What do you think about teaching the beliefs of Christianity in public schools along side with...?

Question

...teaching about Jewish beliefs, Morman beliefs, Witness beliefs, Muslam beliefs, Budist beliefs (you get the point)?

Answer 1

It is appropriate to teach the 3 main world religions from a historical perspective in a History class or as a part of a Current Issues class.

(and although the other faiths are important to those that believe them, their impact on historic or current events is not nearly as important and would not need to be discussed in that forum)

Including all major "World Religions" in a class would be an appropriate elective, but not as required curriculum. (Although personally I wouldn't mind it as required)

And it is completely appropriate - and necessary - to answer questions on what various faiths believe if the issue is brought up during a discussion (i.e. current events, mentioned in a novel, etc.), again, so that students can more fully understand what is being studied.

It is nearly impossible to study the many current situations or historic events without the context of the religious faith that has driven a lot of it.

We can not proselytize, but neither should we ignore religion and the fact that much of our history and current issues are completely enmeshed with religion.

(PS - I had to teach what the Puritans believed to my 4th graders for them to understand why they came on the Mayflower. This is the type of religious "instruction" that is necissary and important).

Answer 2

It's a tough question.

On paper it seems easy - "well, we'll just treat them all the same."

But one - whatever religion the instructor is will get better treatment than the others - that's just human nature. Which right away creates an imbalance.

Two - the tougher issue is -- 'who decides'? Who decides which religions are included? You mentioned a handful but there are many, many, many more. Who decides what order? What learning activities? How much time on each? I mean clearly, let's say, Judaism is "more important" than Zoroastrianism. So it should get more time, right. It's more important. Or is it? Who decides that?

Three - you've got a 'captive audience' in K-12 schools - attendance is mandatory. Even if it's an elective class, they have to take *something*.

Four, it has to be something that an accrediting body would recognize as scholarly. Another challenge. Textbooks makes 5. Adopting the textbooks makes 6 issues.

Those issues make the 'heck it works on paper' idealism of it screech to a halt when you try to have it happen in real life. Parents get involved and heated, religious groups want a say, and so on. The 'who decides' is such a huge issue it's not worth it in K-12.

Now college - hey everyone there is there of their own choosing. Go right ahead and study whatever you want.

But K-12 - nope. It won't work. Not right, anyway.

Answer 3

I wouldn't mind it if it was done on a college level as a World Theology course, or even as a high school honors class.
Teaching it to young kids would confuse the students and anger their parents (who are in the process of trying to teach them their personal beliefs).
On the other hand, early exposure to multiple faiths would raise a generation of kids who aren't exposed to the idiocy that most religions make them go through. It may actually kill organized religion (which to me would be a good thing, it is too personal to be something that I have to be made to feel guilty about).
This is just the opinion of a lapsed Roman Catholic Evolution Believing Science Teacher.

Answer 4

It's like teaching Sex-Ed. Some parent may not think their child is ready to learn about other ideas. So are you as a principal, are you going to excuse those children that don't have a permission slip from that day of school and loose the revenue of that kid from our budge? Cause parents will yank their kids out for the day or week you teach that subject.

Also you forget about atheist, Are you going to teach a course that their is NO GOD?

Anyway it's just best to learn philosophy, in collage when your mind has already been made up by years of Sunday school.

Answer 5

i've thought of this question plenty of times before. and i used to think that we should teach different beliefs in public schools. but now i think it might no be such a good idea, because they're are so many beliefs out there and in public schools you have people from all kinds of beliefs, it just wouldn't be fair to teach about something that you believe in only and you have other people who believe in other things. however, i feel that people should be able to practice they're own religons at school, like how we have a prayer circle at my school.

Answer 6

It would gain a fantastic tolerance of people for each other. However, the exposure of various religions and deep rooted faiths should not be provided for the sake of conversion of anyone to another religion. A general overview should suffice, mainly on a cultural level, including many of the religious holidays, customs and traditions.

Answer 7

There is research that shows the value of teaching the Bible as literature because of the many cultural references from the Bible. It is part of the makeup of an educated person to understand those references. Objective viewpoints in such teaching can be possible.

Answer 8

i don't think schools themselves should be a platform for those kind of teachings at all not as an enforced law at an rate it should be up to the parents to teach their kids how they believe and the schools should stay out of it totally now at a collage level it may be more appropriate to introduce such things as world religions but i think it should not be hindered by the schools by law and by law or mandate of the law it should not be taught that is the only fair thing to do because i believe the teachers would be to biased on what they teach and how it is taught and i don't think the governing body able to properly understand the lessons to teach it by law they only see religion as a form of principles not a life style with need and consequence it is overtly obvious by how supposed religious politicians live that they don't believe there is such a thing as real unchanging truth

Answer 9

I'm all for it, as long as other religions are taught equally as well. It might make for a more tolerant society if there is increased exposure to other religions, other than what we get from the media.. usually stories about religious fanatics.. not the real picture.
Great question.

Answer 10

Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians.

Sadly, anti-Witnesses repeatedly pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. Trinitarians use an artificial, trinity-specific definition of the term "Christian" which excludes anyone who does not believe that Jesus is God Himself, rather than the Son of God. Interestingly, pagans in the first century pretended that Christ's followers were Atheists(!) because the Christians had a somewhat different idea from the pagans about the nature of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that no salvation occurs without Christ, that accepting Christ's sacrifice is a requirement for true worship, that every prayer must acknowledge Christ, that Christ is the King of God's Kingdom, that Christ is the head of the Christian congregation, that Christ is immortal and above every creature, even that Christ was the 'master worker' in creating the universe! Both secular dictionaries and disinterested theologians acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion.

The Trinitarian arguments are intended to insult and demean Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than to give a Scripturally accurate understanding of the term "Christian".

In fact, the bible most closely associates being "Christian" with preaching about Christ and Christ's teachings. Review all three times the bible uses the term "Christian" and note that the context connects the term with:
"declaring the good news"
'teaching quite a crowd'
'open eyes, turn from dark to light'
"uttering sayings of truth"
"persuade"
"keep on glorifying"

(Acts 11:20-26) [The early disciples of Jesus] began talking to the Greek-speaking people, declaring the good news of the Lord Jesus... and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

(Acts 26:17-28) [Jesus said to Paul] I am sending you, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God... Paul said: “I am not going mad, Your Excellency Festus, but I am uttering sayings of truth and of soundness of mind. ...Do you, King Agrippa, believe the Prophets? I know you believe.” But Agrippa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”

(1 Peter 4:14-16) If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy... But if he suffers as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name


So why do anti-Witnesses try to hijack the term "Christian" and hide its Scriptural implications? Because anti-Witnesses recognize that it is the preaching work that makes it clear that the relatively small religion of Jehovah's Witnesses are by far the most prominent followers of Christ:

(Matthew 28:19,20) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded


Learn more!
http://watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm?article=article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/pr/index.htm?article=article_04.htm