World Religion Classes

[Sideline]

I recently watched a talk by Dan Dennet. I figured that since I had been told at least a hundred times that I am a “Dan Dennet clone”, I should find out what this guy says. Turns out that we aren’t really all that much alike, but he does have one suggestion that I think is a great idea.

He thinks, and I agree, that every student should have to take a class or classes in the religions of the world. It isn’t meant to replace any religious education that students would receive from their parents or religious institutions. And it wouldn’t even need equal time with the religious education that parents or religious schools have in place. The classes would be designed to only teach the facts and history of the world’s religions, including non-religions like atheism and agnosticism. The reasoning is, that secretive and antisocial religions would fade away in the light of knowledge, whereas reasonable and socially responsible religions would flourish.

I was wondering what the Catholics on this site would think of this. What do you think, and why? For the sake of this argument I’d like people to that the plan is carried out as stated. In other words:

1. No one tries to ban religious education or demand equal time for all religions. Your children will still be raised Catholic, they will just know what the tenets of Islam and Buddhism are.
2. The course only teaches facts and history. It does not ascribe values, it does not say that all religions are equal, nor does it claim that all religions are the same. Your children will know that Hindus also believe in a saviour god, but they will not be taught that Jesus and Vishnu are the same.

So… assuming the best case scenario… what do you think?

 

[redhen]

I think Comparative Religion courses are a good idea. I would also throw in some classes on anthropology (physical and cultural), and psychology.

I may be disqualified for this poll though since I am a lapsed Catholic.

 

[Sideline]

I think Comparative Religion courses are a good idea. I would also throw in some classes on anthropology (physical and cultural), and psychology.

I may be disqualified for this poll though since I am a lapsed Catholic.

The question was mostly aimed at Catholic (being a Catholic site and all), but all opinions are welcome. :tiphat:

 

[1edyson]

I took an Eastern Religions Class in College. I enjoy studying other Faiths Academically, both Christian and non-Christian.

 

[Dolphincrc]

1. The course only teaches facts and history. It does not ascribe values, it does not say that all religions are equal, nor does it claim that all religions are the same. Your children will know that Hindus also believe in a saviour god, but they will not be taught that Jesus and Vishnu are the same.

So… assuming the best case scenario… what do you think?

In reality though all this is wishful thinking. I have taken religion courses at the university and they distort “facts and history”, especially against Christianity. Even non-religion classes such as Biology and one on the Enviroment the professors were very anti-Christian and against any morality.

IMHO unless your major requires it, I would not take religion course at a secular university, and I imagine Catholic universities are not much better.

 

[Sideline]

In reality though all this is wishful thinking. I have taken religion courses at the university and they distort “facts and history”, especially against Christianity. Even non-religion classes such as Biology and one on the Enviroment the professors were very anti-Christian and against any morality.

IMHO unless your major requires it, I would not take religion course at a secular university, and I imagine Catholic universities are not much better.

Did you stop being Christian?

Do you think your soul has been endangered?

Have you suffered some ill effect from being exposed to other religious ideas?

You have already stated that you have encountered anti-Christian sentiments outside of comparative religion classes. What was so bad about the anti-Christian sentiment in the religion classes that makes you think it is better to not know about other religions?

 

[Erich]

1. The course only teaches facts and history. It does not ascribe values, it does not say that all religions are equal, nor does it claim that all religions are the same. Your children will know that Hindus also believe in a saviour god, but they will not be taught that Jesus and Vishnu are the same.

Whose facts? and whose history?

I would definitely be wary if for example any of the “impartial” course materials try to claim that Catholicism was founded in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine (for example).

 

[Sideline]

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?

 

[Sideline]

I took an Eastern Religions Class in College. I enjoy studying other Faiths Academically, both Christian and non-Christian.

Do you think this would be a good idea for school children in general, or even university students in general?

 

[Newbie2]

I would say better for Seniors in High School or older.

I took a comparative religions class during my undergraduate years, and it was absolutely wonderful. The instructor did a bang-up job of doing a survey of the world’s religions free of any bias.

 

[Schnitz]

I have just finished off my senior year of high school (last week as a matter of fact) at a Catholic High School. As part of the religious curriculum of the school, all students are required to take a comparative religions class their senior year. Just a few observations:

-Unless the theology of other religions is being taught, I am not quite sure what the benefits of learning about other religions are. My course went beyond practices, basic beliefs, etc. and delved into the scriptures of said religions, authoritative discourses, etc.

-You say that

The reasoning is, that secretive and antisocial religions would fade away in the light of knowledge, whereas reasonable and socially responsible religions would flourish.

This would require that students are actually interested in religion to begin with. “Secretive and antisocial religions” won’t fade away, but instead flourish unless the people taking said course are actual thinkers.

So should it be required? No. Is it worth taking? For some, yes.

 

[Sideline]

I would say better for Seniors in High School or older.

I took a comparative religions class during my undergraduate years, and it was absolutely wonderful. The instructor did a bang-up job of doing a survey of the world’s religions free of any bias.

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.

 

[Dolphincrc]

Did you stop being Christian?

Do you think your soul has been endangered?

Have you suffered some ill effect from being exposed to other religious ideas?

You have already stated that you have encountered anti-Christian sentiments outside of comparative religion classes. What was so bad about the anti-Christian sentiment in the religion classes that makes you think it is better to not know about other religions?

No, no, and no. But then again I consider myself well-informed about my faith, at least enough that I dont fall into the ideologies of my professors. The other problem is with impressionable people. To give a concrete example my daughter one day mentioned an anti-catholic teaching that her Catholic teacher from a Catholic school had told the class. In her mind it had to be true because the teacher said it (as opposed to us parents who dont know anything!). You cant believe everything you read or is said in the media, or is said by a professor or book.

So pardon me if I’m skeptical about this little excercise, even if it is imaginative. BTW I do know about other religions, I have read material on my own just to be informed.

 

[Sideline]

I have just finished off my senior year of high school (last week as a matter of fact) at a Catholic High School. As part of the religious curriculum of the school, all students are required to take a comparative religions class their senior year. Just a few observations:

-Unless the theology of other religions is being taught, I am not quite sure what the benefits of learning about other religions are. My course went beyond practices, basic beliefs, etc. and delved into the scriptures of said religions, authoritative discourses, etc.

I would count the theology as a part of the facts of the religion. I should have been more clear. It is a fact that Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, the divinity of Jesus, and the primacy of the Pope, for instance.

-You say that This would require that students are actually interested in religion to begin with. “Secretive and antisocial religions” won’t fade away, but instead flourish unless the people taking said course are actual thinkers.

Why would secretive religions flourish if they learnt about other religions? They might not fade away, but you haven’t in anyway demonstrated that they would flourish in such an environment. Many of these religions rely heavily on untrue assumptions about other religions. They might not accept the truth, but surely exposing them to the truth won’t make them more closed minded.

 

[wolfgang]

The university I attended required a World religions class and a class about the life of Jesus to graduate.

I enjoyed taking both classes. I thought they were well taught and did not try to sway students to some specific religious belief.

:angel1:

 

[Schnitz]

Sideline:

Why would secretive religions flourish if they learnt about other religions? They might not fade away, but you haven’t in anyway demonstrated that they would flourish in such an environment. Many of these religions rely heavily on untrue assumptions about other religions. They might not accept the truth, but surely exposing them to the truth won’t make them more closed minded.

Because it gives a platform to said religions, which you want to expose many of the gullible idiots sitting in the classroom to.

I also feel compelled as a Catholic to ask why I would be looking for Truth in other religions if I already believe my Church contains ALL Truth?

And you are right about not making them more close minded. Instead, they become very pluralistic. I have seen this demonstrated throughout my education.

 

[Sideline]

No, no, and no. But then again I consider myself well-informed about my faith, at least enough that I dont fall into the ideologies of my professors. The other problem is with impressionable people. To give a concrete example my daughter one day mentioned an anti-catholic teaching that her Catholic teacher from a Catholic school had told the class. In her mind it had to be true because the teacher said it (as opposed to us parents who dont know anything!). You cant believe everything you read or is said in the media, or is said by a professor or book.

So pardon me if I’m skeptical about this little excercise, even if it is imaginative. BTW I do know about other religions, I have read material on my own just to be informed.

So… you are against the idea of people learning about the world’s religions because of the anti-Catholic bias you experienced in university.

Are you against Catholic children learning about Catholic teaching from a Catholic teacher in a Catholic school because of your daughter’s experience? If you aren’t, then your position isn’t logically consistent.

Wouldn’t it be better all around if Catholicism (and perhaps other religions as well) were better understood, so this kind of bias would be harder to pull off without the teacher being challenged on it?

 

[yellowbicycle]

I recently watched a talk by Dan Dennet. I figured that since I had been told at least a hundred times that I am a “Dan Dennet clone”, I should find out what this guy says. Turns out that we aren’t really all that much alike, but he does have one suggestion that I think is a great idea.

He thinks, and I agree, that every student should have to take a class or classes in the religions of the world. It isn’t meant to replace any religious education that students would receive from their parents or religious institutions. And it wouldn’t even need equal time with the religious education that parents or religious schools have in place. The classes would be designed to only teach the facts and history of the world’s religions, including non-religions like atheism and agnosticism. The reasoning is, that secretive and antisocial religions would fade away in the light of knowledge, whereas reasonable and socially responsible religions would flourish.

I was wondering what the Catholics on this site would think of this. What do you think, and why? For the sake of this argument I’d like people to that the plan is carried out as stated. In other words:

1. No one tries to ban religious education or demand equal time for all religions. Your children will still be raised Catholic, they will just know what the tenets of Islam and Buddhism are.
2. The course only teaches facts and history. It does not ascribe values, it does not say that all religions are equal, nor does it claim that all religions are the same. Your children will know that Hindus also believe in a saviour god, but they will not be taught that Jesus and Vishnu are the same.

So… assuming the best case scenario… what do you think?

I took comparative religion courses in high school and at univesity.
And, as a nod to redhen, also quite a few anthro and psych classes. (Anthro I liked, psych wasn’t my bag. I did well in it, mind you, I just thought it was hokey, Sorry to all the psych folks here!! )
I was agnostic/atheist (depended on the day ) at the time, and taking those classes only made me dig in my heels more into my stance.
‘See?’ I would say, ‘All religions say the same thing anyway’
Except that my conclusion was false.
So false. And it took me another sixteen years to figure that out. Do you know how dumb you feel when you realize you’ve been wrong for sixteen years? That’s a very long time to be betting on the wrong horse, that’s for sure. A 16 WEEK course led me astray for 16 years. Totally a bad deal on my end. (I’m not blaming the religion course, mind you. I was going that way anyway. That course just pushed me down the path away from faith a little faster.)
The world faiths have much in common, certainly, but I think a course on it lasting 16 weeks is so basic and surface of a class that it wouldn’t really do any good. It would have to be! How else could you cover 5,000 years of documented religion, not to mention the various worships that were going on pretty much throughout the entirety of human history. In 16 weeks!
I guess I just think that the depth and breadth of the subject simply isn’t done justice in a classroom setting.
I was discouraged, too, when I realized that understanding the nuts and bolts of a faith didn’t actually teach me anything about the PEOPLE practicing it.
The class itself I can’t say was a terribly valuable one to me overall.
What would be more valuable as an exercise I think for people, if they were interested in that sort of thing, would be to GO to mosque, GO to temple, GO to church (mine’s the best, of course, and stay for the brownies, I make them myself, and they are DEEELISH!).
Talk to the people there. Read their holy books. The WHOLE book (or books) even if it is AWFULLY dry. And then talk to people - people learned in that faith, because I promise you that you won’t understand what the texts are really trying to say without some assistance on understanding audience, and context, and writing style and all of that. Again, not enough time to get into all of that in a survey course.
I also found that I, and other students, were only interested in the subjects we chose to be interested in. So, required courses we sort of slogged through, unless it was in your major.
Besides, ALL of these holy books of the major religions were meant to be read on your knees, not from behind a desk, if you get my drift. 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!)

 

[Sideline]

Most people really do think that they are smarter than everyone else, don’t they?

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

 

[Sideline]

Because it gives a platform to said religions, which you want to expose many of the gullible idiots sitting in the classroom to.

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.

I also feel compelled as a Catholic to ask why I would be looking for Truth in other religions if I already believe my Church contains ALL Truth?

I never suggested that you learn the Truth, from any religion. I was talking about truths and facts about other religions. Why? How about this: 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.

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?

All of them seem like good reasons to me.