Atheists would you rather people only learnt about Religion in Churches?

N

NaomiLloyd

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I often see a comment if you want your children to learn about Religion take them to a Church or words to that affect.

So the question is in all honesty would you rather have your child learn about comparative religion, and its history or only have them learn about one religion?

And people that are adamant Religion should not be mentioned in Schools, should it be unmentionable in History classes?

Please tell me does Religion have any place being mentioned in Education?
 
Religions should be taught in history and mythology courses because they've had profound influence in shaping the world. It's important to know what people believe in all parts of the world and how it shapes their actions, cultures, foreign policy, etc. The difference- it shouldn't be endorsed as true.
 
I'm ok with religion being taught objectively in history, philosophy, and psychology classes. There is no reason for it to be in science class though.
 
I would rather the official promotion of belief religion be kept out of all government funded institutions, and areas where it infringes on other people's freedom of religion and right to privacy. Religion currently is taught in it's *relevance to historical events*, which is perfectly acceptable, as belief in any particular religion is not promoted, at least it's not supposed to be legally. A brief teaching of the beliefs of all relevant religions, and later the teaching of what events were influenced by these religions are taught in history class. This is fine since there isn't supposed to be any pressure or promotion to actually believe any of those religions. There's no reason not learning about a religion in school, means only learning about a single religion elsewhere.
 
Sure. I have no objection at all to comparative religion being taught in schools; I took a couple of such classes in college. What I do object to is people trying to evangelize in schools. That is really annoying.
 
I've learned about all sorts of religions during high school, and I'm still learning about them now even in college...I don't think the subject of religion should be unmentionable in schools. Religion is part of our society and had a huge impact on human history, therefore kids should have access to UNBIASED knowledge about religion in schools.


In high school I learned about Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam...I see no harm in kids learning about different religions just as long as the teacher isn't outright preaching to them or telling them what to believe. Just the history and the facts are enough to suffice...
 
I'd have them learn about no religion at all.

No, it has no place in education, modern society, or humanity.
 
Huge difference between comparitive religion and religion. Though I never use that argument I do hear some people say it, and I agree with you. I completely agree that comparitive religion should be taught in schools, the problem is it gets complicated because there are lots of religions to go over, and you have to worry about the teacher showing preference to one.

Most people though are fine with religion being mentioned in class as a subject matter. They have a problem when religion is presented in class as a truth or an alternative to a subject matter, especially in places it doesn't belong, like Science.

religion should be taught comparitivly in social studies, and religious stories comparitively in mythology class.
 
Of course it has a place. Even adamant secularists such as I must admit that religion has been incredibly influential in the course of history; to ignore religion in a history class would be to misinform. A comparative religion course would also be appropriate in a public school - because the purpose of school is to educate, and so long as no one philosophy is being presented as the absolute truth, it is perfectly fine to foster understanding of other belief systems in schools. It is a fundamental part in learning about cultures and the workings of the world.

Perhaps even bible study courses would be appropriate, if multiple ones were offered, and they existed in the spirit (once again) of fostering understanding.

However, mentioning creationism in a science class is completely out of line; it doesn't matter how you thought the world came into being, because the focus of a science class is that- science. Even if you're convinced the world was created in a week, you can consider teaching Darwinism the equivalent of learning about another philosophy, nothing more. The Bible has squat to do with Biology, so keep it out of my Biology classes, and we won't have a problem.
 
I would like to learn about it in History class, as something long ago dismissed as mythology.
 
Sure. Most kids are smart enough to know crap when they see it.
 
id let them learn about religion in general, and its place in society. since i'm an atheist, no, not at church, but if they were told about it, in an uninfluencial kinda BELIEVE IN GOD AND BE CATHOLIC, for example, way, then i should see no reason not to inform them.
 
Strawman fallacy.

The objection is not that "Religion should not be mentioned in Schools" or that the issue is children learning ABOUT religion in schools. It's about children being indoctrinated into a particular religion under the guise of education.
 
Children should be taught about a wide variety of religions in history classes, anthropological classes, and culture classes. Not the science classroom. Also there's a huge difference between teaching about a religion, and actually teaching one to believe the religion. I have nothing against teaching ABOUT religion in schools.
 
Back
Top