Religion in Schools?

Why college and not high school. The years that separate them are minimal 1-5 for undergraduate classes. Both are publicly funded institutions (often). Both can be privately funded institutions. But since we are talking about those receiving federal dollars, then I would stick with public universities as well.

I see very little difference. Anthropology probably is more a college level coure. Comparative religion is not. Comparative Religious literature would be a high school level course as well. Philosophy of religion could be either.

I gues my question is, what reasoning do you use to differ the groups. It seem arbitrary and capricious.
 
Dezeron:

The job education (period) is to promote growth in all intellectual respects. If our public schools are simply "indoctrinating people" then those schools are doing something wrong. I would also like to point out a secondary option: which do you think is going to lend itself toward more indoctrination? A religious private school, a secular elitist private school (of which I went too), home schooling, or a public school? I think public school. If you want to press I can go into each of the four categories and explain why, but I hope that this illustration is enough to prove my point.
 
Do you not think educating the public is in the best interest of our country? Do you know that the countries with the lowest literacy rates are the poorest ones?
 
Whoa buddy, slow down you're moving too fast. I wasn't implying that we should teach religion as something that is true. I was implying that we should teach what different religions are about, like "This is what islam is about and says, This is what Christanity is about and says, and this is what ____is about and says." Furthering student's knowledge about the beliefs of billions people can't be bad unless we are indoctrinating them, which is something I am very again.



it's a nice thought though. I wouldn't have a problem if the course covered the big religions equally with a side packet covering minority religions. Just as long as they taught what the religions are about and what they say. Not that they are the truth.



*sigh*. Simply because you do not believe in it (nor do I) does not mean it consists of "nothing" and "don't exist." Religion is a big part of this world, much to the dismay of you and myself. However that doesn't mean we give our children and students no information about the beliefs of billions of people. Besides, it could only be avaliable at junior and senior level classes, where by them almost everyone has figured out their beliefs.
 
What the heck are you talking about? It's bad enough posting that nonsense when we are actually debating on whether God exists or not, but we are arguing about teaching religion in schools and most people posting (including me) think it's a good idea to teach religion in an objective way. Where does this relate to the discussion at all? And if he will never forget us does he really care whether we teach about him in schools?
 
I took a class called "Women In World Religion" when I was at University. The class was taught by a monk. We studied the roles of women, attitudes towarRAB women and female deities or characters in paganism, Buddhism, Hindu, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The basic story was that women were importrant figures in the faith, however they were generally treated badly. This theme was present in all the world religions. He handled each them equally and academically - even his own faith. I found that highly impressive for a monk.

I think religion is fascinating.

Although I am Christian I find it very interesting that three biggest world religions all believe in the same God (although they disagree on everything else).

I also like the empowerment of paganism - however it didn't really seem to provide any answers (I practiced Wicca for a year when I was exploring my faith).
 
And it has gotten so bad that given a list of topics I could learn more about the topics in most of my classes on my own. I could get English books from the library, discuss them on places like these. Most other stuff I could get from the internet or if I had the textbook the teacher usually doesn't even teach much other than from the textbook. If I had a question I could find somewhere on the internet to get help. It's pretty sad when I could learn more on my own than with the schools that we pay so much money on. Of course I wouldn't worry about getting good grades, passing tests, giving the teacher what they want instead of what is right, and a whole lot of other things. My parents have considered home-schooling my brother (who is in 7th grade currently) because the quality of the teaching at his school is so bad. My parents aren't experts at teaching or anything, my dad has a math degree, mom has a business degree. Both went through college and have a decent background. And I have a feeling I would learn more from them than I do at school. This is pretty sad considering teachers went to college and got a degree in teaching whatever subject they teach. Anyway, that's all for tonight.
 
I do not think that religion should be taught in school because of the separation of church and state. However, I also don't believe that people should be prosecuted for saying a prayer in school or receiting the pledge of allegiance. It shouldn't be taught by the teacher, but I see nothing wrong with Christainity being present in schools.
 
I don't beleive religion should be taught in schools. Religious people can send their children to religious private schools.

It's not like me saying that is going to change anything. As long as there are religious people in this country, many things will be run by religion.
 
Of course it's a science. First, history is body of knowledge about the past. That fits the definition of science. Science is knowledge.

Better still, history develops just as the fundamental sciences do. Evidence is gathered, through archaeology, preserved writings, and word of mouth. The evidence is assembled and put into a "best fit". If new evidence comes along that contradicts what is written, it's weighed, and history is revised to accomodate it as necessary. If you disagree with something in history, you have to have evidence to back it up.

You seem to also have the incorrect notion that science somehow equates to perfect knowledge. No, science is knowledge, it's ideas that can be rationally demonstrated as true.

-Mach
 
i voted yes because god is not debatable in these matters and aetheism is increasing by alot in this country

added thought: what would life be without god?
 
*sigh* you may have to get used to Hunter's proselytizing. I know him from other boarRAB and religion seems to be his common denomination, which means it is injected in all that he does. Except to see much of those styled posts from him.
 
I've said this before - public education is elitist. It is not in the best interest of the country. It is a way for the ruling elites to control the input to the minRAB of future voters.

Public schools stress convergent thinking, i.e. learning to think like everyone else. A real virtue in a free society is divergent thinking, i.e. coming up with new ideas. Public schools stifle this.

Knowledge is an unlimited resource. Free speech ensures rapid duplication of knowledge. There is no need for the government to drain scarce resources (our tax money) in order to provide a nonscarce resource. Public education, therefore, is a drain on society.
 
Religion is, by its very nature, a dangerous threat to democracy. Simply because believing in something because some doctrine tells you to is not democratic.

Education is by its very nature a powerful asset of democracy. An enlightened people will develop their own informed opinions.

Introducing religion to education would replace a safe-guard with a threat.

Now I'm not saying, 'lets burn the bibles' or anything of that sort. I'm just saying that religions place is not in our schools.
 
Back
Top