CDZ Religion in Schools

[GaryDog]

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.

If you're a HS teacher, I meant no offense, and I'll defer to your experience over mine. I was just operating based off of my own experience growing up in a relatively economically depressed rural public school system.

 

[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.

If you're a HS teacher, I meant no offense, and I'll defer to your experience over mine. I was just operating based off of my own experience growing up in a relatively economically depressed rural public school system.

I'm not a HS teacher. I'm merely a parent and mentor who's become familiar with the teaching at a variety of schools as a result of my obligations as parent/mentor. In my 20+ years raising (helping raise) young people, I've spent my fair share of days observing classes (I don't know if public schools let guardians/parents do that) and speaking with teachers to get a sense of their teaching and disciplinary methods and whether the school would be a good one for the child in question.

(Curiously, I didn't do that with my own kids' schools, although with my first child, I was also just learning the basics of how to be an involved and good parent. There was plenty of stuff I didn't know or think to do back then. LOL)

I would not have been offended by your remark even if I were. I know there are certainly bad/perfunctory teachers out there. I was merely surprised to find that "autopilot" was the teaching "methodology" that you (or anyone else) would have observed often enough to feel comfortable noting it as being an approach that's commonly used.

 

[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.

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?

I have already stated that it should be.

 

[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.

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.

Unless of course the family teaches the value of a particular religion as it should be, in the family.

Why are you surprised at me?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The fact that they are doing it in high schools shows that this is factually incorrect.

You continue to make this same argument but it fails because there is real proof that not only is such done but done successfully with little to no complaints. You have dogged this point several times.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

If you're a HS teacher, I meant no offense, and I'll defer to your experience over mine. I was just operating based off of my own experience growing up in a relatively economically depressed rural public school system.

I'm not a HS teacher. I'm merely a parent and mentor who's become familiar with the teaching at a variety of schools as a result of my obligations as parent/mentor. In my 20+ years raising (helping raise) young people, I've spent my fair share of days observing classes (I don't know if public schools let guardians/parents do that) and speaking with teachers to get a sense of their teaching and disciplinary methods and whether the school would be a good one for the child in question.

(Curiously, I didn't do that with my own kids' schools, although with my first child, I was also just learning the basics of how to be an involved and good parent. There was plenty of stuff I didn't know or think to do back then. LOL)

I would not have been offended by your remark even if I were. I know there are certainly bad/perfunctory teachers out there. I was merely surprised to find that "autopilot" was the teaching "methodology" that you (or anyone else) would have observed often enough to feel comfortable noting it as being an approach that's commonly used.

I guess if I had the post to do over I'd amend to say that standardized textbooks have a FAR greater impact on HS curricula (and thus likely would have more impact on religion classes) than college curricula. And in that regard, we simply can't get anything right. Hence any HS classes that discuss even a non-judgmental analysis of religion would make me nervous because I know which group of clowns tends to edit that lesson plan.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

How do you give basics about a religion?

Pretty simple really. Let me give you an example based on a religion I a familiar with, Christianity:
Fact based teaching on the following topics:

• 10 Commandments
• They believe Jesus is the "saviour"
• Basic history of the religion: where it came from, how it has evolved, Spanish Inquisition, how it has spread, major influences (such as Martin Luther, Constantine I, ect.), Crusades, ect.
• How the religion has, and continues to affect world affairs.
• Differences between the major "sects": Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, ect.

Not sure if thhere is any more that would need to be included, but it is a start.

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?

You teach from a objective view, just like anything else. You teach about the good, the bad, and the ugly. Remember, this is for a basic understanding, not a PhD. level theses paper.

And if you did that, are you going to teach them about every religion or just the ones you see fit?

As stated above, You have a threshold of the world's population that are adherants. So, in my example, the threshold is 10% of world population. Therefore, if a particular religion has at least 10% of the population as adherants, you teach about it. What would be the point in discussing an obscure religion? This is for a basic understanding of the "major" religions of the world, so our posterity will be better equipped to work/live with people of different faiths. It's about exposing them to differing ideas, and ways of life, so they can better understand how, and more importantly, why things are what they are, and events happen the way they happen.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

You asked the questions below. I frankly don't understand why you asked this question. Have you looked at the content found at the links for various academically oriented religion classes I've provided in earlier posts? Seems to me you have not for were you look at it, you'd know how the nature of theologically focused religion classes differs from academically oriented religion classes.

Perhaps, however, it's beyond your conception that a person can detach themselves from their own dogmatic ideology long and effectively enough to teach religion as an academic pursuit rather than as a form of dogmatic, faith-based inculcation? If that is so, such a person probably shouldn't be given the role of academically teaching religion. I assure you however, it's far from impossible to find ~30K out of the billions on the planet who can do so.

When I read your questions/post, my first thought was to merely point you to a lesson plan for an academically focused religion class and indeed that's what you'll find if you bother to click on the hyperlink in this sentence. I decided against doing that and "calling it a day" because I suspect, based on the intellectual intransigence you've routinely shown in your posts, that you won't "get it" with just that alone. Thus to answer the first and last questions, I've made an effort to be more expositive than is the lesson plan I linked.

Anyway, the following are your questions, and my answers to them are below the questions.

• How do you [teach] basics about a religion?
  • One teaches the facts about the belief system and one doesn't teach them with a point of reference derived from one's own belief system, or from one's not having any faith-based belief system. One does not teach the religion with the underlying premise that there is something wrong with it or less worth about it than any other religion. Instruction that has such premises and preconceptions as opening conclusions is best left to theological/dogmatic instruction and inculcation not academic/intellectual instruction. Thus one teaches:
    • When and by whom the religion was founded.
    • Why and how it was founded.
    • Whether it has deities, and if so who/what are it's deities
    • What the religion declares is the nature of its deity(s)
    • The nature by which the religion views the human condition
    • The organizational structure, if it has one, of the religion, that is, who how it organizes its Earthly adherents, e.g., Pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priest, deacon, nun, the novitiate, acolytes, lay worshipers, etc.
    • What documents contain the belief system's dogma and mythological traditions
    • What the religion's central tenets are
    • How many adherents the belief system has and where they exist
    • How the belief systems the course covers differ from and are similar to the other belief systems the course teaches
    • The nature and extent of change that has occurred in the belief system over time
      • What be the dominant lines of philosophical thought within the religion that catalyzed the major changes in the belief system, who authored those lines of thought, whom their primary audience was/is, etc.
    • What impact the belief system has had on humanity over time
  • In non-basic academically focused religion classes, one may delve into the dichotomies and incongruities between one or more faiths' dogma and the manner in which it is practiced, but even there, the course of study will be objective and quantitative rather than subjective/qualitative. That is to say, such a course refrains from making value judgments, constraining itself instead to making only observations. For example, two of Christianity's tenets is that adherents are:
    • Keep holy the Sabbath.
    • Love thy neighbor as thyself.

One will observe that many self-identifying Christians don't even go to church on the Sabbath, let alone behave only piously on those days. Another observation is that what day constitutes the Sabbath varies among Christian sects. With regard to the second tenet noted, one cannot help but observe that many Christians do not without exception treat others as they'd have others treat them.

Other areas of analysis in non-basic academically focused religion classes might include (but are not limited to) analysis of:​

• 
  
  • the nature and extent to which monotheistic religions are similar to polytheistic or animistic belief systems
  • the correlation between sociological, psychological, anthropological, and/or political systems, patterns, observations, theories and principles and those of one or several faith-based belief systems
  • the nature and extent religion or specific religions have/has played in motivating strife and discord...the converse of that theme may also be explored...whether both appear in the same class would depend on the nature and scope of the class
• 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?
  • Well, first of all, to teach religion academically, one must eschew presenting qualitative judgments about what is good and bad about the belief system. To that end, in an academically focused religion class, there is nothing good or bad about the belief systems the course includes.
• And if you did that, are you going to teach them about every religion or just the ones you see fit?
  • In an academically focused religion class, there is no need to cover every religion that exists. The goals of academically oriented high school religion classes are:
    • to objectively inform the students about "whatever" religion(s) (see my answer to your first question)
    • to inform the students about the various approaches and lines of thought humanity has, over time, adopted in order to reconcile itself with and/or explain things for which objective inquiry provides no incontrovertible answer
    • to analyze the similarities and differences among religions
    • to build students' critical thinking skills using religions as the context rather than using art, literature, history, etc as the context
    • to build the students' writing skills religions as the context rather than using art, literature, history, etc as the context

Ask yourself if when you took American history the course sought to mention every person who played a role in it. Did you learn, say, in American history who were all the "movers and shakers" and key advisors to Presidents and kings were behind the scenes? Surely you don't think that the leaders whose names and deeds you were told about acted in a vacuum? Assuming you took economics, did the instructors teach Keynesian, Marshallian, Chicago School, and monetarist economics all in one class? You don't have to answer because I know they didn't.

Scope is equally relevant for a religion class. One must begin with a "broad brush" and as the students acquire a general foundation, one can hone in on ever more abstruse topics. For example, in a comparative religion class it may make sense to at least note the existence of the Maori belief system, but there's not much point in U.S. high school classes to spend much time with it. In a NYC school a text that devotes a chapter to the Navajo belief system is probably far less worthwhile than the same text would be in, say, New Mexico or Arizona. Similarly, there's almost no point in even mentioning the Navajo in Australia or New Zealand, whereas students in those countries may well benefit from understanding at some level the belief systems espoused by the Maori. Interested individuals can, upon going to college, learn about the adherents and dogmatic belief systems of the Navajo or Maori by taking the appropriate college or graduate school class(s).

All social sciences and humanities courses have to define a scope based on what is thought most important to know for the students who attend the school and what is thought more and less important to know for the non-specialist. And make no mistake, no high school student is a specialist nor do the academic tracks in high school education in the U.S. aim to create specialists. That is the work of colleges and universities.​

Red:
You wrote:

"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."
​

I suspect you'll view the following as a chastisement, but it is not. It is merely an explanation and observation offered so you'll understand from whence issued my remark and linked content found in the post to which you refer.

There is a key difference between one's making a typo and one's making an ignoramus' mistake because one doesn't know any better. Believe it or not, people, I, can tell when one has made a typo and when one simply doesn't know any better, although it takes multiple writing samples for me (others) to be able to do so.

• When one makes a typo -- and there are many kinds of them -- one knows that one has done so, and one knows what one should have typed/written. Additionally, one doesn't continue to make the same typo over and over again, most especially when the typo is grammatical rather than related to a minor word or punctuation mark omission or errantly struck adjacent letter/punctuation mark/number key.
• When one simply doesn't know any better, observers will repeatedly encounter the same error in an author's writing. These errors are nearly always grammatical, often being errors in verb form and/or mood, punctuation, person, subject verb agreement, pronoun use, word denotation, etc.

In determining whether a person has made a typo or a mistake borne from ignorance, one must also make a basic assumption, perhaps several, about the writer. The only assumption I make about the writers on USMB is that they have graduated from high school, that is, that they are adults, at least technically if not qualitatively.

It is from those points of departure that I made the remark I did earlier. You'll recall that what I wrote is:

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.

​

You'll recall too that I wrote that (and provided the linked content) in response to your statement shown below:

A lot of people aren't tolerate of other religions.

​

Now, as shown by the red highlighted text in your post above, you've again failed to use either the adjective "tolerant" or the adjectival form of the verb "to tolerate." That in spite of your having been well aware of the same mistake from the prior post, so aware of it that you remarked on my having referred to it. Yet you've asserted that doing so is a mere typo rather than (1) a spelling error -- "tolerant" has no "e" at the end and the next word in your sentence doesn't begin with an "e," or (2) a failure to recognize the need to use an adjective rather than a verb. Well, I'm sorry, but there's just not enough "Taylor Coleridge" in me for that.

”... It was agreed, that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.
-- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Bibliographia Literaria​

 

[MarathonMike]

To me, it's all about time and priorities. Teachers have very limited time to teach core competencies of reading, writing and math. If you are interested in religions, there is a wealth of information available for free on the interweb. Knock yourself out, but don't burden the teachers with another subject requirement. I say zero religious education in schools.

 

[320 Years of History]

To me, it's all about time and priorities. Teachers have very limited time to teach core competencies of reading, writing and math. If you are interested in religions, there is a wealth of information available for free on the interweb. Knock yourself out, but don't burden the teachers with another subject requirement. I say zero religious education in schools.

??? I'm sorry. I don't see where your idea holds water. Your comment makes sense in the context of early 20th century "one room school" classrooms, sure that makes sense. In the modern world whereby teacher workloads and scope are carefully focused and managed, I don't see the concept you presented as germane. Perhaps you'd explain how it is?

 

[MarathonMike]

To me, it's all about time and priorities. Teachers have very limited time to teach core competencies of reading, writing and math. If you are interested in religions, there is a wealth of information available for free on the interweb. Knock yourself out, but don't burden the teachers with another subject requirement. I say zero religious education in schools.

??? I'm sorry. I don't see where your idea holds water. Your comment makes sense in the context of early 20th century "one room school" classrooms, sure that makes sense. In the modern world whereby teacher workloads and scope are carefully focused and managed, I don't see the concept you presented as germane. Perhaps you'd explain how it is?

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.

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.

Religion IMO is a personal subject and should be left to the individual to study or not.

 

[oldsoul]

To me, it's all about time and priorities. Teachers have very limited time to teach core competencies of reading, writing and math. If you are interested in religions, there is a wealth of information available for free on the interweb. Knock yourself out, but don't burden the teachers with another subject requirement. I say zero religious education in schools.

When I was in about 6th grade, we studied Greek mythology as an ENGLISH course, how is this not religious instruction, if a "religion" that is basicly "extinct"? Could the same model not be used for religions that are more prevelant in today's world?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Religions should be taught in order to help kids tolerate what they don't agree with and what they don't understand.

Have kids look at the main parts of religion. Do you agree with them or not? If you don't, what should you do about it? Is it your business what other people believe? How does it impact your life?

Just as kids should learn about learning styles (like beach ball, puppy dog, microscope and clipboard learning personalities) so they can learn to tolerate those who don't think like they do.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Fishlore]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The local control approach has some very attractive aspects and could ideed make some present conflicts go away It works best where school districts are homogeneous (something we attempt to preserve by funding from local property taxes). Such homogeneity has been declining for many years, although it is still pretty strong in much of the white South.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion.

Dude, you need to find stuff to say that makes sense to say. Just how much of a break does a religion teacher who doesn't have to teach the "core subjects" need?

• We are talking about high school teachers and curricula, not primary or middle school educators and programs, and the days of the one room schoolhouse are long gone.
• Teachers these days most likely have far greater bandwidth than did teachers for the majority of the 20th century to teach additional classes given the vastly greater use of multiple choice for exam questions instead of unaided recall questions and "blue book" examinations. Indeed, even grading the exams these days is automated rather than being something the teacher must perform manually. (I taught college classes in the early 1990s and even then I had to manually grade multiple choice exams.)
  • I don't know empirically what the workload of a high school teacher is, but I do know what my grad school workload was.
    • Attend, study for and do the work for my own classes (3 per semester, for two years) --> 4 hours per day per class six days a week; usually 3-5 hours a week group project work with other classmates
    • Teach ~230 students:
      • Deliver lectures: Four 1.5 hour lectures two days a week
      • Create tests, quizzes, and grading templates (100% multiple choice): one to three hours every two weeks.
      • Grade tests and quizzes: four to five hours every two weeks
      • Create midterm and final project/paper: two hours per project assignment
      • Grade midterm and final projects/paper: ~70-80 hours per project assignment to grade every student's project/paper

In consideration of the above, I think teachers' workloads, though not light -- I realize they must do "administrivia" which can easily occupy one to three hours a day -- but I also know their workload isn't so intense that their average workday is 16-18 hours long, even if at "crunch times" it may be. Moreover, teachers generally belong to a teacher's union, so their workload isn't going to get but so heavy.

Lastly, the school day is only so long. If a teacher instructs a class every period in the school day, obviously that teacher cannot teach religion. If a teacher has an available period, s/he could conceivably teach another class. More germane to whether a school can teach religion classes is whether it has or is given the budget to do so, not whether an existing teacher gets tasked with teaching the class(s).

 

[SingleVoyce]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[oldsoul]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Nonsense. But thank you for voting for closed minded ignorance.

 

[koshergrl]

I think it's good for kids to have some sort of basic knowledge of the tenets of the foremost of our world religions.

But I think they should be more focused on technical aspects of math, language, geography until graduation. Having a term of world religion would be a good thing in high school or even middle school, as well as a term of speech. It just helps to round them.

But I'm not a big fan of federally funded public education period, and don't believe there's a formula for education of the masses that I would ever want to adhere to. I prefer parents to control what their children are taught, by whom. Local control of education. At the local level, people generally have no problem with the clergy teaching their kids. And those who do, can hire someone else.