what RE should be tought in schools?

[Mike182]

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?

:clap a very good post, frubals to you!

you raise an excellent point, when you have some students believing in Islam, some in the Roman Catholic church, and some in witchcraft, what place does religious education have the school system? well, i would argue that without that education, the stereotypes and misconceptions each group has about the other will be inflamed - causing more problems with a class working together. team work is a key skill that a lot of employers want, understanding another persons religion, instead of holding to stereotypes and misconceptions, can help people work together!

 

[Runt]

Students should be taught the connection between religious beliefs and institutions and the history of the world, as well as the effect modern religions have on today's world. Beyond that, religion has no place in public education.

 

[Mike182]

would you be content for a student to walk away from school with the misconception that all followers of islam are suicidal maniacs?

 

[Runt]

would you be content for a student to walk away from school with the misconception that all followers of islam are suicidal maniacs?

Of course not. The goal here would not be to misrepresent world religions, but rather to avoid converting and indoctrinating students.

 

[Mike182]

sorry, my question was not directly aimed at you, i should have specified that. you said

Students should be taught the connection between religious beliefs and institutions and the history of the world, as well as the effect modern religions have on today's world. Beyond that, religion has no place in public education.

which would imply that students would first be tought those religious belief, so as to understand how they have impacted history and various other institutions.

so at the end of the day, you support religious beliefs being tought, yes?

with regards to my question, it was more for people who think "RE should not be tought at all"

 

[Runt]

which would imply that students would first be tought those religious belief, so as to understand how they have impacted history and various other institutions.

so at the end of the day, you support religious beliefs being tought, yes?

Yes, in the sense that teachers should tell students, "Muslims believe such and such and Christians believe such and such, and here are the similarities and here are the differences". This is very different than telling students, "such and such is truth and you must believe". I don't even mind having students read relevant parts of holy texts, as long as all materials are given equal attention (or unequal but justifiable attention---more of the Koran should be read than the Tao Te Ching because the Koran is longer and Islam is a bigger religion, for example).

I remember that when I was a senior in high school we studied Mesopotamia in my Humanities class and read some of the hymns and prayers that related to Mesopotamian religion. This was not to indoctrinate us into the Mesopotamian belief system, but to allow us to better understand it. Modern religion should be taught in public schools in the same way; not to convert students, but to help them understand the beliefs of others and how those beliefs influence world events.

 

[Mike182]

Yes, in the sense that teachers should tell students, "Muslims believe such and such and Christians believe such and such, and here are the similarities and here are the differences". This is very different than telling students, "such and such is truth and you must believe". I don't even mind having students read relevant parts of holy texts, as long as all materials are given equal attention (or unequal but justifiable attention---more of the Koran should be read than the Tao Te Ching because the Koran is longer and Islam is a bigger religion, for example).

agreed, we are talking about teaching religion, not preaching religion!

I remember that when I was a senior in high school we studied Mesopotamia in my Humanities class and read some of the hymns and prayers that related to Mesopotamian religion. This was not to indoctrinate us into the Mesopotamian belief system, but to allow us to better understand it. Modern religion should be taught in public schools in the same way; not to convert students, but to help them understand the beliefs of others and how those beliefs influence world events.

that's what im arguing for :jiggy:

 

[Runt]

agreed, we are talking about teaching religion, not preaching religion!

At least, that would be the case in the ideal system. We do have to take into consideration, however, the fact that some teachers will not see the distinction; they may try to teach only Christianity (or teach other religions in such a way as to tear them apart to support Christian belief) while pretending that they are teaching "world religion".

 

[Mike182]

At least, that would be the case in the ideal system. We do have to take into consideration, however, the fact that some teachers will not see the distinction; they may try to teach only Christianity (or teach other religions in such a way as to tear them apart to support Christian belief) while pretending that they are teaching "world religion".

i agree, but do we not run similar risks with every subject tought by a human being? i don't think people would agree to getting rid of the entire education system for that reason....

 

[Cerrax]

In my World History class, we learned the five major religions of the world. We went over, what their beliefs were, where they are most common, and how they view the world.

You can't teach history without touching on some religion.
Martin Luther?
The Six Day War?
The Holocaust?
The Enlightenment?
These all are directly related to both history and religion and so both must be taught.

 

[Booko]

At least, that would be the case in the ideal system. We do have to take into consideration, however, the fact that some teachers will not see the distinction; they may try to teach only Christianity (or teach other religions in such a way as to tear them apart to support Christian belief) while pretending that they are teaching "world religion".

I've seen even the most inclusive, most liberal, most scholarly writers do some interesting things teaching only Abrahamic religions.

For example:

Moses did this because God inspired him to do so.
Jesus did this because God inspired him to do so.
Muhammad did this because he thought it would be a good idea.

Even in the best of situations, people betray their biases.

I don't even want to think about what would happen with a teacher who was my-demonination-only and about 25 students raised essentially the same way, and then a few poor kids who are something else.

I took an elective course, Bible as Literature, in HS, and was the only non-Christian there (I was an atheist at the time). The curriculum was excellent, it really *was* about the Bible as "literature" in that we examined the book as you would any other ancient text, in conjunction with knowledge of history and culture, etc.

But there were still a few times when the religious bias came out. Esp. the one time evolution came up. No one was mean about it, but to someone less cantankerous than me it might have been intimidating.

For me, I just got to give a short lesson on how the shape of homonid jawbones are parabolic while ape jawbones are parallel, which is how you can indeed tell from a jawbone fragment whether it's a homonid or not. At that point, the teacher and other students realized they were out of their depth, and the discussion moved on to something else.

The class really did work out well, but this happened in a culture where being religious was one thing, but wearing it on your sleeve was frowned upon and considered in poor taste.

That's definitely not the case where I live now.

 

[steelblue75]

ok pop quiz.... what are the 2 topics you dont discuss at work?

answer: politics and religion

why? because peoples view on both are sometimes pretty radical or emotionally based... now how many of you have heard that children can be cruel? example..... i got teased when in high school because my sideburns grew faster than my mustache or beard someone actually wrote in marker on my locker to "try norelco" they had to repaint my locker and when that didnt work they had to replace the door..... all over facial hair..... now imagine what would happen with an emotional subject such as religion.... allah is the way..... no god is the way ....... jesus is the way...... buddah is one with everything..... your religion sucks........ look at y our religion its based on a fat guy....... oh yeah well at least i can eat pork........ etc etc etc...

religion has no place in school not only because public school is government funded but also because as a species we are intolerant of each other to the point of insanity we must prove we are right and you are wrong... no one jumps up and says "all right!i was wrong!" to be right sometimes is all that matters and you add hormones and fluctuating teenage emotions and you have the perfect "excuse" for another columbine or worse.

leave religion outside of school i dont want one of my kids to be shot because of sharing their religious views in a class with people who may not take kindly to their opinion because once again religion is only an opinion:jam:

 

[Booko]

ok pop quiz.... what are the 2 topics you dont discuss at work?

answer: politics and religion[/quote[

Uh huh..and then there's the third one: sex

People really do get their panties in a wad over those things. With talking about sex, you can be accused of harassment. Better just not to.

religion has no place in school not only because public school is government funded but also because as a species we are intolerant of each other to the point of insanity we must prove we are right and you are wrong... no one jumps up and says "all right!i was wrong!" to be right sometimes is all that matters and you add hormones and fluctuating teenage emotions and you have the perfect "excuse" for another columbine or worse.

I'm not so sure about that. I hear from Baha'i kids going to Catholic schools that they really liked it there and that no one was allowed to be razzed over their beliefs, or lack thereof. I think it depends on the school and the tone that's set by the people in charge.

In the case of public schools, it's touchy indeed.

leave religion outside of school i dont want one of my kids to be shot because of sharing their religious views in a class with people who may not take kindly to their opinion because once again religion is only an opinion:jam:

In 2nd grade the kids, whenever a holy day would come around, could come up and tell the class what they did for that day and what it was about. The JW kids got to talk about why they didn't celebrate holy days and birthdays. The kids with no religion got to talk about why they were not religious and/or what their family did for other special days (secular holidays or whatever). Every *child* got a chance to tell their story. The teacher never gave her pov, because that would give one belief an air of authority. Because of the way this was done, the kids got a little of the idea of religious tolerance, and learned that people from other beliefs are not "strange."

It can be done, but must be done with great care.

 

[steelblue75]

ok for one.... no one mentioned only teaching religion in a catholic school.... thats kind of a no brainer they are catholic:bonk: im saying leave it out of public schools... i mean come on when was the last time you were in a public school? there are gangs hoodlums criminals bullies and just plain disgruntled kids walking around with a grudge against everything. .. do you really want to give them another reason to hate? look at the cases of racism in public schools .... if we cant teach tolerance of skin color how are you going to teach tolerance of religion when christianity is not a tolerant religion?

now you will probably say how so? it teaches peace and love..... but it teaches intolerance more...... thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ring any bells? how about the only way to the father is through the son? meaning if you dont believe that christ was the son of god then no matter how good a person you are you will burn.... n ot every religion believes the same..... now add in to all that the parents.. what if the child likes another religion better than say catholocism? and the parents are devot catholics and have a tizzy on the school and sue them? there are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many factors to consider for that type of move other than just tolerance... lets face it there are people here on this board who have no tolerance of other religions what makes you think a child will grasp it better than you have yourself? (talking to many people no one in particular) once again religion is nothing but opinion everyone is entitled to one but more than once someones opinion has got them punched in the mouth:tuna:

 

[Fluffy]

this thread is stated so as to stop me taking another thread off topic.

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

I don't think it should be taught from a specific religious perspective. I think it should tackle entire topics such as God, revelation, morality etc and then use various religions to give specific examples of how these are handled as well as giving more hypothetical options.

An emphasis should be placed on tolerance of others beliefs and interest in new beliefs should be encouraged so that when children encounter a belief that the course will inevitably be unable to cover, they will not have a negative reaction to something new/weird/unknown but be prepared to listen and understand.

I think that religious history should be looked at from a historical perspective, not a religious one. For example, the Reformation should be dealt with in history class not religious class. To suggest that religious history can be taught in religious education is the same as suggesting that intelligent design should be analysed from a scientific perspective.

 

[bunny1ohio]

I don't think it should be taught from a specific religious perspective. I think it should tackle entire topics such as God, revelation, morality etc and then use various religions to give specific examples of how these are handled as well as giving more hypothetical options.

An emphasis should be placed on tolerance of others beliefs and interest in new beliefs should be encouraged so that when children encounter a belief that the course will inevitably be unable to cover, they will not have a negative reaction to something new/weird/unknown but be prepared to listen and understand.

I think that religious history should be looked at from a historical perspective, not a religious one. For example, the Reformation should be dealt with in history class not religious class. To suggest that religious history can be taught in religious education is the same as suggesting that intelligent design should be analysed from a scientific perspective.

Thats a good take on the subject fluffy... but steel makes some really good points too about the fact that religion is an extremely emotional topic, and very difficult to put into a logical "cold" format for children to learn about... especially depeding upon what their OWN beliefs may be on the subject.

Let alone parental beliefs and how they may feel about putting their religion into such a format. Tolerance should be taught at home... as should religion. Like I said before earlier in the thread, it should only be taught in relevance to the topic at hand, which is one point we seem to agree on.

And as steel pointed out... why give kids any more reasons to fight? They fight about everything... skin color... glasses... *whispers* even breast size, which are all beyond their control... then you turn religion into the mix and you have a pressure cooker of tension just waiting to blow up. What happens if a kid in class (using his columbine example) "elects" to take the course, but doesn't like the way it's being taught so he shoots the teacher?... What do you say then? OOPS?

Here's an idea... leave these type of topics to collegiate level students who aren't already so confused about everything going on in their world that now you are breaking their religion down into disected bits and teaching them that all religions are the same (effectively). How many people here have children BTW? I have 2 myself... and I can state emphatically... children are extremely emotional... extremely biased (believe what parents believe)... and extremely cruel no matter how much tolerance you try to drill into them.

example:
Kid wears old non-name brand shoes to school... he gets beat up for being "poor".
Kid sees a homeless man and attempts to approach him to see whats wrong and mom pulls kid the other way... why? Because he's "dirty and could be dangerous".... why? Because he's homeless and poor and has nowhere to bathe? Instead of teaching the child that it is okay to be compassionate, we drag them away because we fear that they may be too trusting and tell them "never talk to a stranger". Then we tell them "if you get lost... find an adult to help you"... hmmm

How do you teach tolerance and mistrust in the same sentence? We don't teach tolerance through our actions and typically don't even realize it, but we teach our children by our actions exactly how tolerant "tolerant" is. Adults can't even get it right... so how do expect a child to?

 

[bunny1ohio]

Just on a side note Fluffy...

To suggest that religious history can be taught in religious education is the same as suggesting that intelligent design should be analysed from a scientific perspective.

They actually have started scientifically studying the possibility of intelligent design and analysing it with scientific processes... they've done some really interesting research into it too

 

[St0ne]

Choice and personal freedom are the main things that should be taught as far as religions go, other than that teaching a general understanding of say the 10 religions with the most followers which tries to avoid points of discussion that could cause confusion about different 'groups' within the same religion and taint the impession of the religion as a whole, including atheism\agnostism.

IMO.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I don't see the problem with a comparative religion course as long as it taught the beliefs and history of the world's major religions without bias.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

comparitive religion and their equality