Religious Studies in High School

[Mrs Paul]

They did when I was in high school (early-mid 1990s). It was included in World History, mostly when we were studying various regions and eras, and in "this is religion X, and this is what they believe, etc etc". I mean, I don't see how you can teach history without teaching about religion. How are kids going to understand anything about the Crusades, the Troubles in Ireland, or any of the current events going on in the Middle East without learning about religion? (And we didn't just talk about the big three, we also learned about Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, etc)

 

[Vah]

I think teaching religion is a good thing as it's a large part of our history and society and important for understanding the formation of countries cultures all across the world. But it would have to be very carefully managed in order to make sure it's being taught from a non-biased standpoint.

I can't see proper education about religion becoming a commonality in the near future, seeing as how the issue is very uptight. It seems impossible to talk about a doctrine as merely a work or mythology without a bunch of people getting upset that their beliefs aren't being hammered in to people as literal facts, and teachers are too susceptible to injecting their own biases in to their teachings as is.

 

[Mrs Paul]

It probably depends on where you live. In Western PA, we're not a huge center of fundamentlists. The Bible Belt? That could be a bit of a problem.

 

[Dr.Research]

I think it would work if it was presented like how schools teach Greek and Roman mythology. As mythology. Because for every person who isn't practicing that particular religion, that's what it is, just stories and myths from some other culture.

And like everyone is saying, the minute you criticize any religion for it's raging hypocrisies, calls to violence and abysmal treatment of women you'll get BAWWing.

Personally, I think religion should be completely cut out from schooling until high school where it can be optional. I guess a basic introduction to is fine, but any serious study is a waste. But then again, I'm a staunch atheist and don't like religion in general. If it was up to me we'd introducing children to things like evolution and how theories and experiments work so maybe the next generation will be slightly less brainwashed by the idea of an imaginary sky man more informed on how we know what we know.

 

[DatBepisTho]

... The Bible Belt? That could be a bit of a problem.

It's already a problem in some of the smaller biblebelt belt schools.

 

[Sanshain]

Not 'precisely' religious studies, but I think at the very least, schools would benefit from having a class dedicated to examining the book of Proverbs. I mean it has verses like this in it;

'Even if you pound a fool with a pestle
Like crushed grain in a mortar,
His foolishness will not leave him.'

I think people confuse human inability to act according to sound advice with religious fallibility. There are plenty of good principles to extract and discuss if you're willing to be flexible and examine the original intent with which something was written, rather than the layers of human ritual and superstition that have been added to it over time.

 

[Marvin]

Not 'precisely' religious studies, but I think at the very least, schools would benefit from having a class dedicated to examining the book of Proverbs. I mean it has verses like this in it;

'Even if you pound a fool with a pestle
Like crushed grain in a mortar,
His foolishness will not leave him.'

I think people confuse human inability to act according to sound advice with religious fallibility. There are plenty of good principles to extract and discuss if you're willing to be flexible and examine the original intent with which something was written, rather than the layers of human ritual and superstition that have been added to it over time.

Discussing vague principles distilled from bible quotations sounds like a special snowflake class.

That's way less valid a class than just studying religions from a historical perspective.

 

[Sanshain]

Discussing vague principles distilled from bible quotations sounds like a special snowflake class.

That's way less valid a class than just studying religions from a historical perspective.

Religious texts have been the foundation for human morality and ethical thinking for millennia. They can still have relevance today when helping people to understand the moral consequences of their actions. Pithy sayings like those contained within religious texts like the Proverbs also help contextualize common problems and sum up solutions in an easily-recalled format. A good teacher can use this material to their advantage during philosophical discussions and debates. Granted, this isn't what I'd expect to see in a modern hyper-PC classroom, but I still think the concept holds merit.

 

[Marvin]

Religious texts have been the foundation for human morality and ethical thinking for millennia. They can still have relevance today when helping people to understand the moral consequences of their actions. Pithy sayings like those contained within religious texts like the Proverbs also help contextualize common problems and sum up solutions in an easily-recalled format. A good teacher can use this material to their advantage during philosophical discussions and debates. Granted, this isn't what I'd expect to see in a modern hyper-PC classroom, but I still think the concept holds merit.

Why should any of this be a whole high school class though?

It's not an issue of being PC. It's that it's a waste of education funds. High schools should first be teaching practical skills, skills to make you a useful citizen and keep you from being a perpetual tax sink in your adult life. Then things to get you into college. Then maybe, maybe if there's some room left, some art and culture classes. And even then, philosophy is an actual discipline, of which the moral implications of religious texts is a subset.

Maybe a Philosophy I class in high school could dedicate a few weeks to religious texts. Like the bible, the tanakh, the koran, the bhagavad gita, and I don't know, whatever atheists read. Maybe the amazing atheist's banana ass picture.

 

[ICametoLurk]

How about we use the money that could be spent on Religious classes and instead use them for STEM instead?

 

[idosometimes]

In the context of history and such things, probably. It would make sense as many historical movements were centered around religious ideas and groups. This isn't the same as teaching religious morality or doctrine. Religion has a place in history and culture. It is very important. That doesn't require in depth examination of every part of religion though. You don't need to teach students the religious meaning of using baby's blood to make matzo when covering the treacherousness of the Jews.

How about we use the money that could be spent on Religious classes and instead use them for STEM instead?

You would have to show that the money is the issue for STEM learning. I doubt that is the case. Americans don't need to know math or science. Other countries do. Their job markets are different. Besides, these countries are spending less on education and producing better results.

That is rate of improvement anyway. You need to know the base values to make any judgment.

 

[Ntwadumela]

Yeah I had Islamic Studies class the entire time I was in school, even before High School. It was good.
I remember getting into a heated arguement back in Sophomore year with one of my old teachers about how Christians and Jews shouldn't be killed. Funnily enough he got fired a week later.

 

[Randall Fragg]

I got a rundown of major world religions in my freshman high school history course. That was actually a pretty fun course.

 

[CWCchange]

It's inevitable to talk about religion in Social Studies, and is probably best not to divulge further than the basic facts to avoid contentious issues. Maybe a bit more can be emphasized to differentiate a Muslim from a Sikh, however.

If you want your kids to learn about religion, by all means send them to a private school. It's likely better anyway.

 

[DuskEngine]

Yeah I had Islamic Studies class the entire time I was in school, even before High School. It was good.
I remember getting into a heated arguement back in Sophomore year with one of my old teachers about how Christians and Jews shouldn't be killed. Funnily enough he got fired a week later.

And the name of that teacher?

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

 

[blodeeblo]

I agree with this. I feel like this could further insure that religious studies and scientific studies don't overlap and taint one another. The world's most popular religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism - should be taught to students in a non-biased manner in order to help them shape their own beliefs and understand the world around them.

If you want a school free from religious studies or, the other extreme, evolution, make it private. Public schools should be neutral, teach scientific facts as facts, and religious beliefs as subjective.

 

[Pikimon]

You would have to show that the money is the issue for STEM learning. I doubt that is the case. Americans don't need to know math or science. Other countries do. Their job markets are different. Besides, these countries are spending less on education and producing better results.

That is rate of improvement anyway. You need to know the base values to make any judgment.

A big reason why the United States doesn't excel as much as it should is because in general science (real science not Pop!Science) isn't taught very well or there is a local culture that actively dissuades students from pursuing an interest in science. The scientific method and the way information is gathered and analyzed is severely misunderstood or outright gotten wrong for many people, and think that science is about knowing a lot of stuff, rather than a way of investigating our world.

On top of that the United States is very, very, very large so discrepancies will arise (Massachusetts is always near the top in education while Alabama is always near the bottom)

If you really want to improve academic achievement in the United States the method that so far has the most evidence behind it is to increase parental involvement and autonomic intellectual curiosity. Get parents involved with their kid's education more and encourage kids to be curious and ask lots of questions.

 

[A Potato Named Vodka]

Like others have said, I think a rudimentary understanding of world religions is all that is necessary for the average student. I can see how bias can enter the picture, but I think the most important thing that high schoolers should be introduced to is the fact of bias in historical perspectives (which, in my experience, was introduced in world history). Again, since most history classes introduce religions in one way or another- seeing that religion has had an enormous impact on the course of human history- I think students may catch on quickly if their teacher might hold bias for or against a religion. Then again, maybe I give the average student too much credit- I spent most of my school life with the "smart kids".

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

Teaching people about the beliefs of others in school is not good unless you are over the age of 18 and in university. Look at how stuff with gender is turning out. (people's terrible beliefs)
It would be a good idea to teach children why certain historical things happened (like the crusades), but it's not a good decision to dissect Catholicism vs Buddhism vs Scientology unless their brains can handle it without giggling like school children, or without them trying to jump on a religious bandwagon.

 

[The Great Chandler]

I agree, people need to have an open mind regarding religions for a variety of reasons. Unless you're either an ignorant fundie or a fedora.