Should Religion be Taught in Schools

[boristhescot]

Religion has been behind many major events in human history. Therefore should there be some sort of general overview of world religions taught at school at least at an intellectual level? If so, what would you expect the curriculum to consist of?

 

[whereismynotecard]

I think teachers might be biased.

 

[boristhescot]

Too true, where...
Even if you had an atheist his viewpoint would show through. But if you could find a way to avoid bias, would you be okay with it all? Also, how would you avoid the kiddies felling like they became knowledgeable enough to condemn other religions instead of learn from them?
I still think some form of academic comparative religion class is a good thing if only to encourage understanding among them.

 

[whereismynotecard]

It could be a good idea if done right. My sister is ten years old, and there is a girl in her class who is very intolerant of any religion but her own. She tells people that they are wrong, and is very rude about it. Likely a class may not change her behaviour, as it is likely learned from her parents, but it would be good to try to get kids to not argue about that at a young age.

 

[zenzero]

Friend boristhescot,
One can have religious lessons but religion can not be taught as everyone's religion is individualistic. Religion only means a WAY/PATH and though one might belong to a organised religious group the individual's WAY of practice would be his/her own within the group.
Love & rgds

 

[frg001]

Heh, another one...

IMO. Multi-faith study of religion should be mandatory in all schools up to around 13 or whatever age the kids choose their future subjects.

Teaching of one specific religion as the truth (religious indoctrination) should be kept to church and home.

 

[ChristineES]

What makes you think a teacher will not be neutral if teaching a multi-faith class? I think they can be.

My sister is ten years old, and there is a girl in her class who is very intolerant of any religion but her own.

And unfortunately, there are some people who believe that their way is the only way not matter what they are taught. You just have to deal with them- and there are many in all different faiths and non-faiths.

 

[lamplighter]

I think it should be taught, as it came up rather frequently in history class when I went to school, but not until high school though.

 

[Storm]

I think that both world religion and rudimentary philosophy should be encorporated into the standard curriculum.

 

[frg001]

I think that both world religion and rudimentary philosophy should be encorporated into the standard curriculum.

I agree.

 

[ayani]

yep.

historically, it is useful (and imo fascinating) to learn how faiths have developed spread, and influenced history.

i remember one textbook i had in middle school, which described the dawn of Chrstianity from a number of persectives. it described briefly person of Jesus (an influential Jewish teacher who was crucified) and made clear distinctions between what His followers believed about Him (e.g. His being the Messiah and His resurrection from the dead) versus what the world could say about Him (was very influential, was crucified, etc.)

the textbook documented how the faith spread geographically, why it spread (appeal of monotheism to many polythestic Romans, the compassionate and simple teachings of Christ, belief in the resurrection), and what influence Christiaity first had socially and historically.

a religion should be taught, making clear the differences between what *adherents* believe about that faith / its central figure, and what can be historically, objectivly declared about that faith / it founder. the class should summarize basic teachings / principals, and explore how / why the faith spread, and what influence it had socially / politically over time (e.g. Emporor Ashoka and Buddhism)

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Greetings boristhescot,

This is the subject of a poll in the General Religious Debates section as well. Please come by and see the results.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/74450-religion-education.html

 

[3.14]

wel we learn about other atrociase acts so why not the rise and fall of religions

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

In my school system, we have a world religions curriculum in seventh and ninth grade, and we study all the major religious events like the Reformation and the Crusades. Some of the teachers are biased, but most aren't.

 

[kai]

yes religion should be taught in schools, but unbiasly and as a subject not as a truth.

 

[Mister Emu]

As long as they don't teach that certain beliefs/systems are right or wrong, I wouldn't be opposed to (an) elective world religious course(s)

 

[Sententia]

I think that both world religion and rudimentary philosophy should be encorporated into the standard curriculum.

I would be inclined to thumbs up philosphy since I think that is surpringly absent. Religion is hard though. It is still very personal and people will have their own bias. Who knows... many teachers are amazing people.

 

[Masourga]

The problem I see is that, at the point you start saying "The so-and-so's believe this", and "The story of this God includes such and such" it all really starts to end up looking like mythology. And I could see a lot of parents upset that they maybe aren't as able to explain what they believe first and foremost to their child as "the truth", when the school is possibly a more authoritative resource (in the child's mind anyway) on most topics.

I, myself would certainly like my children to know "the truth" as I define it in this arena. That being that no one really knows "the truth", that there are a lot of beliefs and a lot of options, and a lot of people willing to tell you they know it all when the reality is that they've got nothing more to go on than anyone else.

 

[frg001]

The problem I see is that, at the point you start saying "The so-and-so's believe this", and "The story of this God includes such and such" it all really starts to end up looking like mythology.

Why? the teaching would involve the 'here and now' and real people, not just history.

And I could see a lot of parents upset that they maybe aren't as able to explain what they believe first and foremost to their child as "the truth", when the school is possibly a more authoritative resource (in the child's mind anyway) on most topics.

I, myself would certainly like my children to know "the truth" as I define it in this arena.

Then you should tell them what you believe yourself, or go to church.

That being that no one really knows "the truth", that there are a lot of beliefs and a lot of options, and a lot of people willing to tell you they know it all when the reality is that they've got nothing more to go on than anyone else.

Exactly! So why should schools teach something we do NOT know... as fact? When you study theoretical possibilities, then they should be taught as theory.

 

[Masourga]

Why? the teaching would involve the 'here and now' and real people, not just history.

Maybe "mythology" wasn't the right term to use, as it connotes something ancient and no longer in practice. Maybe "stories" was a better term to be used there. At any rate, what I meant was that, even simply teaching that there are multiple religions could be seen as infringing on any given religion's credibility. I, personally, am all for even that result/consequence, as it opens people's eyes to the other possibilities and makes them really question before adopting X, Y, or Z as their own form of spiritual self-appeasement. But I know that others would not be so inclined. And if the state is able to separate itself from the church and enforce that a given religion not be taught in school, then the people should also be able to control that multiple religions not be taught in school if enough of them feel that the education they want to impart to their children on the matter themselves would be jeopardized in any way by said teachings.

Then you should tell them what you believe yourself, or go to church.

I very well will tell them what I believe. Don't know what I said that made you think I wouldn't. As for church... not so much.

What I was getting at is that I could see a lot of people not wanting the school to be an influence of the "worldly" kind in their children's spiritual education. And would probably be quite unhappy when their child came home stating that they think this, that, or the other religion has got it right over what mom and dad have been teaching. Especially if the parents believe in their path being that to some sort of "salvation". And I must admit, when we speak of "children" here, I am prone to focus in on young people at their most impressionable. I haven't been thinking in terms of high-school and later, but more later grade-school level to middle-school.

Exactly! So why should schools teach something we do NOT know... as fact? When you study theoretical possibilities, then they should be taught as theory.

But where do you stop? They are ALL theories in this sense. Scientology, devil-worship, flying spaghetti monster... all of it. Do you think any of the groups you, personally, don't want to be part of the curriculum are going to keep quiet while everyone else gets their fifteen minutes broadcast to all the youth of the world? Not likely. I'd rather they all just keep it in their respective corners rather than open that flood-gate.