CDZ Religion in Schools

[oldsoul]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

 

[Fishlore]

The only way religions (plural) could be taught in schools is as social studies, i.e. from a social science point of view. This would, understandably, be offensive to believers and lead to a generalization by the kids that all religions are the same, i.e. superstition.

It is essential that schools teach science. Trying to mix science with religions in the classroom is a recipe for trouble.

 

[TNHarley]

No
Maybe from a historical point of view, but that's it. Not their beliefs or perversion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Religions are taught in schools all over the country.

It's only a problem if they're practiced by the school.

 

[jillian]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

why? because the religion I would want taught isn't what you would want taught....isn't what another person would want taught.

religion is your personal business and shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. and I certainly don't want some religious zealot imposing their so-called "morality" on any child. if you want your child to learn your religion send them to parochial school.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How about we teach math in schools, and science, how to write...
A child's religious training is a parent's concern, not a school's. Along with sexual orientation, and health choices.

 

[oldsoul]

No
Maybe from a historical point of view, but that's it. Not their beliefs or perversion.

Why?

 

[TNHarley]

No
Maybe from a historical point of view, but that's it. Not their beliefs or perversion.

Why?

Because I think they should be learning about actual history, math, literature, skills etc and not something that is a belief

 

[oldsoul]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

why? because the religion I would want taught isn't what you would want taught....isn't what another person would want taught.

religion is your personal business and shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. and I certainly don't want some religious zealot imposing their so-called "morality" on any child. if you want your child to learn your religion send them to parochial school.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings.

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings

What are you trying to say?

 

[oldsoul]

No
Maybe from a historical point of view, but that's it. Not their beliefs or perversion.

Why?

Because I think they should be learning about actual history, math, literature, skills etc and not something that is a belief

So, do you not think it is important for people to understand other cultures? Keep in mind many facets of a given culture are derived from religion.

 

[oldsoul]

How about we teach math in schools, and science, how to write...
A child's religious training is a parent's concern, not a schools. Along with sexual orientation, and health choices.

So, do you not think it is important for people to understand other cultures? Keep in mind many facets of a given culture are derived from religion.

Are other cultures unimportant?

 

[jillian]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

why? because the religion I would want taught isn't what you would want taught....isn't what another person would want taught.

religion is your personal business and shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. and I certainly don't want some religious zealot imposing their so-called "morality" on any child. if you want your child to learn your religion send them to parochial school.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings.

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings

What are you trying to say?

what I'm saying is I don't believe religious people are any more likely to be decent than anyone else. in fact, I'm suggesting that the "golden rule" should be treat people well..... which is not exactly a tenant of many religious people's thinking.

 

[jillian]

How about we teach math in schools, and science, how to write...
A child's religious training is a parent's concern, not a school's. Along with sexual orientation, and health choices.

is he suggesting we give children religious training in schools? he says he isn't

 

[TNHarley]

No
Maybe from a historical point of view, but that's it. Not their beliefs or perversion.

Why?

Because I think they should be learning about actual history, math, literature, skills etc and not something that is a belief

So, do you not think it is important for people to understand other cultures? Keep in mind many facets of a given culture are derived from religion.

That's a good point soul. However I wouldn't think it's always mutually exclusive. Where would the line be drawn for indoctrination?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about we teach math in schools, and science, how to write...
A child's religious training is a parent's concern, not a school's. Along with sexual orientation, and health choices.

No, you don’t understand.

Teach about religions other than those children are subject to indoctrination at home – such is Hinduism and Taoism.

They would be taught in an academic context, not religious.

 

[FA_Q2]

The only way religions (plural) could be taught in schools is as social studies, i.e. from a social science point of view. This would, understandably, be offensive to believers and lead to a generalization by the kids that all religions are the same, i.e. superstition.

It is essential that schools teach science. Trying to mix science with religions in the classroom is a recipe for trouble.

Except that it does no such thing considering that religion is already taught at many public schools across the nation.

They are taught exactly as has been pointed out here - as a comparative religious segments.

 

[alang1216]

Religion is a major part of history and current events. How can you understand either if you don't study religion?

 

[320 Years of History]

My answer to the poll question is "yes."

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

Do public schools actually not teach religion?

I checked one public school in D.C. -- the "bluest" place in the country -- and found there is at least one religion class. Montgomery County high schools also offer religion. Fairfax County schools do not universally offer religion it seems; however, at least one school in the county, Langley High School does. Go figure...

I tried to find what courses are offered in a few Texas schools. I could not find (or didn't look hard enough to find) one website that lists out what course offerings exist at any of Texas public high schools I checked. (Carnegie Vanguard - Houston, Summit International - Arlington, and Liberal Arts Academy - Austin)

How do we determine the "major" religions of the world?

I think the answer, assuming one insists on asking the question and receiving a reasonable answer to it, to the question is pretty obvious: "major" are that religions that have the most or at least X-many adherents, or they are abundantly extant religions within and/or across large swaths of the planet.

In the main, however, I don't think the question of what is or isn't a "major" religion is one that need be asked. I don't think it need be asked because knowledge about religions is not only characteristic of an educated person, but is also absolutely necessary for understanding and living with the human condition. The academic study of religion is about understanding the role religion has and continues to play in shaping the human experience; it is not about inculcating a person to accept or reject any given religious dogma. Consequently, whether one learns about the most or least "major" religion(s) on the planet doesn't matter. Either way one learns about one of the primary characteristics of what it means to be human, and one learns how those traits have changed over time, thus how humanity has changed.

Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion?

It is hard for me to know in what context I should answer your question for you've not indicated what constitutes "the basics" and what does not. Additionally, the nature of the course also determines what constitutes "the basics." "The basics" will differ among various religion courses that can be taught without ever pushing the course to the point of indoctrination. For example:

• If the course focuses on how myth (in the Joseph Campbell sense of the word) affects a culture's values as well as how individuals relate to their culture and others, students will need to begin the course with an understanding of at least Greco Roman, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Native American and other animist religions, among others, in order to adequately analyze the role of religion among humanity. "The basics" for such a course will entail understanding the high level role of myth, and the details will entail how myth, its practice and philosophy varies among belief systems and what impact(s) those differences have.
• If the course is a mere survey of various belief systems a la "this is Christianity," "this is Judaism," "this is ancient Greek religion," "this is Sufism," etc., students probably don't need to have any degree of prior understanding, and what constitutes "the basics" will be the entirety of what the course teaches. What transcends the basics will depend not only on subject matter elements such as the period of human history the course covers, but also on external (to the subject matter itself) factors like the defined scope of the subject matter, the pace of the course, and the length of time given to teach/study the subject matter.
• If the course aims to teach the similarities and differences between, say, Islam and Judaism, "the basics" will be the high level beliefs that are common (by and large) to all the adherents of those two belief systems. What constitutes the details may vary in ways similar to noted above, or in other ways.

To the extent the existence of any subdivisions within a spiritual belief system are relevant to understanding how the religion is similar to, different from, or catalyzes(ed) one or several major lines of thought/philosophy in the world, sure, teach about the sects, as you call them, provided the information about them builds upon (as opposed to reprises) what one would normally learn in a broader scope history class that all students must take anyway.

In some instances, it probably makes sense to minimally mention that Christianity consists of Protestant and Catholic sects, and each of those major divisions have further delineations such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern, Greek and Russian Orthodoxy. Moreover, it'd makes sense to explain how the beliefs of one subdivision differ from and are similar to others. On the other hand, the distinctions between the practice of American Roman Catholicism and that of, say, Spanish Roman Catholicism at best belong as the topic of a research assignment whereby the student chose that as the topic of the paper.

Clearly I am not going to go through the full spectrum of the nature and extent of religion classes that can be taught academically rather than theologically. One need only look at the religion offerings of a secular college to see why not, but at least doing so will give one a sense of the range of possibilities.

Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

Hopefully my remarks in reply to the second question quoted above indicate why I think religion should at least be offered in high school. If you feel they do not, say so, and I'll address the matter more directly.

 

[Alex.]

In undergrad I took enough classes to have it declared as a minor. I continued that in and graduate school, but that was my choice. I agree from a historical, philosophical , but not religious perspective in the lower grades would be fine IMO.

 

[SingleVoyce]

In an abstract sense, I think this is a good idea. However, 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.

My answer to the poll question is "yes."

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

Do public schools actually not teach religion?

I checked one public school in D.C. -- the "bluest" place in the country -- and found there is at least one religion class. Montgomery County high schools also offer religion. Fairfax County schools do not universally offer religion it seems; however, at least one school in the county, Langley High School does. Go figure...

I tried to find what courses are offered in a few Texas schools. I could not find (or didn't look hard enough to find) one website that lists out what course offerings exist at any of Texas public high schools I checked. (Carnegie Vanguard - Houston, Summit International - Arlington, and Liberal Arts Academy - Austin)

How do we determine the "major" religions of the world?

I think the answer, assuming one insists on asking the question and receiving a reasonable answer to it, to the question is pretty obvious: "major" are that religions that have the most or at least X-many adherents, or they are abundantly extant religions within and/or across large swaths of the planet.

In the main, however, I don't think the question of what is or isn't a "major" religion is one that need be asked. I don't think it need be asked because knowledge about religions is not only characteristic of an educated person, but is also absolutely necessary for understanding and living with the human condition. The academic study of religion is about understanding the role religion has and continues to play in shaping the human experience; it is not about inculcating a person to accept or reject any given religious dogma. Consequently, whether one learns about the most or least "major" religion(s) on the planet doesn't matter. Either way one learns about one of the primary characteristics of what it means to be human, and one learns how those traits have changed over time, thus how humanity has changed.

Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion?

It is hard for me to know in what context I should answer your question for you've not indicated what constitutes "the basics" and what does not. Additionally, the nature of the course also determines what constitutes "the basics." "The basics" will differ among various religion courses that can be taught without ever pushing the course to the point of indoctrination. For example:

• If the course focuses on how myth (in the Joseph Campbell sense of the word) affects a culture's values as well as how individuals relate to their culture and others, students will need to begin the course with an understanding of at least Greco Roman, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Native American and other animist religions, among others, in order to adequately analyze the role of religion among humanity. "The basics" for such a course will entail understanding the high level role of myth, and the details will entail how myth, its practice and philosophy varies among belief systems and what impact(s) those differences have.
• If the course is a mere survey of various belief systems a la "this is Christianity," "this is Judaism," "this is ancient Greek religion," "this is Sufism," etc., students probably don't need to have any degree of prior understanding, and what constitutes "the basics" will be the entirety of what the course teaches. What transcends the basics will depend not only on subject matter elements such as the period of human history the course covers, but also on external (to the subject matter itself) factors like the defined scope of the subject matter, the pace of the course, and the length of time given to teach/study the subject matter.
• If the course aims to teach the similarities and differences between, say, Islam and Judaism, "the basics" will be the high level beliefs that are common (by and large) to all the adherents of those two belief systems. What constitutes the details may vary in ways similar to noted above, or in other ways.

To the extent the existence of any subdivisions within a spiritual belief system are relevant to understanding how the religion is similar to, different from, or catalyzes(ed) one or several major lines of thought/philosophy in the world, sure, teach about the sects, as you call them, provided the information about them builds upon (as opposed to reprises) what one would normally learn in a broader scope history class that all students must take anyway.

In some instances, it probably makes sense to minimally mention that Christianity consists of Protestant and Catholic sects, and each of those major divisions have further delineations such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern, Greek and Russian Orthodoxy. Moreover, it'd makes sense to explain how the beliefs of one subdivision differ from and are similar to others. On the other hand, the distinctions between the practice of American Roman Catholicism and that of, say, Spanish Roman Catholicism at best belong as the topic of a research assignment whereby the student chose that as the topic of the paper.

Clearly I am not going to go through the full spectrum of the nature and extent of religion classes that can be taught academically rather than theologically. One need only look at the religion offerings of a secular college to see why not, but at least doing so will give one a sense of the range of possibilities.

Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

Hopefully my remarks in reply to the second question quoted above indicate why I think religion should at least be offered in high school. If you feel they do not, say so, and I'll address the matter more directly.