what RE should be tought in schools?

[bunny1ohio]

History classes already teach the basics of most wide-scale religions, which is perfectly acceptable and makes sense.

It's when people start wanting religion in science class that I put my hand up.

It depends... if they are teaching evolutionary theory in science class they should also be able to teach creationism alongside it... with the scientific evidence that backs the theories for both... but since neither is actually proveable I don't think either has a place in the classroom IMO :bonk:

 

[Booko]

It's when people start wanting religion in science class that I put my hand up.

ibid.

 

[Booko]

I don't know if that was what our thread originator was stating, but it is a good point. I recall in my biology course when we started a subtle discussion about evolution and well, it went on for another 10 minutes with the teacher explaining that she would teach evolution, but only as an aspect of science, not as complete fact, as she knew many people believed otherwise.

Funny no science teacher would dream of saying that about gravity, which is a "theory" too.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Funny no science teacher would dream of saying that about gravity, which is a "theory" too.

Drop an apple and you can prove gravity is a real force... gravity itself is not a theory it is a proven fact... evolution is not proven... nor is creationism

 

[Booko]

It depends... if they are teaching evolutionary theory in science class they should also be able to teach creationism alongside it... with the scientific evidence that backs the theories for both... but since neither is actually proveable I don't think either has a place in the classroom IMO :bonk:

Creationism has nothing to do with science and should not be taught in a science class, unless the point would be to critique the unscientific nature of creationism so the student could fully understand what is NOT scientific about it. (We can start with a definition of "falsifiable").

In that sense, go ahead and teach creationism all you want.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Creationism has nothing to do with science and should not be taught in a science class, unless the point would be to critique the unscientific nature of creationism so the student could fully understand what is NOT scientific about it. (We can start with a definition of "falsifiable").

In that sense, go ahead and teach creationism all you want.

There has been a lot of scientific study into the theory of creationism and they have actually gotten a lot of evidence that supports both... through scientific method and research... therefore it has relevance to current scientific study... I'm just saying neither should be taught as fact because neither is proven yet

 

[Jaymes]

Drop an apple and you can prove gravity is a real force... gravity itself is not a theory it is a proven fact... evolution is not proven... nor is creationism

There is no way to prove that the next time you drop an apple it will not fly off into space. There's also some quibbling about whether everything has gravitational force on everything else or if it stops at a certain point, I believe.

However, this is diverging from the topic of the thread. If you'd like to discuss evolution and creationism, make another thread.

 

[bunny1ohio]

There is no way to prove that the next time you drop an apple it will not fly off into space. There's also some quibbling about whether everything has gravitational force on everything else or if it stops at a certain point, I believe.

However, this is diverging from the topic of the thread. If you'd like to discuss evolution and creationism, make another thread.

Duly noted Jensa... just making the point of creationism as an extension of religion and its relevance to teaching religion in school. I did say neither one should be there although I understand the reason for having to include some religious basics to understand some subjects... :flower2:

 

[Booko]

There has been a lot of scientific study into the theory of creationism and they have actually gotten a lot of evidence that supports both... through scientific method and research... therefore it has relevance to current scientific study... I'm just saying neither should be taught as fact because neither is proven yet

I have no idea where you get the idea that Creationism has as much, or any, scientific merit as evolutionary theories. Perhaps you could explain where you get this idea?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, here's why I don't share it:

When "Creationism" starts appearing in peer reviewed scientific journals, I'll begin thinking it might be science.

As for "fact" -- the idea that species change over time is a demonstrable fact. The mechanisms behind that change are where the "theories" come in.

There is, however, NO scientific merit in the idea that any "Creator" might be behind changes in species over time. There might be merit in the idea, but not scientific merit. It's a metaphysical question and not a scientific one.

Like I said in an earlier post...we can start with a definition of "falsifiable."

Creationism flunks the test of falsifiability, and thus has no, zero, nada, nihil place in a science classroom.

If someone wants to teach it in a history class, or a philosophy class, they can go right ahead. But it's not science, sorry.

 

[evearael]

so, what RE should be tought in schools? only abrahamic faiths? extreme religious views? non what so ever?

Religious education belongs in schools. A child should be exposed to a wide variety of cultures, religious expression and philosophy. The basics of every faith from Bahai'i to Zoastrianism (spelling?). Depending on the size of the faith, they should be taught various movements within faiths and about key figures and thinkers. It should be taught as a survey class, as this is quite a bit of ground to cover. Extreme religious movements that leads to events like Jonestown should only be addressed in a more mature class. I certainly don't want elementry schoolers terrified of punch.

(I do not mind the creation story from Genesis being taught in schools... in a class on religion, along with creation stories from other faiths.)

 

[Booko]

Religious education belongs in schools. A child should be exposed to a wide variety of cultures, religious expression and philosophy. The basics of every faith from Bahai'i to Zoastrianism (spelling?). Depending on the size of the faith, they should be taught various movements within faiths and about key figures and thinkers. It should be taught as a survey class, as this is quite a bit of ground to cover. Extreme religious movements that leads to events like Jonestown should only be addressed in a more mature class. I certainly don't want elementry schoolers terrified of punch.

(I do not mind the creation story from Genesis being taught in schools... in a class on religion, along with creation stories from other faiths.)

I would love to see this as well, but in the current climate I think the odds on it being done here with any objectivity are somewhere between slim and none.

 

[evearael]

True. I'm sliding more towards homeschooling with each passing day...

 

[Jeremiah61]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that religions should not be taught in public schools because to do so would belittle most religions. Most monotheistic religions(most Christian traditions, Islam, etc.) hold firm beliefs in objective truth and morality, and to teach such religions as equals in schools would betray this concept. For example, most devout Methodists I know would be apalled at the idea of there religion being taught as having an equal standing with the Muslim's, and vice versa. In teaching that all religions are equal alternatives to each other one would spit upon many fundamental traditions of various religions.

In short, in a world where many religions hold mutually exclusive claims to the worship of God, how can they truly be taught along side each other as equals? Thats just my spin on the issue. Please correct any of my misconception, ite?

 

[Booko]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that religions should not be taught in public schools because to do so would belittle most religions. Most monotheistic religions(most Christian traditions, Islam, etc.) hold firm beliefs in objective truth and morality, and to teach such religions as equals in schools would betray this concept. For example, most devout Methodists I know would be apalled at the idea of there religion being taught as having an equal standing with the Muslim's, and vice versa. In teaching that all religions are equal alternatives to each other one would spit upon many fundamental traditions of various religions.

In short, in a world where many religions hold mutually exclusive claims to the worship of God, how can they truly be taught along side each other as equals? Thats just my spin on the issue. Please correct any of my misconception, ite?

I'm not sure you're out on that much of a limb, Jeremiah.

Even putting aside claims of exclusivity, how would we decide what is the "correct" thing to teach about a religion in cases where even members of that faith can't agree? Whose pov is going to be chosen to teach in the school, and whose will be left out? Are we going to teach that LDS are Christians? That will royally p*** off many other Christians, who will argue vociferously against the idea.

This would open up such a can of worms, I shudder to even think about it.

If we could teach it as a cultural/anthropological/sociological/historical thing, then maybe. I even have my doubts about that.

 

[evearael]

I believe that an opt out program would be the best solution for objecting parents. It should be taught something like this:
"The Christians believe that Jesus died for everyone's sins."
Rather than:
"Jesus died for everyone's sins."
...and so on through each faith in turn.

 

[Booko]

I believe that an opt out program would be the best solution for objecting parents. It should be taught something like this:
"The Christians believe that Jesus died for everyone's sins."
Rather than:
"Jesus died for everyone's sins."
...and so on through each faith in turn.

It might work as an elective. Maybe.

 

[evearael]

The fact of the matter is you cannot avoid religion. It is deeply ingrained in our culture and our history. It shapes events on a personal and global scale. To fail to teach our children about the basics of varying beliefs is to handicap them for interacting with the world.

 

[Booko]

The fact of the matter is you cannot avoid religion. It is deeply ingrained in our culture and our history. It shapes events on a personal and global scale. To fail to teach our children about the basics of varying beliefs is to handicap them for interacting with the world.

Oh, I agree, and said as much in an earlier post. I have no problem with teaching about religious ideas that have influenced history and literature.

It's just that when you teach religion as religion, it can get crazy. And believe me, around where I live, it would get REALLY crazy.

I'd rather not give certain religious people any excuse to stick their noses into school curricula. They already do enough damage in other ways as it is.

 

[SoyLeche]

Outside of a cultural/historical framework, I don't think religion has a place in public schools. Private schools can do whatever they want, as long as the parents know what their kids are learning about.

As an aside, the LDS church has an interesting Seminary program for High School students. Outside of areas that are densly populated with Latter-Day Saints, the classes are offered early in the morning before school. In Utah and other highly LDS areas, the classes are offered as "Released Time" - a period for which the parents have authorized their children to leave school grounds and go to a religious class. Most every High School in these areas have a separate building off campus that is owned by the Church and is used to teach Seminary. These classes have no bearing on the public school curriculum, except in reducing the number of extra hours that a student can take that aren't required for graduation. There is a similar program for College Students called "Institute".

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this done for different religions, or even as a comparative religion course - but I don't think it belongs on public school campuses, and probably shouldn't count towards credits for graduation.

 

[Mike182]

No matter if you teach them about religious tolerance.... mankind is hard-wired to find subjects to disagree on... nobody believes the same thing about everything and I don't feel that would change by teaching religion. I did reply in another section of this thread though, that as an elective in middle/high school for the purposes of teaching the differences in religions and what they actually practice as opposed to what people may mistakenly believe they do would be acceptable... but I also feel it would be something age appropriate and not go too in-depth into the religions or there it does become preaching... but no I don't feel they should have to learn about other religions if they don't choose to. With the internet they could get all the information about it they want. Among other things

although many internet sites give good information and accounts of religions, many do not... surely if we are moderating what they are getting in terms of religious education, that is safer?

i am not saying we need to force kids to accept other people and their religions, there will always be people who oppose accepting others, but to understand (at least to an extent) the way of thinking someone comes from, some form of dialogue can be opend up, tolerance can be brought about. no, i personally feel that if you think it is a controversial issue so we should avoid it, i would disagree, because i think the only way to really get to the core of controversial issues is to talk about them.

As to philosphy and ethics yes... but it doesn't have to be philosphy about religion...

how can one study ethics and not look at religion? to try and avoid religion in an ethics course would block out half the theories of morality.... i don't see that as "studying" ethics.