Teach Religion in Public Schools?

I can also say that it is a mere opinion when you say public schools shouldn't teach religion.

That we take the side of the person with science and evidence on their side is also a value. Why should YOU get to impose your subjective value on the religious folks?

The issue isn't what's idiocy or whether there is any evidence. I am just pointing out that people who say public schools shouldn't teach religion is imposing their value on the religious crowd who think public schools should. Both groups have their own value and they are equally subjective. So why should we listen to the former group but not the latter?

 

Okay..."teach religion" in schools.

Curriculum outline:

A: Explain that some people blindly guess that at least one god exists...and further blindly guess about the expectations and desires the god has for humans.

B: Explain that some people blindly guess there are no gods.

C: Explain that everyone has a right to guess...but that is probably about as far as anyone is ever going to get.

D: Ummm...ummm...uhhhh.

Okay, we can get to D at some other time.

So, what are we looking at?

Maybe 10 minutes sometime in fifth or sixth grade?

 

That's why is an Elective. Choice, not mandatory.

 

Because people are not willing to take the time to educate themselves by going to a church, temple, or mosque. So if people can be educated in their normal day it's easier for them.

You're correct, spelling is not my strong area.

No I don't see them as actual events, but many aspects of the writings sound that way. Are they...who knows....don't care. I'm also not really sure why you are having such and issue teaching the academics of a religion, unless you believe that in order to learn a religion you have to become that religion.....which is false.

 

Unless you know what you will do after high school. That is to say trade or college for a specific degree many of the electives here are taken as vanity also.

 

There is far more academically to all the religions of the world. From their rituals, prayers, and manner of worship. That can all be learned from an academic stand point. For example, why are Muslims required to pray facing a specific direction? There is much just in that question to be taught from an academic view point.

 

I think you are really waffling semantically with these deeper questions of philosophical subjectivity.

You can't semantically separate the actions of the State from the State itself. Doing so leads to absurdity.
Separation of Church and State therefore legally commands no State actions to involve religion.

And, if you are really going to die on the hill of "Everybody's subjective opinions are 100% equal!" nothing can or ever will be accomplished. The entirety of existence is premised on the eventual preference for one subjectivity over another. And justice and ethics are incompatible with this viewpoint, as you must know that practically, every moral judgment ever has come to one opinion versus another.

Legally, however, if one were to argue the values of different subjectivities, it would only be worthwhile for a state to consider the physical benefits.
What does a state gain and lose by allowing religion in public schools?
What does a state gain and lose by not allowing religion in public schools?
Even then, yes, what counts as "gaining" and "losing' is subjective down to the atom, but I hope you can see how clinging to that argument does you a disservice.
It's like responding to any question with, "Well, things are subjective, so I don't know."

You are a practical human, even if that is an impractical argument, and I trust that you at least recognize that this position is a completely empty position.

Edit: For example, although I hate most thought-experiments, imagine we are driving and a tornado is ahead. You petition me to stop driving and turn around, at which point I invoke Plato's studies of the forms of subjective reality and declare that while you may perceive danger ahead, I, in my own subjective awareness, perceive no such danger in my vision of the world. Practically, I hope you see how blind adherence to subjectivity is not practical, although may be philosophically "true." There must be a utilitarian measure of existence, or else what are we doing, ever?

 

NOPE. It is not the purpose of a public education to be indoctrinated into any religion. We have the right and freedom to practice our religion, and religion should come from the home, the parents, and never a public school. But teaching a course on world religions, favoring none over the other is acceptable, for you are learning about many religions.

But what should be taught in public school is Civics, which is no longer mandatory here where I live, which is utter stupidity, and it must have come from the Left, the dems, who must depend upon ignorance in order to get new voters. And something related to religion, but is not specific to religion that should be mandatory is the teaching of ethics and basic morality, as well as teaching why these two things are of the upmost importance in any society, where people interact. For there are far too many kids today who are not instilled with ethics and a basic morality at home, and certainly not on the streets, and if they are to be instilled with these things, the only place they will learn of it, is in public school. In this mandatory class, you would also be taught of the great importance of personal responsibility, which so many people today do not know a thing about, and why it is so important. Do these things and forget about public school teaching one about a particular religion, for that should never be the job of a public education. But to teach the youth to be responsible, to build a basic moral compass, to be ethical, in other words to be a decent human being and a contributing member in your society. The lack of such a teaching is obvious, and it is destructive of any society.

 

going to Sunday school is a choice... I have no issue with a world religions class that teaches general religions

 

The concept of public schools being sanitized of all religon (except islamic prayer of course) is an over use of the separation concept. All the first amendment says is that the states cannot establish a religon or prohibit the exercise there of (which is why I think banning prayer groups is unconstitutional). Further there is so much of our history and even world history that is colored by religon.

However within the public school system I learned that Asia is a continent, and that's about it. We fail at teaching history in general. I think we should focus on that before we move to included religious philosophers into our curriculum.

 

Actually the issue is most definitely evidence. The only way public schools can ensure accountability is to stick to facts - ie, scientifically verifiable reality. They are obliged to give an historical overview of the concept of superstition and religion, but that's ALL.

It's an outrageous indulgence to demand that your private thoughts (about supernatural beings - Satan, Jesus, Vishnu, Thor, whatever) are catered to by the taxpayer, and imposed upon other peoples' children. Would you like it if your tax dollars were gifted to the local branch of Satan R Us for the explicit purpose of teaching your children to obey the Dark Lord?

- - - Updated - - -

All kids should know what they're going to do after high school by age 15 (at the very latest). If they don't know by then, Mom & Dad have dropped the ball. Just saying

 

I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with you. However I do want to point out that all of what you said boils down to one thing: it is a value that you hold. However the religious also have their value. So which group should we listen to?

 

It's all available from college courses. That's good enough.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=college+courses+in+religions&t=ha&search_plus_one=form&ia=web

 

Again, it's not merely a value - it's public policy of a determinedly secular government - @ the federal level on down. I don't understand why you want to downplay the public policy aspect, unless it's to cast doubt on the validity of public policy.

Also, the setup here is wrong: It's not the religious versus the Constitution. The groupings are nowhere near that tidy - even Christianity breaks down into Roman Catholic, Protestant (many different flavors), Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Maronite, & on & on. The parties of the Constitution are similarly all over the map, from Liberals to Conservatives. This diversity of views is one reason that the Founding Fathers insisted upon a secular state - debate among religious factions in the US would bog down any kind of legislative proceedings to the nth degree - witness the explosive arguments that the Israeli Knesset manages to work itself up to from time to time. & the Israelis managed to assassinate one of their Prime Ministers not that long ago.

If we seriously add religious affiliations to the standard gridlock in Congress, for instance, no legislation would pass out of chambers for years, more than likely. An interesting puzzle, to be sure. But myself, I prefer a government that limps along as best it can, agreeing on consensus items, rather than digging in for purely ideological (& Pyrrhic) victories, @ the cost of scorching the earth @ every turn. Given the World as it exists in the here & now, I'll take the pragmatists every time.

 

Can you give me a good argument for why private beliefs (opinions) about Tarot Cards, Astrology, Satan, Thor, Lord Shiva, etc should be funded by the tax payer?

And no, the reduction of a school's focus to scientifically verifiable truths is not a 'value I hold', it's the only possible way to exclude personal opinion from curriculum. That's the point. NO ONE can influence content according to opinion. When only demonstrably empirical facts are taught, there is no possibility of opinion sneaking in.

 

Religion is a personal and private thing, and it falls within the realm of responsibility of the parents. It's not appropriate for elementary or secondary schools to teach religion of any kind.

 

You don't seem to know what a "value" is. This discussion is over.

 

We all agree that facts should be the basis of public education - even religious people agree with this. This is the important point here. By limiting the reach of schools to that which is UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON, personal values cannot influence curriculum.

 

lol, you need to talk to some of our college kids.......most don't have a clue going in and many are not sure coming out.

 

No. That includes Islamic prayer and studies creeping into our school systems.

 

I bet that such teachers would just love dealing with children such as I was in high school and even before for that who had read such anti religion books as Thomas Paine 'Age of Reason'

My own logic by the age of ten or so had cause me to become an atheist.

 

Do schools teach Greek mythology?

 

How do you teach world history without discussing the roles different religions played?
How do you discuss current events without discussing the roles different religions play?

 

My belief has no relevance. Religion has no place in public schools, period.

 

I think it would be beneficial to learn math, science, reading and traditional subjects that actual imbue knowledge on a child. Religious idiocy can be taught at home, not in public schools. Again, if you want to lie to your kids about fairy tales, go for it. However, the issue is when that stupidity is taught in public schools. If you want your kid to learn about bronze age fairy tales, there are schools for that.