schools teaching facts about religious belief systems in a secular manner, but not teaching that any of them are the truth. I don't want the government ever promoting a religion as the right one. I don't even like the fact that we have "In God We Trust" on coins. What if they said "In The Gods We Trust" or "In No God We Trust"? It's spooky stuff. If the government can teach what religion is the correct one, then the government is not far from being able to tell you what religion you must practice.

Originally Posted by davej

What problems would it open up if it was an elective... a course not required. You would have a choice to take it if you wanted.

You would still be allowing the government to teach religion and intervene within it. It may not have a direct effect, but the resulting implications and slippery slope may, and very well could, lead to a theocracy.

But seriously, what is your issue with the internet? It is a fantastic resource.

And as someone pointed out above me, what happens when some poor kids get blocked out of every other class? Yup, they're screwed into taking a semester of Scientology 101. Yeah, you're right...I see no potential problems at all.

I will give you props on making good points Mario, in a perfect society, there might not be any problems and sure it can have a slippery slop but, what about all the universities that do have classes on religion

Originally Posted by davej

I will give you props on making good points Mario, in a perfect society, there might not be any problems and sure it can have a slippery slop but, what about all the universities that do have classes on religion

Keep in mind that University professors tend to also be incredibly liberal and nonreligious themselves, and that the classes are taught on a more objective standpoint. College students are more capable of viewing something objectively and making more informed decisions. The brain has finished developing at this point (more or less), while the teenage brain is undergoing a final phase of growth that ultimately defines the individual. Also note that College is fully optional, while schooling is mandatory. Even as an elective, I see definite potential problems with a course focusing on one religion being taught in a public school.

Originally Posted by davej

I will give you props on making good points Mario, in a perfect society, there might not be any problems and sure it can have a slippery slop but, what about all the universities that do have classes on religion

Not to mention, the majority of those classes are cultural history classes based on a specific religion, and not a group Bible/Torah/Qur'an/Book of Mormon/Dianetics study (though I am aware that some colleges [seminaries, specifically] offer classes in which a religion is actually practiced).

I go to a catholic public school and at prayers you can see that less than half the class are christian but yet we all still have to answer questions like "How do you try, in your every day life, to be a good christian. Also, Yesterday I got in a "debate" with my head teacher as he was saying that porn was worse than war.

Originally Posted by hawheehawhee

I go to a catholic public school and at prayers you can see that less than half the class are christian but yet we all still have to answer questions like "How do you try, in your every day life, to be a good christian. Also, Yesterday I got in a "debate" with my head teacher as he was saying that porn was worse than war.

I am mostly of Scotch-Irish descent, and that news really sucks. Catholic public school? That is a very scary idea. Porn is worse than war? Ask your teacher if he would rather his neighborhood (him included) watch Jenna Haze in a lesbian scene or be carpet bombed to ashes. I know which one he would really choose, but religion taught him he is supposed to hate porn, and he knows that he loves it and is trying to deal with his situation. Sad.

Ah, the propaganda...

I usually just ignore it when they start talking about all that sinning crap but when he said that I couldn't. He was talking about refugees from countries with war and suffering coming to the U.K. and being disgusted by our morals and the fact that we like reality shows and watch porn and then wanted to go back to their old country and I was saying well it's better to watch porn than having to watch people getting raped by soldiers and killed.

I am against any type of religion being taught in schools. However, teaching the historical context of religion is nothing bad. As long as were not preaching its message.

I think they sort of imply religion into children here in America.... Like Mario said, the words "under Gog" are in our pledge and I think God might be mentioned in the anthem (not sure). Personally I think the teachers are pretty good at not mentioning religion too much. I remember when I was a kid and whenever someone mentioned religion I'd snap at them, "No religion in public schools." There was also one religious nut in our class (that everyone hated, BTW) and one time the teacher said something or other about a theory on why bugs shrank over time, because of lower oxygen levels than when Earth was just starting out, and he said, "No, God made the bugs smaller so there would be more room for humans‼" and everybody, even the Christians, yelled at him to shut up. I laughed my ass off as he shrunk back into his chair and crossed his arms. Anywho, off topic, religion should definitely not be taught in schools. As said before, give children a choice. It's just that the government doesn't believe in smart children and thinks us under 18 can't make our own desicions and.... *goes off into a political rant about child labor laws and voting and what-not*

Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia

I think they sort of imply religion into children here in America

Is that what they do.

Is it.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Is that what they do.

Is it.

That is what they do.

It is.