Religious education should be in schools? Discuss.

[andyandy]

I am of the opinion that religious education should be - there is no surer way to make teenagers hate religion than to teach it at school - I think of it as a form of public health inoculation.

I thought people would be interested in seeing the UK RE curriculum....

you can see the key stage 3 (11~14 ish) syllabus

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/?view=get

the basic topics are

Quote:
Unit 7A. Where do we look for God?
Unit 7B. What does justice mean to Christians?
Unit 7C. Religious figure (generic)
Unit 7D. Who was Gotama Buddha?
Unit 7E. What are we doing to the environment?
Unit 8A. What does Jesus' Incarnation mean for Christians today?
Unit 8B. What does the Resurrection of Jesus mean for Christians today?
Unit 8C. Beliefs and practice (generic)
Unit 8D. Beliefs and practice: how do the beliefs of Sikhs affect their actions?
Unit 8E. A visit to a place of worship (generic)
Unit 8F. What makes a gurdwara special to Sikhs?
Unit 9A. Where are we going? Rites of passage
Unit 9B. Where did the universe come from?
Unit 9C. Why do we suffer?
Unit 9D. Why are some places special to religious believers?

and the site provides substancial details on what is taught in each unit.

I was interested in the different approaches in different countries - we often hear of the "separation between church and state" in the US - does this mean that there is no RE lessons? How about the approach amongst our antipodean cousins?

 

[Darat]

I think it is very important to teach about religion and even about specific religions in school. UK society is permeated with religion and not to teach kids about this very important aspect of society would be doing them a disservice. Not too keen on the current syllabus as I don't think it focuses enough on religion as a phenomenon but overall seems not too bad.

ETA: Take that back - been reading what the goals are behind the syllabus and it seems to have been very well thought out.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

II thought people would be interested in seeing the UK RE curriculum....

I would be very interested as I was not aware that such a thing existed, what with education being a devolved power dealt with differently in the constituent parts of the UK.

you can see the key stage 3 (11~14 ish) syllabus

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/sch...y_RE/?view=get

the basic topics are

Linky no worky

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/secondary_RE/

 

[MWare]

I think it is very important to teach about religion and even about specific religions in school. UK society is permeated with religion and not to teach kids about this very important aspect of society would be doing them a disservice. Not too keen on the current syllabus as I don't think it focuses enough on religion as a phenomenon but overall seems not too bad.

Great. So now my tax dollars can support kids taking Scientology electives. Personally, I think they learn all they need to know about religion from history classes that cover the crusades, spanish inquisition, etc.

 

[andyandy]

Linky no worky

linky fixey

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think we should have a Religion class.

Of course, it would be interfaith. Like have a week looking at a different sect of the most prominent religions.

Oh, and for Atheism, they just get a week of free time!

 

[andyandy]

Great. So now my tax dollars can support kids taking Scientology electives. Personally, I think they learn all they need to know about religion from history classes that cover the crusades, spanish inquisition, etc.

I think that this opinion will be shared by a number of posters, but i do think it's fundamentally wrong,

teaching about religion is different to converting to religion. There is a significant distinction. I'd make an analogy with magic tricks - we all have an inherent tendency towards wonder, children especially love magic as a result, but teach about magic and that wonder poof disapears.

The same with religion - as long as religion is left to the conjurors, the preachers, then it maintains its mystique, its wonder, but teach about religion and that mystique can not be maintained. This view i would assume would be agreed with by most here - indeed, it's a little Dawkins-esque, a sure fire guarentee of popularity. I find it strange that people don't believe that this education should be applied to the single most important place in disseminating ideas within the populace - school.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No.

Thanks for the discussion.

History classes should involve the origination, development, schisms, and conflicts in religion well enough. My World/European/American history classes explained the Shacker, Quakers, the Reformation, the conversion of Constantine, and all the other major developments in Chrisitanity. Islam, Hinduism, and other religions were explained, too. You can't teach the subject of Native American/Settler interaction without mentioning shamanism, the Ghost Dance, and other beliefs.

Why waste everyone's time belaboring the subject of nonsense in a school?

Just because some people take religion seriously doesn't mean it should be part of a student's education. What other nonsense would we teach on that basis, astrology, homeopathy?

 

[andyandy]

No.

Thanks for the discussion.

History classes should involve the origination, development, schisms, and conflicts in religion well enough. My World/European/American history classes explained the Shacker, Quakers, the Reformation, the conversion of Constantine, and all the other major developments in Chrisitanity. Islam, Hinduism, and other religions were explained, too. You can't teach the subject of Native American/Settler interaction without mentioning shamanism, the Ghost Dance, and other beliefs.

Why waste everyone's time belaboring the subject of nonsense in a school?

Just because some people take religion seriously doesn't mean it should be part of a student's education. What other nonsense would we teach on that basis, astrology, homeopathy?

and you feel that the separation of church and state has served the US better than the UK with regards to religiousity?

It seems bizare that you would seemingly actively prefer for students to only be exposed to one religion (and likely one denomination) rather than actually learn about all the other religious beliefs that are out there - and actually learn about them rather than form narrow and ignorant sterotypes. Because it is precisely this kind of exposure to the panetheon that weakens fundamentalist monotheism - the absolute scourge of society that obviously provokes so much of your anger.

It's hard to understand utopian blinkeredness - religion exists and billions of people subscribe to it. It would be nice to click one's fingers and magic it all away. That's not going to happen. So instead, rather than simple bellicose rhetoric, how about actually considering societal utilitarian benefit? It's worth actually considering the UK model and the US model and comparing and contrasting which society has the greatest religiousity. It's worth considering that the co-option of the Church of England within the state system, far from strengthening its influence, has in fact regulated and diluted it. It's worth considering that RE lessons teach about religion, about what people believe, and education is the best way for children to actually understand beliefs, to understand why people hold them. It's worth considering that RE lessons teach about a panetheon of gods not the fundamentalist's wet dream no god but me big beard in the sky. When all of that is considered, rather than simply dismissed, because, hey religion is bad, then perhaps you could reach a more nuanced conclusion.

 

[MWare]

I think that this opinion will be shared by a number of posters, but i do think it's fundamentally wrong,

teaching about religion is different to converting to religion.

I would agree with you if I thought religion could be taught without bias systemwide, but I personally don't think it can. How does the state teach religion without promoting religion?

Is an equal amount of time given to all religions, or is it based on popularity? Who picks the teachers and then monitors to make sure that they aren't indeed evangelizing? Would atheism be "taught", and if so how?

I think there are too many places where this could turn into state sanctioned religious indoctrination. I believe religion is indeed a very important subject, but it is covered in classes like history where its impact is taught, not its precepts. I certainly can imagine a religion class like I believe you are envisioning which is quite useful and academically beneficial, but I don't believe such a class is practical in the real world (at least not in the US, which is the only education I've been exposed to).

I think it is more likely that these classes will promote religion even though I realize that is not the intent and as an atheist, I feel that is a step backward.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

and you feel that the separation of church and state has served the US better than the UK with regards to religiousity?

Don't change the subject.

It seems bizare that you would seemingly actively prefer for students to only be exposed to one religion (and likely one denomination) rather than actually learn about all the other religious beliefs that are out there - and actually learn about them rather than form narrow and ignorant sterotypes. Because it is precisely this kind of exposure to the panetheon that weakens fundamentalist monotheism - the absolute scourge of society that provokes so much anger in posters like yourself.

Please explain how an academically rigorous history education protrays other cultures and religions in "narrow and ignorant sterotypes," and how it only exposed children to one religion. I'm curious, because I have all my old history textbooks, and Zeus is staring me in the face.

 

[tsg]

Philosophically, theoretically, I have no problem with teaching about religion in schools.

Practically, I agree with MWare. Making sure the line between education and indoctrination isn't crossed, especially since it can be very fuzzy to begin with, would be problematic at best. And those with an agenda can be very sneaky.

 

[skeptifem]

it would be hard to find a teacher who wouldnt inject their own bias into the course. thats what i would have a problem with.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

it would be hard to find a teacher who wouldnt inject their own bias into the course. thats what i would have a problem with.

Bias and, as MWare pointed out, asigning time on the agenda, are problems. Still, I think wasting time teaching nonsense is its own problem. I see no difference between teaching children that there are people who believe god controls their lives and teaching children that the movements of the planets controls their lives. Religion isn't special. It's the same kind of nonsense we wouldn't put up with in a school.

 

[wolfgirl]

The big question here is whether the intent is to teach religion or teach ABOUT religion. I favor the latter, not the former.

Teaching children about all of the different types of religions in the world and something of the origins of those religions serves not only to instill in them a sense of tolerance of people's differences but also to provide them with a basis for questioning their own religious faith. Recognizing that other people believe things very different from what you yourself have always thought was the only way to believe can only be good.

The problem I have, as others have stated, is whether this can realistically be done in a country as blatantly and rabidly xian as the US. How many teachers are honestly going to teach that Buddhism or Islam is as important and valid as xianity? Even without trying, many of them are going to even subconsciously have a bias in favor of their own religion being the "right" one.

So in theory, I think it's a great idea. In practice, maybe not so much.

 

[andyandy]

Don't change the subject.

why is that changing the subject? The US is much more religious than the UK. It is the "separation of church and state" mindest that prevents RE being taught in US schools. It is entirely relevant for you to consider why the UK has RE in school and is markedly less religious than the US which does not.

Please explain how an academically rigorous history education protrays other cultures and religions in "narrow and ignorant sterotypes," and how it only exposed children to one religion. I'm curious, because I have all my old history textbooks, and Zeus is staring me in the face.

Do you believe that children leave American high school with a good appreciation of Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist beliefs from their history lessons?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

why is that changing the subject? The US is much more religious than the UK. It is the "separation of church and state" mindest that prevents RE being taught in US schools. It is entirely relevant for you to consider why the UK has RE in school and is markedly less religious than the US which does not.

Only if you can demonstrate a causal relationship, otherwise, it is changing the subject.

Do you believe that children leave American high school with a good appreciation of Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist beliefs from their history lessons?

I certainly hope not. No one should appreciate any religion.

 

[MWare]

It is the "separation of church and state" mindest that prevents RE being taught in US schools.

Just a quick clarification. This applies to public schools in the US. I was a product of a private Catholic school, so almost every class somehow incorporated the Big Guy into its syllabus. I believe the private schools can teach whatever they like AS LONG AS they also cover all of the required education that is provided in public schools. The idea of students spending all day bobbing over the koran using rote memorization is NOT education in any real sense of the word.

One disclosure I will make is that while my disdain for the Catholic church, its history, and its teachings are obvious, I did receive a top-notch education - especially in science and math - which I credit to my later success in my career.

 

[andyandy]

Bias and, as MWare pointed out, asigning time on the agenda, are problems. Still, I think wasting time teaching nonsense is its own problem. I see no difference between teaching children that there are people who believe god controls their lives and teaching children that the movements of the planets controls their lives. Religion isn't special. It's the same kind of nonsense we wouldn't put up with in a school.

this really is a "drugs are bad" mindset,

the reasoning

1) drugs are bad

2) tell kids drugs are bad

3) kids won't take drugs

was found to be wholly counterproductive and has been replaced by

1) drugs can be harmful
2) here is the information on all the types of drugs out there. This is what happens when you take them
3) less kids will take drugs, and those that do will be better informed about the dangers

with religion rather than taking the approach

1) religion is bad
2) don't tell kids about it
3) kids just learn about the religion of their parents.

is equally facile.

A far better model is;

1) religion can cause harm
2) here is the information on all the types of religion out there. This is what people believe. This is why they believe it
3) kids understand about religion in general.


I assume you must have learnt about religion somewhere? Why would you try to restrict that knowledge? I can't think of a better way to undermine religion than to actually teach about it.

 

[MWare]

this really is a "drugs are bad" mindset,

the reasoning

1) drugs are bad

2) tell kids drugs are bad

3) kids won't take drugs

was found to be wholly counterproductive and has been replaced by

1) drugs can be harmful
2) here is the information on all the types of drugs out there. This is what happens when you take them
3) less kids will take drugs, and those that do will be better informed about the dangers

with religion rather than taking the approach

1) religion is bad
2) don't tell kids about it
3) kids just learn about the religion of their parents.

is equally facile.

A far better model is;

1) religion can cause harm
2) here is the information on all the types of religion out there. This is what people believe. This is why they believe it
3) kids understand about religion in general.


I assume you must have learnt about religion somewhere? Why would you try to restrict that knowledge? I can't think of a better way to undermine religion than to actually teach about it.

This would be a valid comparison if we were to assume that the majority of people teaching the drugs education class currently take drugs.

ETA: Do you think it would be wise to have a current drug user teach this class? If we could agree that only atheists teach the religion class (which I don't think is practical) I would more supportive of the idea.