Should religion be taught in public schools?

[Blazerboy | Noah]

i'm not really the type of person to start topics like this, but i'm really bored soooooooo
now, there are a few ways to think about this. religion could taught in schools mandatory, optionally, or not at all. also, there could be multiple types of religion that are taught, sort of like a history class based around that religion. i personally would have no problem if these things were taught optionally and were not required at all.

then you also discuss at what level of school these children should be taught?
i would prefer to only have these things optional when most kids are at an age to decide for themselves if its worthy to learn this or not. as in, high school/secondary school.

please, do not feel compelled to talk about your religious views if you don't feel like it.

 

[TheRealAussie]

At my public high school, we have a section based off of world religions, if that counts. I don't see what the problem with teaching the basics of religions is.

 

[Blazerboy | Noah]

At my public high school, we have a section based off of world religions, if that counts. I don't see what the problem with teaching the basics of religions is.

precisely, i don't see problems with it, but still some democrats have huge problems with it/

 

[Ikanacanyon7]

Id say yes, as long as they do not try to force you into the religion they are teaching you. It is always good to know about other religions, where or not you are religious.

But on a side note, while I didnt go to a public school, I have always thought that classes on this, should be optional. While I am a christian, I had friends who were atheists or agnostic and had to be forced to learn everything just like the rest of us (but then again, I went to a christian private school, so being taught about christian religion is sort of part of the package)

 

[I_love_desk]

I think it should be secular, a.k.a. there should be no specific religion backed, but I don't see a problem with teaching kids the basics of religion. It's done here in the UK and I took my GCSE last year. It's mixed in with Theology and Philosophy so you answer questions such as "from a buddhist point of view, would eating meat be allowed?"

I think it's great, as you understand cultures and religions but you aren't forced into following one.

 

[OhFancy]

I disagree with my school for teaching Christianity- We have many different cultures aswell as different religions but yet we still teach Christianity, and they force other Religions to convert. I am disgraced with my school when it comes to Religion.

 

[Ikanacanyon7]

That is percisely what I always thought should be done, a general class on religion, to learn the basics of all of them.

 

[I_love_desk]

I disagree with my school for teaching Christianity- We have many different cultures aswell as different religions but yet we still teach Christianity, and they force other Religions to convert. I am disgraced with my school when it comes to Religion.

That is exactly how religion SHOULDN'T be taught. We should be teaching people to have open minds...

 

[BitoBain]

I believe that religion shouldn't ever be forced upon people. It should be an unalienable human right for all people. To be honest religion has caused a lot more wars than it has prevented. Therefore, students should be able to learn about various religions in school for the sake of history and "not repeating it", through classes such as World Religion, but it should not be preached.

Unfortunately it is still preached publicy in many places in the world, even in the US, and it frustrates people. I happen to go to one of those schools where you are expected to live by the local religion if you want to get respect. It annoys me.

Teaching religion in schools tends to undermine other subjects. How can you read the Bible in one class then learn about evolution and biology the next period? They just contradict each other. However, some people have made attempts to neutralize the tensions between science and religion.

There is a field of biology dubbed "intelligent design" that got a lot of attention from Biologists and Evolution experts in the mid 2000's. It teaches that evolution is flawed because it is based off of chance. The idea is that a structure as complex as the human eye or the famous "bacterial flagellum" could not have developed in nature by itself without an outside "intelligent designer." The bacterial flagellum has over 40 separate parts, and if just one were missing the entire tale of the bacteria would not function, and it would be unable to feed itself, etc... Intelligent design does not directly state that there is a God, but it suggests that certain parts of evolution may have been aided by an intelligent agent.

An official biology textbook for intelligent design was published in 2007 (I think) entitled "Of Pandas and People." The US department of education was considering adding it to a private school to see the effects it could have, and if it would work, or simply confuse students. However, after the advocates for intelligent design lost a series of court cases concerning the textbook, Of Pandas and People was essentially shoved into the corner of the educational stage, and it will probably remain there for a long time, if not forever. Intelligent design was accused of being nothing but an "anti-theory", and replacing the word "God" with "intelligent agent." It seems to have been one of the last stands, if not final against something that many people do not want to believe.

Why did I go off on that tangent? So I could show you how the educational system is no longer suited for religion. With astronomy, biology, history, and other religions contradicting religion, it isn't worth it to allow religion to be preached in schools anymore. Besides, it seems to have been contrary to human rights since the enlightenment to force people to think a certain way without good reason and proof, whether you are talking about religion, racism, or rights for women.

 

[RC_4777]

In public schooling, classes telling about various religions are fine. Offering more in-depth classes on specific religions for interested students are fine.

I believe that religion shouldn't ever be forced upon people. It should be an unalienable human right for all people. To be honest religion has caused a lot more wars than it has prevented. Therefore, students should be able to learn about various religions in school for the sake of history and "not repeating it", through classes such as World Religion, but it should not be preached.

Unfortunately it is still preached publicy in many places in the world, even in the US, and it frustrates people. I happen to go to one of those schools where you are expected to live by the local religion if you want to get respect. It annoys me.

Teaching religion in schools tends to undermine other subjects. How can you read the Bible in one class then learn about evolution and biology the next period? They just contradict each other. However, some people have made attempts to neutralize the tensions between science and religion.

There is a field of biology dubbed "intelligent design" that got a lot of attention from Biologists and Evolution experts in the mid 2000's. It teaches that evolution is flawed because it is based off of chance. The idea is that a structure as complex as the human eye or the famous "bacterial flagellum" could not have developed in nature by itself without an outside "intelligent designer." The bacterial flagellum has over 40 separate parts, and if just one were missing the entire tale of the bacteria would not function, and it would be unable to feed itself, etc... Intelligent design does not directly state that there is a God, but it suggests that certain parts of evolution may have been aided by an intelligent agent.

An official biology textbook for intelligent design was published in 2007 (I think) entitled "Of Pandas and People." The US department of education was considering adding it to a private school to see the effects it could have, and if it would work, or simply confuse students. However, after the advocates for intelligent design lost a series of court cases concerning the textbook, Of Pandas and People was essentially shoved into the corner of the educational stage, and it will probably remain there for a long time, if not forever. Intelligent design was accused of being nothing but an "anti-theory", and replacing the word "God" with "intelligent agent." It seems to have been one of the last stands, if not final against something that many people do not want to believe.

Why did I go off on that tangent? So I could show you how the educational system is no longer suited for religion. With astronomy, biology, history, and other religions contradicting religion, it isn't worth it to allow religion to be preached in schools anymore. Besides, it seems to have been contrary to human rights since the enlightenment to force people to think a certain way without good reason and proof, whether you are talking about religion, racism, or rights for women.

Going to catholic school, I find no qualms with anything taught in history, biology, or any other subject contradicting my religion. My theology teachers teach the same thing - I believe in evolution, yet I'm also Catholic. I agree that nothing should be forced upon people, but I dislike the thought that you have to be religious or scientific.

 

[Unuxon]

I don't think any religion should ever be a core subject that's forced. But i don't see any problem with it being an optional course.

 

[Otto]

Yes, religion should be taught. Though they should not only teach one religion, for example Christianity.

Religion help people learn about humanitarianism, and other things along those lines. I think it should be taught up to around year 9. Im think of religious education of course. If you're speaking about a curtain religion that a school is based around, my private school is based around christianity, but we do have some jewish people in the school, they make us go to chapel and prey, but we only have to do it up till year 8, which I think is okay.