Should kids be taught religion in schools

[ElanJo]

Absolutely. Religion is a massive part of our culture, and people who don't study it are the worse of for it.

The above and the fact that the laws of this land are based on the ten commandments. I honestly believe if no one believed in a god then the world would be a more evil place to live in.

*facepalm*. First of all you're obviously not very familiar with the commandments, secondly, it's simply false to say that the laws are based upon them and thirdly, if they were this country would be a nightmare to live in. If you look for the worst cases of evil perpetrated in the world you will find that it is almost always due to religion or other similar states of supernaturalism. You only need look at the world today to find that the least religious countries are the most peaceful, both internally and with regards to relations with other nations. And this lack of religious belief also coincides with the increases in the quality of life in pretty much every other aspect, be it education, general happiness, security etc etc. This isn't my opinion. It's simply a fact.

 

[Damocles]

So the state has no role in telling you what type of school you can send your child to, does this apply to a school that taught Nazi propaganda?
If you accept that the state has a role in education, and have already done so by your reference to the national curriculum, then it's perverse to exclude the state making decisions about the governance of schools.
Your argument doesn't stand up and calling people dictators is the real infantile behaviour here, akin to Godwins law.

Yes, people should have the option of sending their children to Nazi propaganda school if they so wish. There's no way that I could accept a government telling us what cannot be taught in classrooms.

There's a huge difference by the way in demanding minimum standards of Maths and English and dictating the whole ethos of a school to people. As I've said, them telling us what should be taught is fine, them telling us what cannot be taught isn't.

Also, I never called anyone a dictator, I said their views moved towards dictatorial, but yknow, whatever.

 

[lloydie]

If your extreme libertarianism extends to the teaching of race hate that's very short sighted and dogmatic not to mention a little offensive. Do the same principles apply to the government deciding what MUST be taught in schools?
I'll assume the "yknow whatever" was an attempt at humour.

 

[Balti]

perhaps we can teach the three r's in school and leave all the religious bollox to the 'holy' building of choice..church/ synagogue/ temple/ mosque/ other brainwashing establishment..

clearly they all can't be right and presumably thats why some of them like to bomb the shit out of others that have been taught differently in their particular classrooms of indoctrination?

basically most of it is bollox and most religious people will be sadly disappointed when they die unless there are multiple gods up there waiting for their loyal followers in which case why the fuck do some people bother fighting about it cos there is room for all faiths? If not then only one is right at best and the rest are wasting their lives....probably all of them :-)

 

[ElanJo]

Fair point. I think what I was trying to say is that educations in myhts is an important part of understanding your heritage. You can personally educate your children to not believe in God, but in school, the positivies far outweigh the negatives.

Besides, if you're (not you mate, just a general comment) a parent who wants their kid to not believe in God, and they do because of some RE classes, it's probably time to accept that you are a shite parent anyway.

From personal experience;
My nephew was brought up in a liberal family where religion was largely ignored. However, on reaching primary school age he suddenly started coming home with stories of how "Jesus did this" and "Jesus did that"that as though Jesus was some sort of superhero. Whilst his parents were perfectly capable parents (not shite ones) able to talk him through the difficult questions at a time in his life when these concepts were difficult to grasp and when a child's innate trust in authority is at it's greatest, a task made more difficult by the tacit support of religion which permeates our culture.. It set up a needless conflict between him and his parents, him and his classmates, him and his teachers and his School and his parents

This is interesting tbh.

It certainly is a biological fact that the minds (and bodies) of young children are reliant on their parents, I think that it's important for the parent not to abuse this situation. In the wild, when the human brain was being formed, there was a gigantic evolutionary pressure for young minds to follow the parent's orders - no questions asked - due to the danger of predators like tigers etc. In the modern age however we have no predators outside of our species. The predators that pose a threat to children consist only of other humans. This is where the evolutionary pressure, of having a natural tendency to believe whatever an adult says, turns upside down and in reality becomes a hindrance. The child rapists, religious leaders etc. are almost entirely reliant upon the child being gullible. If you or I, as parents, encourage this natural tendency in children to blindly follow "authority" (most parents do it for an easy life and so they can sit down and watch "corra" in peace) I think we're the primary cause for our child coming home jibbering on about fairy tales or, and this might not be easy for some to contemplate, being raped***.

I think that parents should encourage scepticism and rational thought as soon as possible (from birth basically) and never use an argument from authority (or force) ...even to be able to watch your favourite program.

***in the case of being raped, obviously there are exceptions where the child is just attacked in some alley

 

[Damocles]

If your extreme libertarianism extends to the teaching of race hate that's very short sighted and dogmatic not to mention a little offensive. Do the same principles apply to the government deciding what MUST be taught in schools?
I'll assume the "yknow whatever" was an attempt at humour.

How is that in any way offensive to you?

The "yknow whatever" was an annoyance that it doesn't matter what I write, as people will see what they want to see.

 

[Bluemoon115]

To quote Jim Jefferies:

"If you need to see it writted in a book, your a ****. Let's look at the commandments "Do not steal", "Do not kill". Do you really need to read that in a fackin Bible?"

and

"The Bible should just be one page. It should simply read "Don't be a ****". If you try to follow that every day of your life you'll be a good person."

 

[lloydie]

If your extreme libertarianism extends to the teaching of race hate that's very short sighted and dogmatic not to mention a little offensive. Do the same principles apply to the government deciding what MUST be taught in schools?
I'll assume the "yknow whatever" was an attempt at humour.

How is that in any way offensive to you?

The "yknow whatever" was an annoyance that it doesn't matter what I write, as people will see what they want to see.

Look Damocles, I've got a lot of time for your posts and you're a bit of a gem when it comes to the Science stuff but when you make crass statements then expect to be pulled about them.

of·fen·sive (-fnsv)
adj.
1. Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.

 

[BluePurgatory]

The above and the fact that the laws of this land are based on the ten commandments. I honestly believe if no one believed in a god then the world would be a more evil place to live in.

*facepalm*. First of all you're obviously not very familiar with the commandments, secondly, it's simply false to say that the laws are based upon them and thirdly, if they were this country would be a nightmare to live in. If you look for the worst cases of evil perpetrated in the world you will find that it is almost always due to religion or other similar states of supernaturalism. You only need look at the world today to find that the least religious countries are the most peaceful, both internally and with regards to relations with other nations. And this lack of religious belief also coincides with the increases in the quality of life in pretty much every other aspect, be it education, general happiness, security etc etc. This isn't my opinion. It's simply a fact.

That answer is a load of crap and that is my opinion!

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

So the state has no role in telling you what type of school you can send your child to, does this apply to a school that taught Nazi propaganda?
If you accept that the state has a role in education, and have already done so by your reference to the national curriculum, then it's perverse to exclude the state making decisions about the governance of schools.
Your argument doesn't stand up and calling people dictators is the real infantile behaviour here, akin to Godwins law.

Yes, people should have the option of sending their children to Nazi propaganda school if they so wish. There's no way that I could accept a government telling us what cannot be taught in classrooms.

There's a huge difference by the way in demanding minimum standards of Maths and English and dictating the whole ethos of a school to people. As I've said, them telling us what should be taught is fine, them telling us what cannot be taught isn't.

Also, I never called anyone a dictator, I said their views moved towards dictatorial, but yknow, whatever.

With respect Damocles,that last paragraph is semantic sophistry of the highest order,and you,of all people,know that.
And I really cannot believe that you would sanction any crackpot setting up schools to educate impressionable kids according to their wacky worldview.
What if they wanted to include classes in paedophilia,bestiality,human sacrifice,necrophilia,how to assemble an AK47,how to shoplift,how to hotwire a car,or whatever mad whim took them,on the syllabus?
You keep saying that this boils down to religious freedom,but it doesn't - religious freedom is enshrined and protected on the statute book.
This is about protecting children from being taught something that could be profoundly detrimental to their well-being in an educational environment.
That is a whole quantum leap from denying the basic right to worship the deity of their choice,and,again,I think you realise that,and that you are trying to defend the indefensible here.
What you are seemingly saying here,(and forgive me if I have this wrong),is that anyone can set up a school anywhere teaching whatever they wish.
I think most reasonable people will see that idea as simply ludicrous and dangerous.