Religious teaching in Education

[athanasios]

ressions-crackdown.html'>Quebec bans religious teaching in public daycares

What is your opinion?

[Edric O]

[c=#00dd00]This is a very good thing. In fact I'm shocked that religious teaching in daycares wasn't already illegal. I mean, they are daycares. They're not even schools. They are for pre-school children. It is not the business of educational institutions to teach religion to children of that age.[/c]

[Lawliet]

I think it's perfect. Religion should never be taught in daycares or schools. It's just wrong and a complete waste of time. Why don't they teach something useful instead?

[ErasOmnius]

I think it's perfect. Religion should never be taught in daycares or schools. It's just wrong and a complete waste of time. Why don't they teach something useful instead?

Are you saying that all religious instruction is a waste of time, or state-funded religious instruction is a waste of time?

[Lawliet]

Are you saying that all religious instruction is a waste of time, or state-funded religious instruction is a waste of time?

Both. But i don't want to start a discussion about religions, the topic of this thread is about teaching religion in daycares, and that's just wrong.

[athanasios]

Teaching about Religion should be part of the curriculum. Not for daycare schools though. Good they banned it there. Of course the subject should be taught from a neutral stand and in an effort to unite people and understand their different cultures.*

Practicing of religion should be out-it is a personal matter. Now if a large number of students feel that they need to pray to start their day, this should be allowed, but others shouldn't be forced to follow. I used to pray by myself. And definitely against religious festivals in school or going to church as a school, etc...

* When I was young, religion lessons were compulsory and I had to bear the propaganda and twisted biased presentation of all religions (call it b*******t or outward lies or whatever you like) by an Orthodox theologian who happened to be the principal of the school I attended and the author of the book used nationwide. Yes that book was a masterpiece of s*** even Goebbels wouldn't have come up with. Awful time...

[Lord J]

Religion can be taught about as objectively as politics, which is to say, not.

Everyone has religious views, from those of us who think it is a crutch for the mentally underdeveloped to those who strap bombs to their chests for virgins in the afterlife.

Besides, the three "R's" are much more important to any child than religion, particularly in a public setting.

It's interesting, I was at my mother-in-law's recently, and my niece was talking about demons as if they actually exist. It made me so sad that she would fear these fictions, sometimes possibly too much to go to sleep, and because she is not my daughter, I cannot tell her that they do not exist. I really think traditional religious education is a form of child abuse, even more than paddling, because it results in mental scars (fear of fictitious characters, guilt, self-doubt) for the rest of a child's life. And to institutionalize it in public daycares is ridiculous.

[Andrew]

Would teaching about Santa Clause be wrong in daycares?

Easter bunny, tooth fairy etc?

Only items with a religious tone, even though other teachings could be viewed as 'false'?

As far as I'm concerned, it would be up to parent as to whether the daycare they choose teaches about religion. Something they might want to ask about when applying.

If publicly finded, then yes, ban it. I don't think they can 'teach' (observe?) religious practices in normal schools. So dayschool should be no different.

[Lord J]

a: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are not worshipped or feared.

b: No, I think these myths have no place in a public daycare either.

c: I think I see where you're going here, but religious fictions are supported by the culture to such a degree that it affects legislation, concepts of "purity" and "morality" and inflicts guilt. No other mythology does that. Yes, if you're bad, Santa won't bring you presents, but parents never follow through with that nonsense and Santa is not going to send you to hell if you die before Christmas day.

[ErasOmnius]

Obviously, a state-funded daycare should not teach religion.

But if you get rid of religion altogether, one simply has cold, heart-less society; in which people do not care about each other.

[Lawliet]

Obviously, a state-funded daycare should not teach religion.

But if you get rid of religion altogether, one simply has cold, heart-less society; in which people do not care about each other.

Seriously? You really think that without religion we would not care about each other? Can you explain why do you think that?

[ErasOmnius]

I love Deep Space Nine, as well. As far as favorite shows of all time, it is number 1.

Everybody wants the compassion that Christianity introduced to the World, but people now hate 'the rules'. People like that most homeless shelters are run by religious people, but don't want to truly curb some of the foolish choices that can negatively contribute to homelessness. People want the positives that come with religion, but want to have their own un-curbed behavior.

[Lord J]

Implying that it's the religion that actually modifies the behavior.

I don't know, maybe I just wish I were the Pope, or the leader of a multimillion-dollar church so that I could exploit religious belief.

[Edric O]

Implying that it's the religion that actually modifies the behavior.

Come on, you must admit that religion has something to do with it. People would not bother to be religious if it did not mean some change in their behavior.

Of course it is an exaggeration to say that religion is the source of all compassion, as Eras said. But it certainly is the source of some compassion. Without religion, people would not suddenly turn into sociopaths, but they would be less compassionate and more selfish.

[athanasios]

ErasOmnius: The Bible foretold that people would hate the rules and that the love of many would cool off.

-

I am very happy whenever restrictions are posed in organized religion because it bears the guilt of blood. Their aim is to cultivate hatred towards 'the different' from infancy.

[Gruntlord6]

Come on, you must admit that religion has something to do with it. People would not bother to be religious if it did not mean some change in their behavior.

Of course it is an exaggeration to say that religion is the source of all compassion, as Eras said. But it certainly is the source of some compassion. Without religion, people would not suddenly turn into sociopaths, but they would be less compassionate and more selfish.

they also would not start crusades.

[Edric O]

they also would not start crusades.

True. They would just start good old fashioned wars of conquest without bothering to come up with religious excuses.

[athanasios]

The well of excuses is bottomless.

[Gruntlord6]

True. They would just start good old fashioned wars of conquest without bothering to come up with religious excuses.

at least it would be honest.

[athanasios]

Seems you didn't read my post. How will it be honest when there will always be a thousand excuses?

[Lord J]

Come on, you must admit that religion has something to do with it. People would not bother to be religious if it did not mean some change in their behavior.Of course it is an exaggeration to say that religion is the source of all compassion, as Eras said. But it certainly is the source of some compassion. Without religion, people would not suddenly turn into sociopaths, but they would be less compassionate and more selfish.

I guess I'm devolving into semantics: I'm referring not to the religion (which is a set of verbal rules) but the pairing of religious stimuli with pain and pleasure through a process of teaching. IMHO, the only reason religious people are "compassionate" is that they are taught to describe their beliefs to outsiders so that their numbers grow.

Are you really a nice person because Jesus says so, or because your Sunday School teacher said that Jesus says so? And you get cookies.

...At least, that's my experience with religious indoctrination.

Why do you assume that atheists/agnostics are less compassionate and more selfish? Because we don't fear hell (expulsion from our religious "family") or desire heaven (sex with a virgin ;) )? Your assumption seems to be (like most religious types) that religion is necessary for moral thought, and yet you consistently ignore ample opposing evidence. According to religious thought, guilt for imaginary sin is somehow a greater force for building compassion than an honest appreciation of human existence as the most complex, intriguing and unique phenomenon in the history of the world. I would personally much prefer that people honestly care about human individuals because of the complexity and diversity they bring to our planet than fear of the afterlife or the hopes of "storing up treasures in heaven". Which, when I think about it, seems very much against the communist ideal.

Again, I find it really interesting that the (apparently only) openly communist poster on this forum is also a Christian.

[athanasios]

IMHO, the only reason religious people are "compassionate" is that they are taught to describe their beliefs to outsiders so that their numbers grow... And you get cookies.

Shame on you for speaking that way! That's a blanket heavy accusation and indeed very offending. Thank you.

"storing up treasures in heaven". Which, when I think about it, seems very much against the communist ideal.

Again, I find it really interesting that the (apparently only) openly communist poster on this forum is also a Christian.

Those treasures are not physical but spiritual. And have you never heard the saying that 'Jesus was the first Communist'?:P

[Lord J]

Thank you.

You're welcome :D

And have you never heard the saying that 'Jesus was the first Communist'?:P

You realize that I'm from the States, right? Calling Jesus a Communist would be like saying that Sarah Palin eats babies. Which....

Besides, I don't remember reading in my bible that Jesus was a social scientist who believed that religion solely exists to keep the poor happy by promising some fictional reward. Perhaps I misunderstand "Religion is the opium of the people."

EDIT: modified wording.

[Edric O]

Lord Johnsonius, let's talk about a religion that we both agree is false - Buddhism for example. That should help me clarify my point.

I strongly prefer Buddhism over atheism. I think it's a very simple choice. Would you rather have people adopt a belief system that reinforces compassion and good behavior (Buddhism), or one that does not (atheism)? Obviously it is better to have the former. Yes, yes, Buddhism is a false belief system, but that does not matter. What matters is that it gives people an external reason to be altruistic.

The fact that atheists may also choose to be compassionate and good people is irrelevant. The point is that atheism fails to reinforce altruism. You're a psychologist, you should see the value in reinforcing desirable behaviors. People respond to external stimuli. Expecting them to be compassionate for the sake of compassion is incredibly naive.

Besides, I don't remember reading in my bible that Jesus was a social scientist who believed that religion solely exists to keep the poor happy by promising some fictional reward.

I'm a communist, and I don't believe that.

Certainly, most religions have been used by someone at some point to keep the poor happy by promising some real or fictional reward. But this is by not by any means the sole reason why religion exists. It's not even a necessary part of religion. Many religions (including Christianity) were persecuted by the ruling class when they first arose. It is absurd to claim that they were tools of the ruling class when the ruling class was doing everything in its power to wipe them out.

[ErasOmnius]

There were no agnostics and atheists helping out at the homeless shelter tonight. Just got home, left at 1:00 am. There have a been a few, but not many over the years. Most of the volunteers there, are from bulletins that are placed in churches by pastors. This is in spite of a local major network affiliate in the Detroit area running ads for people to volunteer from the general public, four times a day between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Why are Christian people a huge percentage of people who volunteer at homeless shelters, when volunteering is open to everybody? Why are there no atheist shelters?

It really gets to be sickening when so-called 'wonderful people' want to put down and ban all religion, when they have nothing in place to help people who are in need. Some government bureaucrat sitting in an office building 45 miles away doesn't care either--before you go the route of saying that state or federal government should step in a more fuller way. People who are forced out of their homes because of a loss of a job, or over-borrowing; they need immediate help. And some of the people who need help are addicts.

But I will say this Lord J. My next door neighbors who are atheists, they do care a lot about 'shelters'. They just gave another sizable donation to the animal shelter. They sit around with their 2 cats, being over-concerned about their cats' every 'meow'. I just got into a discussion right before Thanksgiving with my neighbor's wife [he's on his third], as she tried to convince me that their cats were their 'children'. I told her they were simply animals who stick around because they get fed moist, high-grade meat from 7 ounce cans, that cost $1.29 per can. I asked her if she ever wanted to volunteer at the shelter in Detroit with me, trying to do some good in this misguided world, and she said 'no'.

Are religious or secular people more likely to help their fellow man?