Would you support public schools being required to teach religion classes?

[BigToque]

I know that many people are caught up in the creation / evolution debates that always come up in shools.

Science is a required class in all high shools. In the science class, the basics of biology are learned as well as the theory of evolution (usually).

I think it would be a good idea to have students be required to take a religion class that exposed students to a number of different religions and the origins, theories and values that they hold.

That way everyone is exposed to valuable information. Everyone learns about evolution, everyone learns about creation and it is up to individuals to apply their knowledge to real life.

 

[illustri]

thing is there are alot of subjects not taught pre-collegiate, and many things really are experienced in a university setting

/like balls to the wall casual sex

 

[illustri]

that should be ^better experienced

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: illustri
thing is there are alot of subjects not taught pre-collegiate, and many things really are experienced in a university setting

/like balls to the wall casual sex

So you feel that the subject of religion is best left until university because students at that age are better prepared to make knowledgeable and informed decisions on the subject then students in the HS level? (maybe I'm just reading too much into your statement)

 

[illustri]

its not a decision, you don't go to calculus and decide on which theorem to believe in, no its the fact that universities usually have the freedom to teach and discuss much more controversial subjects than is probably allowed k-12

 

[her209]

Well, by requiring students to take religion, the government would be violating the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: her209
Well, by requiring students to take religion, the government would be violating the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

thats not really a good reason against, and I don't think something like comparative religion or religious studies which is what I'm guessing Stefan means would be any sort of government establishment of religion

i wouldn't be against it as an elective, but good luck finding instructors sans gigantic hairy balls or secretive religious nuttry to teach such a class

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: her209
Well, by requiring students to take religion, the government would be violating the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What religion would the law be about? Or are you going to argue that they would have to cover every sect of every religion? Why is a general overview of all world religion a bad idea, much less unconstitutional?

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

No.. which would they teach? All of them? Better just to leave it alone and up the the church/parent(s) to teach religion.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: illustri
thats not really a good reason against,

Reason?

and I don't think something like comparative religion or religious studies which is what I'm guessing Stefan means would be any sort of government establishment of religion

Stefan's thread title: Would you support public schools being required to teach religion classes?

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

which I take to mean, Congress cannot make any laws that "promotes" any religion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: illustri
thats not really a good reason against,

Reason?

and I don't think something like comparative religion or religious studies which is what I'm guessing Stefan means would be any sort of government establishment of religion

Stefan's thread title: Would you support public schools being required to teach religion classes?

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

which I take to mean, Congress cannot make any laws that "promotes" any religion.

So, by teaching me about Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which would they be promoting? Just curious.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: illustri
thats not really a good reason against,

Reason?

and I don't think something like comparative religion or religious studies which is what I'm guessing Stefan means would be any sort of government establishment of religion

Stefan's thread title: Would you support public schools being required to teach religion classes?

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

which I take to mean, Congress cannot make any laws that "promotes" any religion.

So, by teaching me about Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which would they be promoting? Just curious.

All of them and thus it would be unconstitutional.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: her209
All of them and thus it would be unconstitutional.

So, by teaching students about WW II, the government is endorsing Nazism? I think there's a slight flaw with that logic.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: her209
All of them and thus it would be unconstitutional.

So, by teaching students about WW II, the government is endorsing Nazism? I think there's a slight flaw with that logic.

More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: illustri
thats not really a good reason against,

Reason?

and I don't think something like comparative religion or religious studies which is what I'm guessing Stefan means would be any sort of government establishment of religion

Stefan's thread title: Would you support public schools being required to teach religion classes?

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

which I take to mean, Congress cannot make any laws that "promotes" any religion.

So, by teaching me about Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which would they be promoting? Just curious.

I think you'd have far more resistance from religious minded people to this concept than you would from atheists, as vocal as some of them may be.

You would have public outrage over the concept of some catholic teaching their twisted brand of christianity to their children from a lot of protestants I would suspect, let alone their reaction to teaching them Islam and vice versa.

I'm not sure how the logistics would work out either - would you need 10 teachers for one subject alternating through a year ? What kind of credentials would you require ?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Brackis
More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same.

Your problem is that you'd rather promote bigotry via ignorance than teach people what religions actually teach.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Brackis
More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same.

Your problem is that you'd rather promote bigotry via ignorance than teach people what religions actually teach.

Exactly, that's why I won't let gay people get married.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Brackis
Exactly, that's why I won't let gay people get married.

Thanks for demonstrating right up front that you're a troll. Now I can just neglect you.

Originally posted by: Velk
I think you'd have far more resistance from religious minded people to this concept than you would from atheists, as vocal as some of them may be.

You would have public outrage over the concept of some catholic teaching their twisted brand of christianity to their children from a lot of protestants I would suspect, let alone their reaction to teaching them Islam and vice versa.

I'm not sure how the logistics would work out either - would you need 10 teachers for one subject alternating through a year ? What kind of credentials would you require ?

Teaching Protestants something about Catholics might actually lead to understanding, rather than the "Catholics aren't real Christians - they're never saved" rhetoric that they wield currently.

I had a course just like this in college. It was taught by one guy who knew about lots of different religions. I would imagine most colleges offer (or even require) similar classes. A survey of major religions doesn't require a PhD in religious studies - just someone who knows what they're talking about and is fairly well-read. Of course, based on my experience in public schools, this was too much to ask in math classes, so maybe religion is asking a bit much.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: her209
All of them and thus it would be unconstitutional.

So, by teaching students about WW II, the government is endorsing Nazism? I think there's a slight flaw with that logic.

More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same.

Factual history contains an awful lot of beliefs that were unprovable or incorrect, teaching about them does not mean endorsing them. In fact, factual history does have an awful lot of religion mixed in with it quite frequently. If you've taken any history classes think and see if you learnt about any religious beliefs in them.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[

Originally posted by: Velk
I think you'd have far more resistance from religious minded people to this concept than you would from atheists, as vocal as some of them may be.

You would have public outrage over the concept of some catholic teaching their twisted brand of christianity to their children from a lot of protestants I would suspect, let alone their reaction to teaching them Islam and vice versa.

I'm not sure how the logistics would work out either - would you need 10 teachers for one subject alternating through a year ? What kind of credentials would you require ?

Teaching Protestants something about Catholics might actually lead to understanding, rather than the "Catholics aren't real Christians - they're never saved" rhetoric that they wield currently.

In this, I agree with you completely. I just don't think it would be particularly feasible in today's depressingly close minded society, for such reasons as outlined above, and also logistical reasons such as - what school subject would you drop to make room for this mandatory class ?

I had a course just like this in college. It was taught by one guy who knew about lots of different religions. I would imagine most colleges offer (or even require) similar classes. A survey of major religions doesn't require a PhD in religious studies - just someone who knows what they're talking about and is fairly well-read. Of course, based on my experience in public schools, this was too much to ask in math classes, so maybe religion is asking a bit much.

I'd imagine most would offer it, I'd be surprised if any required it though - too many people would object to it on too many different grounds.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Brackis
More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same.

Your problem is that you'd rather promote bigotry via ignorance than teach people what religions actually teach.

Your problem is your religion. But we don't expect you to realize that, if ever.

Classes that teach about religion are optional - are not part of the basic curriculum. We come to school to learn useful knowledge - not some messy package that mashes together both good and bad, tolerance and bigotry. Nevermind trying to teach *ALL* religions.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: her209
All of them and thus it would be unconstitutional.

So, by teaching students about WW II, the government is endorsing Nazism? I think there's a slight flaw with that logic.

More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same.

Factual history contains an awful lot of beliefs that were unprovable or incorrect, teaching about them does not mean endorsing them. In fact, factual history does have an awful lot of religion mixed in with it quite frequently. If you've taken any history classes think and see if you learnt about any religious beliefs in them.

Did I say all history is deemed 100% true or confirmed? No
We are talking about highschool level subjects, and CycloWizard wanted to be smart and used an example about WWII that was completely baseless. WWII is a fact, millions are dead, and we have first person accounts, video, and continuing effects from this war on earth. The same cannot be said for the ancient stories about a miraculous conception.

Again, you are mistakenly mixing religious myths and history.
History includes events caused by religious beliefs, differences, and other things religious. (ex. the defenestration of Prague) This does NOT mean each religions god took part, nor was any historical event altered in any way by a higher power, while in religious myth a religion's god plays a vital role in events.
Follow?

Kids these days have a difficult enough time learning basic skills and vital knowledge that will help them function at simple level. Public Highschool is a provided service that leads people to further education or to a place in the American workforce. It is ridiculous to argue for religious teachings as a part of the core curriculum, when there is barely enough time in a 4 year period to teach kids proper writing, grammar, and mathematics. Once you have these skills, by all means go learn yourself to death, but it is vital to serve the greater population than cater to religious aficionados.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

In universities?

Required - Maybe
elective - Yes

In K-12

Required - NO
Elective - Yes

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: her209
All of them and thus it would be unconstitutional.

So, by teaching students about WW II, the government is endorsing Nazism? I think there's a slight flaw with that logic.

More good ole christian logic?
Honestly, think before you type next time. This is one of the most feckless retorts i've seen in a while. Your fundamental problem is seeing factual history as the same as religion. They aren't the same .

Well, that is not really true. Religions, their formation and evolution are in fact a quite important part of factual history. And - not quite trivial - a lot (maybe most) of the Worlds (known) history cannot be understood without knowing about religions

Mind you, I am atheist

 

[PatboyX]

i think it should wait.
if you really feel like it needs to be there, wait until final year or something. if the idea is not to endorse but to simply education on the different belief systems, then it would be best to attempt to approach it by people who are ready and able to get at it with the desire to look critically at them. thats why college/university seems a better option. a student would not be forced to take it, but elect to take it, thereby one assumes a certain amount of responsibility and interest toward the class.
i should also say that unless you want to simply glaze over each subject (which, no doubt, would piss off some parents) the different denominations of christianity alone may take an entire year.