Sarofset: I don't think I've ever seen an Atheist public school. When I attended public schools in the southern US, a lot of the teachers used Christianity to explain a lesson, they'd randomly get on a tirade about non-believers, or they'd "have talks" to the pagan students to get them to "stop their evil ways". But I guess it depends on where you attend school. Depending on the majority of the students/staff, that's the religion that they'd try and indoctrinate amongst other students.

Also, I still heavily advocate the separation of church and state in public schools, where there should be an absence of religion (not Atheism). Religion has nothing to do with education (except for those wishing to learn Intelligent Design), but those who wish to have an education based on religion can attain that by attending a religious school or being homeschooled.

Amethyst: Right, now go to a public school, oh I don't know, anywhere not in the south east or Texas. I had friends sent home for wearing crosses, and things of that nature were sadly common. In fact I had a friend get suspended for not saying that the teacher was right, and his religion was wrong. Most schools in this country are very much anti religion.

The separation of religion means the opposite of what you think it does. It's meant to forbid the state from oppressing people based on their religious beliefs. It's used to do the opposite. The actual law is not separation of religion and state, it's freedom of religion. Anyone can worship, however they want, whenever they want, and no one is allowed to stop them, because to do so is wrong. You're proposing that schools should be allowed to shove atheism down people's throats, just like the schools in the south do with their freaky cultish version of Christianity.

I don't think schools should shove anything down peoples throats, frankly I think they should have a world religions class from the beginning in highschools, so that kids can know what it is that each religion teaches, and choose one, or none based upon their own morals and philosophical beliefs. I believe in education without leaving anything out. Just because you're not religious, doesn't mean those who are, shouldn't have the rights promised to them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There should be balance. Everything should be taught. Not just what you like.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

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

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

-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)?

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

I didn't grow up religious, but I started asking question pretty young. My parents are Mormon and were not active. In fact, they rarely took me to church when I was younger, it was my Grandmother who did, and it was a fun thing to do, because my grandma let me draw during it. I starting asking questions when I was 8 and left only 4 years later, when I was about 12, and I still stand by my decision 10 years later. Mind you, they became active since then and tried to force it on me during my rebellion, but as much as I love my parents, it was my choice.

I now find this an interesting topic and my mind changing on it somewhat from before as my boyfriend and I have begun to discuss marriage and children. He's religious. I'm not, and even if I claimed a religion, it would not be his. So it makes things a bit odd.

To answer the questions...

-I do believe that parents not only have the right to teach their children their own religion, but that they should. Mind you, however, I also believe that the parents should actually know their own religion before they teach it and not simply spout out whatever their priest tells them. Then again, I believe that everyone should actually know the religion they claim.

-When they ask. As I said, I believe that the parents have the right to teach their children religion. If they chose to take their kids with them to church, they should be able to. Until a certain age, if everyone is going, they should go (mostly the whole not being home alone thing, really), but they don't have to believe it. When the child asks, that's when you actually sit down and talk to them about it. If they don't ever ask and you're concerned they've become a blind sheep? When they're between 12 and 18. The teenage years, to reassure them that they are allowed to follow whatever religion they like.

-Both. Though sometimes I think this could be confusing, but many people do it just fine. My boyfriend and I are different religions (technically), we will go to his church on Sundays and Sunday school, and they also will learn about other religions. I don't have one for myself, because I'm a Buddhist/Taoist who thinks of it as a philosophy and not a religion, so I don't foresee too much of a problem.

-I think I actually already answered this. I know what I'll do, though I am a little concerned about my boyfriend because he is religious (while I'm not), but we don't plan on worrying about it until we're out of college, so we have some time to finish discussing it.

Teach children about religion, but don't teach them to follow one.

I've had children between the ages of six and eight hand me pamphlets about abortion and Hell. It's all well and good to say that parents should share their flowery new age spirituality with their kids, but what of the less lovey-dovey denominations? Should parents teach their kids to hate gays, as they believe their god does? Should they be marching their children in front of abortion clinics with red tape over their mouths? Do they have the right?

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

For religious families, it's traditional to teach their offspring the family's religion. At a young age, these children are taught to believe what their parents believe. However, some may call this "brainwashing" and "infringing on the child's right to choose his/her own beliefs." Your stance?

I think the first point largely varies, depending on the family we're talking about. Some families are incredibly religious and therefore will almost shove their religious views down their offspring's throat, but on the other hand we have families that don't put their child's religious education in a high pedestal. As for "brainwashing", I disagree. The intensity of the family discussions may vary, but if the child doesn't want to follow the family's religion, they won't, no matter how hard you try.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

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

Neither, if you get my point.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

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

Before school. At school, whether one likes it or not, religion starts getting discussed; sunday school and whatnot. I'd rather discuss with my child all the various topics about religion before he or she enters the school and gives weird answers to the teacher's questions.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

-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)?

Neither. The parents should have the responsability of enlightening the child when they think he or she is ready (usually they start asking questions).

Originally Posted by Amethyst Lavenlight

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

Personally, if I had a child, I'd let the kid live in blissfull ignorance of religion for a few years, and before they go to school, I'd teach him/her about my own personal views, about religion, the various religions that exist, try and inform them as much as I could without bias, and tell them that no matter what, they shouldn't listen to that heaven/hell garbage (because frankly, I believe most kids during primary school are persuaded to believe in god because if not they "go to hell when they die") and encourage them to persue the view they believe applies to their own views of the world the most.

Originally Posted by sarofset

Amethyst: Right, now go to a public school, oh I don't know, anywhere not in the south east or Texas. I had friends sent home for wearing crosses, and things of that nature were sadly common. In fact I had a friend get suspended for not saying that the teacher was right, and his religion was wrong. Most schools in this country are very much anti religion.

The separation of religion means the opposite of what you think it does. It's meant to forbid the state from oppressing people based on their religious beliefs. It's used to do the opposite. The actual law is not separation of religion and state, it's freedom of religion. Anyone can worship, however they want, whenever they want, and no one is allowed to stop them, because to do so is wrong. You're proposing that schools should be allowed to shove atheism down people's throats, just like the schools in the south do with their freaky cultish version of Christianity.

I don't think schools should shove anything down peoples throats, frankly I think they should have a world religions class from the beginning in highschools, so that kids can know what it is that each religion teaches, and choose one, or none based upon their own morals and philosophical beliefs. I believe in education without leaving anything out. Just because you're not religious, doesn't mean those who are, shouldn't have the rights promised to them.



There should be balance. Everything should be taught. Not just what you like.

Hmm, interesting point, Sarofset. o: I propose that schools don't talk about religion unless it's a class on religion. I actually think it's fine for there to be a class on world religions in high school; I'd advocate that any day! xD It's much better for students to learn about a variety of religions in one class than to have a single religion shoved down their throats. (In other words, I agree with your post.)

And I agree with you a lot on that one, Doomfishy. It's frightening to see young children learning to hate because of religion.

Hatred is the constant. I know atheists who hate gay people, and anyone who is religious. People use misinterpretations of religious values to validate their hatred. It's sick, and it twists things which are meant to do the opposite.

Oooh. That is a tad awkward, for lack of a better phrasing. I have never seen that up here (I’m in Canada). Plenty of our public schools have classes on world religions, and clubs (such as the Christian Club at my boyfriends school - they meet during lunch and sometimes after school). I’ve never experienced such negativity towards religion in school - other than a teacher telling one student: “This class is not about your religion, you can talk about that at home, but you‘re here to learn these theories. Whether you agree with them is not the point. I‘m here to make sure you understand them enough that you can disagree with them, if you so choose, and be able to argue your point intellectually.” Which really wasn’t negative, just making a point that you learn what you learn, and that disagreeing is fine as long as you understand the concepts on both sides. The only other negativity would be from kicking out students for hate crime related behaviour, which doesn‘t just apply to religion.

I mean… there might be exceptions, but generally up here if your school is secular, it’s really secular. If you live in an area that doesn’t have schools like that and it bothers you, I suggest you move. I personally wouldn’t live somewhere that doesn’t accept my lifestyle. It doesn’t hurt anyone so they shouldn’t be butting in, etc etc.

I do disagree with there being a mandatory world religion class... unless it's optional to continue it through all years and simply mandatory for one. I understand that it would be a good thing, having everything rounded and whatnot, but unless it’s a part of say… a mandatory life planning course, then I think it should be more of an at home education pursuit. It is a good thing to learn about, especially if you’re interested in it, but with the load of all the other courses I think it would just be too much since I don’t see it as being as necessary as other courses are to obtaining the career you want... which is what school to me. Extracurriculars are there for a reason, yeah?

I don't believe in "god" and i will tell my kid that, but i will let him believe in what ever he wants to.

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

Oooh. That is a tad awkward, for lack of a better phrasing. I have never seen that up here (I’m in Canada). Plenty of our public schools have classes on world religions, and clubs (such as the Christian Club at my boyfriends school - they meet during lunch and sometimes after school). I’ve never experienced such negativity towards religion in school - other than a teacher telling one student: “This class is not about your religion, you can talk about that at home, but you‘re here to learn these theories. Whether you agree with them is not the point. I‘m here to make sure you understand them enough that you can disagree with them, if you so choose, and be able to argue your point intellectually.” Which really wasn’t negative, just making a point that you learn what you learn, and that disagreeing is fine as long as you understand the concepts on both sides. The only other negativity would be from kicking out students for hate crime related behaviour, which doesn‘t just apply to religion.

I mean… there might be exceptions, but generally up here if your school is secular, it’s really secular. If you live in an area that doesn’t have schools like that and it bothers you, I suggest you move. I personally wouldn’t live somewhere that doesn’t accept my lifestyle. It doesn’t hurt anyone so they shouldn’t be butting in, etc etc.

I do disagree with there being a mandatory world religion class... unless it's optional to continue it through all years and simply mandatory for one. I understand that it would be a good thing, having everything rounded and whatnot, but unless it’s a part of say… a mandatory life planning course, then I think it should be more of an at home education pursuit. It is a good thing to learn about, especially if you’re interested in it, but with the load of all the other courses I think it would just be too much since I don’t see it as being as necessary as other courses are to obtaining the career you want... which is what school to me. Extracurriculars are there for a reason, yeah?

I believe that a world religions class should be mandatory. I think that it clears up misconceptions that kids might have and use against other kids and/or take into adulthood. I went to a private school and we never had a religions class to learn about other religions. We just have Bible class and chapel.

Hmm. I see your point PixieSunBelle... I'm just torn with the work load vs. necessity thing.
Then again, in that light... a world religion class can be easily seen as a necessity. It really would help with a lot of hate crime stuff... and it does relate to life preparation as well since religion can be a large part... It's not something I've thought much about I guess since I plan to education my children at home about different world religions. Obviously not everyone is like me in that respect...
Then you have the parents bitching that religion doesn't fall under the educational spectrum, that it's an at home thing. I wouldn't be in that group, but... I know they're there. Not wanting their kids to be taught anything /but/ their chosen religion (Jehovah's Witnesses for example - my grandma is one and just about had a fit when I bought a book on a religion she knows /nothing/ about and refused to talk about it when I asked her if she wanted to learn with me). Those are probably the ones already home schooling and shoving it down their throats anyway...
I know kids that go to a private Christian school here. They get taught a few things about different religions. How they compare and contrast with Christianity. I think they use that as a way to shove their views further though... It's unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

I will encourage scientific investigation, with the understanding that scientific knowledge is about statistic probability, not absolutes.

It is nice to see the secular-minded open to the idea of others wanting to have religion (eh...faith is a better word for it, religion is the opiate of the masses and a form of social control...faith is a person's relationship with God)

but I feel it is important, where your statement of science is concerned, to point this out:

Scientific knowledge is not based on statistical probability. Yes, statistical probability is a tool of science, but empirical science (and for the sake of being completely specific, empirical reductionist science) is based on experimentation to determine the nature of tangible, observable phenomena in our universe by conducting experiments which remove EVERY POSSIBLE variable from the realm of possibility to reduce a question to its base components in the interest of unraveling the nature of the phenomenon in question.

Gravity doesn't work because it's statistically likely that the effect we call "gravitational pull" will happen, but is derived from a very specific formula which requires that the mass and distance of both objects be of a certain magnitude when calculated along with the universal gravitational constant, which is why gravity is observed in the case of planetary orbits and the orbits of moons around planets, or the fact that when we jump we fall back down.

Statistical probability would insist that when a certain percentage of people jump, they don't come back down, or that celestial bodies could free themselves of orbit completely at random simply because it's statistically possible based on the laws of probability. In order for a scientific discovery to be considered valid, experimentation must be performed, published, sent around to the rest of the scientific community for peer review (wherein the preeminent members of the scientific community take great pride in shredding your experiment, your argument, and everything in between) and then replicated countless times to determine whether the experiment was conducted wrong, the researcher committed some form of fraud, or some external element of the experiment caused a false-positive or false-negative.

Statistical likelihood isn't even close to enough to get something considered scientific fact, or even scientific idea. You have to prove it over and over again, and then let other people try to prove you wrong and rip your experiments to shreds.

And while it is true that most hard sciences have become every bit as dogmatic and indoctrinate as the religious institutions they seek to replace, it is also the chief goal of science to arrive at tangible, repeatable, provable explanations of things...which also means that at any given moment, any given scientific fact may be completely disproved by a single experiment (provided it survives peer review and replication, of course.)

And by and large, science is a journey of fractions of an inch. Major discoveries like gravity, inertia, friction, the chemical composition of the human genome, cloning...these major revelations occur after countless years or decades of minor, seemingly unrelated discoveries. Could anyone have predicted, for instance, when Gregor Mendel started dealing with his trait research in the monasteries that one day men would discover the base components of all life on earth? Or that even later on it would be discovered that these building blocks were composed of a finite number of enzymic chemical proteins, which can only bond in certain pairings, that form some bizarre cryptographic map for every possible physical trait across species?


I apologize for the wall of text, and while I agree with your position, the idea that science is based solely on probability is a little short-sighted.

I also happen to believe that religion and science can easily co-exist, when one considers a semantic choice: science explains HOW something happens. Religion explains WHY something happens lacking any real way to determine it for sure.

As an example: take the theory of the Big Bang.

Personally I have a pet hypothesis that's completely irrelevent that involves multiple black holes trying to exist in the same single atomic space, which causes an explosive redistribution of all the matter in the universe. Massive flaming balls of gas collect strange rocks and gaseous atmospheres connected by the density of the molten core and mass to other rocks, which have other rocks and gaseous forms.

The Judeo-Christian approach says that an intangible divine which existed before ANYTHING esle seemingly at random decided to create the universe.

The Big Bang theory suggests that at some point during a period of cosmic history all the matter and energy in the universe were condensed into a single mass...and then mysteriously and without definite cause exploded to spread out to the far reaches of what we know as the universe.

If you switch out all the words that deal specifically with science or religion...you end up with something that looks like:

Everything in the universe was all clumped together to the point that there was basically nothing, and then at the whim of some intangible force everything in the universe exploded into being and set everything into motion.

----------

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

I believe that a world religions class should be mandatory. I think that it clears up misconceptions that kids might have and use against other kids and/or take into adulthood. I went to a private school and we never had a religions class to learn about other religions. We just have Bible class and chapel.

Where public schools in America are concerned that raises serious issues with Separation of Church and State, and can create far more unpleasantness than any school system is able to handle.

And what religions would be covered in this class? It's not exactly fair to call it "world religions" and then only talk about the big six, but to truly give an accurate picture of the global religious perspective, you would need to include other, less prevalent religions, and the basic information necessary to consider oneself informed about any ONE of the big six religions takes up entire semesters of college, so how many years would people need to take these classes before you could really consider that they had been properly educated about any of them?

Originally Posted by sarofset

Hatred is the constant. I know atheists who hate gay people, and anyone who is religious. People use misinterpretations of religious values to validate their hatred. It's sick, and it twists things which are meant to do the opposite.

Yeah, what happens when people who are "secular" start spewing hateful bullshit based on bad science, or something?

Like 98% of all people who practice religion have IQs of less than 50.

Made up statistics, whoot!

Which brings me back to my point, that secularism is sortof a "religion" of it's own.

religion

1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.
2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.
3. Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.
4. An ideological and traditional heritage.

it sure is. you pray to the almighty dollar at the church of atm.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

it sure is. you pray to the almighty dollar at the church of atm.

I would probably lean more towards looking at the role that scientism plays in it.

My roommates (who are married) are having a terrible time deciding what to do about religion if they have kids. The husband wants to expose their kids to all religions (an impossible feat) so that they can choose which one, if any, they like. The wife is more conflicted about whether to raise them Catholic or without any religion at all. Both of them were raised Catholic and her family is majorly Catholic. However, he is atheist and she's agnostic, so while part of her wants to raise her kids Catholic, she's concerned about raising them to beliefs that neither she nor her husband believe in.

My boyfriend and I are much less concerned. I'm what he describes as a "deist," though quite open-minded, thank you. (To clarify, I was raised Christian, sorta. No church or anything. I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. I'm incredibly torn on whether or not to believe in Jesus.) He's Jewish, very very liberal Jewish. He wants to raise our kids Jewish and since I don't really care one way or the other, I'm cool with that. The only thing I insist on is that we still celebrate Christmas (which, since I don't do the church thing, he's also cool with); his only sticking point about Christmas is that we not let our kids believe their gifts came from a fictional character (Santa), the gifts came from Mom and Dad.

Originally Posted by quasievilgenius

Where public schools in America are concerned that raises serious issues with Separation of Church and State, and can create far more unpleasantness than any school system is able to handle.

And what religions would be covered in this class? It's not exactly fair to call it "world religions" and then only talk about the big six, but to truly give an accurate picture of the global religious perspective, you would need to include other, less prevalent religions, and the basic information necessary to consider oneself informed about any ONE of the big six religions takes up entire semesters of college, so how many years would people need to take these classes before you could really consider that they had been properly educated about any of them?

I envision the class talking about ALL religions in a religion class probably around 5th-6th grade. What they are, their traditions, what they believe, etc. Then in high school offer a more in-depth study of religions broken down into several classes kids can choose from. The high school ones would be electives. All these classes should be neutral.

I took a religions class in college. The description made it sound like it would cover so much, but then we stayed on Catholicism all semester. It was soooo boring. I waiting to learn all of this stuff but all that was said was that "x religion is a cult, etc. Ok, we're out of time". It sucked.

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

I envision the class talking about ALL religions in a religion class probably around 5th-6th grade. What they are, their traditions, what they believe, etc.

I do not believe that it is within the bounds of reason to allocate enough time for such an ambitious task. As there are a fair amount of 'religions' out there.

Including atheism, which gets all the time.

Originally Posted by sarofset

Including atheism, which gets all the time.

I think (or rather hope) I misinterpreted this post, but either way I'm just going to say that atheism is not a religion.

Actually it is.

.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Got it from the dictionary.

I would think that a lot of teachers would see it as pointless to teach any religion that is not a "major" religion. Perhaps instead of describing only those religions, they could talk about the basic qualities of religions. Like, belief systems that multiple religions branch out from instead of discussing "Well, Christianity has Jesus. Islam has Allah." Stuff that ties multiple religions together so that they don't have to be individually covered.

I think learning the basic structures of religions would be a great way for a highschooler to pick which basic foundation they lean towards and then they can branch out to religions that contain that foundation.

Originally Posted by sarofset

Actually it is.

Got it from the dictionary.

Except atheism is a lack of beliefs. So, not really. It's quite the opposite. Or rather, in fear I'll be misinterpreted myself, it's the lack of belief in a deity.

Originally Posted by NeuzaKC

Except atheism is a lack of beliefs. So, not really. It's quite the opposite. Or rather, in fear I'll be misinterpreted myself, it's the lak of belief in a deity.

Atheism can still be preached, though. o: I think anything that involves some sort of dogma can be a religion.

NeuzaKC: Actually I would characterize it more as a belief that there is no deity. You believe there is no God. An agnostic generally has no beliefs either way. Agnosticim might be considered a lack of religion. Atheism, is a religion.