Kids and religious education - can we discuss on a conceptual level?

[SKL]

I know the current popular interpretation of the First Amendment makes certain things a no-no in public school.  I am not trying to say anyone is wrong about that.  It's not worth arguing about on that level.

 

But from looking at how things are done in a variety of other countries, and just raising my own kids, I feel we do our kids a disservice when we "protect" them from religion.

 

I'm not talking about bullying; obviously it's no more OK to bully a person over religion than over any other difference, protected or otherwise.  And being in the same room as an expressed religious thought is not bullying.  A professional (teacher etc.) should be able to tell the difference.

 

I wonder where people get the idea that being exposed to religious beliefs or even having an exchange of religious beliefs, anywhere, threatens an individual's right to pursue his own beliefs.  I'm saying this about anyone, from conservative Christian to atheist, who has this concern.  I don't see this fear in many other countries (but maybe it exists under the radar).  I see Hindus sending their kids to convent schools, where they have to learn the Bible and pray frequently, and yet the kids remain Hindu.  In institutions designed to serve people of various religions, I see kids reciting three different prayers before they sit down to eat.  They grow up learning to respect other religions and their adherents, without losing the connection with their own beliefs.  In most countries as far as I know, there are no laws against prayer in school etc.  There are no laws against teachers talking about God or about atheism.  The parents teach their kids that these other beliefs exist and the parents are confident in their connection with their child.

 

So why are folks in the US so paranoid about the free exchange of religious thought?  Am I the only person who feels this is unfortunate?

[SKL]

I should probably add for background that my kids have been immersed in a couple of very different religions, and also have had some exposure to others.

[JumpyTheFrog]

We have an "us vs. them" mentality in many things (politics, race, eating habits, etc.) and people are easily offended, so maybe those play a part.

[LucyStoner]

Religious instruction, which is different than the study of religion, shouldn't be funded by taxpayers or come at the expense of time spent on academics and other core educational needs.

 

I don't have a problem with students expressing their religious faith at school. I don't have a problem with schools offering academic classes about religion (say in middle and/or high school as an elective). I teach my children about lots of different religions and the role of religion in history but I do that at home on my own dime, the same way I would expect if I sent them to school.

 

Until a Christian would be willing to tolerate a teacher teaching explicitly Buddhism or Islam or Paganism or Satanism in a public school they can not really claim that Christian religious instruction should be tolerated.

[Joanne]

 

I wonder where people get the idea that being exposed to religious beliefs or even having an exchange of religious beliefs, anywhere, threatens an individual's right to pursue his own beliefs. 

 

 

It's a non-argument and non-discussion. Religion, religious discussion, and ideas are not banned from public schools. State-sanctioned religion IS. I would add that understanding basics of world religions is essential to understanding history on an academic level.

 

A lack of *state sanctioned* religion  has evolved into the public supporting an atmosphere of safety for ALL students. In the US, that usually means it is safe to not be a Christian.

[HRAAB]

I'm certainly not paranoid or opposed to the free exchange of religious thought.  What I often see is not an exchange of religious thought but evangelizing.  I think it is unfortunate we can't discuss, with the intention of learning, different religious views.  When Christianity is presented as the Truth by the teacher, when questions are asked expecting one specific answer (Louisiana case), it shuts down open discussion.

 

I think it could happen, but it would require a teacher that was able to control the conversation within those parameters and parents who would not object to their children hearing other positions presented as Truth.

[Χά�ων]

Exposed to religious beliefs in a non hostile environment without pressure to accept or believe has been my goal from before DS was born. However, putting a child in an environment where non belief is cause for social isolation and ridicule is not the same thing. Where I live I have to be careful about it and I am very picky about who is allowed to talk to my child about religion because the pressure is on to convert young kids. The theory is that if you can get to the kids before puberty than you have them for life. This is not the norm throughout the US and I think that for those who do not have to live with that type of hostile environment it is hard to imagine the stress it can put on young children. IE: The child is told repeatedly they or their parents are going to suffer for eternal torture because of their beliefs but other children, random adults and adults who are authority figures. My son has been spiritually abused by adults who think they are doing the right thing by telling a 6 year old what is going to happen to him and his mother, in gruesome detail. 

 

Personally, I have exposed DS to every faith I can including attending services and special Holy events. I am looking at sending him to an all boys Jesuit High School for the education and he has attended a program at a Presbyterian church for the past 4 years and will continue for many years to come.  

 

 

[catz]

I do think teachers probably can't win here in many cases. Any mention of ANY religion will often offend some other group.

 

We attend a UU church and their kid's programming have given us wonderful exposure to many religions and traditions.

[Carrie12345]

I'm not paranoid about the free exchange of religious thought. I AM protective of my kids, especially before the teen years, and well aware of what they face if/when people come to learn we're an atheist family.  It's a topic that, at most of their ages, needn't be discussed outside of academic or explicitly religious contexts.

[SKL]

I don't deny that there are incidents when teachers act inappropriately, as apparently occurred in the case of the Buddhist child mentioned in another post.  Teachers are humans and some are a$$holes about religion, race, body type, disabilities, class, and just about everything else.

 

However, what is the danger of a child being told by a teacher "God doesn't exist" or "Christ wasn't God" or "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?  Parents should tell their kids they are going to hear this stuff and that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.  When my math teacher commented that girls couldn't learn math, I thought he was a jerk and an idiot, but it didn't hurt me.  When our English teacher told my sister Moses was only a mythical figure and the Bible is just a storybook, my sister did not grow two heads.  Kids can learn that civilized people agree to disagree about these things.

[Joanne]

I don't deny that there are incidents when teachers act inappropriately, as apparently occurred in the case of the Buddhist child mentioned in another post.  Teachers are humans and some are a$$holes about religion, race, body type, disabilities, class, and just about everything else.

 

However, what is the danger of a child being told by a teacher "God doesn't exist" or "Christ wasn't God" or "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?  Parents should tell their kids they are going to hear this stuff and that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.  When my math teacher commented that girls couldn't learn math, I thought he was a jerk and an idiot, but it didn't hurt me.  When our English teacher told my sister Moses was only a mythical figure and the Bible is just a storybook, my sister did not grow two heads.  Kids can learn that civilized people agree to disagree about these things.

 

The danger is when a teacher does that, it becomes *state sanctioned* religion and against the 1st amendment. It would fall under impeding the free exercise of religion. A teacher, as a representative of the state and with the inherent authority, should not imply a preferred religion.

The key is that the teacher is an employee of the state. It is NOT about mutual, equal, free exchange of opinions or ideas.

 

This has always seemed clear cut to me, and I've never understood the confusion.

[SKL]

How come in other multi-cultural countries, kids can hear stuff in school and not freak out, not use it as en excuse to bully, etc.?  I have Hindu friends who were not allowed in their friends' kitchens because they were not Brahmin and therefore would pollute the food.  My friends know this is just an age-old custom and they comply without offense.  They remain very good friends with the person whose religion views them as a pollutant.  Why are these types of things worthy of offense in the USA but not in other diverse countries?

[SKL]

The danger is when a teacher does that, it becomes *state sanctioned* religion and against the 1st amendment. It would fall under impeding the free exercise of religion. A teacher, as a representative of the state and with the inherent authority, should not imply a preferred religion.

The key is that the teacher is an employee of the state. It is NOT about mutual, equal, free exchange of opinions or ideas.

 

This has always seemed clear cut to me, and I've never understood the confusion.

 

If you look at my OP, I understand the current interpretation of the first amendment, but I am trying to think outside the box a little.  It is arguably the law, but should it be?

 

[HRAAB]

Differing religious views between families (one Hindu family not allowed in other family's kitchen) or a child saying "Jesus is/is not God", while perhaps rude, is not the same thing as a public school teacher saying "Jesus is/is not God".  As a state employee the teacher can't promote one religion over another as part of their job.  the teacher could say Christianity teaches Jesus is God, Islam teaches this, Hinduism teaches that, and the teacher wouldn't be promoting one religion over another.  There's a huge gap between religious differences at a personal level, and a teacher promoting one religion in their classroom.

[HRAAB]

And to answer your question, yes, I think it should be the law.

 

eta:  That a public employee, within the context of his job, can't promote one religion over another.

 

 

[MistyMountain]

I am perfectly fine with my kids hearing about others religious beliefs and hearing from other people describing their beliefs. I am perfectly fine with kids praying at school or talking about their religion. I am fine with teachers talking about their religion or telling people their beliefs. I started going to a UU church specifically for the kids RE program so they would learn about all religions in accepting open minded environment.

 

I am not okay with a teacher discussing something like young earth creationism, that Jesus is the the savior etc and teaching it as a fact like math facts are discussed as facts. I am also not okay with people who are nice to you but their real goal is converting my heathen children to their religion. I have no problem with my kids knowing or hearing about other religions or hearing people discuss what they believe if it is done with respect.

[kroe1]

Public schools have our children for more waking ours than we do, especially if mom and dad both work. There are many who believe this allows more time for evangelizing or selling an idea than mom and dad get. This would apply to inherent values , political agendas, and religion. Many people grow up with a value system based on what they were exposed to the most, not necessarily what mom and dad say.

 

Many psychologists believe value systems are almost solidified by age 8, requiring a major life event to change. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. But, personally, I want my values instilled in my kiddos. I would also like the choice in how it is done.

[SKL]

I think a teacher stating her religious belief should be viewed similar to her stating whether or not she likes Mexican food or rap music.  (I mean, theoretically, ignoring the current interpretation of constitutional law.)  It's an individual view or belief, and kids need to understand that we all have them - even teachers - and nobody is right about everything.

 

To the point that it needs to be done with respect - yes, and one way to teach kids to discuss religion respectfully is to have this modeled by someone who models lots of other civilized behavior - such as a professional teacher.  Teachers are trusted to teach kids how to think and talk about racial diversity etc.  I think most teachers can be trusted to do the same with religion.

[SKL]

Does anyone know anybody who was growing up in a stable home, and changed his religion based on evangelizing by a teacher?  I mean, I've heard of this happening with hormonal kids going through troubled times, but in general, does it ever happen?  Has anyone on this board had their well-adjusted child come home one day and say "I want to be ___ religion like Teacher"?  I mean when they are at an age to be serious about it.

[HRAAB]

A teacher stating "I believe ....." is not the same as the teacher stating "xyz belief system as a fact".

 

I personally would like to see a classroom situation where the teacher could say, "I am a member of (whatever religion) and this is what we believe."  Then student A could share what religion they belong to and their beliefs, and student B could then share that they belong to no church but are secular humanists and share their worldview with the freedom to ask questions for better understanding.

 

Somehow, with the religious climate in this country, I don't see that happening.  

[Carrie12345]

Does anyone know anybody who was growing up in a stable home, and changed his religion based on evangelizing by a teacher?  I mean, I've heard of this happening with hormonal kids going through troubled times, but in general, does it ever happen?  Has anyone on this board had their well-adjusted child come home one day and say "I want to be ___ religion like Teacher"?

 

I've had my then-7yo come home and tell me he believes in Jesus Christ, Son of God.  He couldn't tell me the context in which this was "discovered" but, yes, he said it.

[zoobie]

How come in other multi-cultural countries, kids can hear stuff in school and not freak out, not use it as en excuse to bully, etc.? I have Hindu friends who were not allowed in their friends' kitchens because they were not Brahmin and therefore would pollute the food. My friends know this is just an age-old custom and they comply without offense. They remain very good friends with the person whose religion views them as a pollutant. Why are these types of things worthy of offense in the USA but not in other diverse countries?

That's an example of an occurrence in a private home. That doesn't cross over to events happening in public schools, funded by our tax dollars.

 

You're also discussing religions that do not focus on evangelism. Fundamental, evangelical Christians are not known for respecting other's rights to their religious beliefs and practices, as exemplified by the LA case at hand. They are taught that their religion is superior and are instilled with a moral obligation to share the religion with the rest of the world. This setup does not engender free exchange of information. It does the opposite, and I would be willing to bet that the science teacher will be lauded for her teaching methods within her sect and cultural base.

 

A Socratic discussion of religion would not be out of place in a school where the students are mature enough to separate personal conviction from learning, and where teachers are not foisting their own personal convictions on their students.

[HRAAB]

My 16 yr old dd attends a very small, part-time, private classical school.  The teachers were hoping to create an environment where the students would feel free to openly discuss their differing religious beliefs free from derision and proselytizing.  There are 12 students in her class:  the largest group is Evangelical Protestant, with one LDS girl, one Jewish girl, one very conservative Catholic, and one liberal, exploring Catholic (my dd).  My dd says that almost every religious discussion ends with one group proselytizing to the rest.  Proselytizing does not create an environment where students feel free to share their differing beliefs.  Fortunately the teacher does a fairly decent job of controlling it and will shut it down when it reaches that point.

 

While I do think maturity plays a big part in this, I've had enough experience with adults, even family members, who should certainly have maturity at their age but can't carry on a discussion about religious differences without it turning into a personal evangelizing opportunity. 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Tolerance: it ain't acceptance.

[Joanne]

How come in other multi-cultural countries, kids can hear stuff in school and not freak out, not use it as en excuse to bully, etc.?  I have Hindu friends who were not allowed in their friends' kitchens because they were not Brahmin and therefore would pollute the food.  My friends know this is just an age-old custom and they comply without offense.  They remain very good friends with the person whose religion views them as a pollutant.  Why are these types of things worthy of offense in the USA but not in other diverse countries?

 

I am posting as a citizen and resident of the USA, where freedom from government imposed religion is a protected right.

 

The "freak out" and "bully" are non-sequitur.

 

ALL kids I know have experienced *appropriate and legal* diversity moments at school.

[Joanne]

I think a teacher stating her religious belief should be viewed similar to her stating whether or not she likes Mexican food or rap music.

 

 

 

I believe one's spiritual views are far, far more important than food or music "preferences". The comparison is anathema to me - my spirituality and my family culture is that precious. It is not *vulnerable* or tenuous, but I won't allow it to be trivialized into mundane tastes that end up on lists in a online dating profile.

And, to answer your response to another one of my posts, OF COURSE it should be law. The founding people of this nation were wise and inspired when they codified freedom from state sanctioned religion. Our very history is in large part due to this issue.

[LucyStoner]

If as a teacher and rap music aficionado I grant test points to students in non-music subjects or even in music for accurately parroting my subjective rap music tastes, I have crossed a line as a teacher.

 

"________ is the most important rap artist ever!!!!!!!!!" is a fill in the blank question with many possible (opinion based) answers. But say, as a Seattle dweller, I insist the only correct answer, worth 5 extra credit points, is "Sir Mix-A-Lot". Suppose I decide to award 15 extra points to anyone who can sing "Swap Meet Louie" and "Baby Got Back"?  Suppose I ridicule anyone who answers "Eminem" or "Tupac" or waste class time mocking Vanilla Ice?  Does anyone NOT see how ridiculous this is?

Also, people who use many exclamation points at the end of sentences should, per my religion, be stoned to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have to go throw rocks at myself now.

[SKL]

I think the present climate sends kids the message that religion is not a topic that can/should be discussed in a civilized way.  And I don't think that helps anybody.

[Rosie_0801]

I had to have a rather long and unpleasant argument with someone because he forgot the distinction between teaching a religion and teaching about a religion. About the difference between a child being there while you do your thing and obliging the child to do your thing. That letting a child come to their own stance does not mean indoctrinate them with yours with the understanding that when they have matured enough to be able to reject it, they are allowed to.

 

There are some things that are commonly held to be true, good and normal that I find abhorrent and I won't have my children taught to view ugly as desirable if there is anything I can do about it.

 

Of course I have non-standard children and non-standard religion around here, so my position for *my own children* reflects that. 

[Ipsey]

In comparative religion class or as historical background, great.

 

Why else does religion need to be in a classroom ?

 

My kids aren't sheltered from religion. They've been to temples and mosques and churches. Two of them go to a friend's church youth group sometimes, just to be friendly.

 

I did refuse them permission once, when the topic was Sin and Homosexuality, because it went directly against our family values.

 

Conflating 'freaking out' with valuing a classroom where religion is left at the door except for academic reasons is ludicrous.

 

I'm very supportive of my children, and all children, learning about religion. Not learning about religion is like not learning about history or world culture. It's a vital part of life for many people around the world.

 

My husband and I are atheist, and my children don't appear to believe in any deities or supernatural powers at this point. I'm glad of it. They have, however, read plenty of Bible stories, gone to Mass, gone to VBS, visited a Buddhist temple, met many of my Saudi students and asked them questions about Islam. 

 

In public schools, students should be taught about religion in tandem with their sociology/literature/history/civics classes. That means Christians learn about Islam and Buddhism and Muslims learn about Christianity and Buddhism, etc. 

 

Too many people in the dominant religion in the US don't understanding the difference between learning about proselytizing, I think. The fact that a lot of the illegal privilege that the dominant religion has been shown in schools is now being brought under control is making certain people very scared and playing into certain woe-is-us mindsets.

[Ipsey]

How come in other multi-cultural countries, kids can hear stuff in school and not freak out, not use it as en excuse to bully, etc.?  I have Hindu friends who were not allowed in their friends' kitchens because they were not Brahmin and therefore would pollute the food.  My friends know this is just an age-old custom and they comply without offense.  They remain very good friends with the person whose religion views them as a pollutant.  Why are these types of things worthy of offense in the USA but not in other diverse countries?

 

Huh?

My kids hear all about religion in school and don't get to use it to bully.

We have friends from all sorts of religions, and so do most people in our city, I'd imagine.

Are you referring to some other post in this thread that I can't find? 

 

Our government isn't allowed to impose religion on its citizenry, including children in the public school. This has nothing to do with bullying or who can be friends with another person, or who chooses not to go into another person's kitchen.

[LucyStoner]

I think the present climate sends kids the message that religion is not a topic that can/should be discussed in a civilized way.  And I don't think that helps anybody.

 

Isn't not discussing religion, politics and sex in "mixed company" a rather old fashioned rule of etiquette? 

 

To teach health and sex education, most schools require a parent to sign a permission slip and opt their children into the class rather than wait for the parents to opt their child out of the class.  Why on earth would religion, which is more up for debate than anatomy and physiology, be something anyone should expect to be taught in school?  Religious instruction does not belong in a public school setting.  The study of religion, as a stand alone subject or as part of history, should not be confused with religious instruction but too often is.  This confusion is made all the worse by those who would push their religious beliefs in an academic setting.  This naturally makes people on all side skittish.  The blame for this hardly lies only with people who object to any one religion being incorporated into any given course of studies. 

 

[katilac]

How come in other multi-cultural countries, kids can hear stuff in school and not freak out, not use it as en excuse to bully, etc.?  I have Hindu friends who were not allowed in their friends' kitchens because they were not Brahmin and therefore would pollute the food.  My friends know this is just an age-old custom and they comply without offense.  They remain very good friends with the person whose religion views them as a pollutant.   

 

They're friends with people who think they are gross and will contaminate their food - that's so awesome! What a great custom. Do they have friends who don't allow them in the living room, too? 

 

Obviously, I am kidding. What I can't figure out is if YOU are kidding. Your initial post seemed serious, if misdirected, but this is over the top. I can't imagine you are seriously using this as a great example of multi-cultural society (which, by the way, it is not any example of multi-cultural society, as the various castes are, by definition, from different levels of the SAME culture). 

[umsami]

DH is Egyptian and what happens in Egypt is that when it's time for religion…the kids go off to their religion's classes.  So, Muslims have instruction in Islam.  Copts have instructions in Christianity.  And back before the whole Suez Canal crisis, Jews had instruction in Judaism.  Of course, there's no accommodations made for atheists, pagans, Bahais, or even denominations of Christianity which is not Coptic.  But that's how they handle it.  The problem is that there really is very little instruction in the beliefs of other faiths.  So while you might have friends of different faiths, you may still believe whatever rumors/misconceptions that are popular to believe about said faith.

 

In the private secular school I went to in the States, in sixth grade, we studied five major religions over the course of a year.  We had a book on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.  It was very well done (from what I remember), and I don't remember any parents objecting…but then again, this was back in the late 70s…before the Religious Right were very involved in schools/education. (They had just really mobilized over Carter.)

 

I have numerous Hindu and Muslim friends who have attended Catholic schools.  It has not harmed their faiths at all, as far as I can tell.  I would venture to say that it actually made it stronger, while giving them a better education in Catholic theology than many Catholics have. :) (At least those who didn't attend Catholic schools.)

 

For public schools, we need to respect the whole no official religion…but i do feel that there needs to be a lot more comparative religious education taught…ideally with books written by people who practice those faiths.

[HRAAB]

I attended Catholic schools.  In high school we spent one year studying different Christian denominations and another studying world religions.  We were given a particular religion to research including interviewing someone of that faith plus attending a church service.  I don't remember any problems over the assignments or any parents complaining, at least that I was aware of.  My parents had no issue with the assignments.

[albeto.]

I think the present climate sends kids the message that religion is not a topic that can/should be discussed in a civilized way.  And I don't think that helps anybody.

 

Then perhaps you're not paying attention as well as you think you are. Kids can, and are discussing religion in a most productive and socially appropriate way. From asking districts to remove religious prayers from school property, to refusing to kowtow to principal determined to protect religious privileges with threats, to challenging legislation that promotes religion over scientific education, students are becoming quite confident in their ability to discuss and defend their civil rights in a most "civilized" way. Perhaps you could share who you see in the US as "so paranoid about the free exchange of religious thought," to give a better idea of the issue you see. 

[IsabelC]

I know the current popular interpretation of the First Amendment makes certain things a no-no in public school.  I am not trying to say anyone is wrong about that.  It's not worth arguing about on that level.

 

But from looking at how things are done in a variety of other countries, and just raising my own kids, I feel we do our kids a disservice when we "protect" them from religion.

 

I'm not talking about bullying; obviously it's no more OK to bully a person over religion than over any other difference, protected or otherwise.  And being in the same room as an expressed religious thought is not bullying.  A professional (teacher etc.) should be able to tell the difference.

 

I wonder where people get the idea that being exposed to religious beliefs or even having an exchange of religious beliefs, anywhere, threatens an individual's right to pursue his own beliefs.  I'm saying this about anyone, from conservative Christian to atheist, who has this concern.  I don't see this fear in many other countries (but maybe it exists under the radar).  I see Hindus sending their kids to convent schools, where they have to learn the Bible and pray frequently, and yet the kids remain Hindu.  In institutions designed to serve people of various religions, I see kids reciting three different prayers before they sit down to eat.  They grow up learning to respect other religions and their adherents, without losing the connection with their own beliefs.  In most countries as far as I know, there are no laws against prayer in school etc.  There are no laws against teachers talking about God or about atheism.  The parents teach their kids that these other beliefs exist and the parents are confident in their connection with their child.

 

So why are folks in the US so paranoid about the free exchange of religious thought?  Am I the only person who feels this is unfortunate?

 

I agree that kids may miss out somewhat if they are totally 'protected from religion'. They may miss out on the additional broadness of knowledge gained by learning about many religious, religious ideas, religio-cultural phenomena etc. They may also miss out one one way of learning about how to relate to people from different religions.

 

However, protection from religion as a whole isn't the same thing as protection from religious discrimination.

 

If I choose to send my kids to Catholic school, I'm not entitled to complain about the lack of Muslim prayer at school, but no child should be pressured to perform religious acts or make affirmations of religious faith in order to be accepted at a public or government controlled school.

 

I also do not agree with faith-based instruction in public schools. It's all very well to have separate classes for separate groups, but there are over 4000 different religions in the world, and that's before you start counting different kinds of non religious people (you can't assume all atheists are humanist, for example), so even with the dubious policy of segregation there will still be kids who miss out. Anyway, religious instruction just doesn't belong in school: it is the responsibility of the child's family, in consultation with whatever religious leaders or spiritual advisers they may have. 

 

Some Christian people seem to feel that Christians are unjustifiably singled out for criticism in this regard, or held to higher standards than people of other religions. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. I think it's just a function of Christians having the weight of tradition, more tendency to evangelize (in some, though not all, denominations), plus greater numbers, so there is more of an issue to 'fix'. In my personal view, as somebody not affiliated with any organized religion, pushing Christianity onto kids isn't really any worse than pushing any other religion (or other supernatural belief) onto kids.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that, as with all forms of privilege, the privilege is largely invisible to those who have it, ie, for those who belong to a religion that is very dominant in that part of the world, it is difficult to recognize the privilege that confers. They simply take for granted that their faith is shared by most friends, colleagues or classmates, that they won't be harassed or attacked for wearing a visible sign of their faith, that their place of worship probably won't be vandalized (or not allowed to be built in the first place), that their most holy days are national holidays while other people have to negotiate to get significant days off, that almost all their elected representatives share their faith, that they will not have to fight for their kids' rights in groups such as Scouts that are meant to be open to all, and so on. 

[IsabelC]

A dip by any other name is still a dip :)

 

 

 

No it isn't.

A dip with cornchips a is a dip.

A dip in a sandwich is a spread. Even if it's the same product.

Put the dip on pasta and it is a sauce.

Put it on ice cream and it's a topping (and you have awful taste).

[IsabelC]

Dip on pasta - yuck!

 

 

 

 

Pesto dip on wholemeal spaghetti is really yummy! (seriously)

 

In fact, it's so good, that all children should be required to eat it at school. (not serious, obviously, but you can't be too careful with political/religious threads)

[nerdybird]

I like things the way they are here in the US, at least in theory. You have the freedom to worship if you choose to do so and no one can come after you for not doing so. If my neighbor is like "yay, Jesus!" and I'm like "go, Flying Spaghetti Monster!", that's a-ok.

 

I remember a couple of months ago when there was that whole debacle in Oklahoma over the 10 Commandments monument. The Satanists were like "hey, you can't put the 10 commandments up on public land!...if you can, then can we put a statue of Satan next to it?" Then the Hindus hopped in and were like "Hanuman totally rocks, and we're going to donate a 40ft statue of the monkey-god!" It was great.

 

Personally, I am divided. I am a freethinking agnostic who claims the title of nominally faith-laden wife and mother of 5. DH is a lifelong Christian and we met through a Christian friend. I respect him enough to not say "God isn't real" and "Jesus was a fraud" around our kids. We listen to secular music, I teach secular science, and we don't do Bible study as part of our curriculum. I leave that to DH. He did insist that I include it as part of their copywork because it is important to him that they know the Word of God, etc.  I enjoy manga, think Carl Sagan rocks, and I love building things and reading science fiction. If it were up to me, I'd have our kids copying Lovecraft, Gaiman, Wells and LeGuin. :p

 

Ultimately, this question of religious education is not so much a questions as it is an assertion. What's the harm in kids learning about faith in school? Well, which one should they learn about? How deep should their education be? Will they be debating the merits of each faith that they study? Is the purpose of their education in faith to critically examine the faith and to determine whether or not the underlying system of that faith is of sound quality?

 

Or will the education simply be along the lines of "God said, He did it, that settles it and all other stories are misguided legends told by dirt people who don't know about the truth of Jesus?" That is the type of religious education that can and does take place in some parts of America today (Bible belt, Deep South, Midwest). Their isn't any comparing, contrasting, debate, criticism, analysis or discussion going on. Logic is simply discarded whenever faith is allowed in through the cracks. That's why state-sanctioned religion of any stripe is generally viewed negatively in the Western world. It is also why many non-believers stay silent.

 

Despite you may have heard. freedom of is also freedom from...as in, I have the right to not believe since I have the right to believe whatever I want. Something like that, anyway.

 

My thought of the night: Do well-honed logic skills lead to doubt? That has weighed on my mind over the years. It is something that DH and I discuss frequently. He wants our children to be "in the faith, not of the world" and I'm on the side of "of the world, in the world, side of faith"....

[IsabelC]

 

My thought of the night: Do well-honed logic skills lead to doubt? 

 

I would hazard a guess that the answer is no.

 

Although there have been studies supposedly showing that religious people tend to be less intelligent, I'm not at all convinced of the quality or impartiality of this 'evidence'. There is also research showing that the higher your level of education, the less religious you are likely to be, but there are so many potential confounding factors and explanations that it is difficult to draw any certain conclusions.

 

IN addition, it has been established that when a person is having a religious/spiritual experience, the areas of the brain that 'light up' are different. This may imply that we go into a different 'gear' or mode of thinking when it comes to religion, hence we tend to be more competent at critical analysis of religions to which we do not have a personal commitment. Also, since religions tend to involve both faith and supernatural elements, they are not subjected to the same rules of logic that we might use in other aspects of life. 

[OneStepAtATime]

I have many, many friends that represent many religions, plus I have friends who are atheists.  I am a Christian.  We have discussions all the time and it is not an issue.  We respect that each other has a different viewpoint.  And exchanging ideas and beliefs is wonderful.  We have a lot of fun and have gained a greater understanding of each other and the world at large.  But we are not in a position of authority over each other.  

 

Where I went to high school, at the table I ate at were students from all over the world.  It was a fantastic experience and we exchanged ideas all the time.  I had classes where various religions were discussed from a historical and political and cultural perspective.  It was great.  I had no issues with various scientific viewpoints, including evolution, and welcomed all ideas that came to the table.  I wanted to LEARN.   I did not feel threatened in my beliefs and enjoyed learning about other religions, etc.  It opened my mind.

 

 But honestly I am grateful that NONE of my teachers tried to pressure me to believe a certain way or trashed my beliefs while espousing their own.  I would not have felt comfortable being pressured to believe a certain way by any authority figure in a position to influence my grades.  Would it have been interesting to have a teacher discuss their religious beliefs in a non-evangelizing way, just to exchange information?  Yes, especially when I hit high school.  Absolutely.  Would I have felt really uncomfortable if that teacher was telling students in her class that their own religious beliefs were the only way to believe, or she made strong statements of faith that also implied that the students were wrong to believe any differently?  Yes.  Because the teacher is in a position to harm me grade wise if I do not agree with her.  It is the same issue with any authority figure that is in a position to unfairly pressure you to do something you do not wish to do.  Even if they don't actually follow through, as a student, I would feel like I had been put in a very uncomfortable position.

 

And I do understand why many don't get religions that believe in a literal God.  My best friend is an atheist.  We understand and respect each other's right to believe differently and have no problems discussing those differences.  But she has no authority over anything in my life, so the situation is different.

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

 

For public schools, we need to respect the whole no official religion…but i do feel that there needs to be a lot more comparative religious education taught…ideally with books written by people who practice those faiths.

 

I am inclined to agree with this, but haven't managed to nail down exactly what ought to be taught. Common misconceptions might be a good way to do it.

 

No, Catholics don't worship saints.

No, Pagans are not Satanists. They are another bunch entirely.

No, those scary Muslim taxi drivers are not terrorists. They are taxi drivers. And they are not even Muslims, but Sikhs. 

Etc.

[albeto.]

I am inclined to agree with this, but haven't managed to nail down exactly what ought to be taught. Common misconceptions might be a good way to do it.

 

No, Catholics don't worship saints.

No, Pagans are not Satanists. They are another bunch entirely.

No, those scary Muslim taxi drivers are not terrorists. They are taxi drivers. And they are not even Muslims, but Sikhs. 

Etc.

 

Of what value is this in a secular education? Learning the religion of a culture as part of social studies makes sense. Learning catholics don't worship saints? Learning what paganism is? Why would a public education need to delve into this at all? This is for churches to teach their members, not a society to teach its children. 

[IsabelC]

I have to admit to being genuinely confounded at how very smart people can believe in a literal god.

 

When I tried to believe I was wracked with doubts. Even with a faith community praying for me, I could not make the gears of cognition come out in favour of god.

 

I don't hear god, see god, feel god. Nor does a literal god seem logical to me. God is a character in a book to me, no more real than any other character.

 

I can manage to understand god as metaphor and that's it.

 

It would be fascinating to find out what factors beyond the cultural accounts for the difference between those who believe and those who don't.

 

 

Well, as you probably know, there has been a lot of stuff published about 'the god gene' and religion as an evolutionary adaptation, so it's fairly probable that some people are simply born with more capacity for religious belief than others.

[Rosie_0801]

Of what value is this in a secular education? Learning the religion of a culture as part of social studies makes sense. Learning catholics don't worship saints? Learning what paganism is? Why would a public education need to delve into this at all? This is for churches to teach their members, not a society to teach its children. 

 

If anyone else was asking, I'd assume these were rhetorical questions.

 

What I said falls under the umbrella of social studies, so I don't know what your objection is on that score. You and I both live in multicultural societies so such points are relevant to the study of our own cultures. You also stand for the pursuit of truth, so why wouldn't you be glad if people were making fewer stupid remarks based on easily remedied inaccuracies? Part of education is about preparing us to get along with the rest of humanity, since we have to spend the rest of our life either with them or avoiding them and understanding a little bit about other people's religion saves a bit of angst. Nothing I suggested is in any way indoctrinating anyone in any religion and you are reading more into what I wrote than I put down on the screen. Why object to my suggestion of learning what paganism is when I didn't even say that? Why not spend a little time removing misconceptions that create fear and tension? It's not positive for society for people to be afraid of one another and it particularly irks me when there is no good reason.

 

 

Edit: Some of these misconceptions get people beaten up. There are some poor bloody Sikh taxi drivers out there who wouldn't have been beaten up if certain racist jerks knew they weren't Muslims. 

[Aelwydd]

I think the present climate sends kids the message that religion is not a topic that can/should be discussed in a civilized way. And I don't think that helps anybody.

Right. So if adults are unable to discuss differences in a reasonable manner, how do you expect children to do so? Children are a product of society, they are not separate from it. They take their cues from the adults.

 

So, before any such discussion may take place in public schools, the adults need to demonstrate such civility in their conversation in the public sphere. Religious discussions and debates in school only mimic the strident tones the students hear in the media, in politics, in church, and at home.

 

It is also unreasonable to maintain that a teacher's stated preference for a given religion would help to achieve a more open discourse among students. All that does is introduce an inequal power structure to the debate, as the teacher enjoys a certain amount of immunity to any challenge because of his or her authority.

[IsabelC]

Right. So if adults are unable to discuss differences in a reasonable manner, how do you expect children to do so? Children are a product of society, they are not separate from it. They take their cues from the adults.

 

So, before any such discussion may take place in public schools, the adults need to demonstrate such civility in their conversation in the public sphere. Religious discussions and debates in school only mimic the strident tones the students hear in the media, in politics, in church, and at home.

 

It is also unreasonable to maintain that a teacher's stated preference for a given religion would help to achieve a more open discourse among students. All that does is introduce an inequal power structure to the debate, as the teacher enjoys a certain amount of immunity to any challenge because of his or her authority.

 

Very true. It's always good for adults to lead by good example. 

 

But I do think that any intelligent, caring and sensitive teacher should have no problems with maintaining respect and equality without having to remain in the closet regarding her/his own religious beliefs.

[Aelwydd]

Very true. It's always good for adults to lead by good example.

 

But I do think that any intelligent, caring and sensitive teacher should have no problems with maintaining respect and equality without having to remain in the closet regarding her/his own religious beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by "in the closet." That sounds like self identification, which is a different animal from promotion or proselytization.

 

In high school, one of the most popular teachers was a known atheist. In small town North Carolina, that was quite novel. At the time, I was still an evangelical, conservative Christian. Though this teacher had a sort of notoriety due to his non-belief, he never talked about his views to us. I idolized that man to an embarrassing degree, because he was so intelligent, funny, and refreshingly irreverent.

 

I had other teachers who also self identified as varying degrees of Christian, but none ever advertised their faith or attempted to disseminate their beliefs. Frankly, I would have resented any such attempts, despite being Christian already. I already had people preaching to me on Sundays and Wednesday nights, and at home by my parents. The very last thing I needed was having to deal with teachers joining in the altar call.

 

School was my reprieve. I wouldn't have appreciated teachers trying to insert their personal religious beliefs when I'm there to learn algebra or discuss Shakespeare.

[umsami]

 

 

Edit: Some of these misconceptions get people beaten up. There are some poor bloody Sikh taxi drivers out there who wouldn't have been beaten up if certain racist jerks knew they weren't Muslims. 

 

Actually it just wasn't beaten up.  A Sikh man was killed.  It's also postulated that the Sikh temple shooting was a mistaken identity thing.  (Not that targeting Muslims would have been OK either.)