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

[umsami]

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. 

 

Extremely important value in such a religiously misinformed society…where people make assumptions about people of other faiths that are not grounded in fact.  Do you really think that churches are going teach about Hinduism, Islam, or even Catholicism…other than ways to convert them or to pray for those "poor lost souls" in the 10/40 window?  A secular non-proselytizing, non-blaming agenda is the only way to address such things.  

There are far too many Americans who believe that Hindus worship multiple Gods (they don't, all are aspects of one Absolute God, Brahman), or that Muslims are commanded to kill them, or a whole host of other things.  

[mytwomonkeys]

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 do like the idea of what you're saying. I think the keyword is exposure. My daughter attends public middle school and her World Cultures class does look at different religions, none of which are Christian. It doesn't bother me. I'm not concerned that it will convert my daughter. I think it has been really good for her! :) What would bother me is teaching religion out of context - or a teacher challenging my daughter that what she believes is wrong (or dumb).

[KarenNC]

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. 

 

You answered your own question: "Learning the religion of a culture as part of social studies makes sense."  That is precisely the value of this education (not indoctrination and not coercion, but actual education) in a secular education.

 

As to most of this, the problem I see is that there are too many people who can't/won't distinguish between education and abuse of power. The question is not about religious freedom for the person in power, it's about misuse of power by those in a position of power over someone else. It's not that the teacher (or government official or boss) follows x religion and a student I{_r citizen or employee) follows y or none. It's that the person in power follows x religion and, because that person has the ability to do so, requires the person subject to that power to participate as a worshiper in x religion as a condition of receiving benefit. It's that the person in power publicly degrades and penalizes the person subject to that power for not enthusiastically and adequately participating in worship practices for x religion, or for something the person in power believes about the person subject to that power as a member of y religion (whether that belief is true or not). It's that the person subject to the power is denied the opportunity to fully participate in and receive the same benefits from the given society (whether it's a public school classroom, town government meeting, job, etc) unless that person conforms at least outwardly to religion x *when the laws of that given society explicitly state no such conformation can be required in that setting*.

 

"Secular society" (at least as it is characterized in America) does not mean a society made up only of people who practice no religion and will never encounter anyone in any setting who does so anymore than "American society" means that American citizens speak only one language, are only one race/ethnicity, eat only one type of food, have one ability level, encounter only one type of climate, etc and will never encounter anyone outside of those parameters or have to take into account their experiences when setting public policy. If it did, then I might agree that there was no need to ever learn anything about any religion, just as I would never need to learn anything about other ecosystems if everyone in America lived the same type of climate I do or the challenges faced by someone who uses a wheelchair when I don't. Children and adults in our society, however, unless they go to extraordinary lengths to isolate themselves with only like-minded people, are going to encounter on a daily basis people who follow different religions, have different ways of behaving, etc, just as American public policy has to take into account the needs of the person who lives in the desert, the snow belt, mountains., coast, etc.  Learning factual information about people who may not be identical to me in some way and therefore may behave somewhat differently or have a different experience of our culture is exactly the point of social studies, so that the child or adult doesn't go around ascribing incorrect motivations or intents to their actions, such as believing Christians practice cannibalism, Jews steal and sacrifice Christian babies, Pagans worship Satan and are out to steal your children for ritual sacrifice, Catholics can't be president because they would follow the Pope rather than the Constitution, etc, just like it's beneficial to educate children about other incorrect stereotypes based on skin tone, country (or region) of origin, gender expression, ability status, etc.

 

I don't see a particular advantage to "secular" equalling "ignorant" in any sphere.

[Heather in Neverland]

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 understand what you are saying as it is the same here in Malaysia. Parents here want a good education for their kids and that is most often offered by religious schools (including the one where I work). So you will see kids of all different faiths attending each other's schools. We are a Christian school with lots of Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and a few Muslim kids as well. Lots of non-Muslim kids attend the local schools here which teach explicitly Muslim beliefs. It is really common.

 

However, one thing to keep in mind is power distance. Teachers are in a position of authority and what they say is often take as Truth by their students. Can there be a fair exchange of ideas between PEERS? Sure. But a fair exchange of ideas when one person has authority over the other? Not really...no matter how fair and impartial the teacher tries to be (and when that "other" is a "captive audience" as most kids in public school are...unlike kids in private schools whose parents choose that for them).

 

Now, thinking outside of the box...should the power distance even be a factor? What's the big deal if a student faces an authority figure with a different viewpoint? Well, then you have to think about the potential for abuse in those situations. But, in all fairness, any adult in a child's life has a lot of influence over them one way or another so I'm not sure we avoid it even with laws in place.

[Heather in Neverland]

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.

I agree Rosie... And not to "convert" kids but to avoid misinformation and prejudice. People think they "know" about other religions but what they do is spread rumors and lies (you know, like how no "smart" people really believe in God).

 

My dh is a Christian. He plays tennis with three Malay guys (Muslims) every week. Our neighbor who is Buddhist told my dh he shouldn't play tennis with the Malay guys because "they are Muslims and all Muslims are supposed to kill all Christians so you are not safe with them."

 

Um... What?

 

As my dad would say, people need to stop talking out of their a$$.

[Laurie4b]

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. 

 

Perhaps because part of the function of public education is to teach children the skills and knowledge they need to become the kind of citizens that will lead to a better society? What better place to dispel the kinds of misconceptions that kids have about other religions than the public school? Don't those misconceptions often lead to the kinds of attitudes and behavior that cause tension in a society?

 

Religious groups teach their own religious beliefs. They do not, in general, teach about misconceptions about other religious beliefs.

[poppy]

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.

 

I think that might work if all schools were very culturally diverse.  But they aren't, and there are big swaths of this country where there is a religious obligation to convert others to your belief by explaining the truth of the Scripture. 

 

I personally know a whole lot of people who are Christian who say the are delighted when their kids are exposed to other faiths.  But I very sincerely doubt many of them would move to a school where their child was in the minority in the midst of a very strong faith community. (Except perhaps a Jewish community, which is a special case: traditionally a strong emphasis on education, respect for diversity and a complete lack of interest in seeking converts.) 

 

The protection afforded to religious minorities is one of the greatest strengths of our culture. I think that is an incredibly important topic to teach, moreso than bemoaning limits put on teachers to talk about their own personal beliefs.

[MBM]

Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, who is a neuroscientist, researcher and psychiatrist with a background in philosophy (no lightweight in that subject), has an interesting viewpoint about science, morality and religion. The linked interview below (from 2004) explains his beliefs more thoroughly, but this response touches upon his thoughts about humans and morality.

 

DH  In your book Dear Patrick, you speak to “recovering our souls.†What do you mean by this?

 

JS  Just the sense that we are getting back to what we know is true about the distinction between right and wrong, between wholesome and unwholesome actions. We live in a culture that is relativistic and advocates that there is no such thing as moral truth. People have become disconnected from their inner sense that there is a moral reality. The elite secular culture of Western civilization, through the excessive pursuit of self-gratification, has lost contact with the basic truth that to live a happy life you have to have a core connectedness with moral truth. Does it take effort? You bet it takes effort. But we have this capacity for mindful awareness, for honest introspection, for asking ourselves, “Is what I’m doing here wholesome or unwholesome?†Without spending the effort to ask yourself that question, you can degenerate into living an animal life. One of my biggest problems with the way the materialist culture has gone is that it encourages people to view themselves as no different in principle than animals. It encourages people to follow physical pleasure as if that is some ultimate determinant of the difference between what makes life worthwhile and what makes it a burden. These messages have taken their toll, and young people are looking at their elders and saying, “You’ve given us a false set of values.†These false values are based on materialism. There’s been a lot of rebellion against that and a real return to spirituality among young people in the United States.

 

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=295

 

 

Here is a more recent interview from Discover magazine (November, 2013) in which he discusses how the way that he treats OCD using mindfulness led him to believe that humans do have free will.

 

The following link is not the full interview. In the full interview he also talks about how scientists do not get funding for their work if they claim to be religious (something to that effect, I don't have the magazine anymore so I can't quote exactly what he said). You can read about it in the actual issue.

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/nov/14-defense-free-will#.UvD-UKVtfJw

 

[albeto.]

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.

 

 

Extremely important value in such a religiously misinformed society…where people make assumptions about people of other faiths that are not grounded in fact.  Do you really think that churches are going teach about Hinduism, Islam, or even Catholicism…other than ways to convert them or to pray for those "poor lost souls" in the 10/40 window?  A secular non-proselytizing, non-blaming agenda is the only way to address such things.  

There are far too many Americans who believe that Hindus worship multiple Gods (they don't, all are aspects of one Absolute God, Brahman), or that Muslims are commanded to kill them, or a whole host of other things.

Perhaps because part of the function of public education is to teach children the skills and knowledge they need to become the kind of citizens that will lead to a better society? What better place to dispel the kinds of misconceptions that kids have about other religions than the public school? Don't those misconceptions often lead to the kinds of attitudes and behavior that cause tension in a society?

 

Religious groups teach their own religious beliefs. They do not, in general, teach about misconceptions about other religious beliefs.

 

You answered your own question: "Learning the religion of a culture as part of social studies makes sense."  That is precisely the value of this education (not indoctrination and not coercion, but actual education) in a secular education.

 

As to most of this, the problem I see is that there are too many people who can't/won't distinguish between education and abuse of power. The question is not about religious freedom for the person in power, it's about misuse of power by those in a position of power over someone else. It's not that the teacher (or government official or boss) follows x religion and a student I{_r citizen or employee) follows y or none. It's that the person in power follows x religion and, because that person has the ability to do so, requires the person subject to that power to participate as a worshiper in x religion as a condition of receiving benefit. It's that the person in power publicly degrades and penalizes the person subject to that power for not enthusiastically and adequately participating in worship practices for x religion, or for something the person in power believes about the person subject to that power as a member of y religion (whether that belief is true or not). It's that the person subject to the power is denied the opportunity to fully participate in and receive the same benefits from the given society (whether it's a public school classroom, town government meeting, job, etc) unless that person conforms at least outwardly to religion x *when the laws of that given society explicitly state no such conformation can be required in that setting*.

 

For the same reason we don't correct misconceptions about those who worshiped Zeus, or misconceptions about horoscopes, we don't [shouldn't] teach the rights and wrongs of various other superstitious beliefs in schools. Incorporating facts and events into social studies and into history is not the same as teaching about the religious beliefs. A teacher need not have a lesson on the misconceptions of the catholic faith to discuss the massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day and how 3,000 French prrotestants in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France were killed by angry catholic mobs, and how it marked the resumption of religious civil war in France. The civil war is the appropriate lesson here, and conversations about how mob mentality can swiftly form, or how people identify the enemy based on religious practices would be part of that lesson, but if you're suggesting lessons about what catholics believe and what they don't, what protestants believe and what they don't, what muslims believe and what they don't, or pagans, or satanists, or zoroastrians, or rastafarians, astrologists, numerologists, believers in elves and fairies, well that's a hell of a lot of class time devoted to superstitious teaching that simply isn't appropriate in a secular classroom.

 

"Secular society" (at least as it is characterized in America) does not mean a society made up only of people who practice no religion and will never encounter anyone in any setting who does so anymore than "American society" means that American citizens speak only one language, are only one race/ethnicity, eat only one type of food, have one ability level, encounter only one type of climate, etc and will never encounter anyone outside of those parameters or have to take into account their experiences when setting public policy. If it did, then I might agree that there was no need to ever learn anything about any religion, just as I would never need to learn anything about other ecosystems if everyone in America lived the same type of climate I do or the challenges faced by someone who uses a wheelchair when I don't. Children and adults in our society, however, unless they go to extraordinary lengths to isolate themselves with only like-minded people, are going to encounter on a daily basis people who follow different religions, have different ways of behaving, etc, just as American public policy has to take into account the needs of the person who lives in the desert, the snow belt, mountains., coast, etc.  Learning factual information about people who may not be identical to me in some way and therefore may behave somewhat differently or have a different experience of our culture is exactly the point of social studies, so that the child or adult doesn't go around ascribing incorrect motivations or intents to their actions, such as believing Christians practice cannibalism, Jews steal and sacrifice Christian babies, Pagans worship Satan and are out to steal your children for ritual sacrifice, Catholics can't be president because they would follow the Pope rather than the Constitution, etc, just like it's beneficial to educate children about other incorrect stereotypes based on skin tone, country (or region) of origin, gender expression, ability status, etc.

 

I don't see a particular advantage to "secular" equalling "ignorant" in any sphere.

 

Secular simply refers to being apart from religion. A secular government does not ally itself with or against any religion. A school provided by that government is expected to do the same. Ignorance is a straw man here because these concepts can be discussed as appropriate within class lessons. What I'm wondering about is of what value would it be to design lessons to introduce, correct, and explain various religious beliefs in a secular classroom. Why would a teacher dedicate lessons to what it means to be a catholic, or baptist, or methodist, or mormons, or jehova's witness, or any other of the hundreds of sects of christianity alone? A teacher would have to give equal time on lessons about what muslim religions teach, then lessons about what pagans believe, what mormons believe, what hindus believe. And where does it end? Which religions get left out? Who will give these lessons, the teacher or a certified religious instructor? A student need not sit through dozens, or even three hours of religious instruction to understand what a stereotype is, some examples of stereotypes (like jewish baby stealing), the historical roots of these stereotypes (history of antisemitism), and the need to separate fact from opinion, how to identify bias, how to confirm information as being true. 

[KarenNC]

For the same reason we don't correct misconceptions about those who worshiped Zeus, or misconceptions about horoscopes, we don't [shouldn't] teach the rights and wrongs of various other superstitious beliefs in schools. Incorporating facts and events into social studies and into history is not the same as teaching about the religious beliefs.

 

Actually, IMO, a truly good history or literature lesson, esp on a high school level, would indeed "correct misconceptions about those who worshiped Zeus" in order to give a more accurate understanding of the cultural context of societal structure and literature in ancient Greece. I'm not referring to the more detailed info on which city had which cult and the specific details of worship in the various ones, but certainly areas in which it differs from the standard understanding of what constitutes "religion" in our common society---polytheistic, no imitatio dei or assumption of omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence, no inerrant scripture equivalent, many areas modern society considers religion fell under philosophy instead, that people then were no less intelligent than now, it was considered within that culture with the same level of respect any modern religion is by its adherents (rather than "silly ignorant stories people made up and aren't we so superior and intelligent now"), and that the bulk of what we know about it comes from the equivalent of popular entertainment rather than any religious orthodoxy.

 

 

 

A teacher need not have a lesson on the misconceptions of the catholic faith to discuss the massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day and how 3,000 French prrotestants in Paris, and as many as 70,000 in all of France were killed by angry catholic mobs, and how it marked the resumption of religious civil war in France. The civil war is the appropriate lesson here, and conversations about how mob mentality can swiftly form, or how people identify the enemy based on religious practices would be part of that lesson, but if you're suggesting lessons about what catholics believe and what they don't, what protestants believe and what they don't, what muslims believe and what they don't, or pagans, or satanists, or zoroastrians, or rastafarians, astrologists, numerologists, believers in elves and fairies, well that's a hell of a lot of class time devoted to superstitious teaching that simply isn't appropriate in a secular classroom.

 

"....how people identify the enemy based on religious practices would be part of that lesson..."--and, again, there you have the relevance that posters are talking about in this thread. Teaching how people use misconceptions about religious practices/beliefs to foment civil unrest, persecution, disenfranchisement, etc (and, in the process, correcting that misinformation) is indeed one of the  prime reasons for education about religions. No one has suggested the schools should run the equivalent of confirmation class for every conceivable religion.

 

 Other reasons to allow a fuller understanding of history, historical underpinnings of current events, influences on literature/art/architecture, etc. "Call me Ishmael," for instance, will bring up a host of different associations for a Christian or Jew than for a Muslim, and a Hindu or Buddhist or atheist may miss that it's a religious reference altogether. Understanding that a) those differences exist, b ) what they are, and c) the likely intent of the author are all legitimate educational purposes for a public school. I'm not sure one can adequately talk about the effects of the Reformation on European society and political structure without entering into a discussion of "what Catholics believe and what they don't" vs "what Protestants believe and what they don't" in broad terms, the Crusades or current issues in the Middle East without discussions about "what Muslims believe and what they don't" and what Jews/Christians believe and what they don't, esp about the state of Israel and Jerusalem in particular. What evangelical Christians believe vs what more historically mainstream Christians believe shaped much of several periods of American history and politics and is critical today, what various sects believed forms the origin of many American colonies and states (Mormon, Quaker, Puritan, Catholic, etc) and have had a great influence on the formation of current laws, what Hindus vs Muslims believe is relevant to understanding issues in modern India and surrounding areas, etc. Leaving out the underpinnings of those events gives a very shallow understanding at best.

 

 

 

Secular simply refers to being apart from religion. A secular government does not ally itself with or against any religion. A school provided by that government is expected to do the same. Ignorance is a straw man here because these concepts can be discussed as appropriate within class lessons. What I'm wondering about is of what value would it be to design lessons to introduce, correct, and explain various religious beliefs in a secular classroom. Why would a teacher dedicate lessons to what it means to be a catholic, or baptist, or methodist, or mormons, or jehova's witness, or any other of the hundreds of sects of christianity alone? A teacher would have to give equal time on lessons about what muslim religions teach, then lessons about what pagans believe, what mormons believe, what hindus believe. And where does it end? Which religions get left out? Who will give these lessons, the teacher or a certified religious instructor? A student need not sit through dozens, or even three hours of religious instruction to understand what a stereotype is, some examples of stereotypes (like jewish baby stealing), the historical roots of these stereotypes (history of antisemitism), and the need to separate fact from opinion, how to identify bias, how to confirm information as being true.

There is a difference between what it appears you are discussing (that these topics would be part of all classes for all students and that the level of instruction would be very detailed) vs having these topics taught and discussed in the appropriate class lessons. I haven't seen anyone suggest that the algebra teacher needs to quiz math students on which saint is depicted in Catholic iconography with keys vs arrows, but that topic would be relevant to discuss in art history, for instance.  A world cultures class would be remiss not to include some level of instruction on what the major religious influences on those cultures are and, yes, basic information on what those religions teach. This becomes even more important in areas where students aren't likely to encounter many people different from themselves on any regular basis.

 

A school provided by the government should be expected not to require students to participate in religious worship activities for a specific religion, absolutely, but not pretend that religion has not had a profound impact on the history of humankind and still does today.

[Aelwydd]

Actually, IMO, a truly good history or literature lesson, esp on a high school level, would indeed "correct misconceptions about those who worshiped Zeus" in order to give a more accurate understanding of the cultural context of societal structure and literature in ancient Greece. I'm not referring to the more detailed info on which city had which cult and the specific details of worship in the various ones, but certainly areas in which it differs from the standard understanding of what constitutes "religion" in our common society---polytheistic, no imitatio dei or assumption of omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence, no inerrant scripture equivalent, many areas modern society considers religion fell under philosophy instead, that people then were no less intelligent than now, it was considered within that culture with the same level of respect any modern religion is by its adherents (rather than "silly ignorant stories people made up and aren't we so superior and intelligent now"), and that the bulk of what we know about it comes from the equivalent of popular entertainment rather than any religious orthodoxy.

 

 

 

 

"....how people identify the enemy based on religious practices would be part of that lesson..."--and, again, there you have the relevance that posters are talking about in this thread. Teaching how people use misconceptions about religious practices/beliefs to foment civil unrest, persecution, disenfranchisement, etc (and, in the process, correcting that misinformation) is indeed one of the prime reasons for education about religions. No one has suggested the schools should run the equivalent of confirmation class for every conceivable religion.

 

Other reasons to allow a fuller understanding of history, historical underpinnings of current events, influences on literature/art/architecture, etc. "Call me Ishmael," for instance, will bring up a host of different associations for a Christian or Jew than for a Muslim, and a Hindu or Buddhist or atheist may miss that it's a religious reference altogether. Understanding that a) those differences exist, b ) what they are, and c) the likely intent of the author are all legitimate educational purposes for a public school. I'm not sure one can adequately talk about the effects of the Reformation on European society and political structure without entering into a discussion of "what Catholics believe and what they don't" vs "what Protestants believe and what they don't" in broad terms, the Crusades or current issues in the Middle East without discussions about "what Muslims believe and what they don't" and what Jews/Christians believe and what they don't, esp about the state of Israel and Jerusalem in particular. What evangelical Christians believe vs what more historically mainstream Christians believe shaped much of several periods of American history and politics and is critical today, what various sects believed forms the origin of many American colonies and states (Mormon, Quaker, Puritan, Catholic, etc) and have had a great influence on the formation of current laws, what Hindus vs Muslims believe is relevant to understanding issues in modern India and surrounding areas, etc. Leaving out the underpinnings of those events gives a very shallow understanding at best.

 

 

 

There is a difference between what it appears you are discussing (that these topics would be part of all classes for all students and that the level of instruction would be very detailed) vs having these topics taught and discussed in the appropriate class lessons. I haven't seen anyone suggest that the algebra teacher needs to quiz math students on which saint is depicted in Catholic iconography with keys vs arrows, but that topic would be relevant to discuss in art history, for instance. A world cultures class would be remiss not to include some level of instruction on what the major religious influences on those cultures are and, yes, basic information on what those religions teach. This becomes even more important in areas where students aren't likely to encounter many people different from themselves on any regular basis.

 

A school provided by the government should be expected not to require students to participate in religious worship activities for a specific religion, absolutely, but not pretend that religion has not had a profound impact on the history of

humankind and still does today.

 

I don't think the OP was talking about religious history or a world religion class. The question she posed was why does a teacher need to present topics the touch upon religion neutrally. She is asking whether it is harmful for a teacher to openly promote or endorse whatever faith he or she happens hold to students in a public school room.

 

 

I think it is borrowing trouble for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how school officials would be able to monitor every class to ensure personal sharing did not turn into pressuring students to adopt a similar or sympathetic viewpoint.

[albeto.]

Actually, IMO, a truly good history or literature lesson, esp on a high school level, would indeed "correct misconceptions about those who worshiped Zeus" in order to give a more accurate understanding of the cultural context of societal structure and literature in ancient Greece.

Sure, but this doesn't translate to having religion classes in public schools so students learn what catholics really believe. In general, your comments don't speak of teaching religious beliefs but of teaching the culture, which includes pertinent religious beliefs. I agree with you for all the reasons you give, but none of this requires a comparative religions class for students. The suggestions in this thread predictably reflect the community in this thread - christian, muslim, pagan. If it was truly good for one's education to know about the various religious beliefs to which their global neighbors subscribe, schools would naturally include hinud beliefs as well. But why stop there? If the reasons are valid for teaching christianity, they are valid for teaching aladura; asatru; baha'i faith; bön; buddhism; candomble; cao dai; various chinese religions; whatever is taught through the chopra center; christian science; confucianism; eckankar; epicureanism; falun gong; greco-roman religions; hare krishna; jainism; judaism; kemetic reconstructionism; mayan religions; mithraism; mormonism; the Occult; new thought; rastafari; satanism; scientology; shinto; sikhism; stoicism; taoism; umbanda; unification church beliefs; unitarian universalism; vampirism; voodoo; wicca; worldwide church of god; zoroastrianism, just to name a few.

 

But I don't think that's really what's being argued here. I think what's being argued is people want kids to not promote violence against people based on religious beliefs. I think that's a fantastic idea and beneficial for all of us. This isn't done by teaching kids what various religious beliefs are through a public education. It's done through religious communities no longer targeting other religious communities as some kind of enemy, spiritual, or practical.

 

 

There is a difference between what it appears you are discussing (that these topics would be part of all classes for all students and that the level of instruction would be very detailed) vs having these topics taught and discussed in the appropriate class lessons.

That's not my position at all. I asked Rosie the value of teaching what various religious superstitions believe as a part of public education. I did not suggest religion should not be included, referred to, talked about, mentioned or anything of the sort.

 

Here is that exchange again:

 

 

 

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.

 

In other words, of what value is it to have a lesson (in history class?) about what catholics really believe to prepare for learning about the St. Bartholomew Massacre? How much is necessary? That they don't worship saints? That their theology regarding justification is arguably biblically and historically supported? What about the protestants? Would the class need to know what protestants really believe? Which protestants? The French at the time or the local protestant sects of the region? Is it necessary to get into the theology of justification as offered by Luther? Calvin? Zwingli? John Piper? Mark Driscoll? Of what value is this in preparing for the roots, event, and social and political consequences of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre in a public education paid for by the state, a secular government that allies itself with or against no religion? Does that make sense?

[Amy in NH]

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?

 

 

Yes, it should. 

[HRAAB]

I have wondered similar things, but someone once told me I'm a very literal person.  I never really realized that, but after thinking about it I realized it is true.  So I don't think I'm smarter, but perhaps more literal.  This is not to say I don't understand nuances, but I tend to line up nuances in an orderly fashion so they make sense to me rather than accept them as fuzzy.   I can't line up something like a deity into something neat and orderly in my mind so I don't think I'll ever be able to accept it as true. 

 

That is currently my new explanation and theory.  LOL 

 

My 16 yr old dd and I frequently discuss religion, beliefs, God.  Just the other day in the middle of a very deep discussion about God and religion, she looks at me and says, "You are soooo literal."  It's always been my biggest stumbling block with religion and all.  I've tried ignoring it, but it never goes away.

 

Anyway, I get what you're saying. 

[Desert Strawberry]

It's good to have a theory :) I'm not particularly literal.

 

I'm wary of explanations that posit a non-believer as 'lacking' - faith capacity, metaphorical thinking etc.

 

If there are scientific and not just cultural reasons for belief/disbelieve, labelling one party as the one who 'lacks' is a very slippery slope.

 

 

I don't have a theory, but my experience is relevant, I believe. I spent many years investigating different faiths, and different flavors of Christianity. I tried hard, but couldn't buy into any theistic teaching in a literal sense. 

I am now a committed Buddhist. I always did find Buddhism not only appealing, but also logical. I am deeply and truly faithful. 

Maybe this doesn't address the original question, but I don't find my disbelief in a literal deity to mean that I am incapable of faith. I don't think I am genetically programmed in either direction. I certainly don't think I am lacking spirituality because my belief varies from the majority.

[Ipsey]

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?

 

Yes, I think it should be.

I don't want to live in a country where the government endorses and promotes a religion. This goes double for government/schools trying to endorse religion for young people--for children. No, no. 

 

There are plenty of countries where the government endorses and promotes a specific religion. I'd rather the US not be one.

[OneStepAtATime]

I have wondered similar things, but someone once told me I'm a very literal person.  I never really realized that, but after thinking about it I realized it is true.  So I don't think I'm smarter, but perhaps more literal.  This is not to say I don't understand nuances, but I tend to line up nuances in an orderly fashion so they make sense to me rather than accept them as fuzzy.   I can't line up something like a deity into something neat and orderly in my mind so I don't think I'll ever be able to accept it as true. 

 

That is currently my new explanation and theory.  LOL 

I tend to be pretty literal as well.  Love this observation, Sparkly U.

 

I do have a faith, but I am also someone who realizes I will never have every answer and no one else will either.  I am not stuck enough in my own beliefs to go spouting off that only my way is the right way.  Only I know what really happened to create life.  Seriously, I am one small human in a vast. largely unexplored universe.  I cannot assume that I "know" anything.  I have theories.  I question things all the time, without fear.  Religions and the scientific community are constantly seeking answers and adjusting theories and practices.  I think most individuals do, too, as they live out their lives.  And I celebrate that.  Do I agree with every theory and belief espoused within my church?  Nope.  But I enjoy the debate.  Do I agree with everything espoused in the scientific community?  Nope.  People are arguing theories all the time.  But again, I enjoy the debate and the exchange of knowledge and the growth of our knowledge base as we progress through the centuries.  And I love that so many ideas and beliefs and cultures have sprung up over those centuries.  It fascinates me.  We are discovering new things all the time.  And it is amazing...

[SKL]

I think the number of people who are actually fairly open-minded is much larger than it appears.  And that the actual number of true a$$holes in power is not large enough to justify a general policy of censorship.  But we'll never know, will we?

 

I see a lot of assumptions about other people's closed-mindedness / intentions, but they are assumptions.

[HRAAB]

I thought this was about the 1st amendment not censorship?  Are you trying to imply religion is censored in the US?

[OneStepAtATime]

I wish religion were censored.  I mean no that's a terrible thought.  LOL

 

Anyone want to drop a hint to my husband that I want the bouquet of unicorns from Thinkgeek?

Well, yeah, from my perspective, censorship is really a terribly dangerous 2 edged sword.  People can sometimes be really strong on censorship if it is to censor someone else's belief or theory or idea that is not in line with their own.  But what if the other person feels equally strongly about censoring that person's ideas/beliefs/theories, too?  Yep, not the way I would go.  I LIKE hearing other opinions and views and theories.  So from my perspective censorship doesn't make any sense.  

 

But there have been times when duct tape across the mouth of an especially mouthy know it all, even if they have similar ideas to mine, seems like it really should be considered a public service instead of assault.  KWIM?  :)

 

As for that bouquet, absolutely, I'll drop the hint.  Does he take hints?  I must have left dozens of hints for my dear DH that I wanted all the Planet of the Apes movies (old version) for my birthday, then for Christmas, then my birthday again.  Never got them.  Even when I finally gave up and pointed out the box set on sale to him at Best Buy and said, quite clearly, "Boy, it sure would be great to have these!  I loved these movies!"  Nothing...Decided I would just buy them for myself when Mom finally bought them for me.  :)  I love my mom.   :001_wub:   Well, DH, too.  :)

[OneStepAtATime]

stupid double post, I censor you! 

 

[Catwoman]

Anyone want to drop a hint to my husband that I want the bouquet of unicorns from Thinkgeek?

You know I had to click right over to Thinkgeek to see it, right?

 

It's so cute!!! I hope he gets it for you!

[Ipsey]

I think the number of people who are actually fairly open-minded is much larger than it appears.  And that the actual number of true a$$holes in power is not large enough to justify a general policy of censorship.  But we'll never know, will we?

 

I see a lot of assumptions about other people's closed-mindedness / intentions, but they are assumptions.

 

 I'm sure most religious people wouldn't be jerks about their religion. But, as you can see, even with today's interpretation of Church/State separation, we do have very unpleasant things happening to children at the hands of some overbearing religious people in authority in schools. It's a minority, yes. A vast minority. I think this would change if we no longer had our blanket interpretation that we do now.

 

If it is about censorship (and I think it's a darned poor use of the term)--it's censoring things that don't belong in public school. Not all things belong in public school. Religious indoctrination is not the government's job. My kids are in public school now, but if the law's interpretations were changed so that religion could be promoted in schools, I'd pull them out in a heart-beat.

 

If I want them to sit under someone intent on teaching their religion, I'll send them to a place of religious instruction. It shouldn't be confused with public schooling.

[OneStepAtATime]

If it is about censorship (and I think it's a darned poor use of the term)--it's censoring things that don't belong in public school. Not all things belong in public school. Religious indoctrination is not the government's job. My kids are in public school now, but if the law's interpretations were changed so that religion could be promoted in schools, I'd pull them out in a heart-beat.

 

If I want them to sit under someone intent on teaching their religion, I'll send them to a place of religious instruction. It shouldn't be confused with public schooling.

Yes.  Censorship in public school (and I agree, that is not really a very good term for this, but not sure what else fits) is not the same as censorship in general, in my view.  Public school is a very special circumstance.  I think my upthread post made it pretty clear how I feel about pressure from a teacher over a student regarding personal beliefs.  What happened in that classroom was just wrong and I would not be happy if laws changed that allowed that to become more common place, even if the goal was to open up a better, more informed dialog among students and teachers.

[OneStepAtATime]

I like hearing other opinions too, but there is a time and a place for it.  And in my experience, it's not often an offering of a viewpoint.  It's an attempt to belittle my viewpoint, recruit me, or I dunno be self centered. 

 

Duct tape!  I am telling you, it IS a public service!  

 

 

He does not take hints.  You have to hit him with the thing and say BUY THIS FOR SPARKLY BECAUSE SHE WOULD LOVE IT!!!  :laugh:

 

Well then, best wishes.  Truly!  'Cause it is CUTE.

 

[Momling]

I used to teach public middle school and we absolutely taught about Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Ancient Civilizations social studies classes.   It was definitely a non-issue. The kids learned about the history and traditions of each of those religions. It was approached from an academic perspective and it really wasn't a big deal.

 

[albeto.]

I think the number of people who are actually fairly open-minded is much larger than it appears.  And that the actual number of true a$$holes in power is not large enough to justify a general policy of censorship.  But we'll never know, will we?

 

I see a lot of assumptions about other people's closed-mindedness / intentions, but they are assumptions.

Generally speaking, public policy isn't motivated by people being asses, but motivated by protecting the interests of the people. I have no idea what you're talking about, but would love to know.

[Catwoman]

I just brought up the unicorn bouquet.  I said hey hun, did you see that really cute unicorn bouquet in the ThinkGeek flier?!  So cute!!!!  He said, "Yeah did you see those Star Trek Pjs".  Hmmm maybe he wants Star Trek pjs..... :huh:

 

Oh dear.  :ohmy:

[zoobie]

I just brought up the unicorn bouquet. I said hey hun, did you see that really cute unicorn bouquet in the ThinkGeek flier?! So cute!!!! He said, "Yeah did you see those Star Trek Pjs". Hmmm maybe he wants Star Trek pjs..... :huh:

Maybe he wants you to wear the Star Trek PJs. ;)

 

Order both. You'll both be happy!

[OneStepAtATime]

Maybe he wants you to wear the Star Trek PJs. ;)

 

Order both. You'll both be happy!

:lol:

[IsabelC]

Star Trek PJs link please?

[KarenNC]

 

 

  If it was truly good for one's education to know about the various religious beliefs to which their global neighbors subscribe, schools would naturally include hinud beliefs as well. But why stop there? If the reasons are valid for teaching christianity, they are valid for teaching aladura; asatru; baha'i faith; bön; buddhism; candomble; cao dai; various chinese religions; whatever is taught through the chopra center; christian science; confucianism; eckankar; epicureanism; falun gong; greco-roman religions; hare krishna; jainism; judaism; kemetic reconstructionism; mayan religions; mithraism; mormonism; the Occult; new thought; rastafari; satanism; scientology; shinto; sikhism; stoicism; taoism; umbanda; unification church beliefs; unitarian universalism; vampirism; voodoo; wicca; worldwide church of god; zoroastrianism, just to name a few.

 

I will say that I believe there are a great many things that I consider "truly good for one's education" that aren't taught at all in at least our local public schools, much less taught in exhaustive depth. ;)

 

That would be a fabulous religious studies class to have available at the middle or high school level, IMO, as an elective. Maybe we could call it ''religious appreciation." :001_smile:   I think it *is* truly good for one's education to know about comparative religion (and to see that there are and have been both positive and negative uses of *all* religions), and would have jumped on it myself, had such been available. I'm all for including as many different religions as possible, but, just as we teach world history though we can't possibly cover every event in every culture, and find it possible to study literature without reading every book written even in a single year much less every book written in every language, it would be entirely reasonable to study as many religions as possible in a given time frame (probably in descending order of number of adherents) then encourage students to do projects and research on any others that were of particular personal interest. 

 

We have decided as a society that it is desirable that all students have some baseline knowledge of various topics (basic "literacy") such as math, science, history, etc, whether or not they will ever "practice" them in any depth. We acknowledge that there may be value in learning about something we may not be inclined to participate in ourselves (such as music appreciation rather than required band for every student, or art appreciation rather than required painting classes for all). I personally would include basic religious literacy in that. I don't see it as inherently less valuable than music appreciation, art appreciation, band, chorus, multicultural studies, biblical literacy, or creative writing, which are all electives in high school here, and all tell us something about the world in which we live and the people in from different perspectives. That would be one of the reasons I homeschool, so that I can include what I consider is "truly good for ...education."

 

The American Academy of Religions has published some interesting guidelines for methods of teaching religious studies in a non-devotional way.  https://www.aarweb.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Publications/epublications/AARK-12CurriculumGuidelines.pdf

 

For an atheist perspective on the value of religious studies in schools---http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/9/28/why-we-should-teach-religion-to-children# 

[IsabelC]

Some of those atheists commenting seem to be needlessly aggressive as well as ignorant. Surely there is a viable middle path between trying to convert the class to Christianity and teaching kids that all religions are equally stupid? (and why do they always have to bring up the faeries at the bottom of the garden? What's wrong with faeries, in the garden or elsewhere?) 

 

Now, what about an elective on Star Trek religions, from the Bajoran prophecies to the Ferengi's belief in the afterlife of the Divine Treasury. Appreciation only, no mind melding required.

[Ipsey]

Some of those atheists commenting seem to be needlessly aggressive as well as ignorant. Surely there is a viable middle path between trying to convert the class to Christianity and teaching kids that all religions are equally stupid? (and why do they always have to bring up the faeries at the bottom of the garden? What's wrong with faeries, in the garden or elsewhere?) 

 

Now, what about an elective on Star Trek religions, from the Bajoran prophecies to the Ferengi's belief in the afterlife of the Divine Treasury. Appreciation only, no mind melding required.

 

Nothing wrong with fairies. I mean, so long as we realize there's no proof for their existence and that we don't have to perform sacrifices to them, and don't believe they're stealing our babies (once believed!), or things like that. So long as we realize they're a human construct, so what? The same can't be said for our belief in deities which has proved quite damaging throughout history.

 

The point of fairies is to help religious people understand the perspective of the non-religious. It's a standard "meme."  I think Douglas Adams probably said it best/first--just in case you aren't familiar with the quote, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it, too." 

 

I don't think we need to teach all religions are bad, just like we shouldn't teach that they're all good, and that public schools d*&n sure shouldn't teach they're at all real. (And, honestly, I don't think we really should be teaching fairies at all. Where will it stop? Daleks? Think of the children! :D)

 

As I've said before, I think a comparative religions class or teaching religions in context of how their influence works in our world (though history and into the present) is a reasonable thing. To conflate this with evangelism of any religion or teachers being able to actively promote/endorse religion in the classroom is another.  

 

The distinction should be clear, and if it can not be, we should err on the side of non-influence in religion all together by the government and in public schools.  

[OneStepAtATime]

 

I don't think we need to teach all religions are bad, just like we shouldn't teach that they're all good, and that public schools d*&n sure shouldn't teach they're at all real. 

I'm a little confuse.  Not trying to be snarky.  I want to understand your reference here.  What do you mean that religions aren't real?  Religions are real. You may not agree with what people who practice a particular faith believe, but the religion itself is very real.  

 

And religions have driven a lot of history, for good and bad.

 

Should public schools teach about religion in anything other than a historical and social context and economic context?  I don't think they should...at all.  And no teacher should be pushing their own religious beliefs onto their students or allowed to significantly alter curriculum to suit their own personal religious viewpoint.  If they want to do that, they should teach at a private religiously based school, not  a public school.  But religion has existed for centuries and was the driving force for many, many events throughout time.  I don't see how you can have a well-rounded education without including some sort of reference to religion, IMHO.

 

But if you are saying that no teacher should be teaching that a particular faith is based on concrete facts and evidence, I agree.  If they want to do that, again, they should be teaching in another venue, not the public school system.

[Library Momma]

I used to teach public middle school and we absolutely taught about Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Ancient Civilizations social studies classes.   It was definitely a non-issue. The kids learned about the history and traditions of each of those religions. It was approached from an academic perspective and it really wasn't a big deal.

 

My 6th grade DD is in the midst of a similar class right now.  Definitely not a big deal.  Of course this is a part of the country where I've never had anyone ask me what church I belong to.  

[Ipsey]

I'm a little confuse.  Not trying to be snarky.  I want to understand your reference here.  What do you mean that religions aren't real?  Religions are real. You may not agree with what people who practice a particular faith believe, but the religion itself is very real.  

 

And religions have driven a lot of history, for good and bad.

 

Should public schools teach about religion in anything other than a historical and social context and economic context?  I don't think they should...at all.  And no teacher should be pushing their own religious beliefs onto their students or allowed to significantly alter curriculum to suit their own personal religious viewpoint.  If they want to do that, they should teach at a private religiously based school, not  a public school.  But religion has existed for centuries and was the driving force for many, many events throughout time.  I don't see how you can have a well-rounded education without including some sort of reference to religion, IMHO.

 

But if you are saying that no teacher should be teaching that a particular faith is based on concrete facts and evidence, I agree.  If they want to do that, again, they should be teaching in another venue, not the public school system.

 

Sorry, it was a poor choice of words.

I am not an idiot--though I often come across as one. I understand that religion is real. I'm well aware of at least 8 world religions, including the fact that there are over 200 Christian denomination, and that there are surely others I don't know about.

I should have said "true." Churches should not be teaching that the precepts of these religions are true.

 

Sorry.

[albeto.]

Some of those atheists commenting seem to be needlessly aggressive as well as ignorant. Surely there is a viable middle path between trying to convert the class to Christianity and teaching kids that all religions are equally stupid? (and why do they always have to bring up the faeries at the bottom of the garden? What's wrong with faeries, in the garden or elsewhere?) 

 

Now, what about an elective on Star Trek religions, from the Bajoran prophecies to the Ferengi's belief in the afterlife of the Divine Treasury. Appreciation only, no mind melding required.

 

Which atheists commenting where? Do you mean on this thread? Do I come across as aggressive as well as ignorant? I don't mind if that's what you think, I just wonder if I'm reading a veiled hint in my direction because I'd be happy to address it if so. If not, I'd like to know where so I can see what aggressive as well as ignorant looks like.

 

Anyway, of course there is a plethora of responses one can give with regard to teaching religion in class. As some posters have already mentioned, bringing up religious practices and celebrations, both private and public, in the course of social studies and history are a part of a comprehensive education. One cannot really study history without some familiarity to the culture of the area, and religion is an enormous component of most cultures, certainly in the past it was a major influence and publicly so. That's not the same as creating lessons to teach what religions believe, though, and that's what I'm addressing. Only that part. But again, I don't know if your comment reflects my participation because "some of those atheists commenting" is vague and I am "one of those atheists" commenting here. 

 

By the way, the reason we bring up faeries at the bottom of the garden is because that too was a widely held belief throughout European countries and their subsequent colonies. It was accepted as true without the benefit of evidence simply because this was the belief people grew up in. When "everyone" knows something is true, people tend to not question it so much. Religion can only survive when people don't question it too much, but there are great detrimental consequences to this. As Bill Nye explained in his debate against Ken Ham yesterday, the state of Kansas offers not a single opportunity for a student to get an education in the kind of atomic sciences that address heart health, the kinds of methods that have replaced open heart exploratory surgery. Nothing. The state's educational system is sorely lacking in scientific education and discovery and this affects everyone in the state. If the nation continues in this trajectory, this will continue to affect all of us. We simply cannot compete on a global scale with populations who are learned while we focus instead on old fashioned religious beliefs, on faeries at the bottom of the garden. The time is long overdue to look and see what actually does exist at the bottom of that garden, and relegate faeries to the mythological stories for which they can be embraced and loved, but not as explanations of how seeds grow. 

[SKL]

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that teachers "should" teach their religious beliefs to their classes.  I was suggesting that they should be allowed to talk like normal people talk to normal people.  So for example a person might say, "Thankfully I barely avoided sliding into the ditch.  God was watching out for me."  You might not believe God was watching out for her, but presumably most people of any belief system would not find that offensive or pushy or in any way dangerous.  Another example:  if there was a big scare at school and the teacher just naturally said, "pray!"

 

Usually when I hear of a fuss over religious speech by teachers in schools, it's stuff people just naturally say as part of their everyday lives.  I don't think we do anyone any favors by "protecting" kids from hearing such things.  I think kids need to learn how to hear stuff they don't agree with and deal with it in a reasonable way.  Teachers should not be walking on eggshells, worrying about some kid running home and whining to his parents about being told "God bless you."

 

I am not in favor of schools teaching religion classes the way churches do, or grading / rewarding / punishing kids based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.  But allowing the teachers to be themselves spiritually in the classroom?  Sure.  Some of them might need training on where to draw the line (let's stay away from hellfire & damnation / stick with "I" vs. "you"), but 1st Amendment training is necessary regardless.

[Joanne]

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that teachers "should" teach their religious beliefs to their classes.  I was suggesting that they should be allowed to talk like normal people talk to normal people.  So for example a person might say, "Thankfully I barely avoided sliding into the ditch.  God was watching out for me."  You might not believe God was watching out for her, but presumably most people of any belief system would not find that offensive or pushy or in any way dangerous.  Another example:  if there was a big scare at school and the teacher just naturally said, "pray!"

 

 

The teacher/student relationship is not equal, casual, or peer-based. It is not "normal" or casual discourse.

[SKL]

In casual homeschool conversation I hear the 'God was looking out for me.' all the time.

 

I nod and smile and inside I'm actually quite mad.

 

One lady told me how God spared her house in the latest bush fires. 'God is so good!'

 

And I'm thinking, lady, if he's so good, why did he let the other 200 houses in the same suburb burn ?

 

Many people who believe in God ask the same question (the bolded).

 

That said, I think you illustrate why kids need to hear stuff and learn to deal with it.  Getting angry about differences that hurt nobody is not best for the individual nor the community.

 

There are people who have a similar reaction to hearing that the guy next to them is gay or (more so in the past) that people from two different races are dating.  Schools have initiatives to address racism, homophobia, etc. because these are not good things.  The fact that person A doesn't like hearing/seeing certain things does not trump what's best in the long run for the whole community.  But if it's a difference about religion, the reaction is different.  "It doesn't belong in school!"  It isn't logical.

 

[Χά�ων]

Many people who believe in God ask the same question (the bolded).

 

That said, I think you illustrate why kids need to hear stuff and learn to deal with it.  Getting angry about differences that hurt nobody is not best for the individual nor the community.

 

 

They need to be guided through the process. This is NOT the same and being put in a situation where the authority over them is saying these things and the situation is set up in such a way where questioning or disagreeing is viewed as disruptive and disrespectful. 

[Amy in NH]

Some of those atheists commenting seem to be needlessly aggressive as well as ignorant. Surely there is a viable middle path between trying to convert the class to Christianity and teaching kids that all religions are equally stupid? (and why do they always have to bring up the faeries at the bottom of the garden? What's wrong with faeries, in the garden or elsewhere?) 

 

Now, what about an elective on Star Trek religions, from the Bajoran prophecies to the Ferengi's belief in the afterlife of the Divine Treasury. Appreciation only, no mind melding required.

 

I'm agnostic, and we know that it wouldn't come across the way you are suggesting at very many public schools in America.  I'm all for a course on Comparative Religion in middle or high school, but not for some teacher in a power relationship over a child to have latitude to proselytize in the classroom. 

[Joanne]

Many people who believe in God ask the same question (the bolded).

 

That said, I think you illustrate why kids need to hear stuff and learn to deal with it.  Getting angry about differences that hurt nobody is not best for the individual nor the community.

 

There are people who have a similar reaction to hearing that the guy next to them is gay or (more so in the past) that people from two different races are dating.  Schools have initiatives to address racism, homophobia, etc. because these are not good things.  The fact that person A doesn't like hearing/seeing certain things does not trump what's best in the long run for the whole community.  But if it's a difference about religion, the reaction is different.  "It doesn't belong in school!"  It isn't logical.

 

 

I'm sorry, but your perspective on this isn't logical or in line with the role and function of public education. Your "getting angry about differences that hurt nobody is not best for the individual nor the community" is a red herring.

 

It's not about not wanting to hear things or learning to deal with a variety of circumstances. It's that state sanctioned religion does not belong in public education because of US culture, tradition, laws and basic psychology.

 

Your assumptions and the leaps you make in this discussion are odd. The fact that teachers should refrain from infering a state sanctioned religion does not have a linear, follow the dots connection to children not being exposed to a variety of faiths, worldviews, and philosophies of life and learning to deal appropriately with the diversity reflected in our culture.

 

It's a false dichotomy.

[IsabelC]

Which atheists commenting where? Do you mean on this thread? Do I come across as aggressive as well as ignorant? I don't mind if that's what you think, I just wonder if I'm reading a veiled hint in my direction because I'd be happy to address it if so. If not, I'd like to know where so I can see what aggressive as well as ignorant looks like.

 

 

 

No! I was talking about some of the comments at the bottom of the article somebody linked to, not anything that you (or any other members) have posted here.