Should religion be taught in schools? Thread

I was sitting in front of the television with my family, and on the program of which we were watching, someone stated that religion should not be taught in schools and should be separate from education.
Straight after, a conversation was sprung up concerning this subject between the family.

I said that it should be taught in schools as it's educates you about people's ways, how they do things, how they live etc. If it was taught outside of schools or not at all, how would you be able to learn about people outside of your country without actually leaving your country. Travel is expensive these days, and to see the wonders of the world, and to experience the way people work will put you out of pocket quite easily. As I live in the UK (one of the most multi-cultural societies in the world), I believe that it's really important to understand the people around you. Therefore, I believe strongly that it is important to have religious education alongside academic education.

Of course everyone else in the family disagreed:
"You can just go out to other countries instead of learning it here."
"Why would I want to learn about religion. They don't even teach our lessons at school properly, so why learn?"
"Religion is private. They shouldn't teach it at school."

Their opinions confuse me...

I was wondering, what are your views and opinions on the matter?

I think it depends really. If they are trying to make you follow the religion, then no, it shouldn't be.

Now if they are just teaching you it, I'm all for that, and as such, voted yes it should be TAUGHT in school, but not forced upon you.

Obviously taught. Never should it be forced upon you.

Bingo. I'm all for teaching about religions, but it has to be "this is what followers of X believe", and never "this is what you should believe".

As everyone else said, taught but not forced. For instance, we had to read some of the king james bible in my school, not to learn about religion, but to study the style of writing itself. Everyone was fine with it (Especially a person such as myself who is non-religious). While a little different from the original topic, I think it is still the same in that most people would actually be fine with it.

I went to a catholic primary school, did all that religion studies I just saw it as reading time. I am now someone who has no opinion on religion. If you want to learn it you go to a school that teaches it. Duh.

Well, it depends exactly what you're asking. I think people should be taught what all major religions are about and for so people aren't ignorant. Like people who stupidly assume that Islam is instantly related and fully associated with terrorism. I don't however want schools to teach the religion, and be like a church-school. School is for learning, and faithful buildings are for worshipping your gods and prophets.

Not voting. Nothing personal here, it's just that the question isn't specific enough for me to vote.

Everything depends on the meaning of "teaching religion". If a child or teenager goes to school to learn about the religions of the world then I'm fine with it as it constitutes a form of culture. On the other side, if you're refering to the fact that school should be used as a branch of the Church (example) then I'm against it. At the moment, I think it's very important to remove all the stereotypes which connect Islam with terrorism. I believe people should know that the world "war" can be more frequently read on the Bible: the Koran is much more peaceful.

I'm at the Uni now and what I've experienced at school was a well balanced mix of the two: I got to know other religions (not as much as I wanted to, however) and no one brainwashed me. I had a fight about evolution with one of my teachers some three years ago (she's a nun, which is self-explanatory), but the overall experience was good for me.

Faith and self-awareness can't be taught at school.

feillyne wrote: Faith and self-awareness can't be taught at school.

The stepping stones can be set.

I am a firm believer (no pun intended) of the idea of learning about various faiths, primarily because you tend to see similarity thematically, and this tends to extend to what superstitions and myth surrounds the faith. As well, the different religions have significantly altered the course of history, and religions themselves and most denominations are reactions to a historical context. Not to mention, beliefs will influence the actions and opinions of people you meet or who influence you, such as with politics or social groups.

Unfortunately, a difficulty exists with teaching religions, and I mean and assume you mean in the strictest academic sense, and this is the importance of faith to different peoples. You have to be well prepared to accept people will be offended with a sterile approach of basic, only demonstrable information regarding a broad array of faiths and sects without regard for representation. A corollary is you need to be well prepared to accept people will take advantage of this and trumpet personal beliefs while disparaging other competing beliefs, and of course we need to eliminate this when this occurs. If we can be unapologetic about teaching material relevant to the understanding of the basic information about a faith and about removing those who begin to so much as eye the line much less cross, certainly we should teach this.

My personal choice would be for teaching by way of encouraging experiencing other faiths more directly, but I know this is not available everywhere. Fortunately with where I live, I can attend a Buddhist, Taoist, or Confucian temple, I know of a couple Hindu shrines, a few Mosques, Synagogues, and a dizzying array of Christian denominations including Catholics as well as Mormons are nearby (nothing of Jains), and those informed me well alongside broad and informative courses. Otherwise, World Religions and Philosophy courses should become more available as elect-out courses; that is, those are standard courses, but I understand concerns of competing ideas and can appreciate a parent or the child themselves not wanting to partake of such a course. Remain steadfast in teaching material and try to incorporate actual exposure to the material, in a way similar to if you were learning a language, and I can support teaching religion.

feillyne wrote: Faith and self-awareness can't be taught at school.

Faith is nothing miraculous, merely self-delusion guised in unsubstantiated answers to questions the faith itself created; of course this can be taught.

Edited by: Vangor

Faith is nothing miraculous, merely self-delusion guised in unsubstantiated answers to questions the faith itself created; of course this can be taught.

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Faith is something you used to write so many words here, LOL.

As said - self-awareness, AWARENESS, can't be taught - as Vangor proves with the example of himself.

TKAzA, you're somewhat right, only the person must CHOOSE to become/be/strive to be aware/self-aware. Nobody can simply taught you - you can teach yourself, decide. That's why no school teacher, no preacher, no priest, no monk can teach you anything.

It's all done by 'self', awareness, willingness to learn.

Edited by: feillyne

Priests and pastors arn't there to teach it, there there to guide you on a path.

Edited by: TKAzA

Yup, but still: two different physical bodies, two different energies, two individual/separate souls, distinct memories. Even explanations and short exchanges of various experiences seem to be inappropriate. Too much relativeness, too many details to be grasped.

Awareness is built from within - nobody can truly shape you, only you can shape yourself.

There is that notion that 'teaching' is something done from the outside. Even common lessons, such as mathematics, and etc. require your personal attention. Some sermons and philosophies can be full of truth for one person, but totally empty phrases for another.

Still, there's a huge difference between teaching (trying to teach) and faith required to be able to teach anything. Can that faith be taught?

Unfortunately, many priests strive to 'teach' instead of putting their energy into showing, actual doing.

Edited by: feillyne

You people seem to be confusing the idea of religious studies, which are taught in various colleges and universities all over the world, with teaching religious alternatives to scientific concepts like evolution or the origin of the universe or whatever.

There’s nothing wrong with learning about the Muslim faith or Taoism or New Orleans Voodoo or whatever and how it has impacted society within a publically funded school/college/whatever. But to teach things like creationism, intelligent design, within a science class is ridiculous and damaging.

If you want to be guided down your life path or whatever the frak within the confines of an organized reigion, do it in a church. If you want to learn about religion from the prospective of a third party, do it in a school.

I understand what you're saying but please don't forget the fact that things can get mixed. I was supposed to learn more about Christianity and other faiths, but I ended up listening to people who claimed that evolution is a fake: everything depends on the teacher.

You need to put science studies inside a specific frame to get specific results.

The problem is the notion that the e.g. theory of evolution or creationism is more important, while these are just guidelines, just frameworks that can (possibly) be intertwined in the reality. Intertwined as metal frames used to research towards one goal or another - the result will be a result depending on the actual preparation of experiments. Still, excluding prejudice and scientists' belief harms the actual interpretation of results or their validity compared with broader, more extensive research.
I.e. excluding it when analysing scientist's interpretation.

Because the preparation itself can be, and often is (or even MUST BE), "prejudiced", biased. If you choose particular conditions, you actually make the research biased.

Craig Venter's latest findings seem to be a step towards creationism.

Do you have an idea what's going to happen next?

Edited by: feillyne

Link me to this guy's latest findings. As a Paleontologist wannabe, I'd really like to know what creationists have come out with this time.

There's a thread about it:
Moddb.com

He's not a creationist. But he's very close to paving the way, which can end up in humans being able to create whole planets.

What's funny about it, the same findings can be viewed both as research towards evolution-based creation, or pure creationist one. As stated earlier - the problem is arguing that evolution or creationism is more valid while they only consist specifc person's beliefs.

Practice is practice. Beliefs are beliefs. Interpretations are interpretations.

Edited by: feillyne

Sorry, but how does that support Creationist theories? I fail to understand it. A team of scientists managed to create a life form, and that's a very important achievement... but how does that affect theories? Oh, unless it implies that God was a scientist who created us all.

As far as I can say, there's a lot of ignorance around. Heh, I heard people wondering why monkeys aren't extinct because humans, "the descendants of monkeys", are here. The appeareance of amphibians did not cause the extinction of fish. The appeareance of reptiles did not cause the extinction of amphibians. The appeareance of mammals and birds did not cause the extinction of reptiles. People don't know the fundaments of evolution and believe the appeareance of new forms automatically implies the extinction of the older ones... which, quite frankly, is a bit pathetic.

Yeah, a being, a scientist, omni-scient (scient is the ending that lays the basic root for word "science" and "scientist"), that knew how to create life forms, and moreover - fill them with actual self-programming life.

The point is a close analysis of that section of genetics which is occupied with mutation and these very controversial (yet untouched) topics, such as mule's fertility problem. These pose serious problems to the theory of evolution, yet they're largely left undebated by so-called creationists.

Edited by: feillyne

It comes from the Latin "scire", which means "knowing".

I don't understand how those issues could affect the theory of evolution (which stopped being a theory a while ago, it's a fact now). I wouldn't like to see teachers exploiting the result of such research to prove Creationism right.

feillyne wrote: The problem is the notion that the e.g. theory of evolution or creationism is more important, while these are just guidelines, just frameworks that can (possibly) be intertwined in the reality. Intertwined as metal frames used to research towards one goal or another - the result will be a result depending on the actual preparation of experiments. Still, excluding prejudice and scientists' belief harms the actual interpretation of results or their validity compared with broader, more extensive research.
I.e. excluding it when analysing scientist's interpretation.

Assuming I understand this mess of a paragraph, you seem to think that the results of an experiment can be tainted by the initial beliefs of the scientists behind it?

What makes the scientific method so important and vital is that theories and experiments are proven or disproven based in the weight of accumulated evidence rather than the initial preconceptions or biases of those involved.

If the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or anything rooted in true science changes, it will because of newly discovered facts and information, rather than personal bias or beliefs.

Same wrote: can be viewed both as research towards evolution-based creation,

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Mobius89 wrote: (which stopped being a theory a while ago, it's a fact now)

Slightly disagree with you on this one, I don't think anything really stops being a theory, but it can get to a point where the weight of the evidence behind it gets so large that to argue against it would be ridiculous to the absurd.

Edited by: SwissKnight

Yeah. ;-) And what's 'knowing'? Neurolinguistics itself, or rather linguistics in general, prove that 'knowing' comes from the ability to name.

To use reasoning itself, first you need to discern, and to discern is to name.

A fact? Haha. :-)

Let's consider such a scenario:
Elohim, a group of external scientists being thousands of years ahead in genetics, had a crazy idea to create a solar system.

So they did. And they a couple of planets, and then one SPECIAL greeny planet, called "Eden", in our modern tongue, the "Earth". Then they created all the environment, one living species by one, all of them in one planet.

Finally they created a reasoning being, REASONING just like them, the Scientists (or Powers, Elohim, in Hebrew). Their so-called image put in a "garden", one special place on this Eden.

And from that point on, they still toy with these self-programming lifeforms and see how they work. Constantly preparing exact detailed reports of each of them.

That's a short story, a story excluding the creation of previous failed experimental beings such as dinosaurs.

The theory of evolution still seems to be a theory. What was actually proven, is the relation between a member of one species and a member of the same species, and relation between a member of one species and a member of a similar species, taking a certain span of generations. Totally ignoring the essential relation between two different species, or/and rather two different genera.

SwissKnight wrote: Assuming I understand this mess of a paragraph, you seem to think that the results of an experiment can be tainted by the initial beliefs of the scientists behind it?

What makes the scientific method so important and vital is that theories and experiments are proven or disproven based in the weight of accumulated evidence rather than the initial preconceptions or biases of those involved.

If the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, or anything rooted in true science changes, it will because of newly discovered facts and information, rather than personal bias or beliefs.

The scientific paradigms are hardly shifting. And when paradigms are considered, one can get the picture of science being very biased, yet data itself, the data gathered by scientists, if properly reported, is the only real deal (along with the actual reports).

SwissKnight wrote: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Oh, does it really?

I kind of suspected that someone would have soon mentioned the "Elohim scientists". Maybe we're derailing, people?