Should Religious Education be Mandatory in Schools?

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.

Jay_37040 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

WillPowerPedro said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

droomph said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

droomph said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

droomph said:

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.

Click to expand...

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'.

droomph said:

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.

Click to expand...

droomph said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Toujours said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

WillPowerPedro said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Bluerang1 said:

What type of controversial reason do you mean?

Click to expand...

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.

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)

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.

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.

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