Religion in schools

[Insomniac]

***

Yesterday, my english teacher had us write on the question "Do you believe religion should be allowed in schools?". Of course, this got me thinking...

I believe that religion should not be pushed upon students. But, if a religion class is to be taught, it should cover more than just one scope. I remember a few years ago when a pastor came to our school, spoke about God, and handed out those little red bibles to each of us. Now, if a person expressing belief in the worship of Satan had asked to speak at our school, I highly doubt he would have been permitted to. Why? If religion is going to be pushed in school, shouldn't all be covered?

I do think that individuals should be able to express themselves (as in wearing jewelry, shirts, or in verbal expression). But, I doubt that the school system would allow an "I love Satan" shirt to be worn.

Anyways, enough of my ramblings. What are your opinions on this subject?

[Jose]

Religion is taught in schools, very discreetly. It is pushed upon students like me, so if i don't know it, I fail.......... SCIENCE.

YES! Religion is taught in schools, Evolution. So while all the fuss about teachers not talking about CHristianity is going on, my good ol' science teacher is forcing upon me an explanation of how life came to be and how the universe came into place. Hm... so if you should get rid of all religions, dont force upon me evolution either. Its all or none, according to some.

This issue has been addressed elsewhere in this forum, particularly in the evolution sub-forum. There seems to be a belief among creationists that evolution is just as much of a religion as creationism, but that turns out not to be true. Creationists are free to find additional data that will prove evolution wrong. We've been waiting some 150 years, with a great many people trying very hard, and it hasn't yet happened. Still, it could happen. The creationists should get on the job.

Your point is well taken. If we are to disallow one religion from expressing its views in schools, we should disallow all religions from doing so. Indeed, my father's university did just this: no religion was allowed to do anything on campus. At my university, all religions are nominally allowed to hold events. However, this works out fairly asymmetrically, and some religions are not represented.

At one of our local elementary schools, the extent of asymmetry is such that all students leave the school in the middle of the school day, with their teachers as escorts, to walk to the local church for Bible study. "No one has expressed interest in any other religion," they say...but who would dare, under such conditions?

After seeing the strife that has happened in response to some of the religious events--particularly the anti-abortion events--I think I come down on the side of "no sanctioned religious events." They are too easily designed to cause discontent.

By contrast, student discussion should be free. Sure--try to convince me that your religion is better than mine. I'll do the same for you. Let's do it over lunch.

I'm divided on apparel. In principle, there is no problem. In practice, however, I'm reminded of the events at a high school in Oakland, California, some years ago. The apparel led to open warfare among Afghani students. Consequently, it was necessary to institute a dress code. So, is this religious apparel or gang apparel? Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the results, if we end up with the apparel exacerbating the traditional hatreds between certain religious groups. It might be better to make the school neutral territory, where all can go without fear of religious persecution.

Apparently, freedom of apparel must be complemented with civility, or it can backfire.

[Dilettante]

In principle, I have no problem with religion being allowed in schools (it is an elective subject in my country) as long as the purpose is not proselytizing students, but educating them. Religious beliefs have been one of the main influences shaping human cultures, and I believe we can't fully understand humanity without understanding religion. A good arrangement would be to discuss those religions which have had the most impact in human history and analyze them with a critical eye so that students could decide which aspects of them have been beneficial and which have been detrimental. This could be done in history or philosophy class, or in a special class devoted to religion. There are dangers with this approach, I'm sure, but is it better to just let students hear one side of the argument only? Whereas I don't think schools should give "equal time" to religious viewpoints in the science classroom (not until those viewpoints can muster sufficient scientific evidence and a viable alternative theory), there is no reason not to hear different theological positions in the appropriate context.
As for religious attire, this can be a problem, since it is not always freely chosen by the students. Some students bully those girls who won't wear certain items of clothing which are deemed obligatory by a particular religion, such as the Islamic hijab. Dress codes are fine with me.

[kam&tam]

All faiths should be a mandatory subject in public schools. Now that is true History.

[McCulloch]

Religions should be examined in History class (how they came about, how they changed, how they influenced events), Geography class (how their practices affect different regions) and Law class (legal and ethical consequences of religions). Religion should not be taught as a separate subject in any publicly funded school. Religion should not be taught in or as Science.

[Jose]

There is an interesting problem here, though. Most of the state science standards indicate that it is important for students to learn a bit of historical perspectives of science. What was the pre-Newtonian view of gravity or physics? How did new discoveries influence the development of various fields of research? This stuff is actually pretty important.

If we do this, we kinda run up against Newton's view that having gravity and planetary orbits proved the glory of god, because He had created this wonderful system that did not need constant intervention. We didn't really need angels to push the planets, after all.

Darwin's voyage on the Beagle grew out of natural theology--the attempt to prove god's greatness by describing his creation in infinite detail. It turns out that the more details they found, the more they pointed to a different explanation than Genesis presents.

Aside from the historical perspective, it turns out that it is far easier to teach evolution, and generates far less animosity, if one starts out acknowledging that our students have a diversity of religious views, and that some of those views may be at odds with evolution. Nonetheless, it is the nature of science to gather data and examine it, and see where it leads us. There is nothing inherently anti-religious in this approach. It is no more than defining the apparent rules by which the present world operates (like gravity), studying the various features of the world as it now exists, and assessing whether the presently-operating rules may be able to explain some of those features of the world that we see around us.

Certainly, there may be things that we cannot see or measure--which we might call "spiritual." We cannot examine these things by the methods of science. As far as we can tell, these "spiritual" things and the "natural" things are entirely compatible, but all we can actually study in science is the natural stuff.

I think that it is actually necessary to have some kind of discussion along these lines. I'm not sure it should be part of the curriculum in a science class, but neither should science classes refuse to discuss it, should students raise questions or concerns.

In short, there is an interface between science and religion, where many students have legitimate questions. It is a disservice to these students--and therefore to the overall understanding of science--to duck these questions altogether, and present science as if religion does not exist.

[micatala]

Religion is taught in schools, very discreetly. It is pushed upon students like me, so if i don't know it, I fail.......... SCIENCE.

YES! Religion is taught in schools, Evolution. So while all the fuss about teachers not talking about CHristianity is going on, my good ol' science teacher is forcing upon me an explanation of how life came to be and how the universe came into place. Hm... so if you should get rid of all religions, dont force upon me evolution either. Its all or none, according to some.

I would disagree, rather vehemently.

Evolution is not religion at all. In my view, this is a gross mischaracterization or misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution is a scientific explanation for the data we have relative to the history of life as we know it. The data include fossil data including not only the fossils themselves but also the location of these fossils in layers and geographically, DNA data, geological data. etc. The explanation given by evolution is consistent with the entirety of the data. It is not based on revealed knowledge, and has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God.

I would be curious as to your rationale for claiming evolution is a religion. I don't want to divert the thread, so we might want to start a new thread, or find an old one along these lines and continue there.

[Bugmaster]

AFAIK, religion is allowed in school. We had a Christian club and a Buddhist club in our school, for example (though the Buddhist club had about 2 members). Students can pray whenever they want, as long as they're not disturbing the class. You can plaster the walls with "JESUS LOVES YOU !!!1!!!" leaflets, and no one will bat an eye.

What's disallowed in schools is for the teacher to lead the class in prayer, or to otherwise claim that any particular religion has special, privileged status within the school. I think that's pretty fair.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

AFAIK, religion is allowed in school. We had a Christian club and a Buddhist club in our school, for example (though the Buddhist club had about 2 members). Students can pray whenever they want, as long as they're not disturbing the class. You can plaster the walls with "JESUS LOVES YOU !!!1!!!" leaflets, and no one will bat an eye.

Interesting, this is not the case in my school...

We have a Christian club, but it has to be disquised as something unrelated. Thus, the club has become "Fellowship of Christian Athletes". Students are only allowed to pray in the mornings, when we are given a designated "moment of silence", which lasts no more than thirty seconds. As for evangelical tools, they are vehemently prohibited. One guy was passing out Bible's last year, but only got by because he was standing on the sidewalk (which is technically state property).

Even more signifigant is that I go to school in a predominantly conservative region. I am not sure how long ago you went to school, but I can remember as far back as elementary school, when "WWJD" backpacks had to be turned inside out.

The current regulations are completely inane. A school should certainly not give a particular religion special status, but to deny a STUDENT the freedom to express his or her views.... absolutely moronic, a blatant contradiction of the constitution.

School should not endorse religion in any way, shape, or form. I think we can all agree on that. However, shouldn't a student be free to express their views, and even encourage others to do the same?

[Bugmaster]

We have a Christian club, but it has to be disquised as something unrelated. Thus, the club has become "Fellowship of Christian Athletes". Students are only allowed to pray in the mornings, when we are given a designated "moment of silence", which lasts no more than thirty seconds.

Ok, that part is actually reasonable -- you can't have the teacher leading students in prayer during class, for reasons I've described, but you can have a moment of silence if you really, really wanted to.

However, it sounds like your school actually prevented you from praying on an individual basis; i.e., if you kneel down on your prayer mat during the lunch break (while the godless kids wait in line for their tater-tots), you'll get punished. That's crazy, and also illegal. I think that the ACLU would be more than happy to assist you in suing your school in this matter -- especially since they also prohibit 'WWJD" backpacks, which is also insane.

[Jose]

We have a Christian club, but it has to be disquised as something unrelated. Thus, the club has become "Fellowship of Christian Athletes". Students are only allowed to pray in the mornings, when we are given a designated "moment of silence", which lasts no more than thirty seconds.

Ok, that part is actually reasonable -- you can't have the teacher leading students in prayer during class, for reasons I've described, but you can have a moment of silence if you really, really wanted to.

However, it sounds like your school actually prevented you from praying on an individual basis; i.e., if you kneel down on your prayer mat during the lunch break (while the godless kids wait in line for their tater-tots), you'll get punished. That's crazy, and also illegal. I think that the ACLU would be more than happy to assist you in suing your school in this matter -- especially since they also prohibit 'WWJD" backpacks, which is also insane.

Well....when I was in K-12 schools, there was simply too much religious diversity to justify choosing one flavor of one religion, and call it "OK." If one group was given preference, then the other groups were upset. The simplest solution was to give no one preference, which was achievable only by having no prayers of any kind.

The same was true for presumably-individual expression. If a school sanctions a particular style of clothing, it gives implicit support for whatever that clothing represents. This is equally true for religious symbols and gang symbols. It is true for socioeconomic symbols. What is a symbol of personal expression for one student may be a symbol of repression and hatred to another.

In a private school supported by private funds, it is fine to sanction and support private views. People with other views are not required to enroll or provide monetary support. In public spaces that are "common" to everyone, personal expression is, and should be, strongly protected as free speech. But when we get to public schools supported (albeit minimally) by everyone, and essentially government-run, then we have to consider both positive and negative effects of religious expression. Is it OK to have Wiccan ceremonies around the flagpole before class, or at lunchtime? They may involve semi-clothed dances that may be offensive to members of other religions. It is OK to have white-supremacy organizations, like the World Church of the Creator, operating freely in schools? Or do some forms of "personal religious expression" turn out to be inappropriate in a setting that is supported by The State? Would we all be comfortable with Satanic Rites as a part of our kids' normal school day? Or would we prefer that some of these rituals not be displayed before our kids?

We can't have it both ways. We can't have Our Favorite Religion allowed, and Those Other Horrid Religions banned. As a consequence, the path most followed is to disallow any displays that could be intrepreted as State sanction of any particular religious philosophy.

So, as we become annoyed at being forbidden to do "perfectly normal stuff," we should try to think about how we would respond if other people did their "perfectly normal stuff" with which we violently disagree.