An Atheist Argues We Need More Religion in the Public Schools

No way. It would be a huge waste of time. Why learn something that’s of absolutely no use?

Religion belongs in private….. deep inside the mind of the delusional individual. It’s one of those subjects that has no place in any formal setting, other than strictly religious settings.

Eventually, religion belongs as a footnote, in history books.

It really depends on who actually taught the class. If it was a teacher that I felt would say that Christianity was superior, or the most legitimate or anything, then no, I wouldn’t.

I’m taking Sociology of the Paranormal next semester and I’m excited about that though! (They’ll hopefully offer religion and science next fall again)

I wouldn’t have a problem with world religions being taught as long as it isn’t the normal be nice course but a reality course.

The education system is different in the UK is different – religious education is part and parcel of the education system up to the age of 16. Sadly, it’s not taught in a secular fashion. We have a national curriculum, and school’s teaching is assesed independantly by OFSTED. Except for it’s religious education, which is examined by the “appropriate faith”.

Richard Dawkins did a great show on it, here’s a link with links to it. You can watch it in the US or the UK

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/500515-faith-school-menace-now-visible-in-us

I would only disagree on the focus on Christianity. The more we understand about all religions the easier it is to see them for what they are. We could add it to geography and history courses and have more in-depth classes for electives. Of course I’m also for more language classes and less, but smarter, testing.

In the UK this is compulsory, I did Religious Education (although I think now it’s taught as Religious Studies) for five years and we had to learn about the major world religions. In depth we studied Catholicism, Judaism, and Anglicanism, but we did a fair bit on Islam, Sikhism, and Hinduism too. I don’t really remember it being too bad, it was one hour-long session a week and my class was a fairly mixed bunch. Our teacher was an Agnostic, he said that the only thing that stopped him from calling himself an atheist was the whole origin of the universe, so on the whole our classes weren’t that bad.

I actually created a Religion Club in my public high school, in South Carolina a decade ago, and the entire purpose was to basically be a survey course in world religions that met during lunch or after school. We had about 20 members in a school of 1000, but they were doing it on their own time. I imagine quite a few people would want take it, particularly if they got a history credit towards graduation.

(We had to agree beforehand not to talk about Satanism, not to make fun of Christianity, and not to talk about witchcraft. I can’t say we lived up to any of those standards.)

I took a comparative religion course in college, and it was the start of my path to Atheism. The more you know about religion, the less it makes sense, and the less likely you are to delude yourself that it’s true.

I say all education based on facts is good for America. This course in high school would work to atheists goals, and therefore be fiercely opposed by religous groups.

No, I wouldn’t have taken it, especially if it meant giving up a useful class, such as math or science. If it were an optional class, I think there should be no emphasis on any one religion.

I had to take one and it was taught by the school chaplain (private school. I credit him and a very good biology teacher with starting my doubts about “The one true religion”! Pastor George was a great teacher who taught religion warts and all and never evangelized anyone who showed doubt. It was said in several messages, it would depend on the teacher!

We already mandate too many classes. Besides, a geography class might be mandated, but that doesn’t mean it will necessarily be taught well. I would probably teach an inspiring and cool class about religions. But I can’t see ever making it mandatory.

Ha. It is not the students that need the education. It is the parents. The only thing that teaching religion in school would do would give teachers, as well as preachers, the right to indoctrinate children when they are their most vulnerable.

They might start it at the high school level but as soon as they get in, they will take it all the way and once they get in, we’ll have an even harder time getting them out.

My proposal: courses in world religions should be mandatory for all public school students, with a focus on Christianity as the most prevalent domestic faith.

I have a big problem with “mandatory” in this. Several people here who are approving of the idea are responding as if it was optional.

Even if it were optional, the potential for abuse by a teacher with an intent to proselytize is huge. Sounds like a lawsuit industry.

It is patently unacceptable for so many to know so little about what has been by some accounts the prime mover of world history.

History is very important, and religion has been a, if not the prime mover of world history so far.

But things are changing very fast.

Now and for the foreseeable future, science and technology will increasingly be the prime mover of world history, and most U.S. students are abysmally underprepared to respond to the demands of a world more and more dependent on science and technology every day.

Every minute wasted in a mandatory class on religion is a minute lost preparing young people for their future. If you want to introduce a mandatory class, then it should be Critical Thinking 101.

I did take religion in school – as it is required of every Swede to know stuff about religions in order to go to high school, college and university. I absolutely hated it, but it did make me read the Bible and Koran, so I learned something.

I am probably a bad example though – the only courses I enjoyed back in those days were math and physics and I tried to get away with doing as little as possible in every other subject. I get to study Titan for my Master Thesis, so it’s all good ^_^

I have some fun memories from my religion classes that I will share:

1) Do propose that J. Christ suffered from schizophrenia and thus was able to speak with ‘God’ – it gets the attention of the entire Confirmation-Now crowd of your class.

2) Try to press Jehova’s witnesses on answers regarding stuff they gave to you when you were young – but don’t remember all the details! I got one to say: “Maybe it happened so long ago, it really didn’t happen at all” and considering his belief in J. Christ… you get the point.

Ah, memories.

Nowadays, I actually think religion should be taught in school, if only to heighten awareness of the culture of other religious groups and because it helps people Be Rational about religion. As a quite outspoken atheist from young age (stopped believing in gods at twelve, anno 2000, and I’ve never been good at keeping my mouth shut about ideas I find interesting or wrong), several of the people that argued with me about religious doctrines and godly existence during these classes have later returned calling themselves atheists or agnostics, or at the very least stopped bugging others about their faith.

… T.L;D.R ?

I have to agree with Anne regarding religious studies, although the national curriculum in Britain now has tougher requirements on the subject. A teacher friend of mine states that taking the exam is a requirement to graduate. It’s not to force religion upon students, it’s to make them aware of the huge cultural diversity that exists within the country and to promote tolerance, and also for immigrants to understand what religion “drives” Britain, being a state religion. The class also debates on such issues as euthanasia and abortion now, which I could only hear fundamentalist Christians in this country screaming from the rooftops on that one.

I never knew my RE teacher was actually a very strong Christian (she still teaches at my school 20 years later), I got more knowledge from her than from Sunday School. She taught the class that Jesus was not born on Christmas Day and that he was a homosexual. She once had us re-write the Nativity. I used the theme of the Young Ones, where I had Neil playing Mary, and Vyvyan was Joseph, who after bashing Jesus over the head with a sledgehammer ran off to join in a homosexual relationship with Rick. SHE GAVE ME AN ‘A’. I can only imagine at school here, I would have more than likely been suspended.

Out of interest, I notice that the majority of us who were taught religion in more secular countries consider this a good idea.

@AM Great story! I hope she is still teaching. I should add that my experience in UK was a long time ago, when our rural district had been unchanged for centuries; now we have had massive immigration so that almost every district has new religions.

I went to a Catholic high school the first two years (four years of high school in the US), and freshman year I had a Hebrew/Christian studies class with a heavy emphasis on the historicity and non-literality of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament). Ironically, this religion class was what started in earnest the process of questioning my faith; the idea of Biblical criticism was a totally new concept to me, and I’m kind of surprised this flew at a Jesuit school.

I think knowing basic facts about the more popular religions is important, for the sake of cultural knowledge and tolerance, so I could see a place for it within a social studies curriculum. Probably not much perceived space for it in the standardized testing environment, though.

(I also think that such a course ought to explain why you can’t objectively justify religious belief, because I think even religious people can/should be mildly agnostic. But somehow I don’t think that idea would fly with the PTA. It’d save me a lot of time debating with the wacky evangelizers in my dorm, though.)

Dan Dennett has advocated a similar thing—that World Religions be part of the standard curriculum in schools. As a general proposition, I’m for it.

I don’t think there should be a special emphasis on Christianity, though. If we’re teaching this curriculum right, there’d be no special emphasis on any particular religion. You really have to take an “all religions are created equal” approach—ask the same questions of every faith, study the same elements, look at each faith as objectively as possible. Singling out any one religion as “special”—for any reason—is exactly where trouble starts.

Also: “Mandatory” is a funny word when it comes to what kids learn in public schools. Seems like parents and kids wriggle out of “mandatory” stuff all the time. I once worked for a school with a “mandatory” sex ed curriculum, but all a parent had to do was call up and say “I don’t want my kid exposed to that,” and the kid got to sit in the library and eat Oreos instead. An irate parent who truly doesn’t want her kid “exposed” to such a curriculum, will get her way 9 times out of 10. I actually agree with Richard (I don’t like the word “mandatory” either), but I’m just sayin’…this seems like it would be another one of those things that’s not mandatory, but “mandatory.”

Currently being in the middle of a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religious Studies at university I can honestly say that such a course at secondary school would be of benefit. Religion has always been an important piece in the history of the human species, and given how important it still is, learning about them would go a long way to controlling the tension that exists between the religions. However, contrary to what Michael Tracey has suggested, I think a more comparative type course would be most appropriate for teenagers rather than something that delves into the sociology or anthropology of religion, as I believe that would be like teaching general relativity in a high school.

I will also say that one can make a case that from a Western perspective special focus should be placed on Christianity, because from what I learnt in a course on European history earlier this year, the modern world really began with the Protestant Reformation. Many of the principles and ideas that the Modern West represent were first truly promulgated by Martin Luther and those who followed him, such as the notion of religious freedom, church/state separation, and governing by the consent of the governed. So I definitely think that for a student in a western nation leaning about Christianity is somewhat more important than learning about Buddhism or Islam.

One last thing, I’m not sure if a course in Comparative Religion should be mandatory, instead it should be an elective, one chooses it if they wish to know more. But if they’re not interested they shouldn’t be forced to take it.

No, as I at 18 had just dropped out of going to Catholic church for 18 years. I had just figured out the lies, Inquisition, pro-war policies, and persecution sponsored by the church.

Religion should be allowed to be objectively integrated into all high school subjects as long as the teacher is not propagating any of them.

Once immunizations were opposed by ignorant clergy, and that kind of history could be taught in history or science. I wish my teachers in the mid-60’s in Fresno had been forthcoming. Only the humanities instructor did and of course got called a Commie, which he considered his finest compliment.

The problem I’d have would be the problem that I had at my high school, which was that the “Religion” class was actually the “Christianity” class. There happened to be a church right next door to my school. You get three guesses where the class was held.

If there was a way to avoid this sort of “wink, wink” religion class, I’d get behind this idea.

This whole question bothers me deeply. How can you learn history without learning politics? How can you learn politics of historical figures without learning of religions? How can you understand history without understanding religions? What gives? It has only been this last little blip of world history where non-belief did not get you killed (more or less). To say that you learned history and did not learn about religion is to say you had bad teachers.

As for needing religious studies in school as a result of this survey, I call BS. If the non-believers learned it so can the believers, especially when they claim it as something important in their lives. We all learn best what we are most interested in. Interest does not affirm belief in same. The churches’ inability to fulfill their stated missions is not then a responsibility for the state. Religions should/must be taught from a historical/cultural/political perspective as part of history. Why one sect believes differently is not important. Understanding how that sect affected the world around it is important. As the clerics now must admit, you cannot force young people to learn about a religion’s tenets and foundations. They will learn what is important to them personally and this shows a failure on the part of religious leaders.

It might be interesting to simply have comparative religious studies, but it is much more important to know the political, geographic, and cultural effects of those religions and their interactions. The politics and causes of the crusades can consume a lifetime on their own. More interesting at times is the situation surrounding the treaty with Tripoli and the question of religion. Why the pilgrims came to America, why are there no more Visigoths? Who were the Cathars? Why are there Jews in Africa? If Jews inherit their lineage via their mothers, why do DNA tests show that Palestinians are ‘just as Jewish’ as Jews?

It is incredibly difficult to understand world politics today without understanding them from historical perspectives. It seems impossible to understand them historically without understanding their cultural basis, which is in turn impossible to understand without understanding the religions that ruled them.

I say that religious people had all the same opportunity to learn about religions but chose not to. It’s not the governments responsibility to ensure they know about them other than historically. I also think that people in the USA should know why Mecca is a holy city, what is special there, what Ramadan is, why there is an easter bunny and yule log and thanksgiving.

Learning these things does not require a pastor or bishop to teach. It’s information you can get at the library or on the Gooooogle. Hiring a cleric to teach religious studies is crossing the line of separation IMO. The basic history curriculum should be beefed up a bit to include religions.

Though it might make more atheists in the end, it is not the state’s responsibility to guide or force such decisions on the populace. We are worried about religion when we should be worried about ALL subjects, math, the hard sciences etc.

The real problem is not whether certain aspects of religions should be taught, but who sets the curriculum. Recently, the Texas State BoE has shown that these dozen people have more impact on children’s lives than even the Pope could hope to have.

Argue and fight/vote for better curriculum, not better religious education.

I like the idea of a world religion class but looking at it from a practical perspective, it would be heavily abused in the U.S. Expecting a devout evangelical Christian schoolteacher to teach religion in an unbiased manner would be akin to asking a University of Michigan football coach to teach a class on the history of Ohio State. You’re just asking for trouble.

Can someone who strongly believes that the four gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John really teach what the evidence actually shows about them? That the authors are in fact anonymous and heavily plagiarized one another? Can a devout Christian schoolteacher really be expected to teach children about Hinduism or Islam in a completely non-biased way?

World religion in public school would be abused so much because in the U.S. religion is something intensely personal, and it is extremely difficult to get someone to objectively present a subject that they have intense personal feelings about.

I would’ve been interested in such a course in high school……depending upon who taught it. But then, I had teachers who overstepped the line on religious issues in a not-infrequent fashion, so I’d be uninterested if certain people had been teaching the course.

I didn’t read all the comments so sorry if this was already posted. Daniel Dennett among many others has also made this same suggestion. And it turns out that this has already been done, immediately to our north in Quebec. And what did the Christian parents do, once religion was in schools? They sued.

http://www.skyejethani.com/teaching-religion-in-public-schools/405/

At the very least it’s nice when the playing field shifts and people have no choice but to show their true colors. It’s not religion they want to teach, it’s their and only their religion that has to be taught.

What Richard Wade said so much more eloquently than I’m capable of.

You do know what Mr. Tracy can do with his religion clases, don’t you?

There is some basics covered in literature and history. Want anything beyond that? Take a couse at a university or your place of worship or wherever? But keep the fuck out of public schools.

As has been mentioned, the government shouldn’t be teaching religion and there’s no way the schools in the US can be trusted to teach them unbiased.

And what the fuck was that about giving Christianity priority? What’s he pulling? Do we know for sure this idiot is really Atheist instead of having a hidden agenda? (What? Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean the world isn’t out to get me. Or my grandson.)

If you had the option to take a World Religions class in high school, would you have taken it? Did you?

Yes, I would have. I took Sociology of Religion in college, so I definitely would have taken a World Religions class in high school. I almost wish I had, as it might have hastened my return to atheism.

I went to school in Hesse, Germany. There are religion classes for protestants and for catholics throughout school. You can choose which one you want to attend or not attend any if your parents agree.
At the age of 14 you gain the right to choose your religion, so from that point on there are also ethics classes. If you don’t take religion you then have to take ethics, which is what I did.
Before, I had attended protestant religion classes but found it kind of annoying that the teacher automatically assumed everyone believed in the Bible and in God.
Ethics is basically the same content in terms of morals etc but without the Bible stuff. I had great expectations when I changed courses – only to discover that it was the same teacher -.-

I went to a Catholic high school, so I got quite a bit of religious education (but I always have to give them credit for keeping religion out of pretty much all of the curriculum except where it added something). The school was 7-12 and in that time we spent 3 semesters each on the old and new testaments, and then we were able to choose from 4 or 5 other religion classes to fulfill the other 2 semesters the school required to graduate. I chose a class on world religions and a class on social justice. (It’s been so long, I can’t remember what the other options were now.)

The head of the religion department at the time was a VERY liberal former nun (she left her order to get married, and while I was in her class, she got divorced, which you know is a BFD if you’re Catholic) and she always taught her classes in a very sociological/anthropological style, and encouraged the other teachers to do the same, as the student body was actually very diverse for a Catholic school (about 50% Catholic, 48% Protestant, 2% other).

There was a little bit of religious study inserted into literature and history, particularly where it lent itself to explaining the themes of certain texts (Canterbury Tales and Dante’s Inferno are two I remember) or certain events in history, we were able to go into the religious writings that were related to the themes and events. Religion was left entirely out of the sciences, and my biology teacher even prefaced her module on evolution with a statement to the effect of, “we’re not going to discuss how these theories in a Biblical context in here. That’s what your religion classes are for. This is a science class, so we’re only going to talk about the science parts in here.”

So in that respect, having religion class helped to compartmentalize the philosophical and “controversial” components of science and allowed actual science to be taught in the science classroom. And in the end, even the religion classes didn’t get bogged down with those discussions too much because there were so many more “real” and interesting things to talk about.

I realize that this is probably the most ideal way that things could work out, but I feel that my religious instruction was among the most pivotal things in bringing me closer to reason and non-theism. But that’s another really long story. 🙂

I definitely would not have taken it in high school or college. Now? Yes. It would be very interesting.

I go to a Catholic high school, and i hate having religion classes. I can express my faith at home it is a private thing. Students shouldnt have to be forced to take it and schools shouldnt enforce the class.