End the teaching of religion (as fact) in Schools

[Ataxia]

Richard Dawkins has said that teaching a child religion as fact is child abuse. While this claim is a little sensationalist, teaching a child that an all-powerful being is constantly watching them and listening to their thoughts and will punish them if they do not confess their sins is not quite not child abuse either.

I'm not suggesting that parents should be precluded from teaching their religion to their children, simply that the state should not facilitate them. This means refusing to give money to schools that insist on theaching religion as fact. In the US, they have a secular school system and it doesn't stop parents turning their children into mindless Jesus freaks, but it also allows those that don't want to raise their kids that way to educate their children free of religious pressure (my parents had me raised a Catholic because they didn't want me to be different from the other children).

So we should end the teaching of religion as fact in schools, and allow children to decide these things for themselves. The religion curriculum in secondary schools, though biased, provides a good overview of different views on the origins of life and the universe and should be continued.

[johnfás]

The US system creates a situation where many parents of a Christian faith withdraw their children from the 'evil' secular and public system entirely. This leads in turn to a dysfunctional and retarded home schooling system or to private establishments such as the ACE network of private schools, which don't teach anything which could be vaguely considered adequate. Whilst the system of religious education may not be perfect, it is beneficial to all concerned to keep children as much in the mainstream education system as possible, whether that be by the current teaching of religion in schools or by making space within a school day for children of religious families to be taught about their religion seperately.

The latter will certainly not appear adequate to those who disagree with religious teaching or indeed to the majority, who recognise that the seperation of children and teenagers during the school day is not beneficial in social terms. However, it is a far better situation than a total abstention from the rigour of a nationalised cirriculum. There is also a plethora of academic discourse to support such a notion, particularly in the US context. A further suggestion of course in regard to the US system is for the maintenance of home schoolers but to integrate them as much as possible into the non contentious elements of the public school system, whether that be in non contentious classes or through extra cirricular activities. If I have time I will post a bit of a bibliography for anyone who may wish to read on the subject tomorrow, but I'm pretty busy at the moment.

One must always pay credence to the Constitution in such matters also.

Article 42

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

[scotusone]

the choice of schooling in the US is not quite so stark as all that. there has been a system of catholic parochial schools since the 19th century which provide a "normal" education to a diverse community spread in inner city ,affluent suburbs and rural areas and do so more successfully than state schools .


the notion that religious or denominational schools are per se narrow or limited is a strawman . i went to a CBS and loretto secondary schools where like all the others in this state taught evolution .i would like anyone to point out catholic schools in this state where the sciences are taught in any way differently to a inter or non denominational school .

you may find this article interesting .


http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/BG1128.cfm

[Michael G]

Richard Dawkins has said that teaching a child religion as fact is child abuse. While this claim is a little sensationalist, teaching a child that an all-powerful being is constantly watching them and listening to their thoughts and will punish them if they do not confess their sins is not quite not child abuse either.

I'm not suggesting that parents should be precluded from teaching their religion to their children, simply that the state should not facilitate them. This means refusing to give money to schools that insist on theaching religion as fact. In the US, they have a secular school system and it doesn't stop parents turning their children into mindless Jesus freaks, but it also allows those that don't want to raise their kids that way to educate their children free of religious pressure (my parents had me raised a Catholic because they didn't want me to be different from the other children).

So we should end the teaching of religion as fact in schools, and allow children to decide these things for themselves. The religion curriculum in secondary schools, though biased, provides a good overview of different views on the origins of life and the universe and should be continued.

Would you perhaps think about getting a life? Atheists and aggressive secularists tend to be trainspotter-types and no normal person would want any social intercourse with them.

[gosimeon]

I am in first year in college now after going through the school system. No religion is thought as fact and students are taught about various beliefs from Islam to Athiesm and everything in between.

Maybe it helped out religion teacher was an atheist

[lostexpectation]

religion may not be taught as fact but its not taught as myth

[Ataxia]

I am in first year in college now after going through the school system. No religion is thought as fact and students are taught about various beliefs from Islam to Athiesm and everything in between.

Maybe it helped out religion teacher was an atheist

Perhaps not in secondary school, but in primary school I was taught Catholicism as fact. (And I'm in 6th year in secondary school.)

[Ataxia]

Richard Dawkins has said that teaching a child religion as fact is child abuse. While this claim is a little sensationalist, teaching a child that an all-powerful being is constantly watching them and listening to their thoughts and will punish them if they do not confess their sins is not quite not child abuse either.

I'm not suggesting that parents should be precluded from teaching their religion to their children, simply that the state should not facilitate them. This means refusing to give money to schools that insist on theaching religion as fact. In the US, they have a secular school system and it doesn't stop parents turning their children into mindless Jesus freaks, but it also allows those that don't want to raise their kids that way to educate their children free of religious pressure (my parents had me raised a Catholic because they didn't want me to be different from the other children).

So we should end the teaching of religion as fact in schools, and allow children to decide these things for themselves. The religion curriculum in secondary schools, though biased, provides a good overview of different views on the origins of life and the universe and should be continued.

Would you perhaps think about getting a life? Atheists and aggressive secularists tend to be trainspotter-types and no normal person would want any social intercourse with them.

Oh wow! I guess it beats having to come up with an argument.

[CookieMonster]

Richard Dawkins has said that teaching a child religion as fact is child abuse. While this claim is a little sensationalist, teaching a child that an all-powerful being is constantly watching them and listening to their thoughts and will punish them if they do not confess their sins is not quite not child abuse either.

I'm not suggesting that parents should be precluded from teaching their religion to their children, simply that the state should not facilitate them. This means refusing to give money to schools that insist on theaching religion as fact. In the US, they have a secular school system and it doesn't stop parents turning their children into mindless Jesus freaks, but it also allows those that don't want to raise their kids that way to educate their children free of religious pressure (my parents had me raised a Catholic because they didn't want me to be different from the other children).

So we should end the teaching of religion as fact in schools, and allow children to decide these things for themselves. The religion curriculum in secondary schools, though biased, provides a good overview of different views on the origins of life and the universe and should be continued.

Would you perhaps think about getting a life? Atheists and aggressive secularists tend to be trainspotter-types and no normal person would want any social intercourse with them.

Oh wow! I guess it beats having to come up with an argument.

I shouldn't think you would have time to come up with one anyway, what with the train spotting and the sitting alone crying.

[dubsthcentralboy]

Richard Dawkins has said that teaching a child religion as fact is child abuse. While this claim is a little sensationalist, teaching a child that an all-powerful being is constantly watching them and listening to their thoughts and will punish them if they do not confess their sins is not quite not child abuse either.

I'm not suggesting that parents should be precluded from teaching their religion to their children, simply that the state should not facilitate them. This means refusing to give money to schools that insist on theaching religion as fact. In the US, they have a secular school system and it doesn't stop parents turning their children into mindless Jesus freaks, but it also allows those that don't want to raise their kids that way to educate their children free of religious pressure (my parents had me raised a Catholic because they didn't want me to be different from the other children).

So we should end the teaching of religion as fact in schools, and allow children to decide these things for themselves. The religion curriculum in secondary schools, though biased, provides a good overview of different views on the origins of life and the universe and should be continued.

I'd broadly agree, though the anti-religious hysteria in the post is cringeworthy. I also think, if we follow your logic, we should stop insisting that, for example, the THEORY of evolution is a fact. Anything that can't be proven ought to be taught as an open-ended theory.