Religious education?

[Quagmire]

Nay to 'this' and the previous post.

Examining the various cultures is entertaining....no more than that.

We should be teaching our children....
chess, problem solving, music in it's function, logic, rhetoric,debate methods and common sense,
Do unto others as you have them do unto you.

Culture and dogmatic religion lead to debate, disagreement,contention and violence.

Yeah, lets do away with culture. Many people seem to get by just fine without any.

 

[Windwalker]

Yeah, lets do away with culture. Many people seem to get by just fine without any.

That's doable if we get rid of all human interactions.

 

[Quagmire]

That's doable if we get rid of all human interactions.

Whatever it takes.

(my last post was meant to be ironic )

 

[Windwalker]

Whatever it takes.

(my last post was meant to be ironic )

Yes, I call your irony, and raise you one.

 

[dawny0826]

Hi all.

Should kids have mandatory religious education as part of the basic education (like math)? Should a kid who plant to be, say, a computer technician have to study religion? And I am thinking of religious education in the secular manner, i.e. teach about religion and not about which one is correct, and I am not talking about higher studies.

Personally I think that even if its not part of someones career, its still good because it combats ignorance and racism. Besides, you never know what happens in the future. If you end up with a hindu or buddhist boss it might be good to know a little about it and not just whatever prejudice you have picked up from random people.

Take care,
Kerr.

Our World History courses covered culture and religious origins fairly well.

And I think that anything in depth should be offered as an elective.

 

[Pastadamus]

Hi all.

Should kids have mandatory religious education as part of the basic education (like math)?

Definitely not. Maybe a philosophy or secular ethics class could be taught as an elective but mandatory religious "education" is not education at all, but rather indoctrination. At most they should teach a history of religions class.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm not sure how objective the public school system can be in regard to religion. Plus, there are so many that how would you start? I think psychology, sociology, philosophy would be good classes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Preparing for living in society means being aware of significant movements in it, so yes, it is a good idea.

History of Religions, and something about ideologies and current religious movements, too. I remember how disconfortable it was for me to learn that there was such a thing as the JW when people simply did not bother to mention the diversity of Christian denominations to me before.

 

[ChristineES]

When I was in high school, our history teacher put us into groups of about 3 or 4, and each of had to study a certain religion and then present what we learned to the class and have questions. My group covered Taoism. We covered several religions- including a an overview of ancient religions. I wasn't a Christian when we did this (it was 10th grade, I think). I found it very interesting.

 

[Desert Snake]

Our World History courses covered culture and religious origins fairly well.

Yes, my opinion is that anything further than the absolute basics is going to discriminate against one religion/denomination no matter how they set the curriculum up, it's just impossible to cover all the religious concepts properly in that sort of format.
Coming from a perspective that isn't overly common, I know the course would be limited.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Definitely not. Maybe a philosophy or secular ethics class could be taught as an elective but mandatory religious "education" is not education at all, but rather indoctrination. At most they should teach a history of religions class.

I think a philosophy-Ethics-Belief-Religion class. Would do a world of good in the life of some children. Atheism right along side Hyper-Calvinism. Of coarse Hinduism should be taught as the absolute truth and all other belief system are at best semi-correct.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, my opinion is that anything further than the absolute basics is going to discriminate against one religion/denomination no matter how they set the curriculum up, it's just impossible to cover all the religious concepts properly in that sort of format.
Coming from a perspective that isn't overly common, I know the course would be limited.

I think that's true for almost any humanities topic, though.

Deciding what to include or not include in a history class from a given culture can change the students' views of that culture, including their own culture. Math is math, but something as broad as history is going to have a degree of subjectivity.

Holding religion to some privileged standard, therefore, seems a bit out of place. Teaching about a religious topic should be held to roughly the same standard as teaching about a cultural topic or a historical topic: as accurate as possible but with acknowledgment that due to the extreme diversity there's going to be stuff that's not covered.

For example, I took a broad comparative religions class and it covered the subjects as well as any history class would have covered a historical topic. Accurately but of course not perfectly. For example, in the Hindu section the teacher focused a bit more on advaita than dvaita concepts and kind of stressed advaita over dvaita. That's not ideal but students were nonetheless far more knowledgeable about Hinduism than they were before the class. But the teacher didn't really discriminate against any of the five religions that were included in the class, since each one had its own section with equal amounts of time and discussed in a historical and conceptual way.

Same thing for other topics. I took a course on Modern Christianity (meaning roughly years 1500 to 2000) and it was excellent. It was taught in a balanced and broad way and it was for all purposes basically just a history class.

Basically I view teaching religion as the same as teaching history, especially since history classes examine cultures of places and religions do of course play a large role in cultures.

 

[ChristineES]

I'd like to add that I agree with who said that we are all better off knowing about other people's cultures- it is a small world nowadays, and here in California, I meet a very diverse group of people almost daily.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Perhaps a comprehensive philosophy and philosophy history course would do much better.

This. And theology isn't a bad thing, so long as it is likewise comprehensive and combined with the history of theology. Actually, as I see theology as sort of a particular sub-field of philosophy, the quote above would be adequate by itself.

 

[s2a]

Hi all.

Should kids have mandatory religious education as part of the basic education (like math)? Should a kid who plant to be, say, a computer technician have to study religion? And I am thinking of religious education in the secular manner, i.e. teach about religion and not about which one is correct, and I am not talking about higher studies.

Personally I think that even if its not part of someones career, its still good because it combats ignorance and racism. Besides, you never know what happens in the future. If you end up with a hindu or buddhist boss it might be good to know a little about it and not just whatever prejudice you have picked up from random people.

Take care,
Kerr.

Allow, if you might, a perspective and earnest reply from a retired teacher of “basic” education (compliments of simple tax payers supporting public & free education).

Simply put, religious instruction and indoctrination (if desired) of minors is the sole responsibility of the parent(s) that wish their children to accept and exemplify same as their own evinced personal faith or beliefs. That said… exposure to unbiased or fact-based studies of comparative religions and mythologies is of value and insight in promoting not only understanding, but fair tolerance of others that retain different views and conceptions of humanity, and of our species own existence within the cosmos.

I concur with your conclusion that “comparative religion” coursework has potential value…but not as a compulsory or mandated part of general curricula. Regrettably, by my own anecdotal experience, it’s more than fair to observe that many, if not most parents (if they are ardent adherents of one particular belief/religion/mythos/superstition) would rather their children not be exposed to differing views, unless their own is proffered as superior and “correct” above all others.

You did not ask, but what I would prefer to see put forward as proscribed “basic education” is continuing edification in implementing reason, logic, and critical thinking…you know, the capacities that separate us from all other sentient species that we know of that exist today.--those traits that make us uniquely human, and evolved beyond simplistic concepts of magical thought and mysticism, or reactionary fear towards things we don’t understand or can’t immediately define/explain.

My hope is that one day we might actually devote a more concerted effort, even in early years of public education to promote an enhanced and informed eye of skepticism, informed measure, and reasonable doubt whenever confronted with claims that of “truth” that we intuitively know. even at an early age, are unlikely to be proven, or even testable, as evident fact.

Most, by 6 years of age, reasonably conclude that Santa Claus is a pleasant myth, whose underlying message of compassion, charity, empathy, and prospective reward of eventually exemplifying those traits within ourselves…is not in fact any “truth” to further proclaim as “real”, or “evidential fact”… but are traits worthy of promoting and sharing to sustain our better selves within our own expressed humanity. The nice conclusive lesson provides that we can be and embrace those qualities without ever having to “believe” that Santa (or “Father Christmas”, “La Befanna”, Pere Noel”, etc.) is “real”.

 

[Windwalker]

I concur with your conclusion that “comparative religion” coursework has potential value…but not as a compulsory or mandated part of general curricula. Regrettably, by my own anecdotal experience, it’s more than fair to observe that many, if not most parents (if they are ardent adherents of one particular belief/religion/mythos/superstition) would rather their children not be exposed to differing views, unless their own is proffered as superior and “correct” above all others.

This is also true of parents who don't want their children exposed to science because it disagrees with their pet interpretations of the book of Genesis. But science shouldn't therefore be an optional class because you may run into those with discomfort of their children being exposed to points of outside their own, correct?

But of course any such religion knowledge class isn't about teaching them as "the truth", anymore than teaching the theory of evolution is. Both are simply teaching what these various disciplines practice and teach. There is no mandate they accept them as truth in order to be knowledgeable about them.

You did not ask, but what I would prefer to see put forward as proscribed “basic education” is continuing edification in implementing reason, logic, and critical thinking…you know, the capacities that separate us from all other sentient species that we know of that exist today.--those traits that make us uniquely human, and evolved beyond simplistic concepts of magical thought and mysticism, or reactionary fear towards things we don’t understand or can’t immediately define/explain.

And with an approach to the use of logic and reason as tools against what those who see religion as nothing more than magical thoughts and superstitions (your words), these same parents above might also see that as the misuse of reason and logic as an alternative religious view itself, the religion of reason, or Scientism.

Is it any wonder the tragic backlash would be to pull children out of public education and isolate them in these narrow focus private religious institutions?

Personally, it might help the educators themselves to actually understand the nature of religions through studying about what roles they play in cultural development, and what the nature of mythology is before simply dismissing them as magic and superstition and teaching Rationality alone as the new Light of the World.

My hope is that one day we might actually devote a more concerted effort, even in early years of public education to promote an enhanced and informed eye of skepticism, informed measure, and reasonable doubt whenever confronted with claims that of “truth” that we intuitively know. even at an early age, are unlikely to be proven, or even testable, as evident fact.

I fully believe we should teach critical thought to all our children, but towards the goal you state as an "informed eye of skepticism" because it is directed to religious truths in this context, I take not as actual skepticism, but cynicism towards religious teachings as 'unprovable'. That view misunderstands religion beyond the very narrow subset of it which views these stories as literal facts of nature and history; Noah's Ark, six-day creation, etc.

The nice conclusive lesson provides that we can be and embrace those qualities without ever having to “believe” that Santa (or “Father Christmas”, “La Befanna”, Pere Noel”, etc.) is “real”.

But isn't Santa a symbol? Is it possible humans can function without them in one fashion or another? If not, then isn't this really a matter of arguing for ones symbols over and against another? That somewhat defines what religious wars do.

 

[dust1n]

This. And theology isn't a bad thing, so long as it is likewise comprehensive and combined with the history of theology. Actually, as I see theology as sort of a particular sub-field of philosophy, the quote above would be adequate by itself.

That was what I was thinking. And if you are going to bring up theological questions in a classroom, everything really is turned to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics.. etc.

Someone going to school specifically for philosophy should obviously have to take some religious centered classes as it pertained, or those going to school specifically for religious studies. In high school? It's inappropriate to be that specific on the subject and ignore the rest of the context of these questions.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers this, but Aristotle preceded Western religion (except old timey Judaism) and Buddha preceded that. Philosophy in all forms is just as relevant to people and society as religion will ever be.

 

[Thief]

Yeah, lets do away with culture. Many people seem to get by just fine without any.

Indeed.
And the struggles of prejudice and mindset would fade.

Don't you agree?

 

[Quagmire]

Indeed.
And the struggles of prejudice and mindset would fade.

Don't you agree?

Blowing up the planet would achieve the same thing.

 

[Quiddity]

Too many people equate religious education with indoctrination. Indoctrination should be done at home and in their perspective churches. Whatever education is offered, it should be broad and basic in nature.