Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89

Thread: Should Religion be taught in Schools?

  1. #1
    Library Researcher Revan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Buffyforums
    Posts
    232
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Should Religion be taught in Schools?

    Quite self explanatory. It seems like it might be a controversial issue in America. In my country at the moment the religions are taught in Primary School and never again except as a Scholarly study for the HSC (Like the Stat test?)

    Either way I am firmly against them being taught for people to believe in. Except in a scholarly fashion in which case the major religions should be covered as well as information about Cults and how to recognise them. To help people of course.

    Evolutionary theory should of course be taught but should be recognised like all science as a constantly developing animal and might be subject to advancement over their lifetimes. Maybe it should be taught that it doesn't necessarily exclude religion I don't know. It should be said though that a Creator is not needed for the universe to be created. Thoughts?
    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me.'" Robert Heinlen

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bruxelles
    Posts
    1,050
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revan View Post
    Quite self explanatory. It seems like it might be a controversial issue in America. In my country at the moment the religions are taught in Primary School and never again except as a Scholarly study for the HSC (Like the Stat test?)

    Either way I am firmly against them being taught for people to believe in. Except in a scholarly fashion in which case the major religions should be covered as well as information about Cults and how to recognise them. To help people of course.

    Evolutionary theory should of course be taught but should be recognised like all science as a constantly developing animal and might be subject to advancement over their lifetimes. Maybe it should be taught that it doesn't necessarily exclude religion I don't know. It should be said though that a Creator is not needed for the universe to be created. Thoughts?

    Only in high schools and universities, and not just one religion, but all of them, at least the major ones.
    Everything else is just conversion and brain wash

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to leyki For This Useful Post:

    Demetreas (13-05-13)

  4. #3
    Graveyard Patrol doppelganger47's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    doppelgangerland
    Posts
    363
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    only if you go to a Catholic/religious school, and at university if you choose to study it, which is our current system.
    Last edited by doppelganger47; 07-12-10 at 10:44 AM.
    veronica mars: "i've got a kidney with your name on it, no questions asked."

  5. #4
    Detective Veverka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Twelfth Precinct
    Posts
    788
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 99 Times in 40 Posts

    Default

    I generally consider myself Christian, more or less. But I don't think it should be taught, except on a general level. I mean, "religion" as a subject should be taught, as concepts of different world beliefs, but I think teaching one as being right is too much. Multi culturalism should mean there's room for all students to feel valued, not preached at.

  6. #5
    Parenting Ahm Shere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 22 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    I do think it should be taught, but it should definately not be compulsory. My secondary school was not even the slightest bit religious, yet R.E was compulsory for all five years. My personal hell. Which is why I failed. I wasn't the slightest bit interested and I never took it seriously.

    R.E should only be compulsory in catholic schools, or schools that are known to be religious. It's not fair trying to make someone believe in something. My R.E teacher frequently tried to convert me from Atheism to...well, not Atheism. I don't think that's right. Personally, I understand that there are loads of religions around the world and I respect that. However to me, Religion baffles me and I believe there are more important things that I should be learning about.

    But like I said, Religion should be taught, yes, but only as an option. It should not be compulsory and you should not be forced to learn it.

    Evolution on the other hand, should be taught I believe. And it is taught in England.

    Funny this thread should be made now, actually. A couple of days ago, I had an argument in one of my lessons with someone about Religion. He's a devout Muslim and he just couldn't grasp why I didn't believe in God. He told me I was "stupid". He also asked me what happens when I die. I told him I don't know, since I'm quite obviously not dead, but should I ever happen to die...I'll be sure to let him know.


    You remind me of the babe. What babe? The babe with the power.
    Part of the Welcoming Committee. ♥

  7. #6
    Sunnydale High Student densoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Yeah I think having multiple religions present in schools is a good thing, but there should also be talks about being Agnostic and Atheist

    My school used to have religious sermons and things - but they never bought any of us into religion, in fact it makes it into something we all grew out of.

    I know many people who believe in god, but not one thats an on-going member of a religious faith - society just isn't run by these places any more.

    So really I don't think kids are somehow coerced into a religion by it being present at school, its only where the school is a religious one as they can't escape the beliefs of their families, and so are forced to belief it till they forget they never did or doubted it at any point in their life

  8. #7
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,390
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 3,368 Times in 1,595 Posts

    Default

    Sure, why not?

    Oh, you mean in government schools. In a government school, it should still be taught vis a vis history, anthropology, economics, literature. It should not, in a government school, be taught as doctrine for its value as metaphysical truth.

    Ultimately, anybody willing to talk to you about their religion is trying to sell you. All religions, including atheism which, yes, evinces every trait by which one would describe a religion if they tried to define religion, are evangelistic to some extent. That's the cost of doing business in a culture that recognizes the primacy of individualism over collectivism and the right of free expression.

    Banner by LRae12

  9. #8
    and her haircut. Nina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,136
    Thanks
    1,840
    Thanked 3,003 Times in 988 Posts

    Default

    I think the choice should be there, if you send you child to a Christian school you expect them to learn something about it as well. And if you don't want your child to learn it, send the kid to a non-religious school.

    But even at the non-religious schools there should be at least one lesson about religions. Adults who don't know the difference between Easter & Christmas (storywise) are making a fool of themselves and I think it would help understanding religious people better. As long religion is a reason to hate people, the objective knowledge of religion is very important.
    Last edited by Nina; 07-12-10 at 05:25 PM.

  10. #9
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    I think religion should be taught as part of history, literature and philosophy. It's certainly important to know about the different religions past and present, their teachings and their deeds.

    Put one particular religion as a separate subject and as if it was true or more important than the others. No.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    Demetreas (13-05-13)

  12. #10
    Scooby Gang Kiera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Johnstown, PA
    Posts
    517
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked 54 Times in 16 Posts

    Default

    I think that religion should be taught in school, but not forced upon someone. If you're going to teach that kind of subject in school, give them the option to learn it and make more than just one available. It's important that people understand why people believe what they do, IMO so that it's less of a controversial issue. I'm not talking about the debates we have in here, but in some families that's something that can tear relatives apart. I think it's interesting to learn about others' religions, but I would never want them forced on me.

  13. #11
    Graveyard Patrol
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    357
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins
    All religions, including atheism which, yes, evinces every trait by which one would describe a religion if they tried to define religion, are evangelistic to some extent.
    Like "religion", "atheism" is a vague term, but I'd ask for a defense of that claim (also, I offer a separate debate on that if you prefer).

    But there is a very big difference in many cases: there is no faith in atheism - no belief that would be held even against sufficient evidence or reasoning.

    It's not the case that the atheist "has faith that there is no god". You'd have to define "god", but when it comes to the Christian god, Muslim god, Hindu gods, Greek gods, etc., one doesn't need faith to believe they don't exist.

    But how about gods in general?

    Before addressing it, the following would have to be addressed: "what's a god?".

    If a deistic god counts, an atheist can be a weak atheist with regard to that god (e.g., I don't believe it exists, and I don't believe it doesn't, either), but strong atheist with regard to other entities called "gods"; in any case, no belief that would be held against reasoning or evidence.

  14. #12
    Graveyard Patrol
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    357
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    I think religion should be taught as part of history, literature and philosophy. It's certainly important to know about the different religions past and present, their teachings and their deeds.

    Put one particular religion as a separate subject and as if it was true or more important than the others. No.
    I agree with that, in general.

  15. #13
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,390
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 3,368 Times in 1,595 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilVampire View Post
    Like "religion", "atheism" is a vague term, but I'd ask for a defense of that claim (also, I offer a separate debate on that if you prefer).

    But there is a very big difference in many cases: there is no faith in atheism - no belief that would be held even against sufficient evidence or reasoning.

    It's not the case that the atheist "has faith that there is no god". You'd have to define "god", but when it comes to the Christian god, Muslim god, Hindu gods, Greek gods, etc., one doesn't need faith to believe they don't exist.

    But how about gods in general?

    Before addressing it, the following would have to be addressed: "what's a god?".

    If a deistic god counts, an atheist can be a weak atheist with regard to that god (e.g., I don't believe it exists, and I don't believe it doesn't, either), but strong atheist with regard to other entities called "gods"; in any case, no belief that would be held against reasoning or evidence.
    Atheism takes faith; it makes an unproven (indeed, unprovable) statement as definitive; that there is no deity or deities, no divine or supernatural world, no creator, no this, no that, no nothin'. And if you press an atheist for the empirical, explicitly demonstrable proof of this belief they are just as helpless as the most devout Christian to do anything other than "... 'cuz". The only people free and clear of being labelled as faithful to an unproven premise are the agnostics, who've made no conclusion at all.

    Banner by LRae12

  16. #14
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Atheism takes faith; it makes an unproven (indeed, unprovable) statement as definitive; that there is no deity or deities, no divine or supernatural world, no creator, no this, no that, no nothin'. And if you press an atheist for the empirical, explicitly demonstrable proof of this belief they are just as helpless as the most devout Christian to do anything other than "... 'cuz". The only people free and clear of being labelled as faithful to an unproven premise are the agnostics, who've made no conclusion at all.
    I am in fact agnostic, but I'd like to play advocate of the devil here and present the atheist counter argument to that position.

    Not to believe in something completely unprovable/undisprovable is not a believe in itself. Russell says it best:

    If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

  17. #15
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,390
    Thanks
    214
    Thanked 3,368 Times in 1,595 Posts

    Default

    Nixx, you could describe atheism by making the same paragraph and asserting the negative premise at every point. It's all about how you define what the china teapot is -- if it's defined as "GOD", the paragraphs central thesis is no different than if the teapot is defined as "NO GOD", and the ancient books merely become contemporary academics and theoreticians. Today, "hesitation to believe in it's (the china "NO GOD" teapot) existence"... by which we basically mean the correctness of the assertion... is the mark of eccentricity, or at least it is in any given Boiler Room thread.

    I'm saying that to assert, definitively, the non-existence of God is a positive assertion of unprovable fact, and not merely a handwave of skepticism over the alternative. That is the domain solely of the agnostics. If you, an agnostic, don't know, you don't know. If you, an atheist, think you know I'm wrong, you don't get to win your point by simply claiming that I don't know I'm right.
    Last edited by KingofCretins; 07-12-10 at 07:31 PM.

    Banner by LRae12

  18. #16
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Nixx, you could describe atheism by making the same paragraph and asserting the negative premise at every point. It's all about how you define what the china teapot is -- if it's defined as "GOD", the paragraphs central thesis is no different than if the teapot is defined as "NO GOD", and the ancient books merely become latter day academics and theoreticians. Today, "hesitation to believe in it's (the china "NO GOD" teapot) existence"... by which we basically mean the correctness of the assertion... is the mark of eccentricity, or at least it is in any given Boiler Room thread.

    I'm saying that to assert, definitively, the non-existence of God is a positive assertion of unprovable fact, and not merely a handwave of skepticism over the alternative. That is the domain solely of the agnostics. If you, an agnostic, don't know, you don't know. If you, an atheist, think you know I'm wrong, you don't get to win your point by simply claiming that I don't know I'm right.
    As an agnostic I reject the attempt to equalize atheism with theism.

    The fact that we all believe in some things does not turn us religious. We can't escape that. I believe things like the mount Everest is the highest mountain on earth, though I certainly haven't hiked on all the mountains on earth and measured them. My belief is founded in a reasonable scientific process that I can follow up.

    There is however no reason in believing every random fact that is thrown at me, much less if it's neither provable nor disprovable.

    We all believe things others have found out for us, that's how we evolve as a species. It's the degree of irrationality of those believes that defines faith.

    Believing in unprovable/disprovable random assumptions is certainly not on the same stage of irrationality as declaring them void, which is what atheists do.

    They assert that question doesn't matter as long as there is no reason to assume that something is there.

    The idea that the teapot is out there is certainly not on the same level of rationality as the idea that the teapot is not there, or that the teapot question is completely void because it can per definition not be answered.
    Last edited by Nixennacht; 07-12-10 at 07:47 PM.

  19. #17
    Detective Veverka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Twelfth Precinct
    Posts
    788
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 99 Times in 40 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Sure, why not?

    Oh, you mean in government schools. In a government school, it should still be taught vis a vis history, anthropology, economics, literature. It should not, in a government school, be taught as doctrine for its value as metaphysical truth.

    Ultimately, anybody willing to talk to you about their religion is trying to sell you. All religions, including atheism which, yes, evinces every trait by which one would describe a religion if they tried to define religion, are evangelistic to some extent. That's the cost of doing business in a culture that recognizes the primacy of individualism over collectivism and the right of free expression.
    Exactly. Which is why if you send your kids to a school which professes a particular belief system, it's a given that this is what will be taught. And frankly, if you don't agree, why would you send your kids there?

  20. #18
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veverka View Post
    Exactly. Which is why if you send your kids to a school which professes a particular belief system, it's a given that this is what will be taught. And frankly, if you don't agree, why would you send your kids there?
    I wonder though, to what degree should the religious schools be regulated in their curricula though? Say, if you sent your kid to Saint Henriettas behind the moon and they teach that mathematics is a mortal sin, should their diploma be recognized by universities and so on? Also say it's druid academy that promotes the written word as the end of everything.

    At what point do you think does the indoctrination of children border over into abuse?

  21. #19
    Detective Veverka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Twelfth Precinct
    Posts
    788
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 99 Times in 40 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    I wonder though, to what degree should the religious schools be regulated in their curricula though? Say, if you sent your kid to Saint Henriettas behind the moon and they teach that mathematics is a mortal sin, should their diploma be recognized by universities and so on? Also say it's druid academy that promotes the written word as the end of everything.

    At what point do you think does the indoctrination of children border over into abuse?
    Good question. If it's not recognised curriculum, and interferes with teaching subjects that are recognised, then the subject is not valid as one which would be recognised in Australian Universities.

    Here, there are two ways you can get into uni as a school leaver from an Australian school, and every school has the same programs to do so. So a child who believed maths to be a mortal sin and either didn't learn any maths, or learnt it wrong, couldn't get into a course that had maths as a prerequisite.

    And, if you're dumb enough to send your kid to that school, fine, but it wouldn't be recognised. There are lines, and, say, Catholic schools can be considered mainstream because they don't set their students up for failure in the wider world. But I don't think a school
    Say, if you sent your kid to Saint Henriettas behind the moon and they teach that mathematics is a mortal sin
    , then I don't think that's going to be a registered school.

    (Quick edit: so yes, schools are regulated, here at least, in terms of what is acceptable standards of curriculum.)

  22. #20
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veverka View Post
    (Quick edit: so yes, schools are regulated, here at least, in terms of what is acceptable standards of curriculum.)
    Over here it's pretty similar. Private schools can add things their curriculum, but if the they don't meet standardized requirements their diplomas are not recognized.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •