NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently took a small poll in my highschool asking all students at rondom what religion they perfered. Not to my suprise many stated catholic. Some Luthren, protestant( dont know if i spelt it right) but mostly catholic. Now My point to this poll was to see how many students wanted to learn religion in school. Many said no or they didnt care. It seems now and days people think its not "cool " to worship god. Now dont get me wrong i myself do not believe in everthing churches tell you but i highly belive in god. I know that there is a god and i know there is divine in this world. But i also belive in Science. I think if both were to pry far enough they will relize that they both prove eachothers envolvement in the situation. The point, Looking back at the scopes trials, and seeing science pervail was an advance in our society. But then during the cold war when religion was completly removed from the ciriculum and science completly took over i think we made a mistake. What if you were givin the chance to choose both, religion, or science. Now keep in mind that the economy is always growing and changing and science is becomeing the back bone to our nation. But what if science and the church worked togeather. I plan on bringing this to my school board in more detail but i want to see what would win in a debate. Voice your opinion please.

The problem being, WHICH religion? Using schools to teach religion opens up a very dangerous Pandora's Box of who gets the funding, which religion is taught, and how.

Then there's the issue of teaching religion in place of science where it has now buisness being.

I agree that schools should offer a theology class where the world's religions are taught as a subject, but schools are not churches. If you'd like to be taught about eternal Truths, go talk to your pastor on Sunday and come to school Mon-Friday for the truths of science.

NO. Despite what many state, religion and science cannot successfully coexist, and science certainly doesn't need or benefit from religion at all. Keep the science and do away with the religion.

Religion is completely faith, and "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion." Teaching religion in schools is, as Nervun said, potentially cataclysmic.

The difference in this case, however, is that between religion and science, science has some logical ground upon which it bases its conjectures, whereas religion does not.

I believe that world religions should be taught in schools. Although I understand the pandora's box idea of the previous poster, teaching World religions can have a very pragmatic approach. Most cultures have as a basis some religious aspects. If one understands the backbone of a culture it can help you identify and respect other cultures as well as give you a basis to relate to it's people. For instance if you get a job in Japan after high school, learning about SHinto and Buddhism will help you relate to the Japenese people. Studying the Koran will help you immensly if you get a job in Saudi Arabia. Studying the Catholic CHurch will give you a great basis for Dealing with the people of South AMerica.

I believe that world religions should be taught in schools. Although I understand the pandora's box idea of the previous poster, teaching World religions can have a very pragmatic approach. Most cultures have as a basis some religious aspects. If one understands the backbone of a culture it can help you identify and respect other cultures as well as give you a basis to relate to it's people. For instance if you get a job in Japan after high school, learning about SHinto and Buddhism will help you relate to the Japenese people. Studying the Koran will help you immensly if you get a job in Saudi Arabia. Studying the Catholic CHurch will give you a great basis for Dealing with the people of South AMerica.
There is a difference between teaching religions as a subject and teaching them as Truths. One has to be careful that the former does not become the latter.

There is a difference between teaching religions as a subject and teaching them as Truths. One has to be careful that the former does not become the latter.
And unfortunately this entire thing is going in the direction of the latter.

There is a difference between teaching religions as a subject and teaching them as Truths. One has to be careful that the former does not become the latter.

I never stated that each and every religion should be taught as equally true, just thht they should be taught. If they are given equal time and emphisis (forgive the misspelling) then it would be very helpful to our students in dealing with the future and international relationships.

And unfortunately this entire thing is going in the direction of the latter.

Unfortunately just like any other subject you study, that is entirely up to the bias of the teacher in the individual college or public school. THe teachers Bias is usually taught as true, while what the teacher disagrees with is often dismissed. It is an unfortunate aspect of humanity ;(

I never stated that each and every religion should be taught as equally true, just thht they should be taught. If they are given equal time and emphisis (forgive the misspelling) then it would be very helpful to our students in dealing with the future and international relationships.
I never said you did. However, the OP seems to be stating religion should be taught as a Truth instead of a theology class as you stated. I was mearly pointing out that it is difficult to teach without starting to preach and care MUST be taken.

As a teacher (and an American in Japan) I am often asked to explain certain aspects of Christanity to my students when it comes up in English class (such as Christmas cards or Christmas). I have to remind myself that I am there as a teacher and need to keep my values out of the lesson, no matter my own feelings of faith.

I never said you did. However, the OP seems to be stating religion should be taught as a Truth instead of a theology class as you stated. I was mearly pointing out that it is difficult to teach without starting to preach and care MUST be taken.

As a teacher (and an American in Japan) I am often asked to explain certain aspects of Christanity to my students when it comes up in English class (such as Christmas cards or Christmas). I have to remind myself that I am there as a teacher and need to keep my values out of the lesson, no matter my own feelings of faith.

I am glad that you do this. From the way you make it sound, you should be a good teacher.

Obviously those of you that are against religion have done no research into any of them. There are things that 'prove' that this universe and world were created by intelligent design just as there are things that 'prove' that this universe was a complete accident. I for one believe in God as well. I have a different view of spirituality than most religious people, not meaning I'm a new ager. I agree that trying to teach religion in school would be difficult do to the fact that their are so many different faiths. I do think that the school system should offer the opposit view of creation as well as evolution. Seeing as how you can't prove either one to be true.

Obviously those of you that are against religion have done no research into any of them. There are things that 'prove' that this universe and world were created by intelligent design just as there are things that 'prove' that this universe was a complete accident. I for one believe in God as well. I have a different view of spirituality than most religious people, not meaning I'm a new ager. I agree that trying to teach religion in school would be difficult do to the fact that their are so many different faiths. I do think that the school system should offer the opposit view of creation as well as evolution. Seeing as how you can't prove either one to be true.
*sighs* Please go look up what a theory in science actually means. Nothing is ever "proved" in science, but theories are backed up strongly with data. In fact, your computer is running due to a whole range of un-proved theories.

And no, there is no proof for ID.

This shows the problem of attempting to put religion in the classroom in subjects outside of theology.

Obviously those of you that are against religion have done no research into any of them. There are things that 'prove' that this universe and world were created by intelligent design just as there are things that 'prove' that this universe was a complete accident. I for one believe in God as well. I have a different view of spirituality than most religious people, not meaning I'm a new ager. I agree that trying to teach religion in school would be difficult do to the fact that their are so many different faiths. I do think that the school system should offer the opposit view of creation as well as evolution. Seeing as how you can't prove either one to be true.

:) In my purposal your view of creationism would indeed be taught as the (and forgive me for assuming) the Judeo/christain/islamic idea for creationism. You should be happy with my purposal for the creationist idea would be taught as the creation idea for 3 religions. THe only difference is the class should teach this is what the muslims think, the jews think, the catholics and protestants think... etc. In the same manner most science classes teach evolution (at least in my old college) as this is what science believes most likely occured based on the evidence.

Obviously those of you that are against religion have done no research into any of them. There are things that 'prove' that this universe and world were created by intelligent design just as there are things that 'prove' that this universe was a complete accident. I for one believe in God as well. I have a different view of spirituality than most religious people, not meaning I'm a new ager. I agree that trying to teach religion in school would be difficult do to the fact that their are so many different faiths. I do think that the school system should offer the opposit view of creation as well as evolution. Seeing as how you can't prove either one to be true.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any sort of higher power or deity exists, and while there are millions of pieces of scientific evidence that fill peer-reviewed scientific journals and support evolution, creationism has no science behind it at all. Religion is not science, and evolution is. Get your facts straight.

:) In my purposal your view of creationism would indeed be taught as the (and forgive me for assuming) the Judeo/christain/islamic idea for creationism. You should be happy with my purposal for the creationist idea would be taught as the creation idea for 3 religions. THe only difference is the class should teach this is what the muslims think, the jews think, the catholics and protestants think... etc. In the same manner most science classes teach evolution (at least in my old college) as this is what science believes most likely occured based on the evidence.
But where would you teach this? In science class or theology?

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any sort of higher power or deity exists, and while there are millions of pieces of scientific evidence that fill peer-reviewed scientific journals and support evolution, creationism has no science behind it at all. Religion is not science, and evolution is. Get your facts straight.

Lol before this turns into Faith vs. Science flamewar, might I makea suggestion. Religion uses different worldview and forms of logic for the discovery of it' truths than those of Science. THe two fields have incompatiable languages and paradigms. Can we leave the My Testtube can beat up your God arguements alone and jsut discuss the matter at hand, whether or not theoplogy should be taught in schools?

But where would you teach this? In science class or theology?


Science in science class, and THeology in a theology class. The two should never be in th same classroom as they are different fields of study. No more than I would want algrbra taught in a english class

religion should be taught in an observational manner, covering all faiths, practices and beliefs

science should be taught as fact.

religion should be taught in an observational manner, covering all faiths, practices and beliefs

science should be taught as fact.

lol again please keep personal bias out of this discussion. We do not need another science vs faith flamewar. The question is should schools teach a theology class. If you would like the flamewar please visit the rest of general with straight vs gay marrage, the famous do you believe in God thread, there are a million of them.

religion should be taught in an observational manner, covering all faiths, practices and beliefs

science should be taught as fact.

They did that at my secondary school, and by focusing on every major religion, you end up learning about one thing for each religion. Study one or two, but looking at all faiths doesn't leave you with a lot to take away.

They did that at my secondary school, and by focusing on every major religion, you end up learning about one thing for each religion. Study one or two, but looking at all faiths doesn't leave you with a lot to take away.

That is a awesome point. What if they made the class like Spanish 1 2 3 and 4, focusing on specific religions during one class and over the 4 years learning about others. Over the 4 years you would get the same effect of learnining about all of them yet it would be broken up in a way over 4 years that you could retain more information about them?

quite frankly it is beyond me and most residents in the UK why there should be any problem with teaching religion in schools. In the British system children are taught religious education - that is lessons concerning every form of religion possible, including the five largest religions and the history of religion (totemism, paganism, pantheism, monotheism etc etc) and religion is included in almost every subject simply as an example of how different people groups relate to the same problems. For example how religion has affected politics/history. How certain peoples' faiths affect their approach to science, and origins theories. All of this is done without doing any harm whatsoever to the science that is taught in school. You are looking at people's opinions and worldviews, and then you look at scientific data and evidence. The one isn't used to try and contradict the other or undermine it. What we know scientifically and can establish from experimentation and supporting evidence is taught as (for want of a better word) 'fact' and other theories and ideas are taught in the context of their situation - that is, certain religions have holy books which include creation stories that try and explain either from a physical or philosophical point of view how or why the world came into being. Children are not stupid. In fact most children are more astute and perceptive than most adults I know. Far from causing confusion or risking a belief in something that cannot be scientifically verified at the expense Scientific consensus, this approach enables children to develop skills in critical reasoning debate and listening to another point of view whilst ensuring that they understand the credibility - or lack of - found in any worldview. They are more sympathetic and accepting of other cultures because although they patently don't agree with say a "creationist" stance, they can sympathise and understand the processes that have led to the creationist's beliefs. I don't think I know anyone who went through our education system and left it believing that science was a load of rubbish and the myths or faiths of world religions are the only truth. That would be stupid. And an educated child is a critical/reasoning child and is able to tell the difference between theories and philosophical ideas and what solid evidence has indicated to be true.

Religion and faith take up a huge swathe of human life, It has always seemed to me that the American system puts their children at a disadvantage because they are fully rounded in two thirds of their existance (phyisical and mental) but completely crippled in the third (spiritual). It also means that their understanding and relationships with other cultures are put at a disadvantage because they are taught that believing religion over science is stupid. Well if they studied religion and science they'd come to that conclusion themselves, but they'd at least have developed a respect and an appreciation of cultures around the world who stick to religious fundamentalism rather than science for the basis of their worldview. Withough respect there is a danger that the continuing division between the US and 'the rest of the world' will find no resolution as the main complaint of those who don't agree with the US worldview is that the US does not respect or pay attention to anyone else's worldview but their own. And therefore we feel belittled and treated as second class citizens. (Even in a country with so similar a worldview as the UK). Teaching world religions would transform that situation, without as so many of you seem to fear, it making any inroads into scientific reasoning.

I recently took a small poll in my highschool asking all students at rondom what religion they perfered. Not to my suprise many stated catholic. Some Luthren, protestant( dont know if i spelt it right) but mostly catholic. Now My point to this poll was to see how many students wanted to learn religion in school. Many said no or they didnt care. It seems now and days people think its not "cool " to worship god. Now dont get me wrong i myself do not believe in everthing churches tell you but i highly belive in god. I know that there is a god and i know there is divine in this world. But i also belive in Science. I think if both were to pry far enough they will relize that they both prove eachothers envolvement in the situation. The point, Looking back at the scopes trials, and seeing science pervail was an advance in our society. But then during the cold war when religion was completly removed from the ciriculum and science completly took over i think we made a mistake. What if you were givin the chance to choose both, religion, or science. Now keep in mind that the economy is always growing and changing and science is becomeing the back bone to our nation. But what if science and the church worked togeather. I plan on bringing this to my school board in more detail but i want to see what would win in a debate. Voice your opinion please.

School is supposed to teach you things you need in order to get employed. The only career opportunity religious study leads to is a job as a priest. A government isn't going to spend money on religious study for everyone so that a very very small percentage of school leavers can go and become priests. They're going to spend it on maths or science. Something that will actually help everyone.

I dont see what the problem of teaching an overview of all religions as a class is. Hell, I'd take it. As much as I dislike the following of a religion I would love to learn about them.

But where would you teach this? In science class or theology?
Socials, civics, humanities, or whatever its called in your country. It would be along the lines of "humankind needed to have an explanation for how the world worked, what happened after death, and such, and religions were created to provide an answer... blah, blah"

I dont see what the problem of teaching an overview of all religions as a class is. Hell, I'd take it. As much as I dislike the following of a religion I would love to learn about them.


The problem is an economic one. It's a waste of resources.

The problem is an economic one. It's a waste of resources.

So are humanities classes at a tech school, yet I had to take 9 of them.

So are humanities classes at a tech school, yet I had to take 9 of them.


They aren't useless.:rolleyes:

lol again please keep personal bias out of this discussion. We do not need another science vs faith flamewar. The question is should schools teach a theology class. If you would like the flamewar please visit the rest of general with straight vs gay marrage, the famous do you believe in God thread, there are a million of them.
my post stated clearly, in line with the topic, that religion should be taught at school. theology class or not is a matter of picking which religion to teach. my post indicated my belief that no one religion should be taught over another.
however, these should be taught in an objective, 'this is what some people believe' way, while science should remain - as it is - fact ('this is how it is'). i meant no flame, just asserting my view on these matters clearly, concisely and perhaps a little aggressively (been through enough of these kinds of debate to be able to boil my own views down into a couple of succinct sentences by now :p)

religion should be taught broadly to not only aid cultural understanding, but also perhaps as part of a wider philosophy course (or introduction to)
if i have misunderstood the OP or the topic of discussion, my aplologies.

The problem is an economic one. It's a waste of resources.
It's understanding the world around you. Religions exist and shape events everyday, I can't see how knowing about them is a waste.

They aren't useless.:rolleyes:

And I am going to use 2 classes of western literature as a computer science major how? Not that they werent interesting, I am never going to use what I learned.

School is supposed to teach you things you need in order to get employed. The only career opportunity religious study leads to is a job as a priest. A government isn't going to spend money on religious study for everyone so that a very very small percentage of school leavers can go and become priests. They're going to spend it on maths or science. Something that will actually help everyone.

What about, interpreters, ambassadors, diplomats, all of whom may work in religiously sensitive places such as lebanon, israel, or in fact almost every country on the planet, likewise businesses that have international interests, or work with religious bodies (kosher/hallal butchers for example) governmental departments concerning the care of religious or ethnic groups and those concerning international affairs, teachers, musicians, artists and other craftsmen who often can be given commissions by religious bodies, doctors and health care professionals (all of which deal with religious beliefs in general and specific ones such as refusal of blood transfusions or organ donation) social workers, anthorpologists and archaeologists who need to understand the religions of the societies they are studying in order to make accurate interpretations of what they uncover, The list goes on and on, And I haven't mentioned a single pastor, priest, chaplain, imam, guru, swami, rabbi or any other specifically religious job in the list. Religion covers a huge range of human experiences, and the majority of countries in the world are far more religious or spiritually minded than it seems a lot of North Americans are.

NO. Despite what many state, religion and science cannot successfully coexist, and science certainly doesn't need or benefit from religion at all. Keep the science and do away with the religion.

While to me personally, religion is ridiculous, worthless, and rather disturbing, to just ignore it would be a mistake. God may not exist but religion certainly does. It is and important and widespread phenomenon, and we should teach our children all about the different ones.

There shouldnt be a state religion or prayer and hymns in school though, thats just crazy.

It's understanding the world around you. Religions exist and shape events everyday, I can't see how knowing about them is a waste.


It's a waste from an economic point of view because religious study is a money pit. You can invest in religion but the investors never get anything out of it. Religion doesn't stimulate economic growth. You need to teach kids things that will actually help the economy. If people want to learn about religion they can do it on their own time with their own money.

And I am going to use 2 classes of western literature as a computer science major how? Not that they werent interesting, I am never going to use what I learned.

It's keeping your career paths open just in case.

It's a waste from an eonomic point of view because religious study is a money pit. You can invest in religion but the investors never get anything out of it. Religion doesn't stimulate economic growth. You need to teach kids things that will actually help the economy. If people want to learn about religion they can do it on their own time with their own money.

If only we banned everything that didnt stimulate economic growth......

But then during the cold war when religion was completly removed from the ciriculum and science completly took over i think we made a mistake.
Actually, it was never fully removed, which is why it can still sneak back into the classroom. The pledge of alligience has the word "God" in it, which was added, strangely during the Cold War Era.

What about, interpreters, ambassadors, diplomats, all of whom may work in religiously sensitive places such as lebanon, israel, or in fact almost every country on the planet, likewise businesses that have international interests, or work with religious bodies (kosher/hallal butchers for example) governmental departments concerning the care of religious or ethnic groups and those concerning international affairs, teachers, musicians, artists and other craftsmen who often can be given commissions by religious bodies, doctors and health care professionals (all of which deal with religious beliefs in general and specific ones such as refusal of blood transfusions or organ donation) social workers, anthorpologists and archaeologists who need to understand the religions of the societies they are studying in order to make accurate interpretations of what they uncover, The list goes on and on, And I haven't mentioned a single pastor, priest, chaplain, imam, guru, swami, rabbi or any other specifically religious job in the list. Religion covers a huge range of human experiences, and the majority of countries in the world are far more religious or spiritually minded than it seems a lot of North Americans are.

The necessary religious knowledge is taught as part of a history or studies of society class. None of the above jobs require that an entire class be devoted to learning religion.

The necessary religious knowledge is taught as part of a history or studies of society class. None of the above jobs require that an entire class be devoted to learning religion.
Not one religion in particular. I think for genera; purposes, all students should take at least one world religions class that gives an overall view of all the major religions because much of the xenophobia that happens happen because people don't know about the religions embraced by other cultures. It would help foster a culture of understanding and acceptance.

If only we banned everything that didnt stimulate economic growth......


The only time a government will do something that will harm one of it's macroeconomic objectives is when it is necessary in order to win public support to be re-elected. Since it won't lose them an election, they wont risk angeeing all the atheist voters.

Not one religion in particular. I think for genera; purposes, all students should take at least one world religions class that gives an overall view of all the major religions because much of the xenophobia that happens happen because people don't know about the religions embraced by other cultures. It would help foster a culture of understanding and acceptance.


Legally people can't be forced to learn religion. So it would have to be a year 11/12 class. Since it isn't a prerequisite for any university course, it won't count towards your Tertiary Entrance Ranking, and so people that want to further their education will be forced not to pick it. It's a waste of time starting a course like that.

Our xenophobia doesn't arise from ignorance, we choose not to learn about their religion because we are xenophobic. So by teaching people all the backwards beliefs foreigners have it's only going to fuel their xenophobia even more.

It's a waste from an economic point of view because religious study is a money pit. You can invest in religion but the investors never get anything out of it. Religion doesn't stimulate economic growth. You need to teach kids things that will actually help the economy. If people want to learn about religion they can do it on their own time with their own money.
No economic growth? Have you seen the megachurches? At least in the US religion is an industry worth billions!

Besides, the goal of education is, or should be, to create well-rounded human beings, not just cogs for the machine.

The only time a government will do something that will harm one of it's macroeconomic objectives is when it is necessary in order to win public support to be re-elected. Since it won't lose them an election, they wont risk angeeing all the atheist voters.

You might want to take a look at Bhutan who have changed their governmental policies to take account of GNW - Gross National Wellbeing/Happiness. They're been watched very closely by other nations to see what develops.

The only time a government will do something that will harm one of it's macroeconomic objectives is when it is necessary in order to win public support to be re-elected. Since it won't lose them an election, they wont risk angeeing all the atheist voters.

What? Im talking about all the things YOU do that do not benefit economic growth. Like lets say no playing sports unless a salary, an agent, and endorsements are involved.

So by teaching people all the backwards beliefs foreigners have it's only going to fuel their xenophobia even more.

*blinks* where on earth did you get that idea from?! When have you ever heard of anyone having less respect for someone after they know and understand them better?!

*blinks* where on earth did you get that idea from?! When have you ever heard of anyone having less respect for someone after they know and understand them better?!
That happens all the time. When I first meet someone, I might be a little distrusting but I'm still completely respectful. If it turns out they take pleasure from deliberately hassling me, I will respect them less than I did before I knew them.

*Shrug*

No big deal, really.

Religion is an important part of society. It should be and is taught in many schools. It sounds like the real complaint is that it is taught as theology instead a science class. Religion has no business in the domain of science. Science can often fit into religion, so in that way they are unopposed, but one is independent of the other.
It falls entirely to religion to define whether science is opposed to religion, because religious truth is dictated by indivigual interpertation while scientific fact is dictated by reality. We can want gravity to decrease but that doesn't make it happen. However, when we want religion to change all it takes is a revision of interpertation or in exterme cases schizm.

While to me personally, religion is ridiculous, worthless, and rather disturbing, to just ignore it would be a mistake. God may not exist but religion certainly does. It is and important and widespread phenomenon, and we should teach our children all about the different ones.

There shouldnt be a state religion or prayer and hymns in school though, thats just crazy.
My "do away with religion statement" was more my wishing religion would cease to exist, not that it should be completely ignored. After all, getting educated is the first step to a counterstrike.:sniper:

quite frankly it is beyond me and most residents in the UK why there should be any problem with teaching religion in schools. In the British system children are taught religious education - that is lessons concerning every form of religion possible, including the five largest religions and the history of religion (totemism, paganism, pantheism, monotheism etc etc) and religion is included in almost every subject simply as an example of how different people groups relate to the same problems. For example how religion has affected politics/history. How certain peoples' faiths affect their approach to science, and origins theories. All of this is done without doing any harm whatsoever to the science that is taught in school.

There is no problem with this - and it is perfectly legal to do it this way in the US - if the school board in question wishes to offer it and fund it.

But this is not the religious education most people in the US who argue in favor of religious education want in the schools. They want Bible classes taught as fact - or as an "alternative" to science. They want the government to take their religion and adopt it as the state-sponsored religion by teaching it to all schoolchildren. This is the problem.

And I am going to use 2 classes of western literature as a computer science major how? Not that they werent interesting, I am never going to use what I learned.

Throughout the entirety of your life, do you intend to do nothing whatsoever but program computers?

It's a waste from an economic point of view because religious study is a money pit. You can invest in religion but the investors never get anything out of it. Religion doesn't stimulate economic growth. You need to teach kids things that will actually help the economy. If people want to learn about religion they can do it on their own time with their own money.

How does learning about history stimulate economic growth?
How does physical education stimulate economic growth?
How does music education stimulate economic growth?
How does reading Shakespeare stimulate economic growth?

The things that are included in our school curriculums can hardly be said to be geared towards nothing but economic growth.

They aren't useless.:rolleyes:
I suppose it depends on what system you are in. In Ontario, ~30% of students fail the literacy test in grade 10, a pass is required to graduate. Clearly, the current English courses are doing a poor job.

But this is not the religious education most people in the US who argue in favor of religious education want in the schools. They want Bible classes taught as fact - or as an "alternative" to science. They want the government to take their religion and adopt it as the state-sponsored religion by teaching it to all schoolchildren. This is the problem.

Yeah, that is the problem. Especially the "all schoolchildren" bit, religion is a belief. You can't force beliefs upon people.

religion is a belief. You can't force beliefs upon people.

Amen.

Unless the school is a religious school, it shouldn't be teaching religion.

Unless the school is a religious school, it shouldn't be teaching religion.
I agree that religion should not be taught as fact, but religion plays such a large role in modern society it is important that young people are given an accurate, fairly objective potreyal of the religions of the world. Otherwise you risk religions being defined only as they appear in the evening news. Islam as a religion of hate for their jihads and suicide bombers. Christianity as a bunch of mad bombers in Ireland.

Ignorence is not bliss but rather a festering sore that irritates the entire body of society.

I agree that religion should not be taught as fact, but religion plays such a large role in modern society it is important that young people are given an accurate, fairly objective potreyal of the religions of the world. Otherwise you risk religions being defined only as they appear in the evening news. Islam as a religion of hate for their jihads and suicide bombers. Christianity as a bunch of mad bombers in Ireland.

Ignorence is not bliss but rather a festering sore that irritates the entire body of society.

I agree that religion, as an historical force, should be taught. The Crusades, the Civil War in England, the current nastiness in the Middle East, are all fueled by religion. I should have been more specific and said that unless the school was a religious school, it should not conduct religious education (i.e. indocrination).

I agree that religion, as an historical force, should be taught. The Crusades, the Civil War in England, the current nastiness in the Middle East, are all fueled by religion. I should have been more specific and said that unless the school was a religious school, it should not conduct religious education (i.e. indocrination).

Include the basic precepts of the religions as context for their historical effects, and you've got yourself a deal.

Include the basic precepts of the religions as context for their historical effects, and you've got yourself a deal.

Admirable ideals, but I think there will be religious groups launching protests for any portrayal less than absolute infallibility of their belief systems. Any historical atrocities will be blamed on "something else".

Admirable ideals, but I think there will be religious groups launching protests for any portrayal less than absolute infallibility of their belief systems. Any historical atrocities will be blamed on "something else".

I blame historical atrocities on human stupidity, regardless of whether the excuses for the war were political, economic, religious, or otherwise.

Admirable ideals, but I think there will be religious groups launching protests for any portrayal less than absolute infallibility of their belief systems. Any historical atrocities will be blamed on "something else".

If they protest for their religion to be taught as infallible then they could just be removed from the classroom entirely. The religions might protest the historical atrocities, but the schools could just keep teaching them as they had been taught.

I know that this assumes a fairly idealized view of the school system and the world in general, but why not be irrationally positive for a few posts?

I blame historical atrocities on human stupidity, regardless of whether the excuses for the war were political, economic, religious, or otherwise.

I think that hatred/ignorance might be a little bit more on target. Some atrocities were executed quite ingeniously. Just look at how throughly the colonial Americans were able to wipe out the natives.

I think that hatred/ignorance might be a little bit more on target. Some atrocities were executed quite ingeniously. Just look at how throughly the colonial Americans were able to wipe out the natives.

Personally, I think killing off potential friends, regardless of how cleverly you go about it, is stupid. ;)

Now reading all of your replies it has come to y attention that i might have stated this wrong. Lets look at it like this. You all state science would be the key.And some one stated why not teach all. But that would impossible due to many vairying sects and braches of diffrent religions. But what if Highschools were to give the option of compairitive religious history. A four year class witch goes into indepth accounts of all the basic religions. Then science in unafacted and creationism is accepted as is evolution giving the pupil the opertunity to be both enlighted and highly religious. And to those of you who stated that religion was ment for sundays and school was siply for carrers i want you to actually think about what your saying. Im a junior in highschool and i see first hand both the discrimination and arogance first hand. How many ties have you herd "your such a jew" or more recent events have sparked the new found hate for muslims. Not all who claim to be a certain religion are fundamentalist. Why do you think these people dont know that because there uneducated. Next time you get the chance ask some one random what they think about muslim americans i bet you anyamount of oney the first thing that pops into there mind is middle east. Musslim is a religion, as is islam, hinduism, Christianity. But Because americans have this self proclaimed dominant religion called christianity. But look around there are vast amonts all around. That is what makes america, well america. Freedom of religion. Now i dont know about you but learning the history of what i see as the backbone of our country seemes to me a liitle needed. Now that could be interapted as a biased statement but the pilgrams that so caled founded this country. They cae here due to excomunication by the church. They wanted to practice freedom of religion. Now dont get me wrong i in no way can say im enlighted in all i never learned a damn thing about religion. And i relise now that with all these curent events about religion and crussades, jihads and terrorism in the name of "god" that i feel i should be educated in all aspects of both religion and science regardless there infractions to eachother. The mind is a powerfull weapon but only when its loaded properly. If our society keeps neglecting our people of their right to learn then we will stay ignorant and uneducated. And soon we can look forward to obesity and Racial discrimination as well as religious arogance to be on the top of our list for things that weve managed to cork up real nice. Time to educate. I mean it sucks that a student who wants to educate himself in world religion has to wait until hes thrown into the real world to even be exposed to an unbiased look at religion. I mean i can go to church, if i want to hear it one sided. And looking it up y own simply cant happen. Because due to the society slowly shuning Religion out the back door how many kids want to go to church anymore. If i were to go to school tommorow and start expressing my belife in god i would probably get one laughed at made fun and expelled due to the seperation of state and church law. It is now harder to learn and have a decent profestional conversation about religion than it ever has been.Just think about it. The whole aspect not just little details. (sry bout the spelling)

*Bump*