Should religion be taught in schools (optionally)?

Religion, teaching, and schools are very, very broad terms so some specifying is in order. To preface, I agree that all children should be exposed to some unified information regarding all religions, but within the current education framework as a whole it does not warrant as much attention as a dedicated class would provide.

Working backwards, school begins with kindergarten, say 5 years old, and for our purposes ends with high school, so at roughly 18 years old. Within that 13 years, society expects that we learn and retain quite a bit. One very important note though, prior to high school, nothing is optional. So to even explore educating elementary children about religion, we must accept that this education would be mandatory and standardized. Because a religious survey course is pretty conceivable at high school age, we should focus on the more interesting topic of education children about a variety of religions. In summary, school will mean elementary aged, public school attending, youths.

Now teaching. Obviously this topic collides head on with those who would object to "indoctrination" because frankly, any teaching that is not exactly their preferred flavor of faith, is a form of indoctrination. To counter this, I propose that we use a very widely accepted genre of teaching as our parameter, history. By accepting that any religious teaching will only be done within the context of history, we can (ideally) avoid the ocean of subjectivity that trying to teach different "faiths" would introduce. Now I recognize that the more philosophical points about religion may not be directly covered in a history class but then, these are elementary schoolers, what sort of philosophy did you expect? Also, the broader philosophical points are not lost just because the teacher doesn't underline it on the board. The exposure to various religious texts and histories raises these points no matter how you frame it, we are simply choosing not to define them so explicitly that we are forced to choose a side. To recap, we are now teaching all elementary schoolers a basic history of world religions. I at least find that a bit more palatable.

So we are left with the essence of the question, "should" we implement this? As a fairly militant athiest, it is hard for me to say that I think we "should" do much of anything to religion besides acknowledge its continued existence and take solace in its inevitable decline. That said, I would truly support the implementation of more teaching about religious history in schools. The content at younger ages is seldom relevant and rarely more than a place holder for a more basic skill being learned. Why not learn to write paragraphs or make a diorama in the context of one of humanity's longest lasting and most controversial institutions?

Religion is an important part of the world. It is also an important part of many people's lives. To understand the world, and the different people living here, understanding of religion is important. In my opinion a religions class should be mandatory, at least in elementary school. However, the ones teaching the class and setting up the curriculum has to be unbiased. Kids should not be taught religion, they should learn about them. Just as one learns about history.

Teaching kids that muslims, jews and christians are in fact pretty similar, is important for the development of the world. It will help breed tolerance for different people, and reduce xenophobia.

School should never replace a church. I'm an atheist, and I believe that knowledge and science are the best ways to understand the world. I also believe that people should have a choice. And to make a good choice you need to have a knowledge. To understand our global history we need to know something about religions. Not about one of many religions (e.g. Christianity or Buddhism), but about all of them... Or most of them. People should have access to the knowledge of religions beyond their own. So religion class should teach about religion in general, it's mechanisms, it's impact in the world, about views of religious people etc. There should be no bias towards any religion. Educate, not preach is the way to go.

So the conclusion is? Mandatory religion class - definitely not. But optional religion class - why not? Children need to learn how to understand other people's views and taking religion class is one of the many ways to do it.

Absolutely it should, just not one and from a particular viewpoint.

Children should be taught about all religions and not just the popular ones. They should be taught how some are tied together and where they split apart, what the main figures, tenents, and beliefs are, etc. This should also cover the groups within the major religious areas. Don't teach a section just on Christianity, but make sure that it covers the parts and differences from all the off-shoots of it. Cover the different branches of Islam and East Asian religions.

For a lot of people complaining about it not being taught, how much do they know about the Aga Khan or Jainists?

There is so much of a cultural identity, foods, language, and history that is derived from religion.

My point of view, essentially, is that schools are not religious institutions and prayer and individual worship should not be enforced nor encouraged there. But everyone should be learning about a variety of religions, because, well, people are fascinating and beliefs create strong emotions. Who knows, you might even learn more about yourself in the process.

Having at least some basic knowledge of many religions is vital to being a well rounded person in a modern world and you aren't going to get that at a Church. Schools should absolutely offer the class as an option.

I think that anything taught within a public school should only be taught if there is a solid foundation for us to understand that it is true. Religion teaches us to abandon the search for truth and replace it with the search for possibility. We can't replace the known truth with religions' infinite possible truths. Societies don't succeed that way.

Although there are some benefits to offering an *optional* comparative religion course in high school, I believe the risks of doing so outweigh the potential benefits. Finding impartial teachers, maintaining a balanced curriculum, and avoiding exploitation from predatory religious organizations, present too many challenges. David Zyngier's post gives a real world example of exactly the kind of abuses that can occur. Additionally, students under the age of 18 are not equipped to make discerning judgments about the information they receive in schools, it would be far too easy for an instructor to seed lectures with an assumptive overarching paradigmatic view that accepts religious beliefs as reality. Religion is a personal choice, and ought to be a private practice. Families who wish to impart such teachings to their children can seek religious instruction at the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque of their preference. There is no truly compelling reason to make religious teachings, even the most neutral and balanced ones, a responsibility of public institutions.

What is that we want children to get out of school? Broadly speaking we want children to gain the skills to be able to command their own future in terms of opportunities presented to them in the future. A large part of the necessary skills gained are 'soft' skills such as communication and interaction with other people learned in everyday school life. Religions classes, as well as providing a cultural context to understanding people from all around the world, exposes children to, for many, the first formal rules or guides to morality they will encounter - adding a formal but also meta- element to 'soft' skills. Here comes to my, albeit short point: In deciding whether religion should be taught we should take time to appreciate why it is useful to study the subject.

Personally, and with little authority on child education I should add, understanding moral frameworks that exist in the world is essential for trust to be formed with people or groups who are not from your own moral framework (even if you don't think you have one, you do!), and is fundamental for efficient economies. However while I think religious education used to be the proper way to approach the study of moral frameworks or ideas, now it is dated, if not simply my the fact that it is more often than not not relevant to children today and so is simply unengaged: so next to useless.

My conception of a replacement class would equip students to recognize different moral frameworks, emphasizing how beliefs are formed and supported in different contexts, and stronger emphasis human biases associated with beliefs and talking about more general moral questions. In layman's, perhaps, how to understand other people (and their view points). This was the discourse I believe religion studies tried to produce, we must reform the approach to reach the same goal.

I think that religion should be optionally taught in school. I feel that it is important for children of all ages to have exposure to different religions to teach acceptance and tolerance, but I also feel that the parents should be able to choose whether or not their child learns about different religions. If children are exposed to different religions at a young age, they will not develop a closed minded attitude towards others.

Religion, all religions, are a part of history, and it would be nigh on impossible to teach history without discussing religion. As far as the details of the various religions, that should be taught at the high school level, but only on a broader scale. Comparative religion courses, and theology is best left at a college level.

In my opinion, we really don't need a class for religion. If one wants that to influence their education, there are other options, like school that specialize in religion. As for public schools, I believe that they have much better things to "waste" their money on. Whether it be sports, or some other extra-curricular activity, they have other places to put the money to. I understand the want of the option for some, but it's not necessary. If I have learned one thing about state funding, it is that it is wanted to be as low as they can get by with.

And who's option is it again when parents force their 5 year children to fairy tales as if the were irrefutable fact.

The role of religion throughout history can not be ignored or denied. I think it is useful to have a comparative religion studies course that informs about the different doctrines and what influence they had in world history.
I took one back in the dark ages and it helped me to better understand different cultures. Understanding leads to tolerance. Exposure leads to understanding.
It would have to be taught in a non partisan non snarky way. By understanding the moral under pinning of a culture, you can better understand why they were/are the way they were/are.
Education is understanding and in order to do that, you have to be exposed to different views about different things. NOTE that education is not indoctrination. Two totally different things.
To my atheist friends, your philosophy can be included but there are two issues:
1-I am unaware of a society in world history that was governed by the atheist moral code
2-To be included in a comparative religions class, you would have to admit to being a religion. (sarcasm)

Learning about religions can help you better understand people and what moral (or immoral) code they lived by and how that is shaping our current reality. What is so harmful about that?

I came out as an atheist in 7th grade (shortly before my Bar Mitzvah). I went to a progressive private school. In 8th grade, we had a course that centered on the 3 major monotheisms as a means of teaching a broad swath of world history. We learned about the wars described in the book of exodus (though I don't recall the teacher ever saying that the archaeology doesn't support the idea of a single large exodus, but rather that there were likely many migrations whose stories were later grouped together, along with other allegories, fables, and true histories, by the authors of the book). We learned about the expansion of Christianity into the Holy Roman Empire. We learned about the rise of Islam and the Crusades. It was really fascinating history and in no way offended me as an Atheist or as a Jew.

Learning about religion in that way in middle school I think is great, even if it were a public school. Having courses about the beliefs of religions other than just how those beliefs impact history, however, would be unconstitutional in a public school. You could provide an environment in which it is easy for kids to start a bible study or other religious club, but inherently, offering education on the beliefs of one religion (or even several) that is structured by government employees (public school teachers) violates the Constitution because inherently it discriminates against other religions. Such courses are great in college or perhaps even in private high schools where they are up front in the application process, but they should not be part of public elementary school.

From the very beginning, schools were "invented" with religion as their primary focus. Yes, religion has been a major cause of war, however, man is warlike anyway, as we've seen in atheistic communism/socialism.

Religion gives stability and uniformity, even as mankind is often violent and insane. If they don't do it in the name of religion, they will do it in the name of something else.

My understanding of the constitution is that there is to be no "State Religion" imposed, and that's all.

While atheists say "Prove to me that God exists", I believe that we should be saying; "Prove to me that God does not exist."

I believe we should have something similar to what we had when I was growing up: A few minutes of silence before school starts.

This time can be filled with atheist kids contemplating/planning their upcoming day, or using relaxation techniques, others can silently pray, or do the same.

For me, I take my cues from ACIM, and it says this: "Prayer is a stepping aside; a letting go; a quiet time of
listening and loving. It should not be confused with supplication of any kind, because it is a way of remembering your holiness."

Allowing a class on religion will do little which is positive in the long run. They need consistency.

Otherwise we may end up with increasing numbers of young adults deforming their bodies with piercings and worse, flocking to movies like "Fifty Shades of Gray", killing their young in droves, mass killing others in "infamous crimes", "enjoying" S/M sickness, with skyrocketing numbers of kidnapped/tortured/raped/murdered children etc... Are we indeed "raising up a crop of demons"?

Unstable humans are in need of something stable and consistent. They need a moral compass. We need it every day.

What's my definition of God? Does it matter when we all seem to have our own definition? We can't understand God, but we can experience His presence. It is holy, peaceful, and it can be recognized. It affects our behavior.

I believe that each of us are given experiences in life which cannot be explained. Synchronicities, coincidences, "knowing" that a certain someone is causing the phone to ring, etc...

These are "hints" that there is more to life than meets the eye.

Atheism is simply denial, but it can be helpful in clearing the mind of wrongful applications of religion which may be holding one back.

A period of silence is harmless, and would be helpful to the upcoming day.

Do you mean in PUBLIC schools?

Because religion IS taught in religious schools already (catholic, jewish, baptist...).

And NO, public schools should only teach FACTUAL information with maybe the occasional delve into the philosophy of religion and how it came about.

It's a very good question so I got double answer.

First
Religion should be tought optionally because someone can be follower of different God.

Second
The religion is one of the most important parts of our life so everyone should know it's general assumptions to understand truths that are ruling whole world.

Honestly, as an option it wouldn't be a bad thing, and from being an atheist and having many religious friends, I hold no grudge against religion, and have attended many church services, and I believe there are many great qualities that can be learned from certain religions. Also, it's a very interesting topic, and I wouldn't be surprised to see many students taking it to just increase their understanding of certain religions.

First of all i live in Turkey.In Turkey all students must have religious education.I don't believe in god and i don't want to have religious education.I think i can spend my time for more important lessons.

Sorry for my bad english.

Religious Instruction has no place in our public schools

Dr David Zyngier Faculty of Education Monash University
david.zyngier@monash.edu +61 3 99044230

As our primary children have returned to public school throughout the country, they will be joined by a growing legion of workers from para-church groups like ACCESS, Scripture Union, Genr8, YouthWorks, OAC, and the Child Evangelical Fellowship, who exploit various exceptions in State and Territory education acts that have been created to undermine the secular principle of public education.

While it is these groups’ warrant to seek converts among children, the degree to which our department of education colludes to obscure the facts, is troubling. In Victoria for example, principals are directed to distribute a sign up form that solicits parental permission and tells parents that what takes place in such classes is approved by the Department of Education and actually complements “lesson themes and current Departmental policy; builds on the Victorian Essential Learning Standards” and “respects children’s rights to uphold their own opinions”.

None of these statements is an accurate reflection of the reality in our classrooms, nor does it begin to tell the actual story about what these lessons are designed to do.

If principals and school leaders are going to allow volunteers organized by para-church youth ministry organizations into our schools why do we need to obscure the truth about why they are there?

What principals, school councils and parents are told about these programs is far removed from what goes on behind the closed doors of the classroom and it is glaringly at odds with the community’s expectation, that our schools will not promote a particular religion. Though in public the leaders of these groups deny that they seek to proselytize, the lessons themselves are proof that they do.

Most principals are unaware of actually what goes on in these weekly sessions of “religious instruction” and it is only when they actually visit these classes do they realise that their children will be directed to "obey god" and to "have a relationship with god" or that children are instructed to “pray to god and ask for forgiveness for their sins” in the classroom or otherwise they will “deserve punishment”. These practices are all totally inappropriate activities in our secular schools. Moreover, public schools may not ethically engage in such acts - yet, principals are instructed to stand by and organise teachers to supervise such unethical practice.

Joe Kelly has been principal of Cranbourne South Primary School for 15 years, and acknowledged that until two years ago he had been "blindly supporting" Access Ministries' presence. That was until he took a closer look at the actual classes and curriculum.

"It is not education," Mr Kelly said. "It has no value whatsoever. It is rubbish - hollow and empty rhetoric … My school teachers are committed to teaching children, not indoctrinating them." In early 2012, Mr Kelly told Access Ministries they would not be allowed back in his school.

"A lot of principals feel as strongly as I do, but they are not comfortable being as provocative as I am,'' he said

Access Ministries defines its role as "converting" children in a "cross cultural mission", since "without Jesus, our students are lost." And it states that the current policy environment is a "God-given open door to ...the greatest mission field ... for disciple making."

The actions of the departments of education across the country undercut and disempower principals, especially with the movement for more principal and school focused autonomy and local decision making. In effect principals are being forced to be complicit with this deception and lie to parents in order to facilitate the interest of groups who seek to proselytise among children. All the denials of such proselytising are negated by the words and actions of Access Ministry representatives in the daily classroom experience of our children.

These programs represent a state endorsed, and state funded religious mission, which presents singular faith perspective in a pedagogically unsound manner by inductees who are encouraged to become “missionaries in their own backyard”.

Departments of Education claim that the CRE syllabus being taught in our public primary schools actually complement “lesson themes and current Departmental policy; and builds on the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS)”. This is inaccurate and misleading. I was asked by Principal Joe Kelly to perform an independent curriculum review of the materials and found that students are not being challenged to think independently as the vast majority of tasks are based on what we in the profession call busy work. The related instructional delivery in the Instructor’s manual also does not appear to support clear sequencing, clear descriptions and demonstrations of skills to be acquired, nor are the student activities followed by practice and timely feedback – the essence of good pedagogical practice which should focus initially on high levels of teacher involvement. The teaching materials do not support the VELS, nor do they reflect the recommended Victorian teaching and learning principles (POLTs). There is very little evidence that the CRE curriculum supports intellectual quality of learning recommended by the DEECD framework of what constitutes high quality teaching and learning practice in the classroom. Typically these activities minimise student intellectual growth, provide no scaffolding support to guide students through the learning process as there are no explicit or clear statements about the purpose or rationale for the learning.

In Victoria Access Ministries provides almost all of the SRI/SRE in public schools and it recruits its volunteers by encouraging them to “be like Jesus” and "fish for people” . Though euphemisms such as “present the gospel” abound, the clear intention of the lessons is to bring children to belief in Christ. These are purely religious objectives. Contrary to the assertion that these programs focus on “values” – the “Gospel message” is about salvation, and contains no “values lesson” – it is a religious doctrine, and because of this, belongs to religion – and not in our public school classrooms. There is no place in these lessons for respecting individual opinions.

School leaders need to understand as Principal Kelly finally did, that the practice of religious indoctination can no longer be viewed in any sense to be an educational program, it is merely a missionary exploitation of the executive power we place in schools, and depends on subterfuge, misdirection and deceit. These programs undermine the foundational values of our education system. They lead to discrimination and segregation - and it is an imposition on basic rights that families have to privacy and to choose how they wish to live with regards to religion.

Families are in the best position to provide specific religious education and guidance of and for their children either in the home or through special after school activities or in their own church, synagogue, mosque or temple. Surely these institutions trust families to do the task of looking after the faith education of their own children?

The separation between church and state – a central tenet of Australia’s democracy – is not upheld under the current model. This is at odds with Australian state and federal governments’ commitment to promoting a socially inclusive society and current legislation must be amended as a matter of urgency. Legal opinion here in Australia suggests that the laws as they stand are illegitimate and open to challenge.

Whose religion? When a story about prayer in a school hits the news and one side is defending prayer in the school I want to ask them this question. If the principle was Hindu would you want him to using a prayer from his religion?

I might support a class that could bring in 10 or more different religion leaders to explain their religion and how it is practiced.

I very weakly support making this an optional activity in public schools.

No matter your personal stance (I'm an atheist), it is clear that religion is very important to a huge percentage of the population. Knowing how religion motivates people and how people use religion as a means to achieve social and political realities is worth knowing about.

However, it is *very* easy to predict how this type of teaching is going to be put into practice. Many of the teachers are going to promote their religion and we all know which one. Even now, there are biology teachers who editorialize their opinions when covering evolution, how unbiased will the instructor be when covering non-christian religions?

It could be addressed as a single topic in social studies or history. You can't really argue that it is not important from either of these 2 aspects.

Gee, a lot of people don't understand the difference between teaching ABOUT religion and PROSELYTIZING. And a lot of people are evidently misinformed on what the Founders intended in the first amendment.

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.

A clear reading of the words compels the government to ensure that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. C'mon, my third grader can understand "Congress shall make no law," and the difference between that and "The cheerleaders at MLK High School want to pray before a football game. In fact, Congress MUST ensure there is no prohibition on free exercise of religion.

So hello all you smart folks: can Congress make a law saying schools may not teach religion? Again, anyone with a lick of common sense could see that that is prohibited by the second clause - it is a prohibition on free exercise.

But that's not my point. Religion is a huge part of the vast majority of lives around the globe. From a practical sense, prohibiting schools from teaching what that's all about cuts a vast cultural swath in the eduction of our children. Schools that don't teach ABOUT religion (because of misinformed interpretation by anti-religion zealots) are handicapping their students.

In a comparative religions class, sure. Or as part of a history curriculum, that would make sense too. But definitely not in the "replacing science" way.

Should religion be taught in schools, absolutely not. Religion is meant to be lived out and experienced. Not taught. It is truly as simple as that, yet can be 10,000 times more complex if we got to that point in discussion.

It should be mandatory to take a semester in either Theology, or Ethics in High School. But Fact will always be Fact.

Having a knowledge of world religions can be very enlightening, and so a World Religions course should be available. However, if state schools can teach religion, it also means that they will be the ones interpreting it for the students, and that would be simply disastrous. The government should stay way the hell away from religion.

I grew up in a country where religion class is mandatory. But we are not talking about having a class in Christianity or anything like that. It did take up Christianity more than the other religions, but this was during the time of a state church, and it can therefore be useful to know the biblical stories. But mostly it took up the various beliefs of various religions.

I have no doubt that this is a good thing, and an effective tool to stop fanatical religious indoctrination. It shows the kids that there are other options available. I am therefore definitely in favour of mandatory education in religion.

You can't really understand history or politics without understanding the religious motivations and context for most of it. So while no religion should be taught as fact, the history and objectives of as many religions as possible should be covered. In principle, I don't have a problem with people studying the bible as literature, though I worry about what some religious teachers might do with such a class.