Should we promote religious literacy in school?

[Machjo]

Regardless of the religion, people can easily be manipulated into accepting a violent corruption of a religion by being presented quotes our of context, and we never know who will convert to what religion as an adult.

Is it time to promote 'religious literacy' in school by having students read quotes from the various religions about peace or in context so as to create a generation of 'religious literates' who can't be so easily manipulated into supporting a fanatical ideology?

 

[tay]

Yes.
And no one under 18 should be allowed into a religious institution.......

 

[Walter]

Yes. Ignorance is not bliss, it's oblivion.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes.
And no one under 18 should be allowed into a religious institution.......

Is the Cult of AGW included in your myopic view as well?

 

[Machjo]

Yes.
And no one under 18 should be allowed into a religious institution.......

And how do you intend to enforce that? People will believe what they will belueve.

The best the public education system can do is ensure religious literacy, meaning that he be familiar with those passages of the sacred texts that fanatics like to ignore so that whatever religion he accepts, he'll have a healthier understanding of it.

 

[Ludlow]

Maybe in high school as a history elective. Not a required subject though. Similar to World religion courses that are available in College. I'm kind of a mind that reading, writing and arithmetic should be the main focus in public elementary schools. Religion is already imbedded in the political world where it does not belong. It certainly does not need to be forced upon children in public schools.

A good course in high school or college could be called "The History of Religion:.

 

[Machjo]

Maybe in high school as a history elective. Not a required subject though. Similar to World religion courses that are available in College. I'm kind of a mind that reading, writing and arithmetic should be the main focus in public elementary schools. Religion is already imbedded in the political world where it does not belong. It certainly does not need to be forced upon children in public schools.

A good course in high school or college could be called "The History of Religion:.

I was thinking more along the lines of giving them the intellectual tools they need to resist attempts to dupe them into accepting a fanatical interpretation of any religion. This would mean nor a course on the history of religion but rather on the sacred texts themselves. The purpose would not be o force them to believe en thing but rather to ensure that while free to belI eve what they want to believe, that they can't be so easily duped into fanatical ideology.

Reading, writing and arithmetic could be outright dangerous in the mind of a religiously illiterate physicist who adopts a fanatical interpretation of a religion. If we spend public money on education, it should have a clearly defined mandate. To me the history of religion as a compulsory course is a waste of money.

We can spend all the money we want on surveillance, but at the end of the day, the police can't keep tabs on everyone, and that's where religious literacy education would come in as a cheaper preventative remedy to terrorism.

Maybe the course title could be "sacred texts as literature."

 

[taxslave]

No. Unless you are goint to teach all the other mythology in the world. Maybe Zeus and Thor in a shootout.

 

[Machjo]

No. Unless you are goint to teach all the other mythology in the world. Maybe Zeus and Thor in a shootout.

I was thinking religions people are apt to convert to.

 

[Corduroy]

The point of school is for children to learn about the world to prepare them for it. Religion is a part of our world. I think our aversion to religious literacy in schools has to do with our belief in the separation of church and state. But that's more about the institutions of church and state from becoming the same. Religion and its philosophies exist in the world and it influence people's behaviour.

Yes. Ignorance is not bliss, it's oblivion.

 

[Ludlow]

I was thinking more along the lines of giving them the intellectual tools they need to resist attempts to dupe them into accepting a fanatical interpretation of any religion. This would mean nor a course on the history of religion but rather on the sacred texts themselves. The purpose would not be o force them to believe en thing but rather to ensure that while free to belI eve what they want to believe, that they can't be so easily duped into fanatical ideology.

Reading, writing and arithmetic could be outright dangerous in the mind of a religiously illiterate physicist who adopts a fanatical interpretation of a religion. If we spend public money on education, it should have a clearly defined mandate. To me the history of religion as a compulsory course is a waste of money.

We can spend all the money we want on surveillance, but at the end of the day, the police can't keep tabs on everyone, and that's where religious literacy education would come in as a cheaper preventative remedy to terrorism.

Maybe the course title could be "sacred texts as literature."

All interpretation is subjective. Unless you lived where and when the literature was written. We can try as best we can to read the literature in a cultural context but all we understand about ancient cultures is what we read in history books and observe in archeological evidence. That is also subjective. I believe religion should be a personal thing. I do agree that people should probably not follow some so called "guru" or self appointed authority on the matter,,because there are none.

 

[Twila]

I do agree that people should probably not follow some so called "guru" or self appointed authority on the matter,,because there are none.

And that would be the problem. Whomever taught the course would, knowingly or unknowling, put their personal feelings on it. That's why there so many denominations.

 

[lone wolf]

Should we promote religious literacy in school?

Yeah ... and to be inoffensive, we'll call them "spares"

 

[Ludlow]

And that would be the problem. Whomever taught the course would, knowingly or unknowling, put their personal feelings on it. That's why there so many denominations.

Yeah. Over 40k in Christianity alone. Madison, who was a Christian wrote a few papers concerning religion in government noted the same thing. Which sect would be the one to instate were his words. That's why it should not be in Government, or public education in my opinion. Which, with a quarter might buy you a glazed donut close to closing time.

 

[Machjo]

And that would be the problem. Whomever taught the course would, knowingly or unknowling, put their personal feelings on it. That's why there so many denominations.

That's why I'd proposed a 'sacred text as literature' course. By definition a literature course involves teaching literary analysis, not blind literalism. By definition a literature teacher does not impose his interpretation of the text but rather teaches students how to analyse litwrature for themselves.

Some people are what I would call secularly wise but religiously foolish. By that I mean that they know science, literature, etc. But as soon as it comes to their own sacred text, they blindly accept it literalky. Sure they learn secular literature in school but for whatever reason refuse to analyse religious text in the same way. A 'sacred text as literature' course would teach them that critical literary analysis applies equally to sacred text as it does to secular, so there would be no imposing an interpretation onto the students, let alone a belief.

Let's put it this way, would you rather illiterate parents teach their child a literal interpretation of the Qur'án or a literature teacher teach them how to analyse it critically. This would not be Islamphobic in the least since it would not be attacking the Qur'án but merely forcing people to analyse it more critically. If it's the true word of God, then God would appreciate a better understanding of it, and if ir's not, he would appreciate people reading it more critically. It's a win-win for everyone, not to mention fewer ISIS recruits.

 

[lone wolf]

It doesn't matter whose book you analyze, the very act of analysis means you are questioning something

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Yes.
And no one under 18 should be allowed into a religious institution.......

Are you saying people under 18 cannot form their own opinions based upon what they hear or see? Better ban them from watching TV or listening to bad music too. They should not be allowed cell phones or access to a computer either. We should build bubbles around them too for extra protection.

 

[gerryh]

That's why I'd proposed a 'sacred text as literature' course. By definition a literature course involves teaching literary analysis, not blind literalism. By definition a literature teacher does not impose his interpretation of the text but rather teaches students how to analyse litwrature for themselves.

Some people are what I would call secularly wise but religiously foolish. By that I mean that they know science, literature, etc. But as soon as it comes to their own sacred text, they blindly accept it literalky. Sure they learn secular literature in school but for whatever reason refuse to analyse religious text in the same way. A 'sacred text as literature' course would teach them that critical literary analysis applies equally to sacred text as it does to secular, so there would be no imposing an interpretation onto the students, let alone a belief.

Let's put it this way, would you rather illiterate parents teach their child a literal interpretation of the Qur'án or a literature teacher teach them how to analyse it critically. This would not be Islamphobic in the least since it would not be attacking the Qur'án but merely forcing people to analyse it more critically. If it's the true word of God, then God would appreciate a better understanding of it, and if ir's not, he would appreciate people reading it more critically. It's a win-win for everyone, not to mention fewer ISIS recruits.

roflmfao.... ya....right.....ok.... ANY interpretation of a literary text will be interpreted through the prejudices and experience of the one reading and explaining that text. To state or even imply that the various religious texts can be "interpreted", "explained" and "taught" without bias or prejudice is naïve at the least, or more than likely, asinine.

 

[Ludlow]

roflmfao.... ya....right.....ok.... ANY interpretation of a literary text will be interpreted through the prejudices and experience of the one reading and explaining that text. To state or even imply that the various religious texts can be "interpreted", "explained" and "taught" without bias or prejudice is naïve at the least, or more than likely, asinine.

Agreed

Ya prick.lol

 

[gerryh]

Agreed

Ya prick.lol

I may be a prick....and I am definitely an a$$hole..... but at least I have more than 2 working brain cells. I mean really, the whole premise of this OP is asinine. To even suggest that this could be done without bias is ridiculous. Even with non religious literature you will get differing interpretations of said literature depending on who it is.