That explains how it started. I started reading, but got a bit lost as to where it had gotten started.
Yes, I agree with you, that's the same thing. I mean, there is one thing to not teach them anything specific, but another to force atheism on your children.
Religion is personal, and it's never anyone else's business.

It makes me wonder if they would act like their Christian Counterparts and be upset with their children if they believed otherwise? If their children decided they believed in a god?

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

@quasievilgenius - Science is indeed about statistical probability; there will be instances when 100% of the data aligns (yes, everyone who jumps will fall back to Earth), especially when considering basic physics and chemistry. It is relatively easy to control for confounding variables when you're working with inanimate compounds.

But there are many other cases when experiments show a causal effect because of the statistical improbability that the data is the result of chance.

Does smoking cause lung cancer?

Well, yes, medical science has definitely supported that conclusion. But it's definitely not the case that 100% of smokers develop cancer - it's just statistically improbable that researchers would have gotten the data that they did by chance.

When dealing with areas of science that inherently include confounds that are difficult or impossible to control for, considering statistical probability becomes a necessity.

Alright, that's a compelling argument, though I would like to say:

My reason for responding as I did is that your original statement syntactically appeared to suggest that science is derived purely from statistical probability, which is not really the case, and is an over-simplified view of science. I never said that statistical probability is not a scientific tool, merely that the whole of science is not based on statistical probability, it's based on arriving at an explanation for a phenomenon through observation. Statistical probability exists within the data analysis aspect of science, not as much on the data collection/experimentation aspect, as you have to have data to derive statistical probability, which is a distinction I should have made initially, as I fear now that we have been arguing opposite ends of the same side of an argument.

Serafim - Just to make sure, you know that implicit atheism is atheism by way of not knowing anything else, and you still agree, yes?
I don't want to misunderstand.

Also, while I want to say that religion is personal, it's not always the case. I think it should be personal though, something you do with yourself, your family (if they feel the same) and with others of your religion.

Monstahh'- I do now. I still see it much the same though, and when I say not really teaching religion, I see it as some families I have seen that just in general don't talk about religion unless the kid mentions it, and they rarely say more than "believe whatever you want to."

(Aka I keep going onto this board when I'm tired and should be sleeping, it ends up making me skip certain words. lol)

Originally Posted by serafim_azriel

I don't have much to say on the whole topic of what makes a religion that seems to have emerged here in regarding Atheism, expect that while I'm not atheist, I do also consider it a religion in theory. Not always in practice, because some people see it differently than others, and some people see if as simply not believing in a god.

And here's also the thing. A lot of the "explanation" of what makes a religion is a bit silly. Atheism isn't the only 'religion' that doesn't have a deity. Buddhist beliefs are agnostic on the subject, and do not have a "God" (No, Buddha is not a god, just a very smart man), and, if anything is to be considered a "higher power" it is yourself.
Taoism also has no designated Deity, as yin and yang are ideas and the Tao is The Way, or a way to live life.

Mind you, many practitioners call it a philosophy, and there are sects of both that are more 'religious'. These are just the two I've studied.

Religion has become something a bit more broad than it used to, and I don't see why Atheists are arguing with Atheists about whether or not it's a religion. Why does it matter? Let someone believe whatever they believe and deal with it. If they want to call it a religion, let them. If they don't want to call it such, oh well.

There is more than one Buddha. There are...countless buddhas. They're called Boddhisatva, it is a title conferred upon reaching the state of enlightenment, which technically is an ascension beyond the physical form. The Boddhisatva have obtained Nirvana and are no longer bound to this mortal coil. While it does not make them gods, it's makes them god-figures, or demi-gods if you prefer, sort of like Heracles and Io, only again, without the mysterious romp in the sheets with the invisible man...or...cow...depending on which legend you're using for analogy. :-/

Serafim - Yeah, I want to teach my kids about what I believe once they start going to school and can understand the concept. I don't want to keep a blanket over their head, and I don't want to tell them that my way is the only way.

But my way IS a way, and it's MY way, and I'm their mother and I want them to know--and understand-- what I believe. If they want to look into something else for their beliefs though once they hit the age that they start to want to define themselves, then they should go ahead. I won't stop them.

But the point is, no matter what your beliefs are, simply by raising the child a certain way, you are to a degree, forcing your beliefs onto them. So at least raise them the way you feel is right.
And I'm not going to pretend that by raising them in a mostly atheist (perhaps even borderline secular, because other than keeping/protecting my beliefs, I don't really actively do anything, it just influences my life decisions) home (I hope to, anyway), that I'm not pressing my beliefs onto them.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

There is more than one Buddha. There are...countless buddhas. They're called Boddhisatva, it is a title conferred upon reaching the state of enlightenment, which technically is an ascension beyond the physical form. The Boddhisatva have obtained Nirvana and are no longer bound to this mortal coil. While it does not make them gods, it's makes them god-figures, or demi-gods if you prefer, sort of like Heracles and Io, only again, without the mysterious romp in the sheets with the invisible man...or...cow...depending on which legend you're using for analogy. :-/

I mentioned before, I am Buddhist, so I know what Bodhisattvas are.

And I don't know about others, but while I acknowledge Bodhisattvas I view them the same way I view Buddha: people who have attained enlightenment. Not anything beyond that.

It would be akin, to me at least, to saying that I worship Einstein or Shakespeare, but I don't pray to either or look at them as anything above regular (albeit smart) men.

It depends on who you ask and if they take the religious or philosophical route.
I happen to take it as the philosophical route, but claim it as a religion because I would otherwise fall under no religion, and that causes too much discussion and questioning, especially in the largely religious community in which I live.

@Monstahh'- I know what you mean, I'm the same way with wanting my kids to know what my religion is, and I think that's just natural, and will always happen. That's one thing I will admit that I respected about my parents when I starting finding my religion elsewhere is that they at least knew their religion and could actually answer my questions on it and [eventually] let me decide for myself, which is a bit rare these days with people who grew up in a certain religion.
(A problem I'm running into with my BF, who strongly believes his religion and yet I seem to know more about it than he does, which is fine to me, but when we have kids and they ask him questions, it would be a bit odd for him not to be able to answer. lol)

Originally Posted by serafim_azriel

I mentioned before, I am Buddhist, so I know what Bodhisattvas are.

And I don't know about others, but while I acknowledge Bodhisattvas I view them the same way I view Buddha: people who have attained enlightenment. Not anything beyond that.

It would be akin, to me at least, to saying that I worship Einstein or Shakespeare, but I don't pray to either or look at them as anything above regular (albeit smart) men.

It depends on who you ask and if they take the religious or philosophical route.
I happen to take it as the philosophical route, but claim it as a religion because I would otherwise fall under no religion, and that causes too much discussion and questioning, especially in the largely religious community in which I live.

I'm not sure if smart is really the appropriate characteristic...I'm under the impression that enlightenment involves far less in the way of what we would consider "intelligence" (as the case with Einstein who, in his professional circles is revered in a similar fashion to, say, a prophet in another religions, if one assumes for the sake of argument that scientism is in fact a religion) and is more concerned with wisdom. Now, where that distinction lies is...as open to debate as anything else in the thread has been, but I would say it is safe to say that while Einstein was much smarter than the Dalai Lama, for example (which is kind of saying something because the Dalai Lama is a very smart man) His Holiness is probably more enlightened. Though perhaps Einstein's not the best example, as he was something of a philosophical physicist, and most of his contributions to science still exist almost purely in the realm of theory. That's advanced physics for you.

And I should probably clarify the whole "demi-god" thing...I don't mean to say that they are to be worshipped, per se. Instead, I mean that they have achieved the status of spritual 'role model' after a fashion, and while their exact path on the journey cannot be followed (everyone's journey up the mountain is their own) their journey may help others who undertake the journey on their own.

So I suppose the Heracles analogy was off, and the Jesus model (historical, pre-resurrection) makes a little more sense. I don't so much mean the messianic bit, but the wandering healer/teacher/so forth. The whole idea that Christ was a person whose philosophies and actions were the positive example for mankind to follow and all that.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but a while back I sort of looked into the tenets and ideas of Maitreya Buddhism, and came to find out that certain schools of thought believe that Jesus was a manifestion of the Maitreya, the Buddha of the Future and Buddha of Prosperity.

I use the word smart because it's 3am and my brain doesn't really like big words. Or spelling, apparently.

All of the Bodhisattvas are actually not in traditional Buddhism or the teachings of Buddha. Theravada is really the only sect that follows it practically to the T, and while they have Bodhisattvas, they define them differently. As people who are on their path to enlightenment. So any practitioner is a Bodhisattva, basically.

Mahayana is largely the sect (or branch, because the sects largely stem from either Theravada or Mahayana) that is often seen as for the layperson, and basically, most of the Bodhisattvas were basically, the gods from their previous religion. It was traditionally more a way to be "Hey, you can join our club and keep your gods too!"

Which is not exactly what Buddha taught, but hey. To each there own, I suppose. (As I, admitedly, didn't abandon the idea of a God myself when becoming Buddhist, but there are many who do, largely if they follow the more traditional path.)

I rather dislike the idea of calling Bodhisattvas demi-gods or anything close because it reminds me too much of the whole Mormon "you can become a God too" thing, and that put me off rather thoroughly.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

I will give you an example of what I mean. Let's look at the big six religions:

Christianity: There are easily a dozen different denominations of this religion. Catholocism, Baptism, Free Will Baptism, Southern Baptism, Methodism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Holiness, Non-denominational Christianity, Pentecostalism, Messianic christianity (which is technically a form of Judaism which says Christ was the Jewish messiah) Eastern Orthodoxy, Greek Orthodoxy, and those are just the ones I can name.

Judaism: Hassidic, Orthodox, Qabbalistic, Conservative, Reformed, Reconstructionist.

Islam: Sunni, Shia

Buddhism: Theravada, Maitreya, Zen, Pure land, T'ien Tai, Mahayana, Nichiren, Siddharta (keep in mind the number of Boddhisatva[people who have achieved enlightment and therefore the status of buddha) number in the THOUSANDS in Chinese history alone, enough that when Buddhism moved to Japan, the Shinto priests were able to convert EVERY of the thousands of Shinto gods into a separate Buddha.) For that matter, Christ is considered an aspect of the Maitreya or future buddha.

Hindu: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Smartism, Shaktism

Jainism: I will be honest, I didn't even know this was number six. I thought it was something else, but since this seems to be a major religion...there are 14 different sects of this religion, I'll list four: Bispanthi, Digambar, Svetambara, and Taran Panth

Now let's move away from those into the other "religions," many of which aren't religions in the full sense of the world but are philosophical schools of thought which act as religious schools.

Shinto: Shinto is the indiginous religion of Japan. During periods of major Buddhist immigration (and or the Chinese occupation of Japan) the Shinto gods were merged with the buddhist Boddhisatva in the same way that the West Indian slaves conformed the gods of:

Voudoun (voodoo) into the saints of catholicism to preserve their religious institutions.

Taoism/Daoism: There are generally considered two approaches to Taoism: Religious and Philosophical (Daojiao and Daojia, respectively)

And that's just to name a few. Many of these religions are THOUSANDS of years old, some predating even the Monotheistic split (in the beginning, there were the Jews. They split into the Christians and Muslims due to disagreements about correctness and divinity of prophets)

I will provide the following link:

Religion, World Religions, Comparative Religion - Just the facts on the world's religions.

Just to provide you with a perspective of the sheer volume of data you suggest children age 11-13 are to be given and expected to be able to process critically enough to be able to make a major life choice. Many people make it well past middle age without even beginning to actually understand a religion they've been a member of their entire lives.

It is absolutely a terrific idea to increase awareness and knowledge of other religions besides the most popular one, but the time-frame you're suggesting is right at the beginning of the developmental stage wherein the youth starts to form their own identity separate from their family, and to try to load a young, impressionable mind down with THAT MUCH information (when they're also supposed to be learning more complex science and mathematics, developing more sophisticated forms of social interactions, developing language and secondary language skills, as well as the onset of the hormonal nightmare known as puberty...is like trying to carry a 2-ton steel girder in a wheelbarrow.

Well, it would happen over the period of 2-3 years before/when they enter middle school. Maybe one year you only do 3-4 of the big six and the next you cover more. However, I envision this type of class to be broad. You cover less of the differences between the denominations, etc. You cover all the differences and more in depth stuff in an elective high school class. So you don't give them ALL the information. Just more like a overview of what things are and roughly what they do. I wouldn't even bother with denominations or sects of certain religions at all. The type of course I'm talking about would be several that would set up kids for more in depth high school religions classes so that their classes won't be so general and meaningless at that point. And also so kids actually know what all of the religions in other parts of the world are. Most kids don't know a thing. Kids would be more likely to choose such an elective if they've learned a tiny bit of it before and it was interesting.
I just think that general religions classes in high school/college are pointless. You learn barely anything for your level. What you do learn are things you've heard before or know. Everything I learned I mostly already knew because I was that religion or most of it was already common knowledge. That stuff should be learned earlier and in small pieces.

The top 6 should be covered first BROADLY
And then you work your way down until the children reach high school. Then they can choose if they want to learn more in an elective. If you start these classes at grade 6 then they have 3 years to cover basic parts of most religions- preferably ones that are obscure and unknown to most people. I think these classes should also be more discussion-based than read and regurgitate test type.

Originally Posted by serafim_azriel

I use the word smart because it's 3am and my brain doesn't really like big words. Or spelling, apparently.

All of the Bodhisattvas are actually not in traditional Buddhism or the teachings of Buddha. Theravada is really the only sect that follows it practically to the T, and while they have Bodhisattvas, they define them differently. As people who are on their path to enlightenment. So any practitioner is a Bodhisattva, basically.

Mahayana is largely the sect (or branch, because the sects largely stem from either Theravada or Mahayana) that is often seen as for the layperson, and basically, most of the Bodhisattvas were basically, the gods from their previous religion. It was traditionally more a way to be "Hey, you can join our club and keep your gods too!"

Which is not exactly what Buddha taught, but hey. To each there own, I suppose. (As I, admitedly, didn't abandon the idea of a God myself when becoming Buddhist, but there are many who do, largely if they follow the more traditional path.)

I rather dislike the idea of calling Bodhisattvas demi-gods or anything close because it reminds me too much of the whole Mormon "you can become a God too" thing, and that put me off rather thoroughly.

Well, as best as I'm able to tell, Buddhism doesn't really TRY to supplant religion or God, it just sort of focuses on what other religious structures might consider the "divine spark" or the creative capacity of humanity to shape the world around us.

And I use the term demi-god, more for it's linguistic application (as in to mean someone who has transcended the human condition) than the historical applications of the term, because as I understand it, Buddhism doesn't typically concern itself with Divinity either internally or externally, its tenets can be followed while also honoring a religion, as there was a high prevalence of animism and/or ancestor worship going on in Asia during most of pre-modernity/pre-history.

Animism is one of those fascinating religious structures because it's usually followed in smaller societal groups (tribes and chiefdoms) and ranges from worship of parts of nature to ancestor spirits and all kinds of stuff in between.

----------

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

Well, it would happen over the period of 2-3 years before/when they enter middle school. Maybe one year you only do 3-4 of the big six and the next you cover more. However, I envision this type of class to be broad. You cover less of the differences between the denominations, etc. You cover all the differences and more in depth stuff in an elective high school class. So you don't give them ALL the information. Just more like a overview of what things are and roughly what they do. I wouldn't even bother with denominations or sects of certain religions at all. The type of course I'm talking about would be several that would set up kids for more in depth high school religions classes so that their classes won't be so general and meaningless at that point. And also so kids actually know what all of the religions in other parts of the world are. Most kids don't know a thing. Kids would be more likely to choose such an elective if they've learned a tiny bit of it before and it was interesting.
I just think that general religions classes in high school/college are pointless. You learn barely anything for your level. What you do learn are things you've heard before or know. Everything I learned I mostly already knew because I was that religion or most of it was already common knowledge. That stuff should be learned earlier and in small pieces.

The top 6 should be covered first BROADLY
And then you work your way down until the children reach high school. Then they can choose if they want to learn more in an elective. If you start these classes at grade 6 then they have 3 years to cover basic parts of most religions- preferably ones that are obscure and unknown to most people. I think these classes should also be more discussion-based than read and regurgitate test type.

Speaking as the child of two career educators:

That's not high primary education works. The ENTIRE primary school system in America is based solely on test scores...which I how I made it through 12 years of education without doing any homework that I wasn't literally FORCED to do and still managed to pass even though half the time my class averages were in the 30s all year long. If you can pass the End of Course test, you pass the class.

Up until college, education is PRECISELY about recitation of lecture material with a small portion being concerned with critical thinking and logical analysis of information. You'll notice, state-mandated end of course tests are almost unanimously multiple choice tests, which require ONLY that you remember and be able to recite key pieces of information. Schools are REQUIRED to teach specific curricula (i.e. 10th grade is world history, 11th grade is American history.) Students are generally required (and this may vary from state to state, as state Board of Educations mandate most of these requirements) to take a certain number of required courses (x maths, x englishes, chemistry, biology and physical science) based on general federal requirements, further state requirements, and then (if a school has these options available) based on academic/vocational track. If you intend to go to college for, say, computer science, you will probably be required to take more maths than if you intend to go for, say, journalism, though the latter may mean you take an extra english class or something to that effect)

And you can't really teach a general idea of what religions believe and expect from their followers without getting into their denominations. If you do this with Christianity, for example...if you approach Christianity from the Catholic model, you are excluding all other Christian denominations from your course of study because most of the other denominations do not share the same views of Mary or the Saints, nor practical application of worship and congregation. Catholicism is the only denomination that expects its followers to actively confess all their sins to members of the clergy. As best as I can gather, Baptists don't pray to Saint Anthony when they lose something, or to Saint Christopher when they're about to take a trip. That's a Catholic thing. But if you approach Christianity from one of the Protestant models, then you are equally excluding Catholicism from your course material. Now, it's true that Christianity suffers the most trouble with this...

But the true points are still being overlooked:

number 1: there isn't enough TIME in 5th or 6th grade education to try and involve religion. In the earlier years of education, the curriculum IS exact, and there's JUST enough time to cover EXACTLY what has to be covered, sometimes not even that.

number 2: the sheer VOLUME of data that you're proposing to half-give kids is more dangerous than telling them nothing at all. If you really expect that kids are going to sit through a class in fifth or sixth grade and then decide four years later to start taking other religion classes (both of which are still technically in violation of separation of church and state unless you teach ALL of them equally) when they could easily be taking some other class that they don't really care about but will net them an easy A and let them spend time with their friends/that cute boy/girl/whatever, then you're not taking a realistic approach to dealing with children/adolescents. Just because you might take an active interest in the religions of the world (which I highly recommend you do) doesn't mean that others are going to.

And just remember: there is NOTHING more dangerous than a person with a little bit of information.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

Speaking as the child of two career educators:

That's not high primary education works. The ENTIRE primary school system in America is based solely on test scores...which I how I made it through 12 years of education without doing any homework that I wasn't literally FORCED to do and still managed to pass even though half the time my class averages were in the 30s all year long. If you can pass the End of Course test, you pass the class.

Up until college, education is PRECISELY about recitation of lecture material with a small portion being concerned with critical thinking and logical analysis of information. You'll notice, state-mandated end of course tests are almost unanimously multiple choice tests, which require ONLY that you remember and be able to recite key pieces of information. Schools are REQUIRED to teach specific curricula (i.e. 10th grade is world history, 11th grade is American history.) Students are generally required (and this may vary from state to state, as state Board of Educations mandate most of these requirements) to take a certain number of required courses (x maths, x englishes, chemistry, biology and physical science) based on general federal requirements, further state requirements, and then (if a school has these options available) based on academic/vocational track. If you intend to go to college for, say, computer science, you will probably be required to take more maths than if you intend to go for, say, journalism, though the latter may mean you take an extra english class or something to that effect)

And you can't really teach a general idea of what religions believe and expect from their followers without getting into their denominations. If you do this with Christianity, for example...if you approach Christianity from the Catholic model, you are excluding all other Christian denominations from your course of study because most of the other denominations do not share the same views of Mary or the Saints, nor practical application of worship and congregation. Catholicism is the only denomination that expects its followers to actively confess all their sins to members of the clergy. As best as I can gather, Baptists don't pray to Saint Anthony when they lose something, or to Saint Christopher when they're about to take a trip. That's a Catholic thing. But if you approach Christianity from one of the Protestant models, then you are equally excluding Catholicism from your course material. Now, it's true that Christianity suffers the most trouble with this...

But the true points are still being overlooked:

number 1: there isn't enough TIME in 5th or 6th grade education to try and involve religion. In the earlier years of education, the curriculum IS exact, and there's JUST enough time to cover EXACTLY what has to be covered, sometimes not even that.

number 2: the sheer VOLUME of data that you're proposing to half-give kids is more dangerous than telling them nothing at all. If you really expect that kids are going to sit through a class in fifth or sixth grade and then decide four years later to start taking other religion classes (both of which are still technically in violation of separation of church and state unless you teach ALL of them equally) when they could easily be taking some other class that they don't really care about but will net them an easy A and let them spend time with their friends/that cute boy/girl/whatever, then you're not taking a realistic approach to dealing with children/adolescents. Just because you might take an active interest in the religions of the world (which I highly recommend you do) doesn't mean that others are going to.

And just remember: there is NOTHING more dangerous than a person with a little bit of information.

You can go into the basic denominations of Christianity such as a plain Christian and a Catholic without involving methodist, jehovah witness, etc. However you only teach them the basics of each without delving into all the complicated data. The point of it is to build religious tolerance and to present the basics. My point is that you do not teach them the history of Christianity or Catholicism and you do not teach them every little detail of them. Such a class would not exist to test students or measure how much they know at the end of it. It would be more like a small required assembly in a classroom setting. For example in my Christian school we would periodically have missionaries show up and teach us what they do. They would present their affiliation, the country they teach in, etc. This is the sort of class I am talking about.

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

You can go into the basic denominations of Christianity such as a plain Christian and a Catholic without involving methodist, jehovah witness, etc. However you only teach them the basics of each without delving into all the complicated data. The point of it is to build religious tolerance and to present the basics. My point is that you do not teach them the history of Christianity or Catholicism and you do not teach them every little detail of them. Such a class would not exist to test students or measure how much they know at the end of it. It would be more like a small required assembly in a classroom setting. For example in my Christian school we would periodically have missionaries show up and teach us what they do. They would present their affiliation, the country they teach in, etc. This is the sort of class I am talking about.

See, that's where you keep missing the point. This kind of thing can ONLY really happen in private schools. Public schools are bound by "separation of church and state" because they receive entirely government funding for their budgets. Because private schools receive funding from a board of trustees, they have a higher potential for leeway in the curriculum. Yes, you can have people come in and talk about what they do religiously in a public setting (to address the question 'what does a missionary do,' for example)...but you have to let people from other religions, not just other denominations, other religions, come in and talk as well, or you're in violation.

And again...if you talk about Christianity, you have to talk about Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, and Judaism, at very least. And in our country, Islam is a ridiculous hot-button. People shut down as soon as you start talking about followers of Islam. Even without going into history, just going into the general tenets of each religion...we covered the six major religions in my 8th grade social studies class as part of the curriculum, and we spent one day on all six of them.

Christianity requires it's own separate course, because it has that much relevent historical data to break down denominations (and you have to cover at least EVERY denomination that is represented in your class. If you have a Jehovah's Witness in your class, you have to teach it. If you have a Methodist, you have to teach it. If you don't, the school system can be SUED.)

Another year's worth of classes would have to be dedicated to the similarities and differences between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. To NOT cover this would be an extreme disservice.

You need to teach them as much as you can so they can be informed, but you can't just expect them to take a class in 5th grade and then not think about it until high school again. Misunderstanding an aspect of a religion...leads to people killing other people because of their religion. A little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all, because if you have no knowledge, you're more likely to be open to learn from someone who knows what they're talking about, instead of believing that you know all there is to know because you took a class that covered that religion for a day or two in 5th grade.

And again I address the issue...there's not enough time in elementary school. There's not enough time in middle school, and there's only sort of enough time in high school, and kids would burn through all their elective credits, so unless they're intending to go into religious studies in college, they've wasted those credits.

PARENTS. Need to be the ones who address the issues of religion for their children. One of the biggest problems in this country is that parents expect the government (by way of the schools) to do ALL the work in raising their children. Morals and religion are NOT the business of the schools (they have more important things to do like giving your children a practical education,) they are the responsibility of the parent. This country was founded on the idea that the government works in the background and that we, as Americans, are to have sole control over the path of our own lives. Except that as time passes we get lazier and expect more decisions to be made by the government.

This creates generations of spoiled, entitled kids who, when they reach adulthood, will merely supplant the concept "parents" with the concept "government" because they've been coddled and sheltered and over-protected their entire lives, and aren't actually capable of taking charge of their lives, so they turn to the government to do it for them. And this is the death of the American ideal. Self-sufficiency is the cornerstone of the American way.

So yes, parents should teach their children about religion, they should offer a less-bigoted approach to religion, and if they're not capable of doing it, then they should find someone who IS.

Even Hank Hill took Bobby around to the various churches when he had questions about religion. And Hank Hill is a fictional, fairly worldly-ignorant character.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

See, that's where you keep missing the point. This kind of thing can ONLY really happen in private schools. Public schools are bound by "separation of church and state" because they receive entirely government funding for their budgets. Because private schools receive funding from a board of trustees, they have a higher potential for leeway in the curriculum. Yes, you can have people come in and talk about what they do religiously in a public setting (to address the question 'what does a missionary do,' for example)...but you have to let people from other religions, not just other denominations, other religions, come in and talk as well, or you're in violation.

And again...if you talk about Christianity, you have to talk about Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, and Judaism, at very least. And in our country, Islam is a ridiculous hot-button. People shut down as soon as you start talking about followers of Islam. Even without going into history, just going into the general tenets of each religion...we covered the six major religions in my 8th grade social studies class as part of the curriculum, and we spent one day on all six of them.

Christianity requires it's own separate course, because it has that much relevent historical data to break down denominations (and you have to cover at least EVERY denomination that is represented in your class. If you have a Jehovah's Witness in your class, you have to teach it. If you have a Methodist, you have to teach it. If you don't, the school system can be SUED.)

Another year's worth of classes would have to be dedicated to the similarities and differences between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. To NOT cover this would be an extreme disservice.

You need to teach them as much as you can so they can be informed, but you can't just expect them to take a class in 5th grade and then not think about it until high school again. Misunderstanding an aspect of a religion...leads to people killing other people because of their religion. A little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all, because if you have no knowledge, you're more likely to be open to learn from someone who knows what they're talking about, instead of believing that you know all there is to know because you took a class that covered that religion for a day or two in 5th grade.

And again I address the issue...there's not enough time in elementary school. There's not enough time in middle school, and there's only sort of enough time in high school, and kids would burn through all their elective credits, so unless they're intending to go into religious studies in college, they've wasted those credits.

PARENTS. Need to be the ones who address the issues of religion for their children. One of the biggest problems in this country is that parents expect the government (by way of the schools) to do ALL the work in raising their children. Morals and religion are NOT the business of the schools (they have more important things to do like giving your children a practical education,) they are the responsibility of the parent. This country was founded on the idea that the government works in the background and that we, as Americans, are to have sole control over the path of our own lives. Except that as time passes we get lazier and expect more decisions to be made by the government.

This creates generations of spoiled, entitled kids who, when they reach adulthood, will merely supplant the concept "parents" with the concept "government" because they've been coddled and sheltered and over-protected their entire lives, and aren't actually capable of taking charge of their lives, so they turn to the government to do it for them. And this is the death of the American ideal. Self-sufficiency is the cornerstone of the American way.

So yes, parents should teach their children about religion, they should offer a less-bigoted approach to religion, and if they're not capable of doing it, then they should find someone who IS.

Even Hank Hill took Bobby around to the various churches when he had questions about religion. And Hank Hill is a fictional, fairly worldly-ignorant character.

School needs to be longer each day. You can teach things broadly at first. Thats what beginner classes are.

Schools need to present ALL religions to children and what they are not tout one or the other. You can teach the basis of Christianity without teaching its history right away. Its presenting unbiased information. That being said if more data is to be presented then school simply needs to be longer in the day or go longer. It can be done. There is time. People just don't want to make the time.

You can't trust that ALL parents know about all of the religions in the world or even understand them all to present unbiased information to their children. Most parents will just raise kids in whatever they believe which in turn shape their children into prejudiced little pricks with misconceptions.

Yes I am aware of separation between church and state but unbiased information is unbiased so I believe that that hardly counts. There is a fine line and I am all for teachers being fired for crossing it.

School can't be longer though...Most kids today as it is have HOURS of homework to do, clubs (and sports) to go to, work to go to, and chores at home to do--and then at the end of the day, they still have to sleep.
In our society, it's simply not possible.

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

School needs to be longer each day. You can teach things broadly at first. Thats what beginner classes are.

Schools need to present ALL religions to children and what they are not tout one or the other. You can teach the basis of Christianity without teaching its history right away. Its presenting unbiased information. That being said if more data is to be presented then school simply needs to be longer in the day or go longer. It can be done. There is time. People just don't want to make the time.

You can't trust that ALL parents know about all of the religions in the world or even understand them all to present unbiased information to their children. Most parents will just raise kids in whatever they believe which in turn shape their children into prejudiced little pricks with misconceptions.

Yes I am aware of separation between church and state but unbiased information is unbiased so I believe that that hardly counts. There is a fine line and I am all for teachers being fired for crossing it.

When religion is concerned, there is no such thing as unbiased information. Christians are taught by their religion that their religion is the only correct one...therefore any discussion of another religion is through the lens of "these people are stupid for believing this but..." It's not universal, but it happens. And I'm not saying that parents should be theology scholars, but that they should take an active role in the religious education of their children. If your child has a question about religion and you don't know the answer, take your child to someone who DOES know the answer, or go to the library and read a book WITH your child. This is parent/child bonding AND educational for both parties. Where's the downside here?

Typically speaking, the human brain can only absorb so much information at one time. For language acquisition (this is the only one I actually have the number for on hand) this time limit is 1 hour, give or take. Past that, you're not really doing anything productive. In addition, most students are in school from 8AM to 3PM, then have an extra hour or two of extracurricular activities (whether those are sports, clubs, theatre, chorus, church, whatever) and will still have homework, chores, and still needs to take care of the basic life functions like sleep, eating, and bathing. If you put this religion class at the end of the day, no one will pay attention because their brains are literally incapable of absorbing any more information without a break of some kind. If you put it before lunch, they won't listen because they're hungry. If you put it any other time, you're shoving ACTUAL education out of the way for something that has historically been the responsibility of the parents and community exclusive of their academic education.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

School can't be longer though...Most kids today as it is have HOURS of homework to do, clubs (and sports) to go to, work to go to, and chores at home to do--and then at the end of the day, they still have to sleep.
In our society, it's simply not possible.

That's why I think just a small "religion week" or even perhaps two that would introduce the religions and their basic beliefs. Like a missionary week- only religions. Perhaps have a guest or traditional food. It would be more like "this religion believes this and here are misconceptions." "These are their holidays", etc.

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

That's why I think just a small "religion week" or even perhaps two that would introduce the religions and their basic beliefs. Like a missionary week- only religions. Perhaps have a guest or traditional food. It would be more like "this religion believes this and here are misconceptions." "These are their holidays", etc.

Yeah, but then they only think about it once a year, and the rest of the year it doesn't matter.

I really wish it was possible, but it's really not in any reasonable manner.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

Yeah, but then they only think about it once a year, and the rest of the year it doesn't matter.

I really wish it was possible, but it's really not in any reasonable manner.

You do it once a year and each year its completely different and includes only 5 religions- one for each day. Then in high school they are better prepared to make a decision on what types of religions they do want to learn about and devote a semester to learning. You also direct children at the end of each session/assembly to where more information is included such as an informational page on the school's website (to prevent a biased source of information). You can broadly cover 20 religions by the time they hit 9th grade. It would be designed to be a fun learning experience with food, songs, guest speakers, etc. Yeah it would take out time from other things but it would allow children much needed down time. We had our missionary week take place during Bible class. What you do for elementary is shorted several classes for like 10 minutes and alter the schedule as seen fit for that week.

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer a class in anthropology or sociology of religion? Such an approach would in large part eliminate the complications inherent in trying to cover all religions. But rather you could have a generalized theoretical approach to how religion is/has been treated in sociology and anthropology. The classes could consist of case studies to demonstrate differing approaches and their flaws & weaknesses. When it came to assignments, this would give students greater self direction of the religions they choose to specify in. Furthermore the cross cultural knowledge which would be gained from such classes would surely be beneficial in an increasingly multicultural world.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer a class in anthropology or sociology of religion? Such an approach would in large part eliminate the complications inherent in trying to cover all religions. But rather you could have a generalized theoretical approach to how religion is/has been treated in sociology and anthropology. The classes could consist of case studies to demonstrate differing approaches and their flaws & weaknesses. When it came to assignments, this would give students greater self direction of the religions they choose to specify in. Furthermore the cross cultural knowledge which would be gained from such classes would surely be beneficial in an increasingly multicultural world.

That would be too far advanced for elementary and middle schoolers. I'm talking about a class or assembly needed for younger kids before their minds are tainted with cynicism about religions to build tolerance. However such a class would be interesting. Most kids wouldn't take them though because they would be taking arts and musics as religions wouldn't interest them by the time they get there. I think in order to offer such things and prevent such classes from being eliminated some type of exposure to them in an academic setting need to be had be it a required class or week-long assembly. Many schools try to offer better classes but they end up canceled because lack of interest. More kids would be interested if they get a broad taste of it earlier.

I am not sure it would be too advanced for people of that age. It would simply be, at the earlier stages, teaching them that people of different cultures have, at times, quite contrasting ways of life. When we learned about Ancient Egypt at my elementary school, it was not too advanced for me. Indeed that is one of the only parts of primary school which I remember to this day. The idea that there are/were people out there with radically different ways of conceptualizing the world was incredibly fascinating. The only alteration I would make to it, would be ideally to focus on current cultures, such as the Ju| Hoansi.

-Should parents teach a child to follow their beliefs or let the child discover religion on his/her own?

Of course no one is going to believe or follow something they feel is wrong, so yes they should be allowed to instill those beliefs into their children, like a base of foundation. Then later when the child becomes an adult and can critically exercise their own processes, they should be allowed to look around and try it out for themselves. Develop their own thoughts and ideals.

Teaching them is no problem, but I have a problem when things are strictly smothered and there's no room for questioning. When parents don't let their kids learn and question and seek knowledge for themselves. That 'The way we think' is right and your way is wrong.

I would find the same problem in a family would teachers their children secular ideas and hound into their kids that religion is wrong. Same concept to me.

-When is the right time to bring up the topic of religion for a child?

Some the start. They could be born into it. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' time.

-If a mother is of one religion and the father is of another, what should the child be brought up with (if even taught religion at all)?

It's up to the parents to decide. The child could be taught about both; who knows maybe that child may end up with a neutral standpoint, or choose which religion they want to follow.

-If you have/will have a child, what was/would be your course of action concerning religion?

I'll raise them into Christianity, but I won't smother them and force them to believe in anything. If they question, I'll answer. I'll plant the seed for them, but it'll be up to them in the end rather or not they want to take that route.

----------

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

When religion is concerned, there is no such thing as unbiased information. Christians are taught by their religion that their religion is the only correct one...therefore any discussion of another religion is through the lens of "these people are stupid for believing this but..." It's not universal, but it happens.

I just want to add. Christians and religious people aren't the only ones who do this. I see irreligious individuals who act this way too, "these people are stupid for believing this but..." also comes from people who don't not agree with religion. Christians aren't the only rude ones when it comes to religious tolerance.

I would say a parent bringing their child to church isn't necessarily bad, just as long as they aren't trying to force the religious beliefs on their child. I'm not religious myself, but I'd let my kids, if/when I have children, I would let them look at different religions and stuff and let them decide if they want to pursue religion or not. I wouldn't pressure them to choose a religion though. I'd let them explore.

I guess the fact of the matter is that a child learns much of what they believe from their parents...so it's kind of hard for religious beliefs to not get in there somehow.

Also discuss:

-Should parents teach a child to follow their beliefs or let the child discover religion on his/her own?

Why shouldn't parents teach their kids what they believe? When a child is 18 they can make their own decision but while they are younger they are not considered to be able to make their own decisions which is why they have parents or guardians to raise and teach them. You can't sit there and say one religion is better than another or no religion at all and you can't tell a parents what not to teach their child. As long as it doesn't break the law, or force the child to break the law then there's nothing wrong with it.

-When is the right time to bring up the topic of religion for a child?

That's up the parent and should not be dictated by anyone else.

-If a mother is of one religion and the father is of another, what should the child be brought up with (if even taught religion at all)?

That should be decided within the family.

-If you have/will have a child, what was/would be your course of action concerning religion?

I'd teach any child of mine what I believe to be correct. I don't care what other people say about my views, I have very specific reasons for them, my views are rational and quite frankly it's no one else's business.

I'm very much for parental/guardian rights, and the ONLY reason they should be taken away is if the parent is obviously causing harm to their child needlessly. I do believe in spanking as well. I was raised being spanked and it was how I was taught a lesson and it didn't hurt me, it didn't make me think my parents didn't love me, it was simply a punishment for doing something I knew was wrong. It never left bruises or broke the skin, and it made me a better person.