The school doesnt exist to help people lock themselves up in a comfort zone. We are meant to get new and different ideas, meant to learn new things. Thats the point of school.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religious education?
- Thread starter Kerr
- Start date
Thats not a reason not to do it, thats a reason to figure out a way to do it well.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yeah, good luck in an equal representation of religious beliefs being taught in a public school.
Me to
.
I think an overview of the various religions during as part of a social studies class would be all right.
arhys
Member
The covergence of school and state is infinitely more troubling than the convergence of church and state. Schools should not teach modern European history without teaching about the Reformation, nor can they functionally teach about American Colonial history without teaching about the Puritan Great Migration, nor can they fully teach philosophy without at least outlining Thomism.
In my view, it's irresponsible to not have students graduate high school with at least minimal understanding of cultures around the world.
In high school we learned quite a bit about ancient Egyptians and yet nothing at all about Islam, for example, despite Islam being a more modern thing worth knowing the basics about.
I think that religious studies should be part of history class just like the rest of history is taught. Have students read parts of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the ten or so primary Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, and then form discussion groups or take a test on some of the basic concepts of each religion like students would with any cultural subject.
I don't see why a competent teacher couldn't do the same thing in high school. Easiest class ever.
In high school we learned quite a bit about ancient Egyptians and yet nothing at all about Islam, for example, despite Islam being a more modern thing worth knowing the basics about.
I think that religious studies should be part of history class just like the rest of history is taught. Have students read parts of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the ten or so primary Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, and then form discussion groups or take a test on some of the basic concepts of each religion like students would with any cultural subject.
The first religious class I took in college was a comparative religion class that covered five religions in a balanced way.
I don't see why a competent teacher couldn't do the same thing in high school. Easiest class ever.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Are you saying it is an impossible challenge to teach students about the Five Pillars of Islam, or the Three Jewels in Buddhism?
To be honest I am not sure what is your objection to. I would feel very ignorant about many aspects of western history or the historical geography of my own country if they had not taught us the Hebrew Bible at school. If not other religions, I think its important for young students to know the cultural heritage of their own region. Just like I would find it unbearable if people here were ignorant about the Hebrew Bible, I would feel the same if I was a Greek parent and my child was not exposed to the Iliad or the Odyssey, or to the Greek plays. And I would feel the same if I was an Icelander who's child was not taught the Eddas or about Snorri Sturluson.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
As religions make up important parts of many peoples lives, to understand other religions is to understand, at least in part, the points of views other people might have. I would like to see religions -or lack of - taught in school from the perspective of "Christians believe x, y,, z,", "buddhists believe a, b,, c," and "atheists believe g, o, d,".
What harm could possibly come from showing all religions on an equal basis?
What harm could possibly come from showing all religions on an equal basis?
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Hell, I was taught about other religions, and I went to a catholic school!
Musty
Active Member
I had fortnightly RE classes at school and it was largely a waste of time (Normally did my maths homework). The people I think you're referring too (The ones who don't like anyone who is different from them) are normally quite happy to remain ignorant so I'm doubtful that RE would have much of an effect.Those who dislike some religions for valid reasons (Like myself) dislike the religion precisely because I know more about them.
My work colleagues religious orientation is of no interest to me. If they choose to be openly religious at work and get upset because I do something which is taboo in their religion but is otherwise acceptable in my society then this is their problem not mine.
Those people who just dislike anyone different to them these lessons are unlikely to change them. I've found most people like this are fairly fixed in their ways.
this :yes:
dust1n
Zindīq
I just don't see the purpose to a religious history class. I keep seeing how many people think it is important for us to learn and be aware of other cultures, and I agree. A religious class doesn't magically fulfill this area of learning. Religion is just a small part of philosophy, which is just a small part of culture.
A comprehensive philosophy and history class can outline much better various ideas, customs, reasons for customs, which would obviously cover religious thought as religious thought is just a single subset of philosophy, and perhaps the most boring.
Man, if there was a religious class in my high school, it most certainly would have been untrustworthy anyways, as students were already suing the school for Christian propaganda in the school.
Philosophy not only helps cover all religions, it also underlies more explicitly all of our sciences, maths, reasonsing, etc. Teaching kids logic early is going to contribute to their education in every other field. Teaching kids religion is going to inform them of things that a.) serve little function b.) contribute to little other understanding and c.) incredibly bore students to death.
A comprehensive philosophy and history class can outline much better various ideas, customs, reasons for customs, which would obviously cover religious thought as religious thought is just a single subset of philosophy, and perhaps the most boring.
Man, if there was a religious class in my high school, it most certainly would have been untrustworthy anyways, as students were already suing the school for Christian propaganda in the school.
Philosophy not only helps cover all religions, it also underlies more explicitly all of our sciences, maths, reasonsing, etc. Teaching kids logic early is going to contribute to their education in every other field. Teaching kids religion is going to inform them of things that a.) serve little function b.) contribute to little other understanding and c.) incredibly bore students to death.
Given the rote nature of much of our educational philosophy, I'd say that in our current state, teaching a secular class of world religions is a great idea, but that would be most effective under a philosophy that wasn't so dependent on short-term memorization as it's primary method.
What we would get is a meaningless set of terminology that come from various religious doctrine, a cursory reading of each religion's historical spread, and MAYBE some classroom discussion on applications outside of class and/or cultural implications. Unfortunately, we can safely assume that rote learning is necessary only for elementary educational standards. By secondary education comes around, I'd prefer to see less emphasis on rote learning (which kids can google anyway on the 'net), and more emphasis on group-projects, argumentative writing and rhetoric, and further training in logic and the arts.
Were religious education taught within these frameworks, I think it would be successful in its goal of creating generations of people how to work with others in a multi-cultural world. At this point, it would be taught with the goal of creating Self-Appointed Information Dictators trained to work together in an assembly line. Which doesn't really make sense, and it's not really useful.
I think it would be useful to teach kids about other religions, and I think that the Bible is right up there with Shakespeare's works in terms of culturally influential writings in our society, however...
- I think there's major potential for abuse. Right now, there are places where it's next to impossible to teach biology without decision-makers trying to use it to impose their religious views on students. I don't trust those decision-makers to make sure that religion would be taught without bias.
- There are other major issues happening at schools right now: cutting art, music, drama and gym classes, for instance. Or schools not having textbooks for the subjects they have already. I think that it's much more important to fix those problems. If I had to choose between making every school have music courses and every school have religion courses, I'd pick music.
I have friends who had "World Religions" courses in their Catholic schools. From the sounds of things, they would've been better described as "How all these other religions are wrong" courses.
- I think there's major potential for abuse. Right now, there are places where it's next to impossible to teach biology without decision-makers trying to use it to impose their religious views on students. I don't trust those decision-makers to make sure that religion would be taught without bias.
- There are other major issues happening at schools right now: cutting art, music, drama and gym classes, for instance. Or schools not having textbooks for the subjects they have already. I think that it's much more important to fix those problems. If I had to choose between making every school have music courses and every school have religion courses, I'd pick music.
I have friends who had "World Religions" courses in their Catholic schools. From the sounds of things, they would've been better described as "How all these other religions are wrong" courses.
dust1n
Zindīq
Given the rote nature of much of our educational philosophy, I'd say that in our current state, teaching a secular class of world religions is a great idea, but that would be most effective under a philosophy that wasn't so dependent on short-term memorization as it's primary method.
What we would get is a meaningless set of terminology that come from various religious doctrine, a cursory reading of each religion's historical spread, and MAYBE some classroom discussion on applications outside of class and/or cultural implications. Unfortunately, we can safely assume that rote learning is necessary only for elementary educational standards. By secondary education comes around, I'd prefer to see less emphasis on rote learning (which kids can google anyway on the 'net), and more emphasis on group-projects, argumentative writing and rhetoric, and further training in logic and the arts.
Were religious education taught within these frameworks, I think it would be successful in its goal of creating generations of people how to work with others in a multi-cultural world. At this point, it would be taught with the goal of creating Self-Appointed Information Dictators trained to work together in an assembly line. Which doesn't really make sense, and it's not really useful.
I'd agree that most attempts wouldn't work anyways because our education system is pretty sloppy in technique and effectiveness.
It's just of my opinion that a religious specific class wouldn't be nearly as fruitful than various philosophy courses. If we had more philosopher kiddies, we wouldn't really need to be too concerned with living in multiculturalism. A few philosophy classes can have kids who are stimulated socially, rhetorically, written, mentally, etc. and expose them to all sorts of conflicting opinions within a group. If you do that, the "in-group/out-group" psychology wouldn't be nearly as pertinent in Americans, and there would be less of an unwillingness to explore new ideas, foreign or by one's self. I, of course, wouldn't mind an elective religions class. But I would have died in one.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
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.
methylatedghosts
Can't brain. Has dumb.
Not in the school I was at. It was in religious education class, and was basically "describe and compare various world religions and beliefs and t their cultures." That was a whole quarter of the year, the other 3/4 was of course christianity and it's various flavours, and it's application in the real world - death, grief, and dying, for example.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
i agree that if its taught unbiasedly, then education about other belief systems and religions is a good thing and it should be incorporated into a school curriculum perhaps as part of history or humanities
but i wouldnt agree to having my kids taught a particular religion by a teacher of that religion....thats my job.
Oh hell yes, they should teach about world religions. They are a huge part of what makes a culture and a society, and how can we begin to relate ourselves to our world if we are ignorant about it? It's like not teaching about feminism, or civil rights movement, or how governments are formed, etc. This is part of human society. It's not about promoting some deity to children.