Why I don't think children should be taught religion at school

OfDeath

A lot of reality is as yet unexplained. However, there is no reason to fill gaps in the understanding of our universe with nonsensical and baseless non-explanations such as "its because god did it". Even worse to say; it's because god did it but only the god of Muslims or of Christians or of Hindus etc.

Why I dont think children should be taught religion at school

There are entire schools who teach children religious non-explanations as if they are real alternatives to proven facts like evolution. Even worse than schools, there are countries which have banned the proven scientific explanation of how life has progressed from it's first self replicating instance on earth. Saudi Arabia is one country which has banned children from learning the scientific theory of evolution. In Saudi Arabia, only the 12th grade advanced biology course mentions evolution, where in textbooks it is introduced as a fallacious and blasphemous theory, using the following introduction to the topic: “Nevertheless in the West appeared what is called "the theory of evolution’’ which was derived by the Englishman Charles Darwin, who denied Allah’s creation of humanity, saying that all living things and humans are from a single origin. We do not need to pursue such a theory because we have in the Book of Allah the final say regarding the origin of life, that all living things are Allah’s creation” They are essentially saying "god did it" and then give no explanation for how and they don't allow it to be questioned. In Saudi Arabia, it is also illegal to own a copy of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, a famous scientist who has written many books demonstrating the irrefutable proof behind the theory evolution in layman's terms. It's even illegal just to be atheist or to renounce Islam there. Proven science is also illegal in the Sudan and even the United States has tried to resist the facts. One state I know of has banned the use of the word "evolution" and replaced it with "gradual change". Why? due to sensitivity regarding their mythology. No other reason.

This denial of facts and indoctrination of children in baseless non-explanations which may not be challenged causes a pernicious state of mind among the indoctrinated where they may become physically violent in trying to defend their unfounded beliefs or even in attempting to please the god they believe exists. They carry this attitude into adulthood and in the worst case scenarios end up causing the deaths of others in the name of their religion and it all stems from the fact that they are taught these benighted fairy tales from a young age and brought up to self identify with them to the point that any challenge to their beliefs is taken as a challenge to themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

Even here on girls ask guys I encounter victims of parochial indoctrination on a daily basis.These people often try to use arguments which point out gaps in current scientific knowledge as if that is some sort of evidence that "god did it". Or they play mystery cards like "how do you even know you don't exist?" They think existential philosophy over whether or not our senses can truly perceive reality is some kind of proof that god must exist! Anyone can tell that one does not correlate the other. Other common points are "just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" and "You can't disprove what you can't prove" and they will use examples like wind being invisible and nobody being able to disprove the nulls of mythology. Where these people fail is on the fact that no proof of somethings' nonexistence isn't a reason to believe it exists! I couldn't disprove Little Red Riding Hood any more than the Bible but not many people would defend it as truth! This is where science and religion differ. So before people chime in with complaints like "science is faith based too" and "science has been proven wrong before" I need to point out that science is malleable in a way religion is not and faith based on imagined myths and faith in scientific results aren't the same. The bible says Adam and Eve were the first people and that god made Adam out of dust and that Eve was made out of one of Adam's ribs. Science disputes this and it does it with factual argument based on evidence. Religion says no because god said so - even though they never even heard god say it.

Children should be taught scientific facts at school and not mythology. They should also be taught how to recognise the difference between fact and mythology. If they want to learn about mythology, it should be done somewhere else and they should be allowed to question it.

Why SHOULD it be that way? Because the alternative is a lie.

Why I don't think children should be taught religion at school
12
23
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Girl

  • PBandJ_Nerd
    I personally think that with so many options today to learn about religion that I don't understand why we need religion schools (both public and private) as an education system. I only understood what church and religion schools educated people on after one of my sisters told me a bit about her boyfriend and what he was taught. For me, hearing some of it to me just sounded bizarre. Like for example, when they explained "sexual health" of a woman they said when she menstruated she was a "dirty old shoe" without any explanation of what periods really were and why they had them. Other stories I hear are from people on youtube, such as the one purity card thing.
    Is this still revelant?

Most Helpful Guy

  • Mehzmeh
    As a black atheist. I agree with this post. Religion is for people who are scared to stand on their own. And people who are fucking blind ti see there is no god.
    Is this still revelant?
    • You can't be 100% there is no higher power since you've not died and experienced what comes after. You are like religion... You're so certain on what you belief and don't believe. You're alike in different corners of the fighting ring we call earth.

      I, on the other hand aren't religious, but I'm open to the possibility of there Maybe something after all of this.

      Couldn't have popped out of thin air for nothing.

    • Sorry, my typing is shit. I'm on my phone.

    • OfDeath

      @PaganWarrior well you are experiencing reality right now aren't you? That isn't nothing.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

1122
  • Gerdchen
    I think children should be taught religion at school. But not be missionized.
    They should be taught about which religions there are, what they teach and so on. Just like history or geography.
    They also should be told why religion was important in ancient times (like giving rules to the mostly uneducated people without having to explain them the reasons they wouldn't be able to understand).
    Circumcision helps staying healthy in a region where there is not always enough water to wash regularly and thoroughly. Nowadays we should be able to wash ourselves and we also know about the importance to keep our genitals in order.
    Eating pork can be dangerous in warm climate because pork becomes spoiled easily when it is kept in the warm. Nowadays we have refrigerators and freezers, so no need to abstain from eating pork anymore.
    In ancient times an unmarried woman becoming pregnant was kind of a death sentence unless her family helped her out. So it was good to forbid premarital sex. Nowadays being a single mom is still hard but managable, so no more need to forbid or frown upon premarital sex.
    Likewise if a man left his wife (and maybe kids), they would have a very hard time to survive. Therefore forbidding divorce was kind of a safety net for women. Nowadays this is no longer needed as we, as modern communities, have alimony and child support regulations, so it's no longer necessary to ostracize divorce. Nowadays the anti-divorce rules of the religions are rather used to oppress women than to keep them safe as it had been meant in the beginning.
    So yes, teach religion but not missionize children.
    • OfDeath

      Some of those points could be disputed but I don't disagree with the general point you're making about religion being taught ABOUT in history classes. The Bible could be taught as English literature too since many of our common expressions actually come from the Bible. I just don't think it should be taught as if it is not known to be mythology and certainly not taught as an alternative to science.

    • Gerdchen

      " I just don't think it should be taught as if it is not known to be mythology and certainly not taught as an alternative to science."
      I fully second that.

  • hellionthesagereborn
    Well your already off to a bad start. Your saying that religion is nonsensical (which was an opinion that you have not fact), now ignoring that you have never studied religion in depth (obviously) your conclusion is that "god did it" is nonsensical yet the atheist "it just happened because reasons" is not nonsensical is itself, nonsensical. Its a poor argument, in fact its the logical fallacy of incredulity, you cannot believe it so you have decided its not true which has no impact on whether or not its actually true.

    Religion should be taught for the same reasons we teach other cultures, to give a better grasp of the ideas that are out their (and to dispel stupid ideas like this strawman argument you have presented). Should it be taught as fact? Of course not, but then neither should the big bang theory (which is provably false just based upon direct observations and the contradiction its claim makes (like how everything is moving away from us except of course the massive andromeda galaxy which is moving directly towards us and all the other galaxies that collide with each other, or the idea that it created equal parts matter anti matter even though we have no evidence what so ever of antimatter existing in the universe except for the one instance of it that we created) or any other idea that is not provably true.

    If your afraid of the idea being presented (which is what your arguing) that only shows that your beliefs are on shaky ground (because they are (again, you believe in a magical explosion in space and that reality just made itself for reasons despite the fact that everything you have ever experienced, observed, or read about is bound to cause and affect (ironic, you seek to explain how something could exist outside of cause and affect with cause and affect, an impossible task).

    In short, read up on religion before you start bashing it (you hate religion because you were taught to hate it not because you bothered to study it and found it wanting. You were taught in school that religion is bad because "reasons", that its irrational because "reasons" and that is the extent of your knowledge of it).

    As for altruism, first and foremost its a statistical fact that religious people donate to charity more often then non religious, its also a proven fact that they are less inclined towards crime then those who are not. Its also a fact that altruism is an awful thing as it states the individual should sacrifice everything for every one else i. e. the individual doesn't matter only the group but the group itself is made up of individuals so the group doesn't even matter. So again, this is incorrect.(and before you go the incredibly predictable route of accusing me of being blind to your "clearly superior reasoning"(its shitty "angsty teenager who hasn't actually experienced the real world and knows nothing but is convinced he knows everything" reasoning) due to be religious, I am not. I am agnostic because after decades of intensive research and study into religion and science I cannot find an adequate answer to the question as all attempts lead back to the same problem (as I have alluded to)). So try to be more original then every single other atheist in this world when you try to justify your straw man argument to me).
    • OfDeath

      All of that is absolute crap. Don't assume my knowledge of religion. I happen to have quite extensive knowledge of it and not one things about it suggests it would be true. I'm sorry but mythology offers no contribution to human knowledge whatsoever.
      As far as atheists committing more crime goes, that is absolute crap. The majority of prisoners are religious. That is a fact.

    • I'm not assuming you are showing your ignorance. You say its bullshit, what does that even mean? What is the purpose of religion? You don't seem to know. You say religion, which ones theirs thousands of them. What makes them without worth, do you believe that saying be kind to others is not valuable in any way?

      Their was no assumption, their was only seeing what you wrote and realizing you have no understand of religion at all. If your arguing that its not literal, no shit, thats why we have religious scholars debating the meaning of religious texts because they were metaphors not to be taken literally (we literally have recorded debates about the meaning of various biblical works within less then 50 years of the bible being written.). If you think that its something that is considered literal you have no understanding of religion. If you think that religions purpose was to explain the world i. e. its a "failed science", you again have no understanding of religion (god did it, the end, that would be what every religious text says. Yet the bible for example says god created light, the world and humanity in the first page and then for the 1200(abridged) pages it talks about morality, history, philosophy and how to be a better person).

      So again, it was not an assumption, you clearly do not understand religion, its purpose, or its value to society (despite it existing in every single major civilization without exception. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a culturally convergent evolved trait, meaning that it clearly serves a very important function (even if you cannot understand what it is) otherwise every civilization wouldn't have it. If it was detrimental as you think we would not have it at all as any one who adopted religion would have died out. Even a cursory glance at the prevalence of religion should get you to see that it clearly has some kind of purpose even if we don't really understand what exactly it does or why its important.).

    • As for your argument that more religious people are in prison, thats idiotic. Its true, but its about as smart a thing to say as saying more whites commit crimes in the united states, of course they do because they are the majority. You also have many many issues with that claim like the fact that almost 40% of the prison population being black and blacks tending to be more religious (their issue is single motherhood not atheism). You have the issue that many people end up CONVERTING to religion while in prison (as many do when faced with great hardships (people who go through AA tend to do so as well). This muddies the waters.

      However we also know that in the UK for example, atheists/irreligious people are actually OVER represented in the prison population. Further we have multiple studies showing that religion tends to deter crime not cause it:
      academic.oup.com/.../3089763
      www.manchester.ac.uk/.../
      www.chron.com/.../...n-crime-reduction-2079575.php
      www.hudson.org/.../faith_based0499.pdf

      So again, that is incorrect. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not true. This is before you get into the whole mass murdering and genocide that has been caused by prominant atheist leaders (like lenin, stalin, Hitler, and Mao). to be fair they were also socialists so its not necessarily atheism that caused this, in my opinion atheism and socialism are linked as most atheists are also socialists. Basically the state becomes god, so while they may not be responsible for this they are frequently connected to it.

    • Show All
  • Bratsondanielle
    Religion should be illegal in any school in any form. I don't care. We don't teach boogeymen or tooth fairy either so y should we teach the invisible man above the cloud?
    • OfDeath

      It is relevant to certain historical events but I feel the same sentiment.

  • purplepoppy
    Religion should be taught as in how It has influenced history and even current politics but it shouldn't be sold as a valid alternative to science.
  • WadeDanielSmith2
    Childrne should not be taught "anti-relgion" either.

    they should be taught a Logic class and a Moral Philosophy class, and they should be shown the concept of the "Greatest Conceivable Being" and they shold be shown the Cosmological Argument and the Moral Argument and the Ontological Argument.

    Thos are not "reigious" concepts, they are Philosophical concepts based on Objective Reason.

    They have a RIGHT to know both sides of the Creation vs Random crap argument, and forced Atheism is just as bad as any false religion. This is why the Democratic party in the United States is turning more and more atheist, and supports Abortion up to the due date now. Joe Biden claims to be a Catholic, but Orthodox Christianity has opposed abortion for the past 2000 years, while Biden supports abortion through the due date now, just like hilary clinton.

    Children should be taught to the value of human life, including the unborn child; Othewise our civilization is no differen tthan the NAZI party in Germany. During the Nuremberg Trials, one of the crimes the NAZIs were executed for was INfanticide, and we have killed more unborn babies in the United states than 2.5 times as many as all the victims of the Nazi's in WWII COMBINED, and to be clear the NAZIs killed 50 milliion peoiple all together in WWII, but the United States has killed more like 120 million unborn babies since Roe v Wade. Why? Because three entire generations have been taught WRONG moral philosophy since then.
    • OfDeath

      Not teaching creation myths as science is not teaching atheism. If they want to learn about mythology, it's there in history class. If they want to believe mythology, they can go to church. Nobody is stopping them.
      Not teaching creation myths also doesn't correlate to ignoring the value of human life. Morals didn't come from religion. The nazi comparison is completely misguided. Nazism was an ideology just like a religion. Both are bad when enforced.

    • Re-read what I said. I never said anyone should be taught "Mythology" nor any false religious concept.

      I said they should be taught the Philosophical argument for a "Greatest Conceivable Being", that's not religion, that is pure Logic.

    • OfDeath

      That isn't logic. I can point out areas where it falls down. One would be that it is a top down explanation of reality whereas everything ever observed has been bottom up. Another example is that it isn't the greatest conceivable being anyway. In quite a childish manner, the argument for that is "infinity plus one" just because it is a logic break in itself doesn't mean it isn't conceivable. Another example of that would be another god that God couldn't know existed and so on and so on forever. The strongest one is that God is an illogical argument when its own existence nullifies it's necessity. If you went by pure philosophy and never looked for real evidence, that is basically the god argument buried since it applies to any situation you can imagine putting god in.
      God is a fictional character from religion. There is nothing in reality to suggest it's existence so you wouldn't assume it. You would do the opposite and reject it just like you would reject invisible fairies.

  • Tamera952
    Absolutely! And the founders of the United States felt the SAME WAY, and for the SAME REASONS. The separation of church from the secular business of running a government is essential to its success. There are 1,000 examples of the bad shit that happens when a theocracy runs the show. And as far as teaching in schools, It's so dangerous, essentially cultivating ignorance.
  • sensible27
    Although I do sort of agree with the god of gaps argument I don't really see anyone actually reading this here and changing their minds (or I would guess not) so sort of a dead effort I'd say.
    • OfDeath

      10 people already PM'd me to say how this has changed their mind on religion.

  • PaganWarrior
    I agree... Let them decide after school if they want to believe in God or Gods. They shouldn't force it down us.

    I went to a Christian school so r. e was bound to be a subject. But we should have still had the right to choose if we wanted to attend that damn class every week.

    I was so bored out of mind when they went on and on about the bible, and sins.
  • Mishan97
    I agree. I would say I’m spiritual not religious, but in my opinion religion is a personal journey which requires introspection. Teaching religion to kids who are too young to think critically and philosophically is nothing short of brainwashing. Parents can choose to teach religion at home if it is important to them but science should be taught at school regardless because it is essential to a well rounded education. Religion should be taught in a historical context. For example, it should be taught but in the framework to how it has affected history; the crusades, Islamic empires, Christian reformation, etc. These are all influential historical events which we must learn about. But like you said, biblical stories shouldn’t be taught as if they are historical fact. Nor should Jewish, Islamic, hindu, etc stories be taught as historical fact either. It’s up to the learners discretion on whether or not they choose to believe in these things and should not be forced to believe them.
    • OfDeath

      Yes this is the point I'm making. I may have left out that religion is extremely relevant in history class and even in English literature but I had meant to include that. I should probably update it.

  • EmmaMary
    They seriously need to ban teaching this fucking religious crap once and for all.
  • winterfox10
    Thankfully, most people are not being taught religious creation stories over science. I think most of that religious teaching should be elective learning.


    Why do so many people think evolution and creationism need to be at odds?
    • sensible27

      Because they are.

    • I would argue that it’s up to where you draw the line for the hypothetical deity’s involvement, but I’m sure that’s more conversation than is appropriate right now

    • OfDeath

      Evolution is not how life started, it's about how life evolved. Abiogenesis is how life started on earth. It is pretty solid but not like evolution. They are still experimenting with different chemical combinations and working out the right ingredients. However, I can tell you that around this time last year, scientists at the Hebrew University in Israel (of all places) successfully triggered living protocells from nonliving materials under the conditions in which they believe life could have started on the early earth.

    • Show All
  • Lionman95
    reality is just your point of view or the world you live. Being a Christian doesn´t mean you deny facts. It doesn´t mean that you have to believe in a flat earth or something like that. How do you that wind exists if it is unvisible? You can see the reaction of trees bending but you can´t see wind. Have you ever seen air? We know it´s there but we can´t see it. If you look around in your room I bet there are least 3 other voices in the room that you can if switch on a radio. There are things nobody has seen yet and still we assume it´s like common sense or conscience. How do you something Richard Dawkins tells you is true? He could lie to you as well. You just find his arguments more trust worthy. We live in a world where everybody has his or her opinion. We want to share it and tell it to people. You say people just get indoctrinated in religious households, but how do you know? Indoctrination could be also forbidding children and people to talk about religion, about life or something else just because you want to save them from possible hurt. Watch for instance "Family Captain" he´s also indoctrinating his children in some kind. People say you can have morality without a deity which might be true, but I haven´t seen it yet in any atheistic country. The Bible has brought ideas for which you don´t need a God anymore such as a loving a person just for his or her being as she is. The idea that a person should have a dignity is original biblical idea as far as I know you can´t find that in any other Ancient culture. There are copies of a scripture from the Bible than from other Ancient authors like Plato, Aristotles or Cicero.
    • OfDeath

      Wind and air are not technically invisible. They are only invisible to the our eyes which are only able to see part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Air and wind are detectable in more ways than looking at trees bending. You see, in science, we have tools which allow us to detect and see things we cannot see with our eyes. Things which are physically there. Radio waves are also not invisible. Radio waves are a type of light and those waves are physical, measurable and detectable. So measurable and detectable that we can control it to such an extent that we can have radio stations on different frequencies of it. I know Richard Dawkins isn't lying because his claims are testable. I can physically test his claims or I can see actual evidence of it in the real world. He is a scientist who doesn't claim imaginary fairies exist. I cannot test for imaginary fairies. Morality does not come from the Bible and it is obvious that secular countries have more rational societies than theocratic countries. There are no stonings or beheadings for breaking imaginary rules that people made up that they think an imaginary entity which they also made up would want. Morality is an epiphenomenon on human evolution. We needed to have morals and treat people with dignity and respect in order the function in large groups. We have certainly improved our moral compass since the bible. If someone lived their life literally on the word of the bible, they would be a horrible person by today's standards.

    • Lionman95

      You mean societies like China, Communist Russia or Cuba are better societies. Morality isn't a part of evolution because it stops the evolving and power of the strong to succeed. Would you say that there is Evil in the world.

    • OfDeath

      China is a communist country. They claim to be atheist but they actually follow communism as if it is a religion. They don't have freedom of thought at all. This is a common claim religious people make. Atheism is not the reason China is bad. The reason is their oppressive, autocratic government. Morality is a different kind of evolution. It did evolve in a genetic way at first but it came to a point where it started to evolve in a memetic way. It has evolved since our hunter-gatherer past and since Roman times and even since the 1960s. You yourself even with your religious beliefs would be appalled at some of the things your Christian ancestors considered to be moral.
      I think evil exists in the same memetic type of way and what we think of as evil changes with the generations. There are things which anyone should consider evil or unethical such as making someone suffer without justification. You don't need any type of religious scripture to understand that and it's because religion holds no monopoly on morality and did not invent it.

    • Show All
  • ak3096
    I agree with your statement that religion should not be taught in school and it should be the parents job to impart that knowledge.
    In the first paragraph, you included Christians, muslims and Hindus into the same category.
    Christians and muslims are both Abrahmic religions which defies the theory of evolution whereas Hindus believe in evolution from the very beginning.

    I think that as the science is evolving the religion is not. Some practices that were necessary 1000 years ago doesn't need to exist in 21st century. I believe the texts in the books should be read with a deeper meaning and also been seen with lens of science.

    A person shouldn't be rigid in his thinking as no one thought before Edison that a light bulb could be thing. Even Edison didn't have any idea that AC current can exist, he was really stubborn on the concept of DC current.

    I studied in a school where I was taught about the culture and history of my country.

    The parents should have an open mind (most important) to accept what is good and what is bad in their religion because they are the one who pass it on to the next generation.

    Religion gives you morality. Science doesn't.

    I think
    Islam: Autocratic
    Christianity: Semi democratic
    Hinduism: Democratic
    • OfDeath

      Religion doesn't always give you morality. Philosophy can do much better than religion when it comes to morality and science can hypothesize how morality began.

  • Cryptic-Game
    Why would children need to be taught that since they can learn it on their own?

    Bill Nye even told Ken Ham that it is okay to teach religion but not in science classes.

    Actually religion is taught in school. The religion of evolution is taught.
    • OfDeath

      I did mean that it just shouldn't be taught in science class. When I wrote "if they want to learn mythology, they can do it somewhere else" or whatever but says, I haven't reread the take, I meant somewhere other than science class. That's why I pointed out the islamic example of mentioning the quran in biology class as if it trounces all else.
      It should be taught about in history class but the distinction between the facts and mythology need to be made. For example, religion had a big influence on historical events but it doesn't mean the details of it are true. Some of the details need to be explained to show why different religions fought.
      Evolution isn't a religion. Nobody performs evolutionist rituals, evolution is just a theory which after heavy scrutiny, has turned out to actually be true.

    • You are only assuming that a certain religion is wrong is your reasoning that you don't want it taught. I'm not for religion either. I'm for spirituality.

      What if that religion happened to be the truth? Then failure to teach it would be detrimental as we wouldn't be learning something that was an unknown fact. There may be many undiscovered facts.

      Remember that DNA was one of them. DNA was an undiscovered fact. Even 1 day before we knew DNA existed, it still did. You act like things can only be facts once we are aware that it is a fact. Heaven and Hell may be undiscovered facts. We don't know yet and may never know. It doesn't mean something is fiction until we prove it to be a fact.

      What if I played your game in reversal and said all things are facts until proven to be fiction? You'd find me insane. Yet, you get to assert that things are fiction until we prove they are fact.

      Even Alex O'Connor of Cosmic Skeptic, a self claimed atheist' on YouTube said that the atheist who claims there is no God also has the burden of proof to meet their claim. His main goal is to critique religion and no to critique beliefs and not to prove no God exists.

    • OfDeath

      What I'm doing is not assuming it is right. Alex O'Connor is an epistemological nihilist. He doesn't believe knowledge exists. He is also wrong. People who claim there isn't a god are doing it based on observation and not only observation with their eyes. God existing is already a claim. It is perfectly rational to hold the position that it doesn't exist until such time as verifiable evidence is produced showing it does. So the burden of proof solely rests with those making the claim of god. If someone tells you leprechauns exist, you wouldn't accept what they are saying as truth and you definitely wouldn't tell defenseless children they exist just because you can't prove they aren't real other than pointing out a leprechaun has never been detected in any way. The same goes for god. You don't just assume "god did it" when you don't yet have an answer for something. You would no sooner suggest "the great buffalo spirt" of Native American mythology did it.
      Children need to be taught facts and the ability to be able to distinguish fact from fiction. It's true to say that the idea of God comes from human mythology and has no basis whatsoever in science.

    • Show All
  • I think they should be taught all religions. Faith’s nemesis is knowledge.
    • OfDeath

      That's a good point actually. In history class of course. Or maybe even a whole elective subject dedicated to mythology.

    • OddBeMe

      Yes, learn Yahweh and Zeus at once and see how many believe in either.

  • Syrian_survivor
    I'm Muslim and I'm pretty devout but I kinda agree, nobody likes religious studies in our schools, they're tedious, pointless, and only do more harm than good.

    I remember in my senior year I was about to say blasphemic shit just because religious studies was such a time-wasting subject and I could've studied other important subjects like math or science instead, I hated every part of it and none of it was any helpful to anyone.

    I don't think such subjects should be completely removed, but I think they require a much different approach.
    • And about the origin of life thing, it really doesn't matter, nobody can confirm what happened millions of years ago.

      Even if we agree that all humans came from one creature, where did that creature come from? How did it even exist? Where did it exist and how did the place he existed in existed in the first place? 🤣

      This is why I think it's just pointless to dive into it.

    • OfDeath

      Even if none of those questions could be answered (and part of some of those questions are being answered by current science) you definitely wouldn't just assume "god did it".

    • You definitely wouldn't assume science or logic did it either
      Or aliens
      Or anything else
      Until we have actual evidence and proof of it all that answer all our questions

      It's a huge headache

    • Show All
  • Mystery1010
    I think that kids should be taught about religion but not in a way where their forced to belive it but in a way where they learn about others religion and how to respect them since it is hurtful when someone says another's beliefs are stupid.
    All kids should be taught science tho and since that's how we progress as a species.
  • oddwaffle
    You shouldn't teach kids stuff that aren't real.

    If one school teaches Buddhism and the other teaches Christianity then at least one of them is wrong. You shouldn't teach kids that.
  • AllieOops
    Do you have any clue that things started going down hill after religion/prayer was taken out of the schools and out of Christmas? The US has been blessed because it was a haven for the Jew and because the US supported Israel. If that stops God will withdraw his blessing and America, which is going downhill toward the bottom faster than greased lightning on a Slip & Slide with a tail wind. You think things can't get any worse? Just wait a bit and you will see that they can. The US was built on people who fled England to practice their religion with freedom. Now as it stands if you want to teach religion is school you have to cover every religion, not just Christianity so it's pretty much become a done and moot deal where you can't teach it. But that doesn't keep alternative life styles from being taught in some schools. I guess the devil is winning this battle.
  • Dargil
    Religion is part of history and culture. Comparative religion should be taught and not skewed. Leave favoring to Church teaching.
  • humanearth
    What if they are going to a Catholic or Lithuanian or some other religious school.

    Religion was part of the learning staple.

    I personally see nothing wrong with it.
    • OfDeath

      Is Lithuanian a religion?

    • humanearth

      Damn spell autocorrect

    • humanearth

      I didn't even catch it

    • Show All
  • jshm2
    You've used a lot of words to say nothing, kid.

    Religion (regardless of how you spin it) is something 80% of the world follows, and is an integral part of many cultures.

    Therefore, even if you think it is a second language being taught that you will never use, the school has a duty to prepare the child for engaging with it, and people. who do.

    The "lie" is what dimwits like you are believing, that it's something that can be ignored and it will will disappear. It's not some half baked theory, kid.
    • OfDeath

      I should point out that I'm not against teaching about religion in history class. It has no place in the science classroom though. Teaching creation myths in the science classroom is no different than teaching an episode of Xena warrior princess as fact.

  • HOAAH
    I was taught greek mythology at school
    I live in the USA and it was a public school
    • OfDeath

      But you weren't taught that it was the truth. Teaching mythology in history class is fine. Creation myths in science are not.

    • HOAAH

      It wasn't even taught at my school.

    • OfDeath

      Yeah that's good. I'm glad that a lot of schools don't teach it and that's the way it should be.
      I went to a few different schools. Only one of them taught creation as an alternative to evolution and then sort of said choose one as if each were of equal substance. Another one didn't include it in science but had another subject just called scripture but it actually should have been called Christian scripture. Now, that's fine to have that as a subject too. The problem was that subject was actually compulsory. The best school I went to never even mentioned it at all and it put strong emphasis on subjects like chemistry, physics, biology and obviously mathematics. Weirdly, history and geography were taught together. Like one day of that class was geography and the next was history. That was the school I learned the most from. Another reason was that all the teachers weren't just teachers, they were all specialist professors with doctorates in the subject they taught. I think that's how school should be.

  • Menyou2
    No... that you can’t force yourself n anyone... what happen to freedom of religion because if I’m being force to be taught about it there is no freedom
  • jahaims
    It's illegal for public schools in America to endorse or advance any religious beliefs.
  • Rule_Britania
    They should be taught it as a subject but not as a sermon thats what Sunday school is for.
  • gaygod_19
    finally someone said it!
  • startrooper2345
    yeah.. this.
  • Gedaria
    It just shows how little you know about the Bible
  • Tell that to muslim terrorists.
  • Anonymous
    How do you feel about leftist propaganda like "social justice" and general anti-Western-cultural views being taught at school?
    • OfDeath

      Cultural "views" don't belong in school other than what past societies views were with relevancy to the events which occured for history. That would be part of history class. When it comes to social justice, that has a place in economics classes. A certain level of social justice does need to be upheld in order to maintain a healthy economy. Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, English, history, geography, physical education, home economics, shop (electronics, wood and metal working), computer studies, a second language and possibly simple economics and the study of business operations are the only essential subjects.

    • Anonymous

      Seems reasonable to me.

  • Anonymous
    Totally agree!
  • Anonymous
    If that were to happen it would deprive someone with interest in religion and parents are not teachers. most people are religious, maybe not pue religious but not athiest so maybe atheists should request for a option to not study religion.
    • OfDeath

      I only mean it shouldn't be taught as science. Religion should be taught in history lessons. It has been at the core of many wars and social changes. However, only teaching one of them is what causes the problem. They should not be taught as truth but as part of history.

Loading...