Should Religion Be Taught in Public Schools?

I personally don't think religion should be taught in schools - unless you have the option to take or it not take it. Considering my own religion, it wouldn't be taught in school, and the idea of having some preachers cramming Christianity or other religions down my throat would anger me to the point of doing things I'd regret. I know Christians/other religions would hate if I was cramming my religion down their throats. So why should I let them make me listen to their religion?

floraltights:

I personally don't think religion should be taught in schools - unless you have the option to take or it not take it. Considering my own religion, it wouldn't be taught in school, and the idea of having some preachers cramming Christianity or other religions down my throat would anger me to the point of doing things I'd regret. I know Christians/other religions would hate if I was cramming my religion down their throats. So why should I let them make me listen to their religion?

Preachers don't teach religion in schools. At least not in Australia. It's usually a teacher who has trained in Christian or Religious Education or just any 'un'lucky teacher who drew the short straw.... One of my school's Christian Education teachers was actually the Sports Director...so, they're not always preachers.

Also, they're not meant to cram religion down the students' throats. They're only meant to teach. Not preach. That's what Chapel is for...>.>.

I do see your point, though.

It should be taught if the students want to learn about it.
If they choose not to learn then they shouldn't be forced to learn them.

Nik0:

It should be taught if the students want to learn about it.
If they choose not to learn then they shouldn't be forced to learn them.

I really didn't want to learn how to multiply and divide fractions in school, should I have had the choice to skimp out on that? I didn't much care for grammar worksheets either, should I get to nix that as well?

School isn't about necessarily what you want to learn, it's about an established curriculum that will help you and educate you.

Just make it an elective, who cares, no one forces you to take it. Problem solved.

dru protects herself:

I don't belive that public schools should teach religion.

This.
Or at least not as I had it when I was in primary school.

I went to a public school, but there was a 'scripture class'.

I resented being forced to listen to prayers and the Bible and what-not because it was irrelevant to me. Eventually I got a note from my parents and I was allowed to sit out on the class..

But some of the suggestions in this thread make a lot of sense - the idea of an elective for studying (not being preached at, oh man, sorry childhood~) all different kinds of faiths sounds alright.

But yeah, I don't think it should be forcibly taught in public schools.

Religion shouldn't even be taught anywhere, be it a private or a public school. Most children and gullible and feeble-minded, that's why it's wrong to teach them about religion, for religion affects a great deal on someone's way of thinking (sometimes making them very illogical and why would we want illogical adults in society?)

xCrusafictionx:

Religion shouldn't even be taught anywhere, be it a private or a public school. Most children and gullible and feeble-minded, that's why it's wrong to teach them about religion, for religion affects a great deal on someone's way of thinking (sometimes making them very illogical and why would we want illogical adults in society?)

This is an extremely naive view. Everyone should be taught religion at least at a general level. I'm not talking Christian Education classes, I'm talking about making children aware of different religions and teaching about them from an intellectual level.

Also, I'm not an illogical person. I've been a Christian all my life, however, I've studied science, I know evolution happens. I believe the universe came about through the Big Bang. But I just happen to believe in God as well. Nothing illogical about that. I went to Sunday school and am still very active within my Church community, but I am for equal rights, I am not against abortions, I get into more arguments with people who are atheists and think evolution is 'just a theory'. But, I'm still a firm believer in God. I see nothing wrong with that.

And no I don't think being taught religion was a bad thing, after all my belief strengthened when I was at uni studying science. High school I almost just went through the motions of being a Christian without fully committing my heart to it.

^There really isn't much logic behind belief in God. But it doesn't mean that a person is going to be illogical about everything else in their life. People aren't either completely logical or completely illogical.

Xsoteria:

^There really isn't much logic behind belief in God. But it doesn't mean that a person is going to be illogical about everything else in their life. People aren't either completely logical or completely illogical.

There might not be 'logic' (per se; in terms of logical reasoning) behind belief in God, but, as humans, religious belief seems to be something we have a strong tendency towards. So in the sense that it is common, ordinary, normal - going along with the religious tradition you are raised in isn't 'illogical' precisely.

I tried to find a link to the Pascal Boyer article, "Religion: Bound to Believe?" (a condensed version of the argument he puts forward in his book) but they all seem buy-only. Here's some of the text:

Quote

In the past ten years, the evolutionary and cognitive study of religion has begun to mature. It does not try to identify the gene or genes for religious thinking. Nor does it simply dream up evolutionary scenarios that might have led to religion as we know it. It does much better than that. It puts forward new hypotheses and testable predictions. It asks what in the human make-up renders religion possible and successful. Religious thought and behaviour can be considered part of the natural human capacities, such as music, political systems, family relations or ethnic coalitions. Findings from cognitive psychology, neuroscience, cultural anthropology and archaeology promise to change our view of religion.

Unlike other social animals, humans are very good at establishing and maintaining relations with agents beyond their physical presence; social hierarchies and coalitions, for instance, include temporarily absent members. This goes even further. From childhood, humans form enduring, stable and important social relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased relatives, unseen heroes and fantasized mates. Indeed, the extraordinary social skills of humans, compared with other primates, may be honed by constant practice with imagined or absent partners.

It is a small step from having this capacity to bond with non-physical agents to conceptualizing spirits, dead ancestors and gods, who are neither visible nor tangible, yet are socially involved. This may explain why, in most cultures, at least some of the superhuman agents that people believe in have moral concerns.

In addition, the neurophysiology of compulsive behaviour in humans and other animals is beginning to shed light on religious rituals. These behaviours include stereotyped, highly repetitive actions that participants feel they must do, even though most have no clear, observable results, such as striking the chest three times while repeating a set formula. Ritualized behaviour is also seen in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorders and in the routines of young children. In these contexts, rituals are generally associated with thoughts about pollution and purification, danger and protection, the required use of particular colours or numbers or the need to construct a safe and ordered environment.

So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than 'religion' in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities.

Religious concepts and activities hijack our cognitive resources, as do music, visual art, cuisine, politics, economic institutions and fashion. This hijacking occurs simply because religion provides some form of what psychologists would call super stimuli. Just as visual art is more symmetrical and its colours more saturated than what is generally found in nature, religious agents are highly simplified versions of absent human agents, and religious rituals are highly stylized versions of precautionary procedures. Hijacking also occurs because religions facilitate the expression of certain behaviours. This is the case for commitment to a group, which is made all the more credible when it is phrased as the acceptance of bizarre or non-obvious beliefs.

Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.

I think religion should be offered as a cultural-studies or social-science course, on an opt-in basis. And I think critical thinking (and possibly ethics) should be compulsory classes, rather than possible alternatives for students opting out of the automatic religion classes currently in place in some schools.

Xsoteria:

^There really isn't much logic behind belief in God. But it doesn't mean that a person is going to be illogical about everything else in their life. People aren't either completely logical or completely illogical.

I agree with you here. It's when people who are not religious state that people who believe in a God etc are illogical that irritates me somewhat. Just because I believe in a God doesn't make me an illogical person. :)

xCrusafictionx:

Religion shouldn't even be taught anywhere, be it a private or a public school. Most children and gullible and feeble-minded, that's why it's wrong to teach them about religion, for religion affects a great deal on someone's way of thinking (sometimes making them very illogical and why would we want illogical adults in society?)

I think you're taking it a little too far. I mean, I'm not for required religion classes in school, but it will need to be taught in school despite whether or not there are religious classes. Literature can have a lot to do with religion and you would need to know about the customs/morals/etc. to understand the work. Same with historical conflicts.

Sometimes you can't learn about something else without taking in some religious knowledge. It's not the same as being preached to; it's just not allowing ignorance.

xCrusafictionx:

Religion shouldn't even be taught anywhere, be it a private or a public school. Most children and gullible and feeble-minded, that's why it's wrong to teach them about religion, for religion affects a great deal on someone's way of thinking (sometimes making them very illogical and why would we want illogical adults in society?)

See, now I don't believe it should be enforced - because of separation of church and state - but as someone who works at a private Christian school I have to say I find this statement too extreme.

The parents send their children to our school because of the fact that we are a Christian school. And because of freedom of religion, we [Christians] have a right to teach our beliefs to our children.

I'm not illogical because I believe in God, and I must say I don't appreciate that implication.

Careless Whisper.:

The parents send their children to our school because of the fact that we are a Christian school. And because of freedom of religion, we [Christians] have a right to teach our beliefs to our children.

In Australia, almost 80 per cent of students in the lowest quarter of socio-economic disadvantage attend state schools, compared with 13 per cent who go to Catholic schools, and 6 per cent who go to independent schools. Parents are not sending their children to religious schools because they want them to be indoctrinated, they are sending them to such schools because they offer a far better education, and/or they are maintaining the plutocracy. There may be parents who are religious and wish their children to learn about that religion, but it should still be opt-in, not assumed/compulsory. (Or, if they want it to be compulsory, and for their hiring/enrolment to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, they should be purely independent and not accept taxpayer/government funding.)

Here are some relevant remarks regarding a recent report on the education system here. (I don't imagine it is significantly different in the US/UK, but I don't have stats either way.)

"Close to half of all students in these [religious] schools come from families in the top quarter of the population for "socio-educational advantage": that is, their parents have relatively high-paid, high-skilled jobs and high levels of educational attainment. That's more than double the share in the government school sector."

"About three quarters of all students in the 'independent' schools come from families in the top half of the population for socio-educational advantage. Just 13 per cent come from families from the bottom quarter."

"Educating the disadvantaged is an expensive business. On any measure, the government school system bears the brunt of this burden. About 80 per cent of students from relatively poor, ill-educated households - those in the bottom 25 per cent for socio-educational attainment - attend government schools. 78 per cent of all students with funded disabilities go to government schools; 85 per cent of Indigenous students; and 68 per cent of students from a non-English speaking background. Often these disadvantages overlap, contributing to severe learning difficulties and poor educational performance."

So I don't accept the "parents sent their kids here for us to fill their heads with religion" argument at all.

Although the thread is "should religion be taught in public schools" so the private school issue isn't really what's up for debate. Although maybe it's a more interesting issue, if most of us are otherwise just yelling in agreement at each other "I think it shouldn't be compulsory in public schools!" "Yes me too!" "Now let's debate semantics re: when/how it could be used in public schools!" "Excellent! Religious education helps understand history/literature..."

xCrusafictionx:

Religion shouldn't even be taught anywhere, be it a private or a public school. Most children and gullible and feeble-minded, that's why it's wrong to teach them about religion, for religion affects a great deal on someone's way of thinking (sometimes making them very illogical and why would we want illogical adults in society?)

So because 'most' children are 'gullible and feeble-minded' it's wrong to teach them anything that can change their way of thinking - not just religion? We should stop trying to teach children that it's wrong to be homophobic then because this will affect their ingrained heteronormative way of thinking (which most children are bound to have because we are a heteronormative society)? And, on the whole, education's purpose absolutely shouldn't be to change the way children think (a way which you describe as being 'gullible' and 'feeble-minded' and pretend that's not very much the same thing as being illogical), yes? It should be simply to encourage them to always believe what their parents tell them to believe.

kafka.:

So because 'most' children are 'gullible and feeble-minded' it's wrong to teach them anything that can change their way of thinking - not just religion? We should stop trying to teach children that it's wrong to be homophobic then because this will affect their ingrained heteronormative way of thinking (which most children are bound to have because we are a heteronormative society)? And, on the whole, education's purpose absolutely shouldn't be to change the way children think (a way which you describe as being 'gullible' and 'feeble-minded' and pretend that's not very much the same thing as being illogical), yes? It should be simply to encourage them to always believe what their parents tell them to believe.

There's a big difference between a secular education which teaches children to treat people equally, even (especially) if they are different, and teaching religion as fact. 'Religious education' could be anything on such a spectrum. I imagine (generously) that xCrusafictionx's comment was more about 'teaching' which leans towards indoctrination rather than, uh, edification.

But, I think that perspective comes from an experience/society where religion has either been relegated to, or told it should remove to, the private sphere. The attitude assumes a secular education model, assumes the superiority of that model, and assumes that the addition of religion compromises/perverts the model. At the same time, it assumes that religious study could be pursued in non-schooling hours for students (/families) who choose to do so, and that this separation is preferable, and indeed a successful (if not the most successful) education model. But I'm not sure there is evidence that these assumptions are accurate, fair or universal. If religion is, instead/elsewhere, a public phenomenon which interacts with individuals on many social levels, curricular integration is probably helpful.

pravda.:

There's a big difference between a secular education which teaches children to treat people equally, even (especially) if they are different, and teaching religion as fact. 'Religious education' could be anything on such a spectrum. I imagine (generously) that xCrusafictionx's comment was more about 'teaching' which leans towards indoctrination rather than, uh, edification.

I know there's a difference, but exactly the same 'children are gullible' argument get used to take out of the curriculum all kinds of things that absolutely should be in it like homosexuality, immigration or even sex ed. This situation is incredibly dangerous - so dangerous that I would argue it warrants deciding that 'information is dangerous, schools should keep children away from it' is a universally bad idea even if you believe sometimes that's not true (although I also think that not teaching religion fosters prejudice against Islam which is dangerous as well).

Quote

But, I think that perspective comes from an experience/society where religion has either been relegated to, or told it should remove to, the private sphere. The attitude assumes a secular education model, assumes the superiority of that model, and assumes that the addition of religion compromises/perverts the model. At the same time, it assumes that religious study could be pursued in non-schooling hours for students (/families) who choose to do so, and that this separation is preferable, and indeed a successful (if not the most successful) education model. But I'm not sure there is evidence that these assumptions are accurate, fair or universal. If religion is, instead/elsewhere, a public phenomenon which interacts with individuals on many social levels, curricular integration is probably helpful.

I don't think that in practice religion is isolated in the private sphere - as long as it influences the kind of laws we pass and the kind of people we vote for, it's very public. I'm not sure how we can measure the successfulness of an educational model which excludes religion? In Europe most countries teach religion in school - the only exception I know of for sure is France where philosophy is a mandatory bac/leaving exam subject for all students.

I'm with you on this. In public schools, religion is not allowed to be taught in fear it'll upset a student from another religion and cause the school to be sued.

I took French during high school, and my teacher would include little religion to the lesson, but nobody would complain. It was part of the French culture. Plus, she would she only talk about it for a minute or two.

It's a controversial situation though.

pessimism:

I'm with you on this. In public schools, religion is not allowed to be taught in fear it'll upset a student from another religion and cause the school to be sued.

I took French during high school, and my teacher would include little religion to the lesson, but nobody would complain. It was part of the French culture. Plus, she would she only talk about it for a minute or two.

It's a controversial situation though.

Expository explaining of religion isn't the same as preaching, which is the point.

This will be a long essay in which I explain my thoughts on religion and education and the two together - cross-culturally.

The Pies Endure:

@kafka I don't think private schools are unneccesary, there's no way my parents would have sent me to a public school. And there's no way I would have fitted into a public school. And I know that...because the state of the government schools where I went...well even if some of them did do alright academically I would not have thrived in the environment at those schools.

Private/Independent schools are not unethical. Then again I have no idea what private schools are like in the UK. Australian Independent schools may be different. I don't think debating public v private schools works when you're trying to cross cultural divides. Maybe what you say about private schools in the UK is not the same in Australia.

Supporting a system which says that a person's education - and consequently their career prospects so, really, their whole life - should depend on how much money their parents have is unethical. What does it mean to 'thrive' in a school? Academic success? street smarts? good / happy / diverse experiences? Aren't state schools doing only 'alright' academically precisely because instead of donating money to improve them, people choose to give huge piles of money to independent / private schools? What about poor students who can't 'thrive' in state schools? You're born poor, I'm sorry but you don't deserve equal opportunities - just deal with it ?

I went to (state) school in Romania - the school itself was quite old and vaguely prestigious (as a school in a small town in Romania can be) and we had good students, but it was under-funded (buildings were crumbling around us kind of under-funded), under-staffed, we had no gifted students programmes (or ones for students with learning disabilities - which is worse and makes me very sad), the range of extracurriculars was pitiful, etc. By the end of my second year I wanted to graduate early because everything was painfully boring and I didn't feel like I could get anything more out of it. Legally you can't graduate early in Romania so I was stuck for another two years - most of which I spent doing a minimal amount of school work and reading non-school related books. I graduated third in my class and moved on to do an Eng Lit / Comp Lit degree abroad. So I kind of thrived academically, just not in or because of my school (I remain indebted to my library though and the first time I manage to gain some significant amount of money, I intend to donate it all to my old library - subsequent significant amounts of money will go to other libraries in similar schools / towns). I don't think that my academic path would have been radically different if I had had a more supportive / engaging / challenging school - if anything it would probably have been less 'ambitious' (?) because I would have loved staying home and never developed a desire / need to always go outside the curriculum and study things on my own.

The morals of the story for me are:

A) if your parents can and want to spend that much money on your education, they're probably intending for you to go to university so they'll probably encourage you to do well in school and can probably pay for private tutors, library subscriptions, going to museums, etc - so you'll probably do okay enough academically to get into university regardless of what kind of school you go to;

B) supporting private schools supports a system which puts students whose parents can't or don't want to spend a lot of money on their children's education at a disadvantage - but these are precisely the students who wouldn't do okay academically regardless of what kind of school they went to - they're the ones who need encouraging teachers, good resources, etc. and they're the ones to whom all these things are being denied;

C) 'thriving' in a school shouldn't be defined solely as achieving academic success - what troubles me most in schools is the fact that prejudice, inequality, bullying and harassment are still running rampant (everywhere) - I don't see how a school that is so closed off, it only accepts pupils of a certain class and religion helps prevent all those horrible things better than an open / more welcoming school;

and, tentatively, D) I grew up in the remains of such an aggressively anti-classist educational system that I can't conceive of separating students in schools based on their incomes rather than their interests. I'm passionate about teaching and want to make a life-long career from it but I'd rather work in the throes of horrifying homophobia in Romanian schools and try to change that about them, obviously - I think they can be changed precisely because the system is fundamentally good, than in a non-state owned school in the UK or anywhere else more tolerant because the system there is fundamentally flawed and will not allow for full tolerance to be taught efficiently / put into practice.

Quote

As to religious studies, I don't know what you're trying to say? The school I went to was an Anglican Co-Ed independent/Private school, we had Christian Education once or twice a week, chapel one day a week and said prayers and had a school hymn and well it was obvious we were a Christian school. But they still taught evolution in science and didn't say anything against it. And we hardly talked about creation even in CE. So, not even all Christian schools make any clear cut distinction in their teaching.

In Romania, high schools are a lot more specialized than in Anglophone countries and students are encouraged to focus down their interests in secondary education as well - in theory, I think this is really great. You can opt for a 'theoretical' high school or national college (which are especially old and prestigious schools, but still state owned and free) which can either teach everything or specialize on a certain area, (e.g. we have schools that teach in minority languages) or for a vocational school which specialize in things like visual arts, performance arts, sports, the military, etc schools depending on what they're interested in. In (vocational) religious high schools / liceele teologice about 1/3 of the curriculum has directly to do with religion (you'll get courses on things like religious art, Christian* texts, philosophy, language courses for Biblical languages, etc) and the other 2/3 are mostly humanities (e.g. history, literature, foreign languages, etc). Students who attend them are usually preparing to be priests / pastors / religious artists / etc, but after graduation they also have the option to apply to university and get a degree in something completely unrelated to religion too. They're good schools, but not exceptionally so because they're so niche.

*I say Christian because to my knowledge there are no non-Christian religious high schools in Romania as non-Christian religious groups are quite small, but there are schools for different denominations e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, etc.

I see no problem with this kind of religious educational institutions - some students want to study religion just like some students want to study maths, they should have that option. I have problems with schools which teach everything like a secular school and then force their students to go to communal prayers / mass / etc. Making students participate in religious rites is completely different from teaching them about religion - the latter is a legitimate educational choice the student makes, the first is not and, honestly, has absolutely nothing to do with education*. A student can go to Mass or pray in their free time, but getting an in depth knowledge of, e.g., Biblical Hebrew without a teacher to help you along is very hard.

*we had some kind of RS lessons in my high school, the teacher in my senior year was really horrible and he made us all say a short prayer at the beginning of each class - I always refused to - I'll talk to God when I want to talk to God, not when you command me, my relationship with Him is private and besides I remember the Bible saying something about you should pray in private.