Teaching religion in school is child abuse ?

shleepy · Post by **shleepy** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:23 am

mathias wrote:
~El~Jefe~ wrote:Hitler killed Jews because he hated their religion.
And just how can you know whether hitler was a christian, atheist, agnostic or odinist?

In any case, hitler was an inbred, just like lots of muslims.

And it's even harder to be sure that nazi germany was on the whole irreligious.

And anyway, Hitler did not just kill them because of their religion, but because he made the Jewish "race" a scapegoat for Germany's post-WWI economic downfall. This was possible because of how the Jewish religion/traditions and also previous persecution of Jews in Europe (by Christians) had caused them to be in certain professions a lot more than others - banking and whatnot. Therefore, while many average Germans (in average professions) were poor at the time, many Jews were able to do well. Seeing that some were still rich, it was easy for the angry crowd to blame them and claim that they are taking advantage of the situation, instead of analyzing the many complex reasons for the global economic collapse / Great Depression.

Jewish people were also very prevalent in early worldwide communism. These were not religious Jewish people, obviously, but those of Jewish heritage. Communists were Hitler's political enemy in Germany, not to mention in the Soviet Union a little later on.

And finally - it's not like Hitler was killing them because they HAD a religion... Arian Germany was supposedly Christian. Even if we call it religious, rather than racial, persecution, it's still a SPECIFIC religion/race. That's more of an argument AGAINST religion than anything.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:26 am

Hitler killed Jews and Lefties, Gypsies, Seventh Day Adventists, homosexual males, Communists and all forms of social and political opponents.
and he did it all for God.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth!

Reachable · Post by **Reachable** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:24 pm

Children are taught Darwin's Theory of Evolution in public schools. They are also probably at this point taught the Big Bang theory and other theories that imply something about the nature of creation, and the relationship (or non-relationship) of a Creator with the processes of the world.

The Scientific Method is a universal attribute of a well-functioning mind, but the accepted, or 'official', or prevalent views of the great questions presented in Science teaching are certainly a dogma, and certainly just as much a set of religious beliefs as the older religions.

We can read about the conflicts between 'Science' and fundamentalist religion, but it's really just a religious war.

I am totally not a religious fundamentalist, but I'm in favor of the measures advocated by them to have Darwin's theories presented as a theory and not a "fact". This should also extend to other theories as well like the Big Bang. It is guileful for scientists to oppose the measures by saying that Darwin's theories are a "proven fact" when in fact one of the basic tenets of Science is that nothing is ever a proven fact.

shleepy · Post by **shleepy** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:50 pm

Reachable, your post seems to be an example of an error that a lot of religious people make when arguing their point. No offense. But hear me out here.

Religious dogma can vaguely be called a "theory" in a non-technical sense. From dictionary.com, it takes this definition: "Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. "

The Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, etc. are "theories" in the scientific definition of the word. From dictionary.com, they are the following kinds of theories: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." In plain speech, this means that it's a term given to a collection of well-researched topics. I guess you could technically deny that the body of research can be used to prove the general proposition of the theory in question. But the point is that the research is there. It's not based on utter speculation. With religious takes on creation, the arguments are largely based on faith. Whyyyy would you believe that a book, written thousands of years ago by God-knows-who (pun intended) is fact? The whole point of science is that one can, in principle, look at the published articles, go to the original sources, and do your own well-conducted research, if you wanted to. The argument, "God [AKA random piece of writing handed down from thousands of years ago] said so," is a little different. Something that is based on faith, by definition, cannot be proven or unproven. Good science can.

That said, I am now retiring from this thread. Sorry, but it won't get anywhere.

We secular people are set in our ways, and you religious people are set in yours. Good arguments on either side will not be acknowledged by people holding the opposite view in a case like this, let alone in a medium like an online forum about quiet computer components.

neon joe · Post by **neon joe** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:31 pm

shleepy wrote:Reachable, your post seems to be an example of an error that a lot of religious people make when arguing their point.

Good explanation, shleepy.

I happen to fall into a category that gets me in trouble with both 'sides'...

I consider myself a devout Christian, and (due largely to my educational background) have no problem with any accepted theory in science. I often hear from my Christain freinds (who don't have a scientific background), "it's just a theory". As shleepy pointed out, this is because theory in the scientific sense (Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory) has a different meaning than in everyday conversation (I have a theory about ....).

The "language barrier" between non-scientific Christians and scientific non-Christians... hmm, maybe I should say "religious people" instead of "Christians", but I digress... Anyway, the language barrier, from what I've seen and heard, is the biggest obstacle to any meaningful discussion between these two groups.

Christians also have a tendency to view the fervor in which scientists defend the theories in science as a sort of 'religion'; what they don't realize is that is very insulting to most scientists. Insulting because theories in science are based on repeatable observations, and supported by mountains of evidence (hence the lengths that scientists sometimes go to show that they're point of view is correct).

mattthemuppet · Post by **mattthemuppet** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:07 pm

it's funny, anti-religion people are just as vociferous and dogmatic as religious people defending their faith. Makes you wonder - is anti-religion the new religion?

As for teaching religion in schools - of course you should! Persecution arises from ignorance, hatred and lack of understanding, none of which are confined to the religious and all of which are defeated through education.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:15 pm

How about we ask the same question from two (2) different perspectives.

1, How about going to church (or some other religious place) and being taught science (that specifically does not agree with parts of that religion), e.g. Darwins (evolved) theory of Evolution.

2, How about going to church (or some other religious place) and being taught all about the other religions that are inflicted upon people.

Lets consider scenario 1.

School = learning about history (this will obviously include religion), geography, maths, science, foreign languages etc, these are all "life skills" that everyone should at least know something about, these things will eventually lead to a job specialising in one or more of these things.

Church etc = learning the contents of a book that has been put together over many hundreds of years, with the purpose of teaching you right from wrong and lightening your wallet - it teaches little or nothing that you would get in a school (except to read of course).

Lets consider scenario 2.

Religions are by defenition that you can only belong to one at a time - opposed to each other. Therefore in scenario 2, you cant expect any kind of fairness to other religions being taught by someone who does not want you to move away from their religion.

And as such, it is inconceivable to teach "religion" in schools as "religion", there will always be some kind of bias by the teacher. The ony way to teach children about religion in school is to teach it within history lessons (yes it does need to be covered, ignoring such things can cause problems).

As you can imagine these 2 seperate scenarios are totally out of place in a highly religious environment - and they are just as out of place as children being taught religion in school, which is all about truth, skills and understanding.

Please respond to these 2 scenarios seperately if you are going to do so.

Andy

Reachable · Post by **Reachable** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:00 am

shleepy wrote:
From dictionary.com: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

That's a good definition of the word "theory". The thing is, it applies just as much to Intelligent Design as it does to Darwin's theory. Both theories are off the wall because they are based on underlying assumptions that their proponents can't seem to understand are merely assumptions and not unquestioned truth.

Some of the responses after my post only bear out the observation that you can't deal with people who are zealous about either fundamentalism or science.

If I had to choose, though, I'd rather hang out with the scienceists. They at least want to take some responsibility for the future.

InfyMcGirk · Post by **InfyMcGirk** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:16 am

Generally speaking, science doesn't pretend to have all the answers to everything. In fact, if a better idea comes along, it's tested against the evidence and then used as the current explanation.
It's this process of changing and re-evaluating what is considered the best way to understand stuff that makes science so useful as a tool to further our knowledge.

Religious explanations of the same observed phenomena aren't subject to the same process of development (I'm avoiding using the word evolution here for some reason).

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:51 am

InfyMcGirk wrote:Religious explanations of the same observed phenomena aren't subject to the same process of development (I'm avoiding using the word evolution here for some reason).

Oh, I see you've met Sarah Palin.

mattthemuppet · Post by **mattthemuppet** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:20 pm

InfyMcGirk wrote:Generally speaking, science doesn't pretend to have all the answers to everything. In fact, if a better idea comes along, it's tested against the evidence and then used as the current explanation.
It's this process of changing and re-evaluating what is considered the best way to understand stuff that makes science so useful as a tool to further our knowledge.

Religious explanations of the same observed phenomena aren't subject to the same process of development (I'm avoiding using the word evolution here for some reason).

science is still subject to the same dogma problems as religion and they're far less subject to change than you'd think (though admittedly, they are changeable) - for e.g., some scientists still believed the Great Influenza pandemic of 1918 was caused by miasma, well into the 1940s. Another example - the DNA>RNA>protein dogma - accepted as fact long after reverse transcriptases from RNA viruses showed that it could go in reverse (and still taught as dogma in most science classes round the world). Similarly, religion isn't as fixed as you would believe. Although most major religions have a fixed dogma, as most of their change was carried out 100s-1000s of years ago, there are still plenty of offshoots and re interpretive facets of each religion. Islam is a great example of this - you have extremist Wahhabis at one end and progressive interpretive Imams at the other.

Something that people on either side seem wont to forget is that scientists/secularists/religious people are still all JUST PEOPLE. They will show the same breadth/ depth and extremes of opinion as any other subset of society you would care to look at. Just check out this thread for plenty of examples

and as to AndyB - sorry, but none of that post really made any sense. Your point is?

mathias · Post by **mathias** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:41 pm

rpsgc wrote:Religion is insane...

That's like saying it's okay for shrinks to be complete nutcases.

xan_user wrote:Hitler killed Jews and Lefties, Gypsies, Seventh Day Adventists, homosexual males, Communists and all forms of social and political opponents.
and he did it all for God.

That is what he claimed, but so what?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weeki ... erman.html

funny, I had linked to that article before very recently.

rpsgc · Post by **rpsgc** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:56 am

mathias wrote:That's like saying it's okay for shrinks to be complete nutcases.

Uhm no. That's saying: People would call you nuts if you'd (still) believe in fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny yet people have no problem believing in a "god" that allegedly knows all, can do anything and is everywhere and still no one ever saw it. What's the difference? Ah yes, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't have the richest organization (and corrupt bunch of conspiring murderers at that) on the planet to back them up, yeah.

Give me a couple of millions, some influential people, the support of powerful and/or secretive organizations and a few hundred gullible people and I can make the world believe an invisible all powerful giant yellow octupus wearing a pink tutu is god.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:47 am

Too true. The "church" of Scientology comes in for a bit of flak* for being an insidious cult that abuses its victims and takes their money, yet isn't that just what the Catholic church has been doing for centuries?

* I SO win understatement of the week

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:17 am

and as to AndyB - sorry, but none of that post really made any sense. Your point is?

Whats not to understand.

I consider the teaching of religion in schools as insane as a vicar in church teaching people about evolution and the FACT that dinosaurs did exist 65+ million years ago, and that God did NOT create the earth in 7 days just a few thousand years ago.

My point is that they do not mix well, and as such religion should be taught by religious people and not teachers. Children in schools should not be taught religion at all (except in history lessons). Keep the 2 items seperate and it will be of great benefit to future generations.

And please think before posting any stupid counter arguments such as having seperate places where each subject is taught.

Andy

EDITED, with thanks to Blackworx who pointed out my serious ommision of a word - I also added a bit.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:33 am

andyb wrote:children in schools should not be taught at all

... Mind you, that seems pretty close to what's happening now

deaphix · Post by **deaphix** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:33 pm

If you think for a while it seems normal for people to believe in fairy tales like god and things like that at those periods, but it is really interesting this goes on full throttle nowadays!

thejamppa · Post by **thejamppa** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:24 am

religion itself is not bad. Just peoples using it. Problem is, that religion gives easy access for fanatsim, however so does some political movements. The problem or cause in terribly things peoples have done is not because of religion but because they are extremist fanatics.

Atheist extremist fanatic is as deadly as any religious yahoo. Mao's China, Khmer Rogue in Cambodia and Stalinist's in Soviet Union have prooved that.

Fanatism in all political movements and religions is the problem. Extremists are always wrong, no matter their religion or political view.

Best way is to teach both things and let children themselves to choose what they want to believe or follow. Western society is based on moral values on religions too. We simply cannot dish them away because of our personal opinions. We have to give room for both opinions (those supporting Existance of God and those who deny existance of God) or our society has become the very thing western democratism is fighting against: Opressive dictature.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:32 am

Best way is to teach both things and let children themselves to choose what they want to believe or follow.

We simply cannot dish them away because of our personal opinions. We have to give room for both opinions (those supporting Existance of God and those who deny existance of God) or our society has become the very thing western democratism is fighting against: Opressive dictature.

So you think that kids should go into one classroom (religious studies) and be told that "God definitley does exist" and if you dont believe in "shim" then you will go to hell. Then the kid goes to the next classroom (science) and be told that God probably does not exist, and that there is "probably" no heaven and hell, due to the total lack of evidence.

That child is going to be very confused, and wont know what to believe - that is really unfair to the child, and as children are very impressionable they will very often be driven to the person who makes the most noise, has the most conviction, and the option that does not scare them. By "not" believing in god, a child will be scared of going to hell - therefore that impressionable child who does not really understand "death" will gravitate to the fairy tale, rather than knowlege, reason and undrstanding.

That is why children should be taught about religion in history lessons only, and not be pushed into believing that God exists.

Children will simply believe what they are told, which is why we shouldnt be filling their heads with mumbo-jumbo and superstitions, let them decide whther to believe in god when they are 16, if they are adult enough to understand the implications of having sex, they are old enough to make up their own mind as to whether an invisible evil being will torture them forever in hell when they die - it just not fair to do that to a six year-old, just like you would not introduce them to sex.

Andy

spookmineer · Post by **spookmineer** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:51 pm

thejamppa wrote:Atheist extremist fanatic is as deadly as any religious yahoo. Mao's China, Khmer Rogue in Cambodia and Stalinist's in Soviet Union have prooved that.

No it's not.
The fact that they were atheists has nothing to do with it. Using a political ideology of some kind is what made them deadly.
The fact they rejected religion doesn't mean they can't embrace another form of fanaticism.

If one rejects religion, that's just it. You can't reject it more or less, so I don't know where the term "fanatical" comes in, with regards to atheism. Atheism comes with no doctrine or philosophy to be fanatic about.

Cov · Post by **Cov** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:40 am

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:57 am

Cov wrote:

No... he got Michael Jacksons lawyer.

Cov · Post by **Cov** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:47 am

Why would an atheist turn into a christian ?

... Matthew 12:30 says, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." What is He saying? He is saying that you are either for God or you are against God. You are either an atheist or a Christian; you cannot be both. I can understand how a man can be an atheist. I have been an atheist a good part of my life. As an atheist, I believed (and still believe) that my life was consistent, reasonable, and defendable.

For a few years now, I have been trying to live what I understand to be the Christian way of life. Once again, I believe my life is consistent, reasonable, and defendable with what I believe, but I will never understand (and if you understand, I wish you would explain it to me) how a man or a woman or a boy or a girl can say, "Yes, I believe in God. Yes, I understand that the Bible is God's Word," and then not do everything and anything within their power to make sure their lives conform to what that God teaches.

That is not consistent, not reasonable, and not defendable, yet I am sure there are many people who know that their life is not consistent with God's way of living. Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Are you for Christ? Are you working for Christ? Is your life radiating the kind of living that Jesus taught? Are you really a Christian or are you an atheist? There is no middle ground. It is my hope that by revealing to you the kind of person I have been and the mistakes I have made, you have realized that God is the only way ....

mattthemuppet · Post by **mattthemuppet** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:10 pm

andyb wrote:
and as to AndyB - sorry, but none of that post really made any sense. Your point is?
Whats not to understand.

I consider the teaching of religion in schools as insane as a vicar in church teaching people about evolution and the FACT that dinosaurs did exist 65+ million years ago, and that God did NOT create the earth in 7 days just a few thousand years ago.

My point is that they do not mix well, and as such religion should be taught by religious people and not teachers. Children in schools should not be taught religion at all (except in history lessons). Keep the 2 items seperate and it will be of great benefit to future generations.

And please think before posting any stupid counter arguments such as having seperate places where each subject is taught.

Andy

EDITED, with thanks to Blackworx who pointed out my serious ommision of a word - I also added a bit.

now let me guess AndyB - your mind is made up and not subject to change? In which case, what is the point in offering an alternative view, as you'll simply reject it? I can think of plenty of counter arguments (and none of them stupid, thank you very much), but they'll all be pointless because this topic, like most on religion, isn't a discussion but a rant and therefore, very dull.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:49 am

now let me guess AndyB - your mind is made up and not subject to change? In which case, what is the point in offering an alternative view, as you'll simply reject it?

I cant think of a single good reson for children to be taught religion in school. But I do believe that children should be taught about religion within history lessons in school - otherwise large parts of history would be ignored.

If you can come up with a reasonable argument to teach religion in schools please let me know, this is still a discussion and not a rant.

FYI: To some there is a fine line between teaching religion and teaching about religion from a historical point of view. If you teach religion you are preaching, if you teach about religion from a historical point of view you are giving understanding, knowlege and reason.

Andy

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:58 am

andyb wrote:
now let me guess AndyB - your mind is made up and not subject to change? In which case, what is the point in offering an alternative view, as you'll simply reject it?
I cant think of a single good reason for children to be taught religion in school. But I do believe that children should be taught about religion within history lessons in school - otherwise large parts of history would be ignored.

If you can come up with a reasonable argument to teach religion in schools please let me know, this is still a discussion and not a rant.

FYI: To some there is a fine line between teaching religion and teaching about religion from a historical point of view. If you teach religion you are preaching, if you teach about religion from a historical point of view you are giving understanding, knowledge and reason.

Andy

I agree completely with this - it is very important to teach about religion, and not just the good parts. Teach also about the hatred between the Catholics and the Protestants. Teach about the cruelty of the Spanish Inquisition and how the Conquistadors murdered tens of thousands of native Americans because they wouldn't convert to Christianity. (Or give up their gold)

However there is absolutely no way that the state, in the form of the education system should be attempting to teach religion to children with the aim of indoctrinating them.
Morning assembly with hymn singing and praying is, I think, still compulsory for everybody unless they were not Church of England - if you did not believe in God you were still supposed to attend and this is what should be stopped. It has to be up to the parents and/or the children to decide, not the state. It is ludicrous to teach children that there was once a man who could walk on water, cure the sick by performing miracles and came back from the dead; let alone all the creation myth crap.

Bring on disestablishment!

mattthemuppet · Post by **mattthemuppet** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:04 pm

fair enough andy and my apologies if I came over too strong.

From my point of view, you can teach religion without indoctrinating the pupils, simply because there are many aspects of religion, such as structure, history (as you say), demographics and the like that can be presented factually without the teacher expressing judgement or belief. You can quite easily say that Catholics believe that a man called Jesus is the son of God, died for the sins of his followers and rose back up on Easter. Also that the head of the Catholic Church is called the Pope, he's elected by a cardinal council, he lives in the Vatican, doesn't believe in contraception (for this and that reason) and so on. This isn't just history as religions are very much part of the present, but you can see that at no point in presenting those facts and beliefs did I try and convince you that you should also believe them - that is exactly how a teacher would approach the subject and how I (an unrepentant atheist married to a South American catholic) was also taught (funnily enough, by an atheist too).
So I do believe and have experienced being taught religion (I learnt about Christianity and Judaism) without indoctrination and I'm a strong believer in educating children about the many ways in which people differ (race, religion etc) so that they can understand those differences. Pretty much all examples of persecution that I can think of are the result of one group (race, religion, ethnicity) viewing another as inferiour/ superiour/ wrong/ have commited an ancient wrong against them (look at Sunnis vs. Shias). If you can educate enough people that, in spite of their perceived differences, people are very much the same the world over, then I think (rather idealistically and naively) that you can reduce that persecution.
In a nut shell

judge56988 - the problem with that is that you would then have to apply that evenly and fairly to everything, including the wiping out of Native Americans by european settlers (both intentionally and unintentionally via disease and alcohol), the various horrible things national armies did everywhere against minorities (or England vs. the scots for eg.), the hatred of whites for blacks in the States (though the election of a black president is simply amazing), the firestorms and bombing campaigns that killed 100,000s of civilians in Germany during WWII - all of these are examples of the horrors one group of people did against another in the name of difference/ expediency/ ignorance.
Another issue is that, by calling it hatred/ cruelty/ murder, you're judging it and forcing your judgement onto the pupils, ie. you're indoctrinating them AGAINST religion, which is just as bad as indoctrinating them FOR religion. The role of the education sector is to educate and inform, and to leave the pupils with sufficient information and knowledge to make their own decisions and judgements.

blackworx · Post by **blackworx** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:56 am

mattthemuppet wrote:If you can educate enough people that, in spite of their perceived differences, people are very much the same the world over

Reminds me of Richard Pryor's skit about flying to Africa: "Don't matter the colour of your skin, if you're black, white, whatever... people are exactly the same the world over. People in Nairobi... will f*ck over your luggage just the same as people in New York!"

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:06 am

mattthemuppet wrote: judge56988 - the problem with that is that you would then have to apply that evenly and fairly to everything, including the wiping out of Native Americans by european settlers (both intentionally and unintentionally via disease and alcohol), the various horrible things national armies did everywhere against minorities (or England vs. the scots for eg.), the hatred of whites for blacks in the States (though the election of a black president is simply amazing), the firestorms and bombing campaigns that killed 100,000s of civilians in Germany during WWII - all of these are examples of the horrors one group of people did against another in the name of difference/ expediency/ ignorance.
Another issue is that, by calling it hatred/ cruelty/ murder, you're judging it and forcing your judgement onto the pupils, ie. you're indoctrinating them AGAINST religion, which is just as bad as indoctrinating them FOR religion. The role of the education sector is to educate and inform, and to leave the pupils with sufficient information and knowledge to make their own decisions and judgements.

I agree with that totally, I didn't put it as well as you have!

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:32 am

I agree with that totally, I didn't put it as well as you have!

I also agree.

Next sub-point. Banning school children from having ANY religious symbols (such as in france). I am up for this, but I think that it would have to stretch to the next level as well. Schools and teachers would also have to comply otherwise it would be hypocritical (i.e. the same rules for them - although (I would draw the line at changing the names of schools).

My theory is that all children attending a school should all look the same (uniform) therefore no children should be allowed religious symbols.

As Matttehmuppet has pointed out, it not always religions that are problem, just simply differences of any kind. Children are cruel, insensitive creaturess who bully / are bullied more than any other group of humans. Removing a point of potential bullying by removing an apparent difference will reduce this problem greatly.

Andy