World Religion Classes

[Sideline]

I guess I just think that the depth and breadth of the subject simply isn’t done justice in a classroom setting…

If a student read it as a subject to be studied, I promise, he’d never get it. Maybe he’d have an open mind, but without an open heart, all religions are pretty useless. Just my two cents…

I don’t want to dog your idea sideline, I think I understand where you’re trying to go with this, but I just don’t see classroom experience as terribly valuable overall (maybe it’s because I’ve had WAY too much of it!! LOL!)

It might well be a useless endeavour. There is always the danger that someone takes a course and thinks that they know all there is to know about the subject.

I still think it would be better if ever Catholic at least knew something about Islam other than just thinking, “It’s evil and they want to kill us!” and every Muslim knew at least something about Catholicism other than thinking that what they read in The Da Vinci Code was accurate.

 

[Schnitz]

“Oh sure, I was able to learn about other religions, but those other gullible idiots they’ll buy anything.”

Are you telling me that you never one knew any idiots over the course of your education? Please.

Sideline:

When I was 15, a Catholic priest came into our class and talked to us about what Hare Krishnas believed. I went to the school for another three years, and to my knowledge, not one of us converted.

What is your point? I am not worried about conversions.

Sideline:

Your country is at war with an Islamic nation, is it Suni or Shiite? Do they get along? Why or why not? Why isn’t Pakistan a part of India anymore? Considering that they both have Nukes, we might want to know.

Since when did that ever become part of a religion class?

Sideline:

How about the simple fact that gone are the days that you can tell what religion someone is by finding out where they came from, and it might be a nice idea to know what your neighbour believes about God instead isolating yourself out of fear?

Who’s afraid?

Sideline:

I still think it would be better if ever Catholic at least knew something about Islam other than just thinking, “It’s evil and they want to kill us!” and every Muslim knew at least something about Catholicism other than thinking that what they read in The Da Vinci Code was accurate.

So which Muslim would be the better teacher: the Sunni or the Shi’a? What about a Whabbist? Sufi?

 

[Sideline]

Are you telling me that you never one knew any idiots over the course of your education? Please.

Of course I’ve met idiots. Me, for one.

The funny thing is, I’ve never met an idiot who didn’t think that they were more intelligent than everyone else. Have you?

What is your point? I am not worried about conversions.

So what are you worried about?

Since when did that ever become part of a religion class?

I think you’ll find that what people believe is a fairly big part of a religion class. Knowing about the difference between Catholicism and the Church of England won’t make you an expert in the Nothern Ireland conflict, but I certainly helps to understand the historical context.

Who’s afraid?

I would contend that anyone who thinks that people shouldn’t learn about other religions are doing so out of fear. You haven’t tried to give a good reason for keeping people ignorant. That’s fairly suggestive of a fear based reaction.

So which Muslim would be the better teacher: the Sunni or the Shi’a? What about a Whabbist? Sufi?

I see. We’ve reached the posturing phase. There really isn’t a lot of need to show off your knowledge of other religions. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. What would be more useful would be a coherent argument for why your “idiotic” classmates should be kept in the dark about what Muslims believe.

 

[Newbie2]

Nice, it’s good to know that my proposition is at least possible.

Can I ask, were you Catholic when you took the class? And if so, how would you rank your Catholic education? If you were not Catholic at the time, did it influence your decision to become Catholic?

My guess on the subject is that people who would be likely to change religions, or become less religious, based on a comparative religions class would be someone who was not all that well informed about their own religion.

I was Lutheran at the time. The class had no influence on my conversion to Catholocism (or my decision to no longer be Lutheran). I would say that I had a solid Lutheran Christian education at the time.

I think the key is an instructor who teaches such a course in a non-biased manner. I remember being all set to have him try to tell us (me) that Christianity was a load of bull, but he did an excellent job of saying that “the members of this religion believe this, and the the members of that religion believe that”.

 

[Erich]

I think I under-estimated Catholic paranoia.

Are there any Catholics out there who willing to even imagine that a course could be taught without anti-Catholic bias?

It’s not paranoia when, for example, as recently as a month and a half ago Scouting magazine (a national publication of the Boy Scouts of America) included an article which talked about some of the available religious emblems Scouts can earn as they advance through the Scouting program (these emblems are developed by each of the various faiths for their adherents, and not by the BSA), and this article claimed that the Catholic Church was founded in the 4th century.

This was brought to my attention via this thread. The online version has since been corrected, but of course the print version is still incorrect… and that’s the version that was seen by over %between%3,100,000 readers. I wonder how many of those readers will believe a 4th century founding date for the Church, just because they saw it in print?

 

[Axion]

In the UK most primary elementary schools have to teach a religious Education course that covers uncritically the beliefs and practices of other religions including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism.

Having assisted in this, my view is that, while it helps children to understand other cultures, this could be done in better and less harmful ways.

Why harmful? For two reasons.

1. It confuses children to be taught different religions in this way. If Children are taught the childhood and miracles of Krishna and those of Jesus, the stories can become confused. Hindu holidays and Christian ones can be equally confused and merged. In some classes children are encoouraged to perform rituals of various religions, which again presents many problems. Even non-religious parents often resent their children saying hindu chants or making buddhist religious trinkets.
2. Call me a conspiracy theorist all you like, but I believe there is an agnostic agenda behind teaching of comparative-style religion classes. The agenda is to impress on children at as early an age as possible that different religions a) have different deities and different stories of creation, salvation etc. which are incompatible, and can’t all be true. b) that all religions have an equal value as cultural left-overs and folklore. The lesson learned being, all religions are as likely to be true as Christianity - and that probably none are true.

This has the effect of lowering the perceived value of Christianity, and encouraging the view that all religions are largely fictional legends.

Contrast this with the strident demand of Darwinian Evolutionists that NO OTHER alternative be taught to children - for fear that children might consider ID to be of equal value to Darwinianism, or highlight its purely theoretical (and not factual) nature.

 

[Schnitz]

Sideline:

So what are you worried about?

I am not worried about anything. I had simply been responding to the point that you tried making that antisocial and secretive religions would die out. I think that is a false claim. That is my personal opinion, and not something I can base on scientific fact. I am basing that opinion upon my experiences (whatever they may be worth).

Sideline:

I think you’ll find that what people believe is a fairly big part of a religion class. Knowing about the difference between Catholicism and the Church of England won’t make you an expert in the Nothern Ireland conflict, but I certainly helps to understand the historical context.

Again, these are things which could potentially be covered in a history class. Also, you had been referring to the War in Iraq. I fail to see how the religious beliefs of this specific country fall into a religion class. Wouldn’t this be covered in a history class?

Sideline:

I would contend that anyone who thinks that people shouldn’t learn about other religions are doing so out of fear. You haven’t tried to give a good reason for keeping people ignorant. That’s fairly suggestive of a fear based reaction.

There is no reason for keeping people ignorant. I stated earlier that I think the class should be optional and not mandatory. It is up to the student to remain ignorant or not. In regards to the first part of this quote, one could argue that one shouldn’t learn about other religions because there is nothing worth learning (not a point I am advocating, but an example of one not driven by fear).

Sideline:

I see. We’ve reached the posturing phase. There really isn’t a lot of need to show off your knowledge of other religions. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. What would be more useful would be a coherent argument for why your “idiotic” classmates should be kept in the dark about what Muslims believe.

Again, I am not advocating keeping my “idiotic classmates” in the dark about what Muslims believe. Also, I am not posturing. I think that I asked a very fair question. If we are going to talk about what Muslims believe, then who should do the teaching?