Should Religion Be Taught in Public Schools?

of dru's being.:

@ Ponyess
I have a problem with only major religions being taught. I think it will give people the idea that individuals in less recognized religions are okay to make fun of or bully and that there's something wrong with them.

Plus, the Golden Rule can be taught without religion. 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

You do have a point there. only taking the major once, while ignoring the once who are actively practiced close by, would open up for the kind of bias you just expressed.
Maybe the minor once, that are local are at least as important.

We both have a set of local religions, we ignored, for far too long. Just like we're not alone on this matter. It's for too common, but we refuse to recognise it. Partly, because we're not told. Partly, bcause we do feel uncomfortable, listening. it's our own past, and now we're forced to reconsider what our parents, and kin did in the past.

The Golden rule, yeah. just need to have the entire rule, not just the half of it.
Besides, it could be seen as a larger package of wisdom?

They, by law, can't teach religion in a public school setting. It goes agaisnt the constitution.

Dreamer's Aly Cat:

They, by law, can't teach religion in a public school setting. It goes agaisnt the constitution.

No it doesn't. Promoting or validating a religion is unconstitutional; teaching about a religion is not. You probably learned about Greek Mythology in school, right? Or the Ancient Egyptian religions? The Crusades? It would be impossible to teach history without religion, but learning history doesn't infringe on your constitutional rights.

@ Kurtni
I was referring to the freedom of religion, one of the first things on the constitution. Teaching one religion in the public school system would make any students that aren't part of that religion uncomfortable, and they would protest, surely.

Didn't anyone hear about that one school that had to have the ten commandments taken down because it was against the law?

@ Dreamer's Aly Cat
We're discussing more of a multi-religion class though, not a religious class that only teaches/preaches one religion.

If a school shows you the different religions of the world, and you start to kind of discuss the ideas of it that's fine, but going in and saying that that's how you should live and the "laws of God" isn't right. I'm part of a group that doesn't worship their Gods but follows loose rules of obeying them. I like to hear and learn about other religions though, comapre and contrast about what I believe to another. However it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats. Which sadly it is, seeing the amounts of protests and fights over religion in the US.

Religions are already taught in public schools, whether we realize it or not. Teachers use examples from the Bible all the time to make references to the subject they're teaching. I don't think religions should be taught in public schools. For one thing, teachers always get facts wrong, so what's the point? Second of all, teachers always say, "This religion assumes," which can be offensive to students of that religion. It's not a good idea at all. If people wanna learn about religions, they can look up information. -A

Valiente:

For one thing, teachers always get facts wrong, so what's the point?

Could you elaborate? I don't really understand your reasoning.

Quote

Second of all, teachers always say, "This religion assumes," which can be offensive to students of that religion.

Again, I haven't come across this being said before, but either way, I'd much rather that they use words like "assume" than talk about a particular religion as if it's absolutely true. When you're teaching students about what people all over the world believe (which is the point of religion education; correct me if I'm wrong), there shouldn't have to be any worry about people being offended.

@ Alex; periphery.
What I'm saying is that there may be a time that a teacher has a student (or a group of students) who strongly believe in that particular religion and find it offensive when a teacher says "assumes" rather than "believes". -A

@ Valiente
I'm afraid I just don't see that as an issue. I don't really think the use of the word "assume" is tantamount to any kind of religious discrimination.

@ Alex; periphery.
I've seen it. Trust me. There have been plenty of incidents in my school where a student gets offended by a teacher saying that one religion assumes something instead of believes in it. -A

@ Valiente
I'm sure there have, but again, I don't really see that as an issue from the teacher's perspective. Unless they were saying it in a rude manner, and I can't really judge whether or not that was the case. Besides, to assume something isn't necessarily to believe it to be true despite no proof.

It must really be different huh? To pay attention to something that you don't want to pay attention to. I say, it should be the decisions of the children when they grow older enough to understand the world fully. If they don't want to be Catholics or Christians or of other religions, then so be it. It is their decision and we must respect that. Yes, the elders should know better and that they should plan it ahead so that the children will be brought up well but we must let them explore. Should Religion be taught it public school, yes I believe so. But like I said, if one does not, then don't push it. Our world is full of love and hatred at the same time that causes such misunderstandings to happen. We can't allow that.

@ Alex; periphery.
I'm just thinking from another person's perspective on things. A teacher doesn't see it as offensive because they don't follow that religion. A student that strongly believes in the religion will see it as offensive because a teacher is saying "assumes", which can sound like the teacher wants the students to think that it's not true at all when it could be. -A

^There are students who get offended when a teacher says evolution has evidence, but it doesn't matter. They have no legal right to complain about objective information or terminology.

My teachers, when we talked about the Ancient Greeks or Egyptians, always said believed and it was never an issue.

@ Valiente
Maybe I'm just so comfortable with my religion that stuff like that doesn't bother me but if a teacher used the word "assumes" such and such, I wouldn't have gotten offended. I think people who get offended do so because they, themselves, don't actually know if they believe it's true or not.

I think religion shouldn't be mentioned at all in school. Just because it's not being "taught" doesn't mean it's not being some how shoved down throats. At least, that's what I have experienced in New York.

I mean, religion isn't supposed to be taught in schools to begin with, right? At least in the US if I remember correctly. It's just funny how they say that, yet Christianity and all the allusions are shoved down my throat every single year in English. Literally, for the past 9 years I have been forced to learn something about Christianity in my English class. No, we can't pick a book that doesn't have to compare the main character to Jesus or allude to something in the Bible. And it's never any other religion. I'm kind of offended by it, to be honest. If I am forced to have to talk about Christianity and their beliefs why can't we read a book that has to do with my beliefs? Why do I have to sit there every single year and talk about Jesus and say "so and so died in Lord of the Flies like Jesus bc blah blah" when I don't even believe in Jesus? Why do I have to write such things I don't believe?

I bet if I brought this up to my teachers and/or principal they'd make an excuse for it. They're probably say the book is required. It just annoys me. They claim it's not being taught, but they essentially sneak it it. "Oh, we're not teaching Christianity, we're simply helping you understand the book." Then why don't you pick a book that doesn't depend on Christianity for it's references and images? Ha oh right :^)

I went to a Catholic school in Massachusetts my entire life, so I can't exactly speak from the experience of what it would be like to learn about religion in a public school setting. Although, now, I'm at a public university in Virginia and I suppose taking Ethical Reasoning as my GenEd for the semester lends itself to obviously talking about different religions in some way and how religion affects society's moral standards or-- in many cases-- contrasts them here in the US.

I think it would be interesting to have religions taught in an objective manner. Just learn the facts about the religion, opinions aside. As soon as you throw in interpretation and opinions that's where you get into trouble, I think. At least, that's what it was like at Catholic high school. Saying "Catholics believe abortion is wrong" would cause all kinds of hysteria amongst my super liberal and adamantly atheist friends (it's a shock that I've remained theist, although I currently am questioning whether or not I want to belong to organized religion).

But, speaking from my experience with people in general, I think it would be a bad idea. Too many people get emotional over certain topics and wouldn't be able to learn religion in a strictly objective setting. Even in a Catholic school I was brought up with watered-down classes and the only reason I actually know anything about the Catholic faith is because of my dad. If Catholic schools can't even manage to teach religion properly I highly doubt public schools would be able to handle it. The backlash (at least in the US) would be tremendous.

I think it's important to look at different religions and and develop your own spirituality and see what works best for you (even if that's a lack of faith in anything beyond the physical universe) and it's important to be as informed as possible when thinking about these things.

tl;dr: Learning about religions is important, but in a school setting it would ultimately fail because if the American education system fucks up teaching science it would certainly do the same for religion.

Thankfully, my school never imposed religion on us. In my history classes, it was taught in a pure historical sense with the basic facts/beliefs of each religion so that way we could understand some of the historical events. Even when we learned evolution in my biology class, my teacher simply went, "I'm not trying to impose anything on you guys, but we are required to teach the theory of evolution" and a bunch of other stuff as a disclaimer. I don't believe religion should be taught in schools though because, while I believe in a god, I'm not a fan of organized religion and unless it's a private (religious) school, no one should be subjected to learn about something they may not believe. It is not a school's job to force me into trying to believe something I don't believe in. If anything, it's going to make me more hateful of it.

I think it should be an optional class, or like it's been stated, be something talked about in a historical or world context. I personally do love learning about religion, despite the fact that I don't believe in any of them.

At the very least, I think people probably should at least attempt to learn more about religions since having more knowledge about them would make it much easier for everyone to understand each other.