The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Should Religious Education be Mandatory in Schools? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=285473)

Bluerang1 July 29th, 2012 4:38 AM

Should Religious Education be Mandatory in Schools?
 
Learning about the history and customs of religions so one understands how and why they do certain things. This will make people more understanding and tolerant of others around them. I do not mean Bible or other Holy Book teaching.

It's not that there are many religious students who do not believe in evolution but have to learn about it, hence teaching about creationism is only fair, it is the tolerance issue.

I have lived in England where Religious Education is mandatory except if it is against our fith (the irony), up to the American 8th Grade. This has developed a sense of tolerance amongst the English society, far superior to the society in America that I am currently part of. Ignorant remarks are rampart here and I find it due to people not being educated on the subject. It also helps that England very diverse too which would explain why Religious Education is mandatory there.

Livewire July 29th, 2012 5:02 AM

No no no. If you want to take those type of classes then be my guest. Being forced to is A, unconstitutional, B, theocratic, and C, pretty much entirely incompatible with how the American public education system works. No way in hell should it be mandatory.

Charicific July 29th, 2012 5:11 AM

YES YES and YES! It should be! People nowadays REALLY need it! Look at the coming generation of youth, almost no one of them knows a fact of what they are following. They're simply blind following their faith.

And..hey, by Mandatory, we're talking like..Mandatory to it's followers right? If not, then yeah..noway in hell it should be.
You can't force religious education to a non-religious person could you?

We need the kind of system that will encourage religious people to explore more of their faith and know how to defend it. Right now, many religions are victims to the media. Basically because the media portrays the ignorant youths of the community....which are probably too common. In order for religion to display it's true potentials, its members need to contribute in that path..and so, we need mandatory education.


If you simply don't want to study about your own faith, or don't even know a thing about it....then why are you claiming yourself to be of that faith? Just leave so that we can keep a better reputation.


It's not a matter of which belief is right or wrong, it's simply about the correct portrayal and dedicated members.


I always give the same example to my friends--- back in the days when I traveled to K.S.A (don't ask...). On my first trip there, I expected to be surrounded by very aggressive and intolerant killers, that's how the West (ignorantly) describe the Muslims. I fell for that description and was kinda worried. I go there and I was in shock. Seriously?! What were people warning us about? Those people were deeply in touch with their faith, they do stuff that proves their identity as Muslims. Trust me when I tell you, they are actually very kind and open-hearted humans. They're extremely religious such that they NEVER forget signs of their God for a day. Heck, an hour actually..or less! Every time you hear them make these Arabic statements that are actually phrases god related,such as "God Almighty" or "In the name of God" or "God bless your soul". Its probably a habit..but it's a good habit, rather than the people who would drop F-Bombs on the smallest incidents.
THOSE ARE THE EFFECTS OF MANDATORY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION!

When you see what I saw, you'll know what I mean when I say "people REALLY need to know more of what they're following". A secular world...isn't as perfect as we think really, we need the blend of both.

Mana July 29th, 2012 5:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 7275911)
No no no. If you want to take those type of classes then be my guest. Being forced to is A, unconstitutional, B, theocratic, and C, pretty much entirely incompatible with how the American public education system works. No way in hell should it be mandatory.

Just to clarify what the British RE system is like, because your reaction seems rather OTT.


In Britain Religious Education aims to help understand the route of both modern day religions and ancient day societies, at the moment it is often called "Religion and Philosophy".

You learn things such as, but not limited to:
  • Creation stories of multiple religions; in my class we studied Christianity, Islam and Hindu.
  • History of Religion; who founded what, how things have changed.
  • Religious festivals; Christmas, Ramadam, Diwali.
  • Religious traditions; clothing, worship, pilgrimage.
  • Religion vs Science; mostly the 'philosophy' side, taking about what the 'main opinion' of different religious groups is towards things like Abortion.

As an Atheist it did nothing but confirm that I do not believe in a God, however that doesn't make the stories in the Bible (or Qu'ran) any less interesting. Also, like Bluerang said, I think it does contribute to a deeper understanding in the current generation. The UK has a very multicultural population, although the older generation are still quite racist the younger people are 99% indifferent to race.

EDIT:// Religious Eduction in the UK is not about teaching people how to be good Christian, it does not involve reading the Bible - you read a diverse array of Religious literature from numerous times/locations/races. It aims to teach EVERYONE something about ALL religions in society.

Livewire July 29th, 2012 5:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwiftSign (Post 7275926)


Just to clarify what the British RE system is like, because your reaction seems rather OTT.


In Britain Religious Education aims to help understand the route of both modern day religions and ancient day societies, at the moment it is often called "Religion and Philosophy".

You learn things such as, but not limited to:
  • Creation stories of multiple religions; in my class we studied Christianity, Islam and Hindu.
  • History of Religion; who founded what, how things have changed.
  • Religious festivals; Christmas, Ramadam, Diwali.
  • Religious traditions; clothing, worship, pilgrimage.
  • Religion vs Science; mostly the 'philosophy' side, taking about what the 'main opinion' of different religious groups is towards things like Abortion.

As an Atheist it did nothing but confirm that I do not believe in a God, however that doesn't make the stories in the Bible (or Qu'ran) any less interesting. Also, like Bluerang said, I think it does contribute to a deeper understanding in the current generation. The UK has a very multicultural population, although the older generation are still quite racist the younger people are 99% indifferent to race.

EDIT:// Religious Eduction in the UK is not about teaching people how to be good Christian, it does not involve reading the Bible - you read a diverse array of Religious literature from numerous times/locations/races. It aims to teach EVERYONE something about ALL religions in society.

/doesn't know what OTT is

Then it's essentially the same as any comparative religion course one takes in College here in the US. Which are still electives unless that's your field of study. Learning about various world religions is great and could help to foster acceptance and understanding to a degree, but school classes won't assuage a few centuries of religeous conflict and misunderstanding.

Mana July 29th, 2012 5:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 7275946)
/doesn't know what OTT is

Then it's essentially the same as any comparative religion course one takes in College here in the US. Which are still electives unless that's your field of study.

Over The Top sorry ;__;

Quote:

Learning about various world religions is great and could help to foster acceptance and understanding to a degree, but school classes won't assuage a few centuries of religeous conflict and misunderstanding.
Bad things always happen in the past, any History lesson will show that people can make mistakes and do terrible, evil things and then later do great things.

With today's intolerance, especially the 'Muslims are terrorist' view which seems to have spread around the US, learning about the true religion rather than focus on the current extremists can only be good.

Not saying it has to take hours out of their day, when I was in secondary school it was only a 30 minute lesson every week.

Zoachu July 29th, 2012 5:48 AM

If you want religious ed. ... go to a private school.
Yeah.
All I have to say.

NarutoActor July 29th, 2012 6:46 AM

A whole separate class? No, I was extremely annoyed that I was forced to take art, no one should be forced to learn anything. However a cretin amount of science credits are required to graduate. Why not stick the topic of creation with evolution? But to have a whole class where you study other regions would really be a bother. I can only do well in classes where I have an interest in, and I don't have a interest in most religions.

Ho-Oh July 29th, 2012 6:51 AM

It was in primary school. Even then (keep in mind they're like 10 or so which is p young), everyone pulled out except like two of us, lmao (yes that includes me in the two). So... I think while it's good for people to learn about other ways of thinking/beliefs, I think it'll just be a waste of time for the person actually teaching it because half the students will find some excuse to pull out even if it's initially compulsory. :(

Her July 29th, 2012 7:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoachu (Post 7275989)
If you want religious ed. ... go to a private school.
Yeah.
All I have to say.

Uh.... I don't know how much it costs to go to a private school where you are, but I'd imagine that some parents would simply not be able to afford sending their child or children to a private school. Some are barely able to send their children to public school in the first place, y'know?

Shiny Celebi July 29th, 2012 9:02 AM

No, you can't force religious education on children. Parents decide whether children get religious education, not the government or school system.

Esper July 29th, 2012 10:04 AM

It's a faulty argument to say "If they teach evolution then they should teach creationism" because:

  1. Creationism is a religious issue, not a science one. Kids don't take a class in "how humanity came to be." They take a science class. If there were a class in "how humanity came to be" then there's more of an argument to include creationism, but there isn't.
  2. Creationism is not the only other idea for how people came into being besides evolution. If, as some say, you want to be fair you should include every religion's creation stories.

If you want to have classes like SwiftSign explains then why not just have a "Culture and Philosophy" class instead since when you talk about religion you're really just talking about how some people have differences in what they believe. Why not just broaden it to include entire cultural things? Music, worldviews, etc. Everyone has culture, not everyone has religion. This would allow everyone to be included.

Nihilego July 29th, 2012 10:34 AM

I think that RE should definitely be mandatory up until an age, if it's done a certain way. If children are taught simply what different religions believe in without being told that these beliefs are necessarily correct, then I think that's fine. I really can't see the harm done in teaching children which religions believe what and follow what ideals - it's not converting them or forcing anything upon them, it's simply educating them.

What's wrong, in my eyes, is teaching children that there is a correct religion. And by that I mean not necessarily saying that other religions are incorrect, but telling children what the beliefs of one religion are true. An example of this would be reading a passage from the Bible as a "factual" story. At a young and impressionable age, things like this could easily lead children to follow a religion which their parents and other family are not comfortable with.

Basically, teaching about multiple religions? Fine. Teaching a religion? Definitely not fine.

edit: SwiftSign summed up what I wanted to say quite beautifully with his post below. Especially,
Quote:

Again, some people here seem to be mistaking 'Religious Education' for Bible Reading or learning how to worship. That's nowhere near what it is. ;__;

Mana July 29th, 2012 10:40 AM

People saying you should only be taught things you're interested in - really? You think kids want to learn Maths, or how to analyse poems in English, or learn ancient Latin that they're unlikely to ever use?

School isn't about what you want to learn, it's about learning things that can help a child be rounded in their knowledge and have enough information to make their own choices in life.

Again, some people here seem to be mistaking 'Religious Education' for Bible Reading or learning how to worship. That's nowhere near what it is. ;__;

Tsutarja July 29th, 2012 10:43 AM

Absolutely not. Almost every public institution has some form of mixed religion in this country, and only focusing on one religion to teach, and making it mandatory could be against beliefs. Essentially, bringing in religion into schools is like integrating school with Church, which, all IMO, is against the belief of separation of Church and State. Just my two cents.

Mana July 29th, 2012 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZachLMedia (Post 7276357)
Absolutely not. Almost every public institution has some form of mixed religion in this country, and only focusing on one religion to teach, and making it mandatory could be against beliefs. Essentially, bringing in religion into schools is like integrating school with Church, which, all IMO, is against the belief of separation of Church and State. Just my two cents.

I'm starting to worry that my posts are in fact invisible.


Religious Education isn't about teaching one religion, it is about teaching children about the diversity of Religions.

NarutoActor July 29th, 2012 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwiftSign (Post 7276354)
People saying you should only be taught things you're interested in - really? You think kids want to learn Maths, or how to analyse poems in English, or learn ancient Latin that they're unlikely to ever use?

School isn't about what you want to learn, it's about learning things that can help a child be rounded in their knowledge and have enough information to make their own choices in life.

Again, some people here seem to be mistaking 'Religious Education' for Bible Reading or learning how to worship. That's nowhere near what it is. ;__;

I think once you're in high school, you can make your own decisions. It would fall apon the student to make educated desicions. In my old high school you only needed to take 2yrs of math, I took it for 4 but I was pleased to know it was of my own violation.

I find no interest in alla, or Mohamed, well not enough to take a class on it, even if it is suplimented with other boring religions. I would list in to a friend talk about it, or vist there church, but that would only be 2hrs of my life. Not a semester.

Algo Fonix July 29th, 2012 12:14 PM

I think learning about various religions is an important thing, but I don't think it should be mandatory. If you want to find out about something, a course telling you about what it is useful... but with religion I find that doing the research yourself is much more valuable. I'd be afraid the courses would end up being taught by someone with a strong bias and come off as preachy.

Tsutarja July 29th, 2012 2:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwiftSign (Post 7276359)


I'm starting to worry that my posts are in fact invisible.


Religious Education isn't about teaching one religion, it is about teaching children about the diversity of Religions.

Well jeez, sorry. But I see what you mean by Religious Education. There's a class exactly like that at my school but at least it's an elective and can be taken in any grade level (9 through 12). But my original point of view stands of it not needing to be mandatory in education.

Bluerang1 July 29th, 2012 2:49 PM

There seems to be a strong hate for all things religion by some on here. I've edited the post to explain what I mean by Religious Education. Thank you to the few that explained my point.

droomph July 30th, 2012 4:16 PM

From what I have heard (mainly from a select few) philosophy classes never give you "answers", so to say. What they do is present facts from different points of view and let's you choose which one you think is right.

On the same notion, I think that is how Religious Studies should be taught. I remember that my pastor said they invited a rabbi over to our church for Passover so we could understand Jesus' religion better (or something). While this may not seem like much (after all Christianity is basically a noob version of Judaism) it shows how easy it could be to make things relevant yet of value.

They shouldn't ever give an "answer", but rather, a "question" then "opinion"s. And from what little religious studies I had in middle school (we memorized the 10 commandments and then the five Pillars of Islam) it has made me understand their religion better. Now I know that most of the Muslims don't all hate America and want to blow up airplanes, but rather there are a select few who have radical views. And think about it. Most of us are Christians in America, and when the KKK and various Christian terrorist groups started acting up did they freak out about Christianity? No, because they knew that those weren't the values of Christians.

In the same way, if we had taught them about (and the key word here is about) Islam, do you think they would have freaked out about the dude with the turban next door? No, because they would know wether or not they, the Muslims, think blowing up buildings is part of their tradition. And they would have agreed to build that mosque at Ground Zero, because they knew that they are like us, but worships in a different way. No blowing up things - that is for the loony Muslims. And if we were to do this across the world, learning about every culture and religion, don't you think the world would be a better place?

So my point is, education promotes tolerance. And since America's main value is based off of tolerance, chances are education in that area might let us reach that goal faster.

Edit: Why would reading the Bible or the Koran be a bad thing? It only allows discussion, and explains why they think that way. For example, Ruth and Esther are great examples of not just Jewish values, but values everyone has got to follow! Yet, since it's in a religious text, we can't learn about them. Rather, we have to learn state-regulated bullcrap the bores people. And to be honest, the poetic forms of most religious texts are great examples not only for values, but for literature and ancient language classes and so forth. And while that power could be abused, students are usually smart enough to realize that they are to discuss, not simply be brainwashed by these things. In fact, most classes have "participation" grades so that they learn more, and I think it would be more than helpful here to prevent certain untrue and extremely racist ideas (like "Christians are better than Jews!") from sticking in their minds. Yes, the Jews crucified the Son of Man, God's ultimate gift to them. But through discussion, the more subtle point that everyone rebels and will be punished will be brought up. And stuff like that happens all throughout the texts, and by the end of your 12-year education, you are anything but brainwashed.

That being said you can certainly abuse these texts for negative purposes, like the brainwashing I mentioned earlier. But obviously there will be complaints, and there will be consequences. So extra vigilance will definitely have to be kept in place here. But hey, what's a little effort (extra surveillance of teaching methods) for a big reward (tolerance and world peace)?

Ivysaur August 1st, 2012 1:48 AM

I took it in 11th grade alongside Philosophy and I found it very interesting.

I'm fine with that sort of class, as long as no religion is ever treated as "correct", as Alex said. I'd also add that it should be directed at more mature students rather than to kids in elementary school, because they are more likely to take everything as truths instead of legendary stories with morals in them. In that regard, I think that the best moment to study them in some degree of depht is when the kids are ready to study philosophy as well, because the cores of both are very similar.

Sydian August 1st, 2012 4:03 PM

If you want to study religion, of any kind mind you, it should be your choice, or in the case of younger students, the parents choice. And when the child is old enough to decide whether they want to continue that education or not, they can make that decision. Though I think both Creationism and evolution should be taught at a higher age. When I was taught evolution after going to church all my life (and I wanna say this was first introduced 3rd grade of all things), it made no sense to me and I couldn't figure out where to piece it in and I just went on thinking Jesus hung out with dinosaurs. Hell, I still don't know how to piece it in. It's a bit weird to teach a young child both concepts, which is why I think it should be taught at a higher age where they can decide for themselves what seems most logical or how to fit them both together to where they make sense. And please for the love of God and dinosaurs, don't give me the "evolution is fact" sermon.

This probably makes no sense because I went off about evolution. Basically, religion should only be taught in religious-based schools, and if it's public, it should be by a student's choice.

Dakotah August 2nd, 2012 6:58 AM

No, religious studies should never be mandatory. And it should only ever be offered in high school and post secondary schools where it would be an optional course.

mew42003 August 6th, 2012 7:25 PM

I think it should be up to the kids to decide what their stance on Religion is. Being forced to practice something just because your parents/family do it isn't right. Everyone is entitled to their own views on these matters. It could be beneficial if children learned about the customs of each religion early on (so as not to become biased or stay ignorant), but the parents of these kids who are devout in their faith would not agree. Unless we get all parties to compromise, it will never happen. Its sad, really. People love to fight and discriminate over small differences. World Peace will never happen unless that changes.

Cherrim August 6th, 2012 9:49 PM

World Religions as a course should be mandatory. Honestly, just throw it into every elementary school's social studies curriculum and we're golden. Field trips to visit places of worship to learn more about it from the religious leaders, lessons in class from an impartial textbook, and activities based on traditions from the religion. Everyone learns more about the history and customs of a religion, kids have a bit of opportunity to explore their faith and see if they find something that matches their belief system, and they learn to be tolerant of other faiths because they know exactly what those other faiths entail.

Plus, religions are really interesting when you get into the whats and whys of them! It's not even like this kind of thing would affect anyone's standing religion. Unless your kid is so dumb/closed-minded that he or she can't take in information about other religions without feeling the need to convert to them or something, all they'll be doing is learning. And that's not a bad thing.

Religious education that focuses only on faith and instilling it should be kept to religious schools (which should still have the above curriculum regardless of denomination, imo).

SneakerTheOtter August 7th, 2012 1:45 AM

If religion is going to be taught at schools, then many religions should be taught, and not just one. I came from England, so religion was a mandatory subject, and we only studied Christianity. I don't find that fair, because I would've liked to learn about Buddhism or something else as well ._.

Shining Raichu August 7th, 2012 3:26 AM

Studies of Religion was a course offered as a Year 11/12 elective at my high school, and I chose it because I thought it seemed incredibly interesting. Unfortunately, the way the schedule worked out, I couldn't do it and had to pick something else. But the point is, I was interested in it and I chose it. It wasn't forced upon me.

I think the only subjects that should be compulsory at school are the skills that will help everybody through life: English, Mathematics and some sort of overall Wellbeing course that covers things like health and kindness toward others. Every other subject should be optional, and I do include Science in this. Beyond the very basic, every student should be able to customise their educational experience based on what they feel will be of benefit to them specifically.

So no, regardless of how many religions are studied or how un-biased it is, religion should absolutely not be compulsory in schools. Very few things should.

droomph August 7th, 2012 12:38 PM

Well I agree, SR, that you should not have many mandatory classes in school.

However, what I don't agree with, is that you don't think Religious Education should be one of the few mandatory ones.

Maybe it's because of the "Religious" in the class name, but if you think about it, what it is, is basically teaching tolerance. And maybe in Australia your core principles are focused on only allowing one group of people to dominate (hey, I don't live there okay) but I'm positive that at least the US has a policy in the Constitution that explicitly gives religious freedom and tolerance as one of its core values of America. So if it's in the core values, it should be in the core cirriculum as well. After all, weren't we the most open country in the world at one point? We should strive to maintain that position, and since the world is opening up, it's not just the US now - it's the whole world that should teach tolerance in school.

Edit; also

California state standards

  • 6th grade - Ten Commandments; Judaism
  • 6th grade - Eightfold Path; Buddhism
  • 6th grade - Family values; Confucianism, Taoism
  • 7th grade - Nature and Formation of Japan; Shintoism
  • 7th grade - Five Pillars of Islam; Islam
  • 7th grade - the Hajj; Islam
  • 7th grade - Story of The Disciple Mohammed and his followers; Islam
  • 8th grade - Puritanism and England; American Colonies, 17th Century America
  • 8th grade - Immigration's numbers; Modern-Day America

Bluerang1 August 7th, 2012 1:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7290418)
Edit; also

California state standards

  • 6th grade - Ten Commandments; Judaism
  • 6th grade - Eightfold Path; Buddhism
  • 6th grade - Family values; Confucianism, Taoism
  • 7th grade - Nature and Formation of Japan; Shintoism
  • 7th grade - Five Pillars of Islam; Islam
  • 7th grade - the Hajj; Islam
  • 7th grade - Story of The Disciple Mohammed and his followers; Islam
  • 8th grade - Puritanism and England; American Colonies, 17th Century America
  • 8th grade - Immigration's numbers; Modern-Day America


Amazing! Exactly what I am trying to get at and like I was taught in London. I have forgotten some specifics of certain religions but I do know their beliefs and respect them for that. It makes one more tolerant and understanding.

Dakotah August 7th, 2012 1:22 PM

I would be personally offended if any public school mandated religious studies. Only if my child was interested in the subject would I allow it, and only then if the course material covered many religions rather than one or two only.

Nihilego August 7th, 2012 1:26 PM

Omg. Califiornia have got the right idea there. What droomph just outlined is what I feel is the perfect way to teach religious material - many different religions over a long time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7290473)
I would be personally offended if any public school mandated religious studies. Only if my child was interested in the subject would I allow it, and only then if the course material covered many religions rather than one or two only.

Out of interest, would you be offended if the school mandated another subject such as history which your child wasn't interested in? Or would the issue lie only with religious studies?

Dynomuff August 7th, 2012 1:29 PM

I Don't mind tbh, even though i'm not interested in most religions

Oryx August 7th, 2012 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightning (Post 7289416)
World Religions as a course should be mandatory. Honestly, just throw it into every elementary school's social studies curriculum and we're golden. Field trips to visit places of worship to learn more about it from the religious leaders, lessons in class from an impartial textbook, and activities based on traditions from the religion. Everyone learns more about the history and customs of a religion, kids have a bit of opportunity to explore their faith and see if they find something that matches their belief system, and they learn to be tolerant of other faiths because they know exactly what those other faiths entail.

Plus, religions are really interesting when you get into the whats and whys of them! It's not even like this kind of thing would affect anyone's standing religion. Unless your kid is so dumb/closed-minded that he or she can't take in information about other religions without feeling the need to convert to them or something, all they'll be doing is learning. And that's not a bad thing.

Religious education that focuses only on faith and instilling it should be kept to religious schools (which should still have the above curriculum regardless of denomination, imo).

As someone who went to a Catholic high school, I can't speak for the schools for younger children but my school was actually pretty respectful of the fact that people chose the school often due to academic opportunities and not because they shared the faith. So the classes for religion (that were required, one every year) were still focused on Catholicism but were knowledge-based and not faith-based. The history of the bible, how people practice the faith, etc, nothing pushing people to actually become Catholic.

I have to agree with RL on the religious studies, and I actually find it a bit strange that both your child has to be interested in it and it has to cover 3+ religions for you to accept it, Jay. What if your child is in high school and has decided he wants to study one religion in particular so he takes a course in just that religion? Would you not allow him to? I guess I was raised with pretty much 100% freedom when it comes to my parents dictating what courses I would take so I just can't understand if you have an intelligent kid, telling him he couldn't take a course he wanted to take, haha.

I wouldn't be against having a Philosophy of Religion course instead though. I've taken both Theology and Philosophy of Religion, and they're very different things. Theology is from the inside; you imagine how people worship as a believer, and not from the outside. Philosophy is from different philosophers, some within religion and some outside it, applying logic and philosophical arguments to different parts of religion.

Dakotah August 7th, 2012 1:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 7290477)
Out of interest, would you be offended if the school mandated another subject such as history which your child wasn't interested in? Or would the issue lie only with religious studies?

Schools currently mandate courses such as language studies (English and French), mathematics, science, athletics, history, sex education (grade 5 and above), and social studies, so no, I would not be offended if another secular topic was mandated (i.e. shop class). My issue is with organized religion alone.

I envision this scenario: my child would be a part of a non-traditional household, given that his or her parents would be a gay couple. In the course of learning about certain religions, my child would most likely learn of most religions' condemnation of homosexuals. He or she then could then think that all people of those religions hate gay people and my child could become frightened that people might harm myself or my boyfriend (or husband should we be married).

This is, of course, a hypothetical situation in my part, but this is sort of happening right now here in Ontario, and in the U.S., where children of gay couples are being told in school, by teachers and staff, that being gay is wrong.

So no, I would most certainly be offended if anyone were to mandate religious studies as part of my child's education. I would rather my child make up his or her mind whether it is a subject they wish to study, and only after I'm certain they are able to mentally comprehend that belief is not reflective of reality. Hence I think the course should only be offered as an optional class in high school and in post secondary schools (colleges and universities).

Religion belongs in the home and in church. Not in the classroom.

Mana August 7th, 2012 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7290518)

I envision this scenario: my child would be a part of a non-traditional household, given that his or her parents would be a gay couple. In the course of learning about certain religions, my child would most likely learn of most religions' condemnation of homosexuals. He or she then could then think that all people of those religions hate gay people and my child could become frightened that people might harm myself or my boyfriend (or husband should we be married).

o_o;; Sorry but that's your job to teach your child otherwise. They're much more likely to think that people hate gay people from the TV or other news outlets than they are in a classroom. Believe it or not but gays aren't of that much importance in the study of religion - and most teachers would actively avoid such a controversial topic anyway.

Quote:

Religion belongs in the home and in church. Not in the classroom.
Cooking belongs in a restaurant, not in a classroom. History belongs in the past, not in the classroom, etc.

Again, it's education not religious preaching. It is not an organised religion teaching it, in fact I know two Religious Education teachers personally and both of them are Atheist.

Oryx August 7th, 2012 2:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7290518)


Schools currently mandate courses such as language studies (English and French), mathematics, science, athletics, history, sex education (grade 5 and above), and social studies, so no, I would not be offended if another secular topic was mandated (i.e. shop class). My issue is with organized religion alone.

I envision this scenario: my child would be a part of a non-traditional household, given that his or her parents would be a gay couple. In the course of learning about certain religions, my child would most likely learn of most religions' condemnation of homosexuals. He or she then could then think that all people of those religions hate gay people and my child could become frightened that people might harm myself or my boyfriend (or husband should we be married).

This is, of course, a hypothetical situation in my part, but this is sort of happening right now here in Ontario, and in the U.S., where children of gay couples are being told in school, by teachers and staff, that being gay is wrong.

So no, I would most certainly be offended if anyone were to mandate religious studies as part of my child's education. I would rather my child make up his or her mind whether it is a subject they wish to study, and only after I'm certain they are able to mentally comprehend that belief is not reflective of reality. Hence I think the course should only be offered as an optional class in high school and in post secondary schools (colleges and universities).

Religion belongs in the home and in church. Not in the classroom.

However, people that have a working knowledge of the basics of religion are far better off than people who live in ignorance of it. For example, I know many people (some on PC even) that make claims that show they have no knowledge of how Catholicism actually works. Although I'm agnostic, I have enough background in Catholicism that I end up having to set them straight, because they weren't ever taught about religion and what it really says in doctrine.

In addition, I have to say that in all my education I haven't once had a teacher even mention gay people to a class. Or abortion for that matter, and all of these were long, in-depth Catholic-specific classes (not the kind that are being spoken about here, but the kind that gets deeply into theology so would be much more likely to bring up that issue). Think of it this way. The students would probably be studying at least Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and smaller religions such as Wicca. In only a year or two. In reality, when you look at religion from an overhead perspective and start from the basics, being against gay marriage is just a footnote in the overarching theology of Christians. Instead of that, I'm sure the class would instead focus on the New Testament, the early history of the believers when they were persecuted, some basic doctrinal things (how people become saints, where people go when they die, consubstantiation, etc), and then on to the next religion.

I also agree that it shouldn't be taught until later though, at the very earliest the beginning of middle school but preferably 7th-8th grade and above. Before that too many children are just too impressionable and a lot still believe that everything a teacher says is right just by the nature of them being a teacher.

Dakotah August 7th, 2012 2:20 PM

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]
Quote:

Originally Posted by SwiftSign (Post 7290525)
o_o;; Sorry but that's your job to teach your child otherwise. They're much more likely to think that people hate gay people from the TV or other news outlets than they are in a classroom. Believe it or not but gays aren't of that much importance in the study of religion - and most teachers would actively avoid such a controversial topic anyway.



Have you SEEN some of the shows on TV lately? They're the most gay inclusive/friendly shows out there! So much so, all we hear about are religious groups whining and complaining that there are too many shows portraying gays in a positive way!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwiftSign (Post 7290525)
Again, it's education not religious preaching. It is not an organised religion teaching it, in fact I know two Religious Education teachers personally and both of them are Atheist.

Again, I want my child to determine for him or herself when they are ready to tackle that subject. I am an Atheist myself, and I have some very strong feelings about organized religion. I'll just leave it at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7290533)
However, people that have a working knowledge of the basics of religion are far better off than people who live in ignorance of it. For example, I know many people (some on PC even) that make claims that show they have no knowledge of how Catholicism actually works. Although I'm agnostic, I have enough background in Catholicism that I end up having to set them straight, because they weren't ever taught about religion and what it really says in doctrine.

I'm not arguing that, though. I'm arguing that when it comes to religion, as it deals with faith and belief, it should be a subject offered to those who have an interest in it and not forced on them. It should be an elective course, not a mandatory one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7290533)
I also agree that it shouldn't be taught until later though, at the very earliest the beginning of middle school but preferably 7th-8th grade and above. Before that too many children are just too impressionable and a lot still believe that everything a teacher says is right just by the nature of them being a teacher.

Yes, after a child becomes a teenager or young adult. A child of 6 or 7 barely maintains knowledge of the math they learn in school, except when it comes to determining how much candy they have. Then they become like IRS auditors, strict and unforgiving.

droomph August 7th, 2012 3:30 PM

Alright Jay I was taught Greek Gods last year. Was I particularly happy to learn about a fake religion? No. But I got over it, and I'm still a Christian, not some Olympia-worshipping freak. It's about learning their values, not worshipping it. I learned about hybris and Niobe and how that caused her to fall from glory, how you should love others, like in Narcissus, and how Zeus finds man disgusting and will destroy them one day.

So by the same note I think teaching different religions isn't going to affect any child in any way. The important word here is "teach". If it is "preached", like at a sermon, then obviously the child will become very influenced. But we're not preachy preaching, we're teachy teaching. We must make that distinction first.

And jsyk being gay is okay in 99% of religions, including Christianity. So yeah it's not something you should care about. And as Toujours said lots and lots of religions are skimmed over and there are never any debates other than Q&A time. Nonetheless it accomplishes what it was set out to do, which is to promote tolerance.

Though I also agree that it shouldn't be taught until middle school. Little children aren't going to have to worry about religion and the world issues yet - that's why they're so innocent, and we should hold on to their unbiased opinions until they start forming their own and start thinking for themselves, at around adolescence. We should provide them with critical information of the world in an unbiased way at this point so they don't grow up to be racist.

Dakotah August 7th, 2012 4:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7290603)
Alright Jay I was taught Greek Gods last year. Was I particularly happy to learn about a fake religion? No. But I got over it, and I'm still a Christian, not some Olympia-worshipping freak. It's about learning their values, not worshipping it. I learned about hybris and Niobe and how that caused her to fall from glory, how you should love others, like in Narcissus, and how Zeus finds man disgusting and will destroy them one day.

I just bolded the part in your statement that's concerning. By what basis do you determine which religion is a "fake" one? I guarantee you, at the time, it was just as real and just as widely practised as Christianity is today. Would you like to take a shot also at the Norwegians too for having dared worshipped Odin and Thor and the other Norse gods? What about Muslims today, are they practising a "fake" religion also?

While you've demonstrated you learned much during your religious studies, by your comments, you've also demonstrated that you hold other religions in contempt, and are more then willing to express that contempt.

Which leads me to ask, just what is it that you were learning when you took religious studies? It certainly wasn't tolerance.

This is why I would not want my child to attend such a class. Too many people willing to condemn others for practising the wrong religion, or for not practising any religion at all.

WillPowerPedro August 7th, 2012 4:35 PM

I think no because there would be alot of controversy between parents as well as teachers of a different religion. For example, if they taught Christian religion at a public school, it is possible Jewish or those who belong to no religion there that could be offended. I would love that because I am Catholic, but there would be too much controversy.

droomph August 7th, 2012 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7290634)


I just bolded the part in your statement that's concerning. By what basis do you determine which religion is a "fake" one? I guarantee you, at the time, it was just as real and just as widely practised as Christianity is today. Would you like to take a shot also at the Norwegians too for having dared worshipped Odin and Thor and the other Norse gods? What about Muslims today, are they practising a "fake" religion also?

While you've demonstrated you learned much during your religious studies, by your comments, you've also demonstrated that you hold other religions in contempt, and are more then willing to express that contempt.

Which leads me to ask, just what is it that you were learning when you took religious studies? It certainly wasn't tolerance.

This is why I would not want my child to attend such a class. Too many people willing to condemn others for practising the wrong religion, or for not practising any religion at all.

It's not as much as I hate them than what I think about it. Just because I think it's fake doesn't mean I have much prejudice against them. Now, if I had said "dumb religion" then that would have some problems to it.

I think Islam is fake and wouldn't be Muslim myself, but I don't think that they are teaching a religion that is promoting violence and thus will be more mellow and less suspicious around them. That is the only point of these Religious classes - to teach tolerance.


Quote:

Originally Posted by WillPowerPedro (Post 7290660)
I think no because there would be alot of controversy between parents as well as teachers of a different religion. For example, if they taught Christian religion at a public school, it is possible Jewish or those who belong to no religion there that could be offended. I would love that because I am Catholic, but there would be too much controversy.

I think you're misunderstanding something - this teaches all religions, not just one. And they don't preach, they teach.

donavannj August 7th, 2012 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7290908)
It's not as much as I hate them than what I think about it. Just because I think it's fake doesn't mean I have much prejudice against them. Now, if I had said "dumb religion" then that would have some problems to it.

I think Islam is fake and wouldn't be Muslim myself, but I don't think that they are teaching a religion that is promoting violence and thus will be more mellow and less suspicious around them. That is the only point of these Religious classes - to teach tolerance.

Using fake there makes it seem like you don't think that there are actually people who follow that religion and that the religion's philosophy has never existed, which is very, very incorrect, as the religion's philosophy has to exist in order for anyone to be a follower of that religion. A much better, less malicious word to use to describe how you feel about those is to say that they are incorrect.

Anyway, back on the topic, I do think educating individuals about all the major religions as well as educating them about the prevalent philosophies of the non-religious should be compulsory, as this is a subject where even if you're cheating your way through the class, you may glean just enough from the notes to actually have a decent understanding of where someone of another religion is coming from.

Dakotah August 8th, 2012 2:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7290908)
It's not as much as I hate them than what I think about it. Just because I think it's fake doesn't mean I have much prejudice against them. Now, if I had said "dumb religion" then that would have some problems to it.

Calling a religion fake IS being prejudicial.

I do not believe in a God, am an Atheist, but I would not call any religion a fake one. I simply do not believe in a deity of any kind. Christianity is a genuine religion. Islam is a genuine religion. Wicca is a genuine religion. None of them are fake. They are all real, they all exist, and they are all practiced by many. By calling them fake you insult the followers of those religions.

A better way to describe your feelings about other religions is to say that you do not agree with them, which is accurate and non-prejudicial.

As I said, you learned much about the particulars of certain religions, but what you didn't learn obviously was respect for them.

This is a danger when dealing with religion and is precisely why it should not be made mandatory in schools. Too many people unwilling to show respect for others whose beliefs differ from their own.

WillPowerPedro August 8th, 2012 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7290908)
I think you're misunderstanding something - this teaches all religions, not just one. And they don't preach, they teach.

But still, don't think some people would be offended? It would be unlikely, but who knows how someone could react to their children learning a completely different religion. I mean, what if their kid got into the religion? Once again, super unlikely, but possible.

And at my school, we learned religions and how they work, we learned Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Shining Raichu August 8th, 2012 7:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph
Maybe it's because of the "Religious" in the class name, but if you think about it, what it is, is basically teaching tolerance. And maybe in Australia your core principles are focused on only allowing one group of people to dominate (hey, I don't live there okay) but I'm positive that at least the US has a policy in the Constitution that explicitly gives religious freedom and tolerance as one of its core values of America. So if it's in the core values, it should be in the core cirriculum as well. After all, weren't we the most open country in the world at one point? We should strive to maintain that position, and since the world is opening up, it's not just the US now - it's the whole world that should teach tolerance in school.

I believe that inherent within the 'freedom of religion' clause is 'freedom from religion'. If people don't want to learn about religions they shouldn't be forced to as part of a core curriculum. I don't support that. Nor do I support the hipocrisy of a nation claiming to promote such 'freedom' enforcing its core values - no matter what they may be - on its student populace.

Your point about teaching tolerance is well-received, though. Even then, I don't support a compulsory course in something that isn't necessary for survival in the world, but supposing I did, there are far better ways of teaching tolerance than through learning about religion. Why not a course on different cultures in general? It could absolutely include religion, but it's quite short-sighted to focus on exclusively religion when there are so many other aspects of different cultures that students could be learning to 'tolerate'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph
Was I particularly happy to learn about a fake religion? No. But I got over it, and I'm still a Christian, not some Olympia-worshipping freak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph
Just because I think it's fake doesn't mean I have much prejudice against them. Now, if I had said "dumb religion" then that would have some problems to it.

For somebody so gung-ho on the idea of teaching religious tolerance, you certainly aren't showing a lot of it yourself. I'm not even religious and I'm beyond offended on behalf of the 'Olympia-worshipping freaks'.

Lets do a hypothetical: say a Wiccan posted in this thread and said, "I was taught about Christianity last year. Was I particularly happy to learn about a fake religion? No. But I got over it, and I'm still a Wiccan, not some Jesus-worshipping freak."

How would that make you feel?

droomph August 8th, 2012 7:56 AM

I would be fine with it. It's their view of the world, after all.

Now if they started to reject them and started to kill them just because they were Christian and all that good stuff, I would definitely have a problem with that. But I don't, and won't, have a say on someone's opinions. That is what I'm trying to get at - that religious education won't make you consider any religion any more or less acceptable to you, but it will make you know that they're not all going to blow up planes and stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7291233)


Calling a religion fake IS being prejudicial.

I do not believe in a God, am an Atheist, but I would not call any religion a fake one. I simply do not believe in a deity of any kind. Christianity is a genuine religion. Islam is a genuine religion. Wicca is a genuine religion. None of them are fake. They are all real, they all exist, and they are all practiced by many. By calling them fake you insult the followers of those religions.

A better way to describe your feelings about other religions is to say that you do not agree with them, which is accurate and non-prejudicial.

As I said, you learned much about the particulars of certain religions, but what you didn't learn obviously was respect for them.

This is a danger when dealing with religion and is precisely why it should not be made mandatory in schools. Too many people unwilling to show respect for others whose beliefs differ from their own.

I'm not preventing them from being Muslims, or Wiccans, or whatever, right? I may disagree vehemently of what you say, but I will forever defend your right to say it. Now, you should be able to disagree vehemently with what I say, but you should allow me to say whatever I feel is the case. And I say that it is the case because that is my truth, and may not be yours. All other religions are fake to me, that is a fact. I have facts that prove it to me, and may not be true to you. However, me being prejudicial to them is not a fact. I will look down on you, but not disallow you from anything I, or any law-abiding individual, do. It's the same as gay marriage, abortion, and all those other issues involving personal opinions. That is the basis of tolerance. Tolerance means allowing people to have their own opinions, not accepting all opinions. That is what I have learned during my musings at the Christian religion.

Oryx August 8th, 2012 8:03 AM

I feel like you all are being a little hard on droomph here. Basically he said something that was mistook as something else. He's clarified that he doesn't mean the religions don't exist, just that he doesn't agree with them (and thus in his opinion the gods are fake), and yet you all are jumping all over him for it.

Pedro, what's wrong with a child wanting to be a religion different from their parents? Why is that a bad thing and something we should be afraid of?

WillPowerPedro August 8th, 2012 8:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7291564)
Pedro, what's wrong with a child wanting to be a religion different from their parents? Why is that a bad thing and something we should be afraid of?

Well. Like what I mean is... It is hard to explain. Like what if a parent kept their kid away from religion because of controversial reasons and their kids start to practice that religion? I am not really sure how to explain. What is your opinion on the matter?

Bluerang1 August 8th, 2012 8:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillPowerPedro (Post 7291598)
Well. Like what I mean is... It is hard to explain. Like what if a parent kept their kid away from religion because of controversial reasons and their kids start to practice that religion? I am not really sure how to explain. What is your opinion on the matter?

What type of controversial reason do you mean? I do understand your point of view. Like some Christian parents dreading their kids being atheists and vice versa.

droomph August 8th, 2012 8:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillPowerPedro (Post 7291491)
But still, don't think some people would be offended? It would be unlikely, but who knows how someone could react to their children learning a completely different religion. I mean, what if their kid got into the religion? Once again, super unlikely, but possible.

And at my school, we learned religions and how they work, we learned Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The only way that can happen is if they agree with the philosophy and are convicted to learn it. How most households work only one religion is ever described in detail and other religions are deemed as "evil". This is how children of catholic families turn atheist - they find a religion that they believe is true. There is no stopping them - that is their destiny. They deem that to be true, but you have kept the realities away from them. You have done all you could to prevent that from happening, but don't. You're just wasting time and effort by doing that.

This holds true even in Christianity. It is said that if you are here for worldly reasons, that we don't want you here at all, for your own good and to save you lots of time. But if you come back with a desire to learn about Christ, no matter how screwed up you are, you could have given up all hope of salvation and you don't even care, but we will still allow you in.

Kanto_Johto August 8th, 2012 8:32 AM

No, it absolutely should not be mandatory in the same way that History, Geography and other subjects similar are not mandatory. Mathematics, Science and English Language/Literature should be mandatory only, since these are applicable in everyday life regardless of career choice.

When I was at school, we were forced to take half a GCSE in RE (yeah, how pointless is that?), and I still believe that it was wrong for it to be compulsory. Some people like myself don't believe in the madness that some religions teach, so why should we have to learn about why others do believe in their religions and how this influences the actions they take?

I'm tolerant of those who are religious because I believe that they have the right to believe whatever they want to, as long as they don't attempt to force it onto anyone else. Not because school taught me to be tolerant.

Also, in response to the evolution argument, some aspects of evolution are scientifically factual, so to disregard it as a whole is ignorant, in my opinion.

Snowdrop August 8th, 2012 8:41 AM

Should it be mandatory? No-diddly. Should it be available as a class to pick? Sure, why not.

That's my simple take on it lol.

WillPowerPedro August 8th, 2012 8:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7291608)
What type of controversial reason do you mean?

There is alot of reasons. Such as Islam controversy or bullying. AND LISTEN. I have nothing against the religion (Islam), but others do, that is why I am listening it. Other than that I am not sure. I never really looked into it, but people say controversial reasons and stuff. Sorry if I am not providing all the info you want. I don't know alot on the matter.

Soar August 8th, 2012 9:05 AM

I dont think it should be mandatory. Maybe they could make it like an elective, or other class. But it shouldn't be forced upon you. I live in the USA so (1) It goes against Freedom of Religion. and (2) It could promote bullying because some kids take it and some kids don't.
But if you really wanted to learn about that, they have private schools for that (at least they have christian private schools)

Esper August 8th, 2012 9:06 AM

Does learning about religions in such detail make a person more understanding or help them in any way? Isn't it enough that students are taught religions exist as part of their history and social studies classes? Shouldn't the fact that people are taught to respect others be enough? (I'm asking these questions seriously.)

'Cuz it just seems to me that if you have to go into all this detail just to make sure people aren't going to be prejudiced then you've got some bigger prejudice problem going on that should be dealt with first. I can see how it would help some people because you would teach them "These people don't believe the same things you do, but they're still moral because they still believe." At least I've seen discussions go this way, the "all religions are equal" way. Which I'm not saying is bad, but it does nothing to help stop prejudice against non-religious people or stop intolerance that's based against someone's race or sexuality. For instance, right after 9/11 there were not a small number of people attacked and/or killed because they had darker skin. As I recall most weren't even Muslim.

It just seems kinda secondary on the whole scale of tolerance and/or learning about history/the world. Like, everything you could take away from a class on religions you could get from classes that are already in place.

droomph August 8th, 2012 11:30 AM

Scarf, we're not talking about having it as a whole seperate class necessarily. We're just saying, should we incorporate that into school?

For example, a few posts back I listed all the religious stuff we had to learn in History in middle school (which was mandatory btw) and I think that is sufficient for a RE class.

Brendino August 8th, 2012 10:12 PM

I don't believe that Religious Education should be a mandatory class.

If it were to be taught from a completely neutral and un-biased standpoint, though, I would have absolutely no problem to see it as an elective course in either high school or college/university, and I might have even taken it over another Social Studies course like History or Geography. It would be interesting to learn about differences and similarities between different faiths, and as long as it was a course that isn't imposed on someone, it would be a good idea.

Kung Fu Ferret August 12th, 2012 1:39 PM

As an Atheist... My answer is No. Just... No! This isn't a theocracy like some of you said above me!

droomph August 12th, 2012 3:39 PM

It's not about whether you believe in it or not. We already do this to some extent anyways (at least California does), so I wouldn't say that we're exactly promoting a "theocracy".


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:16 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.