If people choose to attend a religious private school or study theology in college there is nothing wrong with that. Public school is a commitment by tax payers to build an educated work force that has basic skills. It’s not a cultural circle jerk...
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I would hope religion wasn't taught to be used as a tool to get people to be "the best human you can be"! That would be disastrous. Everyone would be performing ritual sacrifices, killing unbelievers, discriminating against people based on their gender or sexual orientation and generally demonstrating all of the worst possible behaviours humans are capable of.Ethics can be taught much more efficiently when removed from religious context. After all, morals are an evolutionary epiphenomenon which we evolved to understand by our need to co-operate with each other in groups in order to survive. Morality has nothing to do with mysticism and believing in a higher power at all. Believing in a higher power actually leads to deplorable actions by people who believe their god wants them to behave that way (just look at recent events in France!) and only taps into our evolutionary short coming of not being capable of applying those ethics to interactions with unfamiliar faces. A skill we have only recently been developing with the changing moral zeitgeist driven by technology and exponential population growth.
@OfDeath Says the man who has never studied religion and knows nothing of it. You sound like an emo "edgy" fifteen year old who thinks he is smart because he is parroting what his teachers opinions on religion. Listen to Sudha Guru, study the teachings of Buddha, or Sikhism, or the words of Jesus Christ (let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, do onto others as you would have done on to you, etc. etc.(if you think that is not a good thing your a moron and their is no saving you)). We have had this discussion before, at great length, and all you could do is repeat that religion was evil/failed science etc. but couldn't explain why you think that or provide any evidence for it (because you don't have an argument you have feelings, feelings which were instilled upon you by some one else that you never bothered to question (because you've never been taught to ask questions, merely taught to obey), so I don't really feel like rehashing this, its a fruitless endeavor.
Yeah we had this discussion before and you have once again made the fatal error of resorting to ad hominem and underestimating my knowledge of religion which I would make an educated guess (based on talking to you before) is greater than your own. I demonstrated a comprehensively erudite understanding of a multitude of religions but you obviously didn't even read the responses I gave or you would have known that. Buddhism is one of the only religions which doesn't preach violent acts although Buddhist monks have been historically known to harm themselves for ascetic reasons which are not based on reality and are based on mysticism without evidence which makes it irrational and benighted. Teaching people to do this in order to be "the best human they can be" is pernicious. It also doesn't do your argument any good to cherry pick the good things Jesus said out of a religion which commands the death penalty for things like picking up sticks on the sabbath, adultery, disobeying a parent, taking the Lord's name in vain, worshiping other gods and a long list of other ridiculous things. You have also proved my point by your own cherry picking that people don't need religion to teach them ethics and if they try, they will end up being unethical. How would you like your heart ripped out fast enough that it can be held up to the sun while it's still beating because someone thinks that will make it rain? I would guess you wouldn't like that yet you remain deluded by your own idiocy.
@OfDeath That wasn't an ad hominem attack, you would have had to provide an argument and I would have had to as a rebuttal insulted you/your character in order to avoid actually going after the argument for that to be an ad hominem logical fallacy. What occured was that I asked you questions you couldn't answer, you then stated things that were patently false, I then concluded you didn't have knowledge of the subject as you could not answer basic questions and couldn't even define terms thus proving you didn't have the knowledge you claimed to have. So I addressed your argument and observed your ignorance, that is again, not an ad hominem attack (you clearly are ignorant on argumentation and logical fallacies as well).
Thank you for putting what I wanted to say into words @hellionthesageteborn Its for the educational value not some underlying motive
Of course, its like philosophy, it has value even if you reject it out right it still got you thinking, it still got you to ask about your own beliefs and ideas and best case scenario you find that you agree with things in it (like I said I'm agnostic, but that doesn't mean I think all of Jesus's teachings were bad, I think forgiveness is an important thing and he taught about. Buddha also had very important teachings which I agree with even though I'm not buddist).
"Says the man who has never studied religion and knows nothing of it". Clearly an ad hominem attack. Looks like you're wrong again. Oh, look at this: "sound like an emo "edgy" fifteen year old who thinks he is smart because he is parroting what his teachers opinions on religion" more ad hominem! It's also completely baseless. You are just making ignorant assumptions about me. Something which clearly shows you have never read a word I've ever written. You have also made false statements about things you think I have said which I didn't: "all you could do is repeat that religion was evil/failed science etc" evil? Well I never said religion itself is evil but it is obvious that it causes people to do evil. Once again just look at organisations like al-qaeda and the recent attacks in France. I never said religion was failed science. That is a blatantly fallacious statement. Religion is not science. It is imagined and not discovered. Oh look at this: "but couldn't explain why you think that" hmm... Maybe that's because I never said or thought that! 🤪 This is my favourite part: "or provide any evidence for it (because you don't have an argument you have feelings, feelings which were instilled upon you by some one else that you never bothered to question (because you've never been taught to ask questions, merely taught to obey)" I'm happy to reproduce every single bit of evidence for you to read all over again (or for the first time since you obviously didn't even look at it the first time) if you like! And FYI I did not get my ideas from someone else. My ideas DO come from looking at multiple sources, reading multiple books, souring history and listening to multiple lectures, questioning them all and coming to a solid conclusion.
All you do is try to imagine the way I have lived my life without any evidence at all to back up what you think which is ironic given the subject we are talking about. In fact, I have stated nothing "patently false" and I answered every relevant question you asked me. So what have we learned here? We've established that you don't know what ad hominem means, you did indeed immediately resort to it, you deny clear evidence, you are ignorant and you don't have a leg to stand on.
@OfDeath No, you didn't. Not one thing was answered, you asserted you knew what you were talking about, you asserted you had proof that you were right, you asserted you had answered my questions but never did you actually provide any evidence to support that. Kind of like me claiming that I know quantum mechanics and then just keep repeating that over and over again, its a meaningless claim when you refuse to or are incappable of backing it. Any way we are done here, I don't see much point in listening to you make empty statements over and over again and act as if they are facts or evidence.
"not one thing was answered". That is compete bullshit and you know it. I provided evidence for every single point I made. You're an embarrassment to yourself and you wouldn't know what integrity was if it slapped you in the face.
so in other words teach children about the core idea of each religion more or less.
I am fine with it being an extra credit course like language courses used to be. so the child and/or parents could choose to have them learn about it.
Respectfully that's somewhat against the point.If you're learning and understanding about a large culture you understand said Culture without having yours put into question
Forgot to mention that we use trump loo roll and anything remotely Republican is seen as automatic f in every class
I would expect nothing less from a child molester like yourself
Care to explain?
There is an epidemic of white female teachers having sex with their students. The same group that pushes this woke nonsense is steeped in child predators.
Well count me out of that group thanks
... "and she will be known be the company that she keeps", Book of Letourneau (4:12)
Hell is the detention of the after life. They are similar in many ways: no talking, no chewing gum and no headphones.
Hellionthesagereborn described it best
Thank you clarifying why we should teach about religions
Hmm your comment has made me all confused now. How did I clarify?
Tell me lol
I think children's the best age to educate on the base ideas and core values of each religion
To each their own
It's not forcing anyone into a religion, its educating on the core values and beliefs of every religion
but technically if you are grading them like a normal school system then you are forcing them to learn and forcing them into these religions, these kids will have to learn this in order to pass the grade which is technically forcing them, dont you agree?
"Forcing" them to learn something doesn't force them into that religion haha
you technically are because you are putting the info in their brain and as children it can confuse them and they won't be able to really choose on their own, they will wanna copy their friends or cause problems with their families, I don't know if its forcing but i do know it can get messy and knock off the balance in the education system, because if their parents want to grow them up in one religion and they choose another, what will happen then
isn't that part of American freedoms is to choose what you want to follow?And technically no, education means freedom to make more selected choice
yes it is American freedom, doesn't mean all parents will accept that, it will be messy, its better to just keep religion out of schools, religion is a very sensitive subject, its like you and your kid (if you have one) its like you teaching your kid one thing and then the school tries to teach them something that goes against it, how would it make you feel? like i said, it would be a mess
Sorry to say Americas have to except some things, we're very much close minded to a lot of things we dont bother or want to learn about.Assuming the prevalent population of the religious US Is Christian, teaching their child for a week about the Quran and everything else won't suddenly transition them to a Muslim and vica versa, but that child might have a slight chance in being more open minded and excepting (definitely a problem where I live)
And yes I have a 16 yr old daughter and it's great when she challenges my ideals and what I grew up with, yes there's education that's math like where there's a definitive answer, but I'd like her to understand that this Muslim person isn't what your friends say and their beliefs aren't bad.That's something that can be taught if you're given a brief understanding at certain age
oh so you are talking about just teaching them all the religions just so they grow knowing the different religions and knowing the basics of each religion and how it is, to prevent hatred against other religions?
then yea its a good idea but I don't know how well parents will take it and if this will ever happen because of that reason
I understand that side but as a both a parent and educator I would like to do what's best for my child and truly believe that's it
i can respect that missy 💯
You've made a lot of valid points and I do see the reasoning and thank you for having a civil discussion
of course, there's no time and space for immature arguments
Including religious families?
Yep last thing we need is religous indoctrination
Feel like your missing the point
No religion is extremely dangerous kids need to be protected for
per your update... again as long as its optional not mandatory.
It's an important thing to learn
again if its optional. Separation of church and state exists for a reason..
As someone who lives in Montana that doesn't happen.And as far education goes its something that should be important in my opinion
Yeah im sorry i prefer my children learn facts, science and history, not about fictional deity's
It's less about fictional deitys and more teaching to understand someones belief.Itll give your child a start in understanding someone that otherwise is closed off
Thats my point. There is no reason to understand someone i would see as delusional.
So because YOU see someone as delusional you'd take that option from your kid?
If the CHOOSE to learn sure, it will not be forced on them
because learning about a religion should never be forced on anyone.. Again separation of church and state, its literally part of our constitution. schools forcing religion on anyone can lose funding and be shut down according to the law..
And how that working out for us?
Considering its been there for 200 years, pretty well. The moment we force religion on our youth, is the moment we become just as fascist as Hitler, Or Stalin.. As long as they are free to choose, its a non issue. You will not win this argument with me.. you're simply wrong here, our founding fathers know it, as do i.