Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My son's public high school taught a course in religion, a course in communism and a number of other electives. They were taught as any other historical course, be it in the Civil War or the Great Depression.
The history of religion is a much different subject than the course I envision when someone talks about teaching comparative religion. I assume that such a course would focus on the differences in the belief systems rather than the historical activities of the proponents of those religions. Maybe this is not the same assumption that other participants in this discussion are using?
I have to admit, I didn't read the entire article. However, I read enough to ask a quite simple question. Given the topic discussed, and the prevelance of information available online, why, at the High School level or higher, is a text book even needed to study the topic? Granted, subjects like higher math would indeed be difficult to teach in the absence of a text. This is not, however such a subject, I believe it would be a wonderful opportunity for a course that is modeled, but not exactly like, a college level course. In this model, the instructor could pose a simple question, and expect the students to research for and write a paper answering the question. In my experience this type of instruction at the high school level is far more benificial than simply reading a text, listening to lectures and memorizing facts.Sorry about that. Try this one:As I, and I would dare say most members, am not a subcriber to the linked news outlet, I cannot comment on the article in question. If you would like me to comment on the article, I would suggest finding it on another site.High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion. That way we could possibly see the average high school student graduate with an ability to read and write coherently and a reasonable grasp of basic mathematics e.g. algebra and basic geometry. That would be an enormous improvement over what we have today.
To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.Oh yes, on paper it looks like the public school curriculum covers all of the core subjects and secondary subjects well and teacher workloads are managed beautifully. I view public education as a complete mess with teachers grappling with violent or inattentive students, low pay, Federally mandated common core requirements, administrations that pay themselves bonuses and lay off teachers etc, etc.
If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:
Mexican American textbook incites controversy
Proposed Mex-Am Studies Text: Chicanos Want to 'Destroy' Society
Given the topic discussed, and the prevelance of information available online, why, at the High School level or higher, is a text book even needed to study the topic?
The history of religion is a much different subject than the course I envision when someone talks about teaching comparative religion. I assume that such a course would focus on the differences in the belief systems rather than the historical activities of the proponents of those religions. Maybe this is not the same assumption that other participants in this discussion are using?
Well, a good first step would be to stop envisioning what it means from your own POV and just reading what the course descriptions are for such classes. I provided links to several school's course catalogs. Did you click on them?
Blue:
That would among the things taught, but there's a huge difference in approach between dispassionately teaching students the structure and tenets of a religion's belief system and teaching students to accept the verity of the belief system taught. One major difference, the latter consists of teaching just one belief system whereas the former teaches multiple ones. It's all but impossible to indoctrinate students when "this week" the teacher is talking about Judaism, "next week" s/he covers Zoroastrianism, followed by Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, etc. in subsequent class sessions.
So, of course the similarities and differences in the belief systems will be noted, discussed, compared and contrasted. In expecting so, however, nobody's suggesting the course should explore or conclude on which points of faith held by any given belief system makes sense, is right/wrong, etc.
- Do you honestly not think it'd be relevant in a comparative religion class to tell students, for instance, that Jews don't think the Messiah has come yet, so they're still waiting on him to show up, whereas that Christians think the Messiah has come, gone, and is supposed to visit one more time?
- Is it not relevant in comparing Islam with Judeo-Christian (J-C) religion to point out that Islam says that it's scripture was dictated by God, Allah, to a bedouin named Mohammed whereas the J-C traditions assert that some of their scripture is dictated by God and other parts of it were written by folks in much the same way you or I would compose diary entries?
- Would it not make sense in contrasting Ancient Greek religion with Christianity to explore the nature of the deities in each belief system, noting, among other things, that the starkly contrasting concept of their respective deities insofar as in Greek deities one sees the full spectrum of human emotion, thus their pantheon of gods constitute a reflection of humanity (or vice versa), whereas in J-C thinking, in the deity is found all the characteristics of humanity, but also the traits to which humans aspire but that, in the main they, as individuals, rarely achieve? Might not that distinction be relevant in understanding how adherents of either belief system view themselves in the world?
Out of curiosity, have you ever studied religion outside of a dogmatically focused learning environment?
Edit:
I suggest you read this -- Pearson Prentice Hall: eTeach: Teaching About Religion in World History . Perhaps after doing so, you'll realize that the academic community is indeed aware of the challenges of teaching religion and that you aren't introducing ideas that have not crossed folks' minds.
Dress codes are a good thing, though.Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.
The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.
If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.Dress codes are a good thing, though.Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.
The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.
Pfft. Kids don't need to be "individuals" when it comes to their school dress. They don't need extra diversions, and maintaining that individuality for capricious tweens is a waste of time and energy.If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.Dress codes are a good thing, though.Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.
The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.
Sorry, I grew up in the era of communism where school uniforms were issued for the sole purpose of removing individuality.Pfft. Kids don't need to be "individuals" when it comes to their school dress. They don't need extra diversions, and maintaining that individuality for capricious tweens is a waste of time and energy.If your talking kids must wear pants, shirts and shoes yes. If your talking uniforms, no. Uniforms are nothing but an assault upon individualism based upon a perceived threat the government refuses to address and actually help create.Dress codes are a good thing, though.Going to shock some people, but the short answer is no.
The long answer is society today has too many whiners and too many people in leadership positions who are spineless enablers of the whiners. Religion should be allowed within schools openly by students and taught at home. If a student wears a I love Buddha t shirt, so be it. If a student wants to have a prayer club, so be it. Religion must now be taught in the home and the church. I don't need an athiest moonbat trying to teach religion.
Jackets, skirts, slacks, mid thigh shorts and sturdy shoes. That's all they need for school.
The history of religion is a much different subject than the course I envision when someone talks about teaching comparative religion. I assume that such a course would focus on the differences in the belief systems rather than the historical activities of the proponents of those religions. Maybe this is not the same assumption that other participants in this discussion are using?
Well, a good first step would be to stop envisioning what it means from your own POV and just reading what the course descriptions are for such classes. I provided links to several school's course catalogs. Did you click on them?
Blue:
That would among the things taught, but there's a huge difference in approach between dispassionately teaching students the structure and tenets of a religion's belief system and teaching students to accept the verity of the belief system taught. One major difference, the latter consists of teaching just one belief system whereas the former teaches multiple ones. It's all but impossible to indoctrinate students when "this week" the teacher is talking about Judaism, "next week" s/he covers Zoroastrianism, followed by Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, etc. in subsequent class sessions.
So, of course the similarities and differences in the belief systems will be noted, discussed, compared and contrasted. In expecting so, however, nobody's suggesting the course should explore or conclude on which points of faith held by any given belief system makes sense, is right/wrong, etc.
- Do you honestly not think it'd be relevant in a comparative religion class to tell students, for instance, that Jews don't think the Messiah has come yet, so they're still waiting on him to show up, whereas that Christians think the Messiah has come, gone, and is supposed to visit one more time?
- Is it not relevant in comparing Islam with Judeo-Christian (J-C) religion to point out that Islam says that it's scripture was dictated by God, Allah, to a bedouin named Mohammed whereas the J-C traditions assert that some of their scripture is dictated by God and other parts of it were written by folks in much the same way you or I would compose diary entries?
- Would it not make sense in contrasting Ancient Greek religion with Christianity to explore the nature of the deities in each belief system, noting, among other things, that the starkly contrasting concept of their respective deities insofar as in Greek deities one sees the full spectrum of human emotion, thus their pantheon of gods constitute a reflection of humanity (or vice versa), whereas in J-C thinking, in the deity is found all the characteristics of humanity, but also the traits to which humans aspire but that, in the main they, as individuals, rarely achieve? Might not that distinction be relevant in understanding how adherents of either belief system view themselves in the world?
Out of curiosity, have you ever studied religion outside of a dogmatically focused learning environment?
Edit:
I suggest you read this -- Pearson Prentice Hall: eTeach: Teaching About Religion in World History . Perhaps after doing so, you'll realize that the academic community is indeed aware of the challenges of teaching religion and that you aren't introducing ideas that have not crossed folks' minds.
I don't understand why you're addressing the highlighted question above and the ones that follow to me. Those ideas are exactly what I was suggesting should be taught as opposed to such things as the Crusades and the Muslim conquest of Spain which you might expect to find in a history course.
I never claimed to be introducing new ideas but the challenges in the Prentice Hall article are the kind of things I was envisioning. The statement in the article "The likelihood that a credentialed high-school teacher possesses broad and detailed knowledge of world religions is slight" is one of the things I have mentioned multiple times and that you seem inclined to argue with.
The article does not address the problems presented by members of a local school board who are so-called "Chrisitian conservatives" and think that teaching Creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution is a good idea. This problem is the core reason for my concern about the implementation of this proposal.
I have never studied religion in a dogmatically focused learning environment. Where in the world did you get that idea?
My question is whether it has been done WELL and whether or not it could be done well on a larger scale. Teaching a comparative religion course that just serves to enforce existing prejudices would do more harm than good
I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country.
Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result.
the implementation requires instructors who are both knowledgeable about all of the religions that are to be taught and able to be objective about religions other than their own. I think it would be very difficult to find a sufficient number of teachers who meet those criteria.
There is enormous political pressure on high school curricula that does not exist at the college level and, in many areas of this country, the people most involved in generating that pressure would not accept a course that taught that Christianity was no better than other religions.
In your usual manner you covered that quite effectively but this really misses what I was getting at with that particular question - see belowHow is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.
Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.
Okay.
Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:
- Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
- Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
- Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
- "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
- Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)
Well, anyone who actually clicks on the "Modesto" link and reads the study will see immediately why its not anecdotal at all. The "Modesto" document provides an empirical, statistically valid basis for expecting Modesto, CA's outcomes are repeatable and that the correlations drawn are valid. Additionally, "Modesto's" authors make a point of discussing what can and cannot rightly be inferred from the results they found.
Unlike the content SingleVoyce shared from The Texas Observer, what I shared was a study that produced information and conclusions that are not merely anecdotal. The study presents conclusions and ideas that one can have an intellectually cogent and rigorous basis for accepting and extrapolating to circumstances and locales beyond Modesto, CA.
That's in sharp contrast with the Observer article which is merely circumstantially observational, but far from predictive and telling in a rationally supportable way. I saw in the Texas piece nothing that approached the degree of intellectual integrity in its themes that the authors of "Modesto" provided by also addressing the inferential limits of their work. Heck, "Proposed Mexican-American Studies Textbook: Chicanos Want to ‘Destroy This Society’" didn't even document a research or analytical methodology. It did not for clear reasons: it's not a research piece, it's a depiction of a set of events and its author uses those events to "grind an axe." To that end, it is rightly called an editorial, and in that regard, it's even less rigorous, and thus less credibly persuasive, than is the inductive argument found in "Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools," which at least is based on rigorous research similar to that performed by the "Modesto" authors.
So that's how "Modesto" is more than anecdotal. The "Mosdesto" paper is in the league of writings that counts as factual information that can be used to form an opinion, whereas "Textbook" is in the league of writings that identifies one writer's opinion based on anecdotal observations.
Certainly the outcomes are repeatable given the exact situation of Modesto. Extrapolating those findings to locales which do not fit such a profile is not valid. In order to get the outcome that Modesto experienced, the local school board must first develop a valid curriculum and then find and train teachers who are capable of teaching it correctly. I see nothing in the study that leads me to believe that schools in all areas would do so if left to their own devices.
Scholarly studies are great for scholars but, in academic areas involving human beings, do not always accurately reflect the messy realities of society.
The description of the Modesto experience is indeed factual but the extrapolation of that experience to the country at large is conjecture not fact. The "Teaching for Tolerance" article is interesting but still assumes that such a program could be implemented perfectly.
Then why do you use one to bolster your arguments and as a primary example of what you base your position on and the other you reject out of hand without even bothering to address its points?How is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.
I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.
Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.
Okay.
Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:
- Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
- Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
- Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
- "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
- Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)
It's not. They're exactly the same IMHO.
Not something included in college? That has been prove flatly false several times in this thread. It has also been proven that this is even taught successfully and without any complaint all over the country. A fact that I find myself pointing out YET AGAIN and you continuing to ignore it without cause.the local school board must first develop a valid curriculum and then find and train teachers who are capable of teaching it correctly. I see nothing in the study that leads me to believe that schools in all areas would do so if left to their own devices.
WTF? Excuse me? What on Earth do you think schools do? Pull random people off street corners, declare them to be teachers and stick them in a room with the instruction "teach XYZ to the kids who come through the door?"
Are you suggesting that school systems do not find and train capable teachers, and that school districts refrain from doing so to the extent that you need some sort of study to convince you that any or most school districts/systems do/would indeed seek, hire and train capable teachers to teach a religion class, or any other class?
What I'm suggesting is that teaching a comparative religion course is not as easy as teaching English or history and also that this is not something that is currently included in college educational curricula so any teachers would have to go through unique training just for this particular course. Finding individuals who are free from religious prejudices and who are willing to undergo such training is not as easy as just saying it and, for the umpteenth time - there are many school districts in this country who would have no interest in teaching a fair and balanced course. You don't seem to be getting that message.
What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?
This thread has expanded a bit but I agree with dress codes in high school, not advertising your religion, and not teaching religion. I would add a "cellphones off" requirement during class. Those four things would immediately improve core subject test scores, reduce stress amongst the students trying to out cool each other and help teachers teach what is most important. If religion is important to you, then you will become an expert on your own. That is the easiest subject on the planet to teach yourself.
What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?
They already do. But I'm of the belief that it isn't the school's place to teach children about all the major religions of the world. I believe that it is those major religion's responsibility to spread their teachings to these children in an extracurricular manner.
The schools risk lack of objectivity on the subject. They can easily show which religion is unique to what geographical locations, great. But when it comes to helping the students understand the premises of all the world's major religions, I'm afraid biases would get in the way.What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?
They already do. But I'm of the belief that it isn't the school's place to teach children about all the major religions of the world. I believe that it is those major religion's responsibility to spread their teachings to these children in an extracurricular manner.
Why not?
Isn't understanding the premises of the major world religions an important part of learning about history, geography and the various social studies?
