CDZ Religion in Schools

[320 Years of History]

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.

Well, we are talking about the study of religion at the high school level, right? I suppose one could find out just how hard it'd be to find potential religion teachers by first determining (by counting or by statistical sampling methods) how many folks have B.A. or M.A. degrees in religion, and/or who at least minored in religion. Next one might endeavor to find out how many of those folks are willing to become teachers.

I'm sure someone somewhere has thought about that and obtained the answer seeing as some public high schools do in fact teach religion academically rather than theologically. I'm also sure that where the demand for such folks exists, there will come to be folks to fill the demand.

 

[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.

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.

Comparative religious segments sound fine and may, perhaps, reduce bigotry. The problem is that teaching religion as comparative religion can undermine religious faith in students because religion doesn't teach itself comparatively, it teaches itself as THE TRUTH. For that reason, religion might better be left at the schoolyard gate. Teaching kids about understanding and respect for different views can be done without theology.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in:


IT HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED!

It is the case right now that many high school's all over the place. It is not a matter of an 'abstract' sense - it is already done.

 

[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.

Comparative religious segments sound fine and may, perhaps, reduce bigotry. The problem is that teaching religion as comparative religion can undermine religious faith in students because religion doesn't teach itself comparatively, it teaches itself as THE TRUTH. For that reason, religion might better be left at the schoolyard gate. Teaching kids about understanding and respect for different views can be done without theology.

If learning about another religions tenants shakes the faith of a student then they have no faith to begin with. The teachings in a comparative religion class are so begining and neutral they do not challenge much at all. It is not as though they are up there teaching that Islam is the one true religion - instead they are covering concepts like the four pillars and the basic tenants of the religion itself.

 

[GaryDog]

I'm an avowed (some would say militant) atheist and the answer to this poll question is easily "yes."

To understand the religious beliefs of people around the globe is to understand people, culture, geography, history. All vital subjects to be taught.

That's got nothing to do with indoctrination in any one religion to the exclusion of all others, which is repugnant and illogical in my eyes.

Put another way: How people view religion is an important subject of study. Teaching Genesis as if it were a history book is stupid and absurd.

 

[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?

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.

While I would tend to agree with you, that is not the point of this thread.

 

[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 school's. Along with sexual orientation, and health choices.

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

Nope, I am mearly proposing we give students a basic UNDERSTANDING of the various religions. What they stand for, wha their primary tenants are, ect. Not, I repeat, not how to go about practicing any religion. Just what it is all about.

 

[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.

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

See post #27 above.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in:


IT HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED!

It is the case right now that many high school's all over the place. It is not a matter of an 'abstract' sense - it is already done.

This has not been my experience. But then again I have been out of formal schooling for a couple decades, so it may very well have changed.
However, whether or not it is, does not answer the question of SHOULD it be. Do you have any input on that part of the discussion?

 

[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.

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.

Comparative religious segments sound fine and may, perhaps, reduce bigotry. The problem is that teaching religion as comparative religion can undermine religious faith in students because religion doesn't teach itself comparatively, it teaches itself as THE TRUTH. For that reason, religion might better be left at the schoolyard gate. Teaching kids about understanding and respect for different views can be done without theology.

If learning about another religions tenants shakes the faith of a student then they have no faith to begin with. The teachings in a comparative religion class are so begining and neutral they do not challenge much at all. It is not as though they are up there teaching that Islam is the one true religion - instead they are covering concepts like the four pillars and the basic tenants of the religion itself.

Kids accept information in different ways depending on source and context. Religious families, Christian, Muslim or Jew, practice religion in the home with daily prayers and rituals which influence kids from infancy and in which kids participate at least passively before they have much conceptual grasp of what is going on. Religion comes from the family.

Turning religion into a school subject like geography or algebra sends a message that all religions are just human cultural artifacts and that they are all pretty much the same. This is the message of secular humanists, not God-fearing American patriots. I'm surprised at you.

 

[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?

See post #27 above.

But why do they need basic understanding of religion in schools? That should be an option, like a college class. Not a public mandate.
With "basic understanding" comes the "well, do I tell them about just the good things and not the bad things" or vice versa. AKA indoctrination. Then we would have parents flipping the fuck out because a lot fo people aren't tolerate of other religions.
IMO, its best it just stays out of the public school system.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

See post #27 above.

But why do they need basic understanding of religion in schools? That should be an option, like a college class. Not a public mandate.
With "basic understanding" comes the "well, do I tell them about just the good things and not the bad things" or vice versa. AKA indoctrination. Then we would have parents flipping the fuck out because a lot fo people aren't tolerate of other religions.
IMO, its best it just stays out of the public school system.

Red:
Well, they need it in their brains, not in their schools.

Blue:
Isn't the thread question whether religion should be taught and not whether it should be taught and made a mandatory course of study?

Pink:
I think you are projecting.

Green:
In fact, I think that it's the parents who are poor spellers who will exhibit that behavior. That has more to do with them and their shortcomings than it does with the instruction of religion as an academic subject.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

See post #27 above.

But why do they need basic understanding of religion in schools? That should be an option, like a college class. Not a public mandate.
With "basic understanding" comes the "well, do I tell them about just the good things and not the bad things" or vice versa. AKA indoctrination. Then we would have parents flipping the fuck out because a lot fo people aren't tolerate of other religions.
IMO, its best it just stays out of the public school system.

Red:
Well, they need it in their brains, not in their schools.

Blue:
Isn't the thread question whether religion should be taught and not whether it should be taught and made a mandatory course of study?

Pink:
I think you are projecting.

Green:
In fact, I think that it's the parents who are poor spellers who will exhibit that behavior. That has more to do with them and their shortcomings than it does with the instruction of religion as an academic subject.

Im not projecting. How do you give basics about a religion? Do you talk about just the good stuff? If the kids don't learn about the bad stuff, wouldn't that by definition be indoctrination? Or if they just learn about the bad stuff? And if you did that, are you going to teach them about every religion or just the ones you see fit?
I make a couple of typos and you say that? lol get a life dude. A lot of people aren't tolerate of other religions. We see it EVERY DAY. Even in Islam, if they are not muslim, they either get punished or taxed. That is basic Islam. Do you think our PC culture would teach that?

 

[SingleVoyce]

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.

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.

How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in:


IT HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED!

It is the case right now that many high school's all over the place. It is not a matter of an 'abstract' sense - it is already done.

 

[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.

While I would tend to agree with you, that is not the point of this thread.

I wasn't the one who mentioned the golden rule.

I was free to respond to that as it seemed appropriate

and your implication was that only religion can teach morality. that is a false premise.

 

[320 Years of History]

My question is whether it has been done WELL and whether or not it could be done well on a larger scale.

Of course it's been done well. Lots of colleges do it annually. Comparative religion isn't like, say, physics or math in that it is generally among the collegiate courses that cannot very easily be taught "as is" in a high school classroom. All that'd really be necessary is slowing the pace at which the subject matter is covered and lowering the performance expectations for exams. About the only exception to that would the divinity/theology courses, not the religion courses.

There is a big difference between the two genres, although one might find both in some college religion departments.

• Courses for Fall 2016 | Religious Studies
  
• https://divinity.duke.edu/sites/divinity.duke.edu/files/documents/academics/Fall2016Schedule.pdf
  
• The Study of Religion | FAS Registrar's Office
  
• Courses for Fall 2016 | Religious Studies

I don't think anyone is suggesting that public high schools teach theology/divinity.

Furthermore, there's one critical difference between teaching religion as theology and teaching it as an academic pursuit: judgment. Theological religious instruction follows from a judgment that the dogma of a given religion is right and so and prevails over all others. Academic religious instruction is not based on such a foundational premise and it refrains from (1) making such a judgment and (2) opining on the "rightness" and "truth" of any one religion in comparison with others. Structuring and teaching a religion course so that it adheres to those three tenets isn't beyond the abilities of academics; they do it daily in other subjects, so they can do it in religion class too.

 

[SingleVoyce]

My question is whether it has been done WELL and whether or not it could be done well on a larger scale.

Of course it's been done well. Lots of colleges do it annually. Comparative religion isn't like, say, physics or math in that it is generally among the collegiate courses that cannot very easily be taught "as is" in a high school classroom. All that'd really be necessary is slowing the pace at which the subject matter is covered and lowering the performance expectations for exams. About the only exception to that would the divinity/theology courses, not the religion courses.

There is a big difference between the two genres, although one might find both in some college religion departments.

• Courses for Fall 2016 | Religious Studies
  
• https://divinity.duke.edu/sites/divinity.duke.edu/files/documents/academics/Fall2016Schedule.pdf
  
• The Study of Religion | FAS Registrar's Office
  
• Courses for Fall 2016 | Religious Studies

I don't think anyone is suggesting that public high schools teach theology/divinity.

Furthermore, there's one critical difference between teaching religion as theology and teaching it as an academic pursuit: judgment. Theological religious instruction follows from a judgment that the dogma of a given religion is right and so and prevails over all others. Academic religious instruction is not based on such a foundational premise and it refrains from (1) making such a judgment and (2) opining on the "rightness" and "truth" of any one religion in comparison with others. Structuring and teaching a religion course so that it adheres to those three tenets isn't beyond the abilities of academics; they do it daily in other subjects, so they can do it in religion class too.

Just because they can do it in colleges does not mean they can do it in high schools.

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. The end result in many cases would be a course that taught only the good aspects of Christianity and only the bad aspects of the others. Individual teachers who tried to teach otherwise would probably find themselves out of a job.

College professors have much more training than high school teachers and can most likely teach such a course effectively. I do not have confidence that a large number of high school teachers could do so. I have no doubt that you can find individual cases where such courses are being taught effectively in high schools by highly motivated individuals. I do not have any confidence that you can expand this to all high schools in the country. It would require that existing teachers take additional training to educate themselves on this complex subject and I don't see where there is any incentive for existing teachers to do so. We could, I suppose, make this a part of the education of new teachers and develop a new generation of teachers who are capable of doing this effectively but that would also require the political will to do it.

 

[GaryDog]

My question is whether it has been done WELL and whether or not it could be done well on a larger scale.

Of course it's been done well. Lots of colleges do it annually. Comparative religion isn't like, say, physics or math in that it is generally among the collegiate courses that cannot very easily be taught "as is" in a high school classroom. All that'd really be necessary is slowing the pace at which the subject matter is covered and lowering the performance expectations for exams. About the only exception to that would the divinity/theology courses, not the religion courses.

There is a big difference between the two genres, although one might find both in some college religion departments.

• Courses for Fall 2016 | Religious Studies
  
• https://divinity.duke.edu/sites/divinity.duke.edu/files/documents/academics/Fall2016Schedule.pdf
  
• The Study of Religion | FAS Registrar's Office
  
• Courses for Fall 2016 | Religious Studies

I don't think anyone is suggesting that public high schools teach theology/divinity.

Furthermore, there's one critical difference between teaching religion as theology and teaching it as an academic pursuit: judgment. Theological religious instruction follows from a judgment that the dogma of a given religion is right and so and prevails over all others. Academic religious instruction is not based on such a foundational premise and it refrains from (1) making such a judgment and (2) opining on the "rightness" and "truth" of any one religion in comparison with others. Structuring and teaching a religion course so that it adheres to those three tenets isn't beyond the abilities of academics; they do it daily in other subjects, so they can do it in religion class too.

Just because they can do it in colleges does not mean they can do it in high schools.

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. The end result in many cases would be a course that taught only the good aspects of Christianity and only the bad aspects of the others. Individual teachers who tried to teach otherwise would probably find themselves out of a job.

College professors have much more training than high school teachers and can most likely teach such a course effectively. I do not have confidence that a large number of high school teachers could do so. I have no doubt that you can find individual cases where such courses are being taught effectively in high schools by highly motivated individuals. I do not have any confidence that you can expand this to all high schools in the country. It would require that existing teachers take additional training to educate themselves on this complex subject and I don't see where there is any incentive for existing teachers to do so. We could, I suppose, make this a part of the education of new teachers and develop a new generation of teachers who are capable of doing this effectively but that would also require the political will to do it.

I think your conclusion is correct, but your reasoning is flawed, vis a vis High Schools being unable to do what colleges do. Let's face it, HS teachers stick to a text, and put a class on auto-pilot thereafter. The problems begin when, say, one state in the United States **cough**Texas**cough** essentially gets to dictate which "facts" make it into textbooks (like, the civil war was a battle for "states rights" and there some "good" aspects to slavery, etc.). If this insane committee of evangelical gravity-deniers in Texas were in charge of an "objective" lesson in world religions, we'd have nonsense galore in religious textbooks concocting imaginary physical evidence to support christianity while demonizing judaism, islam, hinduism, etc.

 

[320 Years of History]

Just because they can do it in colleges does not mean they can do it in high schools.

There is enormous political pressure on high school curricula that does not exist at the college level...

It would seem to me that that increased pressure would inspire high schools to be supremely effective at teaching such subject matter effectively. If necessity can be the mother of invention, what plausible and probable reason is there for it's not being able to do so in the course of developing and delivering an objectively taught high school religion curriculum in public schools?

College professors have much more training than high school teachers and can most likely teach such a course effectively.

College professors often do have more training than do high school teachers, but pedagogy is not usually among the things in which they are more extensively trained whereas that is without exception among the things on which K-12 teachers are trained extensively. Indeed, many collegiate professors' training isn't in teaching, but rather in their specific discipline and to a lesser extent in how to successfully craft grant proposals. That there are so many brilliant research professors and theorists is often why colleges and universities resort to adjunct professors and instructors, that is, individuals who have doctoral degrees, but whose skill and/or interests lie in teaching and not in research and publishing.

• Teacher Training (Teacher Licensure) Degree Programs
  
• How to Become a Middle School Teacher | TeachingDegree.org

I can cite a very simple example of that phenomenon with regard to economics. Economics instructors all levels often talk about "demand." Rarely does it cross their mind were they to point out "demand" can -- except for certain very specific circumstances -- be replaced with the word "buy" (or purchase) many students would "get" the concepts of how supply and demand far more readily. But most econ profs don't do that, and as a result myriad numbers of students think of "demand" as "wanting, wishing or being willing to buy" rather than "actually buying."

I do not have confidence that a large number of high school teachers could do so. I have no doubt that [one] can find individual cases where such courses are being taught effectively in high schools by highly motivated individuals.

I have nothing to say about your degree of confidence. I accept that it is as you've described it. I also cannot remark upon the motivation of the individuals who do teach religion in high schools; I haven't met and evaluated enough of them to have anything like a representative sample that would give me cause to opine on just how motivated they need to be or whether any such teachers who are indeed objective in their approach to teaching religion indeed are highly motivated to be objective.

Yes, I can identify individual cases where teachers do manage to successfully teach religion as an academic pursuit.

• Every public school that offers religion classes -- I know the teachers of these classes are doing so because they are legally required to do so.
  • http://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=24994
• The several schools to which I sent my own kids, some of the kids whom I mentor/mentored, and the schools I considered and visited before enrolling any of those kids in school. Most of those schools have a clear and strong religious affiliation (Roman Catholic, though some are Episcopal) yet they all manage to teach religion classes in a non-theological way, although the denominational schools also teach religion as theology (dogmatic instruction) in classes specifically intended to do so, and that are distinct from their secularly focused religion class offerings. I'm sure that absent a religious affiliation, public schools can no less adroitly do the same.
  • Ten Schools Admissions Organization schools
  • Gonzaga College High School
  • Georgetown Preparatory High School
  • The Heights School
  • St. Albans
  • Sidwell Friends
  • The Maret School
  • National Cathedral School
  • Episcopal High School
  • The Madeira School
  • Stone Ridge
  • Georgetown Visitation

I'm hard pressed to imagine that the individual cases that exist are limited, even just in the D.C Metro area, to just the schools with which I have some first hand familiarity. The same thing seems almost certain to be so all around the nation.

I do not have any confidence that [one] can expand this to all high schools in the country. It would require that existing teachers take additional training to educate themselves on this complex subject and I don't see where there is any incentive for existing teachers to do so.

Why is it in your mind necessary that existing teachers be the ones who teach new-to-the curriculum religion classes? Why can't new teachers who are pedagogically trained and "highly motivated" teach the classes? Heck, in my mind, the folks who teach them need not be full time teachers even. Sure, if there are current teachers whose scope can be expanded to teach religion classes, fine, but that they be already on a school system's payroll hardly seems like a necessary and unavoidable requirement to me.

 

[320 Years of History]

Let's face it, HS teachers stick to a text, and put a class on auto-pilot thereafter.

Black bold:
Okaaay....that's news to me....I haven't in the past 20+ years observed that to be the way my kids/mentorees have been instructed, but perhaps they do that in schools to which I've got little direct visibility re: their approach to teaching. I know something akin to that happens when students have "self study" or "group study" sessions or "working sessions" in which they and other kids work together on a project, but that's not so frequent an occurrence that I can think of the class as being "on autopilot."

Why would we need highly trained teachers at all if a class can be instructed via "autopilot" methods?

I'm sorry, OP...this is taking the thread off topic. Gary, if this line is one you'd care to continue, create a separate thread for it, out of respect for the OP.

Whole quoted statement:
....but to the extent it's so, I'd think the choice of textbook(s) would have more to do with the neutrality with which the class'd be taught than would the teacher him-/herself.