Should religious education be banned?

[Coggeh]

I've noticed many parties have a policy of abolishing religious education as a subject in schools. Why? why is their a problem about teaching about religion? i find it pretty interesting to study different religions beliefs etc. Whats the problem as long as it is about teaching beliefs in a non-bias way and not preaching.

[Muzk]

Why should we teach about something that has claimed things which have been refuted?

[StoneFrog]

maybe they are concerned about teaching only one religion in a school, so it mixes the teachings of religion with education.

There are many schools around which institutes religious teachings as a main school principle. Catholic schools etc..

[piet11111]

I've noticed many parties have a policy of abolishing religious education as a subject in schools. Why? why is their a problem about teaching about religion? i find it pretty interesting to study different religions beliefs etc. Whats the problem as long as it is about teaching beliefs in a non-bias way and not preaching.

If it teaches against religion then i am OK with it but if its preaching then obviously it needs to be banned.

[Taikand]

I'd find it interesting to study religion as a social process.
I think that most people do not agree to religion being taught as "divine word".
<chuckles> ...learning about the crimes of the failed ideology (which starts with "R" not with "C"> that promises paradise yet brings death and poverty.

[Demogorgon]

At school I certainly don't recall RE being indoctrinating in any way. It was largely repetitive lessons on ancient judaism, a bit of discussion of symbolism, a bit of stuff about the church and a bit about various other religions. It was a waste of time more than anything else and put me off religion more than anything else. So I don't think any discussions of indoctrination are useful. On the other hand, I don't think religious education is that useful either, though it is probably a good idea to make sure people know a but about people from different religions. The level of prejudice against Muslims-and previously Jews-in society proves that.

[Blake's Baby]

Religious education has changed a lot since our day though Demogorgon. Like you I went through 'comparitive religion' - a bit on Judaism, a bit on Sikhism, a bit of Christianity, a bit of Islam, and some general stuff on myths and symbols. But with the rise in 'faith schools' the scope schools have to teach religion as fact is increasing. They always had it in Catholic schools but now there are many others too.

On 'why should we learn about things that have been proved wrong', well, I also learned about the history of medicine including astrology ('Never cut the knees when the Sun is in Capricorn'), Aboriginal Bone-chanting, 'The Wound Man' and the Theory of the Four Humours. Should I not have done?

[mikelepore]

Whether it's at home or in a school, I consider it a form of child abuse to teach children ideas that are merely speculation and to tell the children that the lessons are known facts. This applies whether it's a fable about a god and the angels, or claims that the gray aliens came here in flying saucers, or something else. Children are vulnerable to manipulation by others, which is why they are protected from sexual exploitation, they may not be tricked into signing contracts, etc. Because of this same vulerability, children should not be told that paranormal conjectures are verified facts.

[NecroCommie]

As long as religion is thought as equal with other superstitions I am fine... Still, I see this to be unlikely.

[The Vegan Marxist]

We should teach religion under it's occurrences within history & talk of its teachings & so forth, but also show why it's been refuted as well. If we're to talk of religion, we must talk of it within both perspectives.

[Mumbles]

If you're learning it as an outside observer or at least not claiming it is the only truth then I would think it'd be okay, because the history of religion goes with the history of the world.

If it is like my school though where you have no choice in whether or not you're put in the classes and you're taught over and over it's the only way and that if you don't believe you're evil and going to be punished forever and ever then, NO it shouldn't be taught that way.

Also I think being taught by your parents is almost as bad as the way I was indoctrinated at school. Or at least if the parents are as bad as mine in the way they make it where there's no choice in the matter. But controlling the household is a whole different than controlling school.

[Imposter Marxist]

I went to a Catholic school, and I didnt know what Evolution was until my three years ago, in my Freshman year.

[piet11111]

I went through a christian school where the indoctrination only came in the form of story telling but nothing was forced on us.
It made me the proud atheist that i am today and now i know enough about Christianity to ruin their day whenever i get the chance to ridicule them.

[Foldered]

I see nothing wrong with studying religion from an anthropological/sociological perspective, but I imagine the banning of religious has more to do with indoctrination. Which I agree with; I agree that religious indoctrination is equatable to a form of child abuse. To put it simply, that shit can really fuck with people.

[Robocommie]

I see nothing wrong with studying religion from an anthropological/sociological perspective, but I imagine the banning of religious has more to do with indoctrination. Which I agree with; I agree that religious indoctrination is equatable to a form of child abuse. To put it simply, that shit can really fuck with people.

As a religious Marxist, I think that's kind of a narrow minded perspective on it.

[danyboy27]

As a religious Marxist, I think that's kind of a narrow minded perspective on it.
but, religion is narrow minded.

[Foldered]

As a religious Marxist, I think that's kind of a narrow minded perspective on it.
I respect that. I am willing to admit that I am narrow-minded when it comes to religion.
The fact that parents choose what religion their children latch onto is something that I am against, narrow-minded or not.

[Robocommie]

but, religion is narrow minded.

No, it's not. Religious people can be narrow minded. "Religion" is itself far more complicated - and saying any one thing about it like this is usually a gross oversimplification and poor generalization.

I was raised in a Catholic household, and raised as a Catholic. I was baptized, brought to Church on a weekly basis, sent to a Catholic school, I was confirmed. And yet when I began to strain against what I had always believed about the nature of God and the meaning of life, my parents didn't freak out. Instead, my parents always entertained my questions. They discussed the philosophy of religion with me, my dad would discuss basic theology, Catholic history and general philosophy about life, my mom would talk about her feelings on life and spirituality and religion. They were always open to hearing my thoughts and my own opinions, and they always kept an open mind about these things. Now that I'm a Buddhist we still have very friendly and enjoyable discussions about faith and religion and "what it's all about."

So I reject that characterization, because while my story is just my story, it's enough to show that not everyone is a psychotic Bible-thumper intent on pouring reactionary mind-poison into their children so they don't dare question authority - as so many seem to think.

[Robocommie]

I respect that. I am willing to admit that I am narrow-minded when it comes to religion.
The fact that parents choose what religion their children latch onto is something that I am against, narrow-minded or not.

Yeah, I can agree with you on that. I don't necessarily think it's bad to raise your kids within a religion, but parents should never stifle questions or skepticism, and I think it's important that kids also be exposed to the beliefs of others.

[Foldered]

So I reject that characterization, because while my story is just my story, it's enough to show that not everyone is a psychotic Bible-thumper intent on pouring reactionary mind-poison into their children so they don't dare question authority - as so many seem to think.
It's also not very common. Your experience was a good one, but I know nobody that has shared it, keeping in mind that I know plenty of people that are religious, or raised with religion.

[Robocommie]

It's also not very common. Your experience was a good one, but I know nobody that has shared it, keeping in mind that I know plenty of people that are religious, or raised with religion.

I know a few folks. And I do know a lot of people who were raised within a more strict religious upbringing but are still rather open to discussion. I've always found my conservative Christian friends to be at least respectful of my differences, and even though they don't share my beliefs, they'll discuss them. In particular, I frequently have theological debates with a friend of mine who I might call conservative Christian.

My main objection is not about complaints about dogmatism, because I don't like that either. What I tend to object to, is people having too narrow an opinion on what religion is or what it might mean to any given person, because it's an extremely individual experience. I often laugh about my best friend because he was raised in a Marxist, atheist home but later he started getting into religion - even while his parents disapproved. Today, he's still a Marxist but also a Christian because he found beauty and meaning in what Christ symbolizes.

[Palingenisis]

but, religion is narrow minded.

Look if you arent going to be "narrow minded" in one way or the other you end up a total relativist.

Its well past time to drop this teenage rebellion against Religion on the part of the Left. It only alienates a lot of good people.

Personally I find religious people generally make good neighbours.

There is a difference in been against a confessional state of some sort which I am and being anti-Religious.

[Foldered]

I've always found my conservative Christian friends to be at least respectful of my differences, and even though they don't share my beliefs, they'll discuss them. In particular, I frequently have theological debates with a friend of mine who I might call conservative Christian.
That's respectful; I (mainly only in highschool- which was before I was into leftist politics, but was simply from a non-religious family) was essentially being ousted by certain Christains who wouldn't even bother engaging in dialogue with me. At that time, I was agnostic with not religious background, and I was curious. I simply asked questions and there was immediate hostility and lack of respect.


My main objection is not about complaints about dogmatism, because I don't like that either. What I tend to object to, is people having too narrow an opinion on what religion is or what it might mean to any given person, because it's an extremely individual experience. I often laugh about my best friend because he was raised in a Marxist, atheist home but later he started getting into religion - even while his parents disapproved. Today, he's still a Marxist but also a Christian because he found beauty and meaning in what Christ symbolizes.I understand that, but unfortunately, a massive amount of people are not willing to engage in dialogue about what they believe in, but rather, they want to impose those beliefs onto others. Maybe the problem is less with religion, and more with those people unwilling to engage in discussions. Unfortunately, religion compliments that sort of perspective.

[Palingenisis]

I know a few folks. And I do know a lot of people who were raised within a more strict religious upbringing but are still rather open to discussion. I've always found my conservative Christian friends to be at least respectful of my differences, and even though they don't share my beliefs, they'll discuss them. In particular, I frequently have theological debates with a friend of mine who I might call conservative Christian..

I know a good few people who are theologically very conservative but on economic and anti-imperialist issues very left wing. In my mind people seeing them as somehow "enemies" because of their faith makes them the authoritarians and not visa versa.

[Robocommie]

That's respectful; I (mainly only in highschool- which was before I was into leftist politics, but was simply from a non-religious family) was essentially being ousted by certain Christains who wouldn't even bother engaging in dialogue with me. At that time, I was agnostic with not religious background, and I was curious. I simply asked questions and there was immediate hostility and lack of respect.

Yeah, some people are assholes. But you find people like that from all over the place, and not merely religious communities. I mean, think about this, you're basically telling me that you were ostracized by a clique in highschool, does that sound particularly unusual? ;)

But seriously, I think what we're seeing is that in my own life, I've had very positive experiences with religion, and you've had some very negative ones. Obviously our perspectives have been colored by our respective experiences, and yet I think it's unfair to suggest either of us are biased because of this, because I think there's room for both of us to be right.



I understand that, but unfortunately, a massive amount of people are not willing to engage in dialogue about what they believe in, but rather, they want to impose those beliefs onto others. Maybe the problem is less with religion, and more with those people unwilling to engage in discussions. Unfortunately, religion compliments that sort of perspective.I definitely think it's more a question of intolerance and what some refer to as tribalism - being hostile to people outside of your social circle simply because they're outsiders. But I don't agree at all that religion complements that attitude, though I do think religious absolutism does.

The thing is, consider just how much dogmatic, sectarian bullshit goes on here, between a bunch of Reds. Just as Muslims, Christians and Jews all profess faith in the same God, and yet still argue, Leftists all agree in the value of cooperation, humanity, social justice and abolition of classes. And yet still, we argue. Constantly.

And then, that's overlooking those religious movements that promote ecumenism, seeking to emphasize similarities over differences between people's perspectives. There's even whole religions dedicated to the concept; the most obvious one that jumps to mind is the Ba'hai faith. It's unfair to say "religion divides people" when there are people whose very religion is unity.

[Palingenisis]

The thing is, consider just how much dogmatic, sectarian bullshit goes on here, between a bunch of Reds. Just as Muslims, Christians and Jews all profess faith in the same God, and yet still argue, Leftists all agree in the value of cooperation, humanity, social justice and abolition of classes. And yet still, we argue. Constantly.

I remember a situation in a job I was in here that nearly led to a strike (it would have but for the Union) and besides me the two most militant people were members of the Legion of Mary a pretty "anti-ecumenist" Roman Catholic group...But when it came to the crunch they really felt working class solidarity...as long as people arent forcing other people to believe in certain things what is the problemn with them believing certain things? Better a dogmatist than someone who believes in everything and nothing.

[Robocommie]

I remember a situation in a job I was in here that nearly led to a strike (it would have but for the Union) and besides me the two most militant people were members of the Legion of Mary a pretty "anti-ecumenist" Roman Catholic group...But when it came to the crunch they really felt working class solidarity...as long as people arent forcing other people to believe in certain things what is the problemn with them believing certain things? Better a dogmatist than someone who believes in everything and nothing.

Yeah, I can respect that. Is there any kind of religious component to Irish Socialism?

[Palingenisis]

Yeah, I can respect that. Is there any kind of religious component to Irish Socialism?

Yes and no...You have to remember that after the victory of basically a counter-revolution in the civil war in the 1920s anyone radical was through various means "exiled" more or less which is why Irish people were heavily involved in struggles in the USA in the 1930s and beyond aswell as in other places. James Connolly in many ways is the father of "Liberation Theology" and I think his writings on religion are the best there are from a Marxist point of view. I think there was always a recognition here of there being two "Churches"...a Church of the people and one of the hierarchy that will always defend the status quo rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.workersrepublic.org/Pages/Ireland/Larkin/catholiccommunist.html

[Robocommie]

Yes and no...You have to remember that after the victory of basically a counter-revolution in the civil war in the 1920s anyone radical was through various means "exiled" more or less which is why Irish people were heavily involved in struggles in the USA in the 1930s and beyond aswell as in other places. James Connolly in many ways is the father of "Liberation Theology" and I think his writings on religion are the best there are from a Marxist point of view. I think there was always a recognition here of there being two "Churches"...a Church of the people and one of the hierarchy that will always defend the status quo rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

http://www.workersrepublic.org/Pages/Ireland/Larkin/catholiccommunist.html

Yeah, there's very similar occurences in the Spanish speaking world, including the idea of the two Churches. It's interesting how the Irish experiences of religion bear similarities to those of Latin America.

[Victory Of The People!]

Religious education is a complicated subject.

As someone who went to Catholic School for 12 years i have to say that in terms of education the Catholic Church has done a great service to the children of the inner cities in the United States where the public school system is akin to prison.

Nuns in particular, were sincerely devout people who dedicated their life to the service of others, and even if i don't agree with their outlook on life i still see them as a positive force in society.

The problem is when religion gets mixed with politics/science/etc. and adherence to dogma prevents a well-rounded education.

If you are going to teach religion, it should be done like any other subject. You should present all the different sides of the arguments, propose alternate theories etc. Of course if you go to a Catholic school they are going to put a catholic spin on everything, which can be harmful, but there are many things which the church taught that were positive.

Catholic schools have astronomically high graduation rates and college attendance afterward, and on a much tighter budget. So they must be doing something right.

I think that at the end of the day it is good to teach MORALITY, not religion. basic human morality which teaches us to live amongst one another peacefully and happily. When we "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak by getting rid of morality because of its association with religion we end up with something perverse.

thats just my take on it, i could be wrong.

[Palingenisis]

The thing is that Religion seems very much part of human nature and as I said I have found religious neighbours and workmates really good people to have around. Its the use of Religion to back up reaction that I have a problemn with.

[Foldered]

The thing is that Religion seems very much part of human nature and as I said I have found religious neighbours and workmates really good people to have around.
That claim is far too general for me to back up. Human nature is a very touchy subject and I'm very certain that, at this point, it is a little outlandish to claim that religion is part of 'human nature.'

[Robocommie]

That claim is far too general for me to back up. Human nature is a very touchy subject and I'm very certain that, at this point, it is a little outlandish to claim that religion is part of 'human nature.'

I think it's a part of human nature to wonder at the incredible absurdity of life in general and to want answers for it. And I think religion provides answers to enough people that it's probably always going to be a force in human society.

[Palingenisis]

That claim is far too general for me to back up. Human nature is a very touchy subject and I'm very certain that, at this point, it is a little outlandish to claim that religion is part of 'human nature.'

Look Religion has played (for the most part even a central) a huge role in human culture from since we have records. Surveys even in the "Post-Religious" west show that most people believe in a God of some sort. So its not that crazy a statement.

[Foldered]

Look Religion has played (for the most part even a central) a huge role in human culture from since we have records. Surveys even in the "Post-Religious" west show that most people believe in a God of some sort. So its not that crazy a statement.
Just because a majority of people believe in something does not make it a part of human "nature." It's way too loaded a statement to make.
I understand the point you're making, but it is not innate to believe in god; by suggesting that it is human nature to believe in a god, you are suggesting that belief to be innate.

[RedPaladin]

It was said that the USSR had many policies of atheistic education. Up to 1980s, 80% of its citizens have become atheists and Russia was a nation with long religious tradition.

[Robocommie]

It was said that the USSR had many policies of atheistic education. Up to 1980s, 80% of its citizens have become atheists and Russia was a nation with long religious tradition.

It can be pretty hard to trust those statistics though. If Chernenko's people ask, "Are you an atheist?" you're probably not inclined to alienate yourself and say, "Nah, devout Russian Orthodox."

[lulks]

it's not okay for schools to teach people "there was a guy named jesus and he died and came back to life three days later", but it's okay to teach them that in the christian religion people believe this, in the buddhist religion people believe that. teaching religion is fine if taught as a natural phenomenon

[Kenco Smooth]

Religion has played a critical role in human history and continues to be a powerful force in the modern world. Not teaching children about it would simply be stupid and gives an opening to misinformed discrimination against the religious.

[Invincible Summer]

I think teaching religion as mythology would be okay. I mean, when kids learn about the Ancient Greek, Egyptian, and Roman religions, it's all "mythology." But when it's Jesus or whatever, it's not. It's ridiculous, especially since Christianity/Judaism/Islam are just as realistic and supported as the stories about Horus or Hercules.

[AK]

Maybe we can teach all religions so students can see the contradictions in religions and how they all claim creation happened according to their way and that there are different gods with different roles in every religion and that every religion asserts itself to be entirely true - despite the existence of other religions which assert their view to be true.

[danyboy27]

Religion has played a critical role in human history and continues to be a powerful force in the modern world. Not teaching children about it would simply be stupid and gives an opening to misinformed discrimination against the religious.

there is a huuge difference between teaching religion, and teaching about religion.

Personally, i think on a mythologic perspective, religion is fascinating, all those fascinating stories about the minautor, ares the god of war, all those thing are truly fascinating.

its when you affirm that one of those creazy ass actually existed that the shit hit the fan.

an all loving all powerful zombie called jesus manipulated by god to trick human into beliving in god would make a wonderful video game, but if someone want to teach to children that this being in real, well we got some serious problem in our hands.

[Kenco Smooth]

there is a huuge difference between teaching religion, and teaching about religion.



I presumed we were talking about the latter here.

[Obzervi]

Religion is not only irrational, but dangerous. Young minds are very gullible and easily molded. Indoctrinating children with religious beliefs should be viewed as child abuse and therefore seen as a crime.

[Robocommie]

Sooner or later it all comes out; all the elitist talk that paints people with spiritual and religious beliefs as brain-addled children who have to be saved from themselves. It's childish and boorish. I expect the word "sheeple" to be used soon.

[Robocommie]

an all loving all powerful zombie called jesus manipulated by god to trick human into beliving in god would make a wonderful video game, but if someone want to teach to children that this being in real, well we got some serious problem in our hands.

It's gotta be nice to never actually give a fuck about trying to see how other people see things and actually understand what it means to them from their point of view.

Wasn't it you who said that it is religion that's narrow-minded?

[Palingenisis]

Religion is not only irrational, but dangerous. Young minds are very gullible and easily molded. Indoctrinating children with religious beliefs should be viewed as child abuse and therefore seen as a crime.

Not necessarily irrational. Possibly dangerous (it can be very but doesnt necessarily have to be) but the crap culture that comes off the TV and popular music is more dangerous.

Also parents do tend to pass onto their kids their own culture and worldview...You could easily take it to the stupid conclusion of believing teaching kids language is mind control (which it is in a way) and therefore evil (which it isnt).

[Palingenisis]

Sooner or later it all comes out; all the elitist talk that paints people with spiritual and religious beliefs as brain-addled children who have to be saved from themselves. It's childish and boorish. I expect the word "sheeple" to be used soon.

Its boring isnt it?

What about a secular state and religious freedom? Agreeing to disagree? Leaving people alone?

Psycho-athiests are up there with clerical-Fascists...Both are more alike than either will admit and you cant help feeling that neither fully believe in their own nonsense.

[cyprose]

Give the people freedom of choice,for religion. One thing i realize People always have the misconception over war and religion,god never encouraged us to fight,so people shouldn't pretend they fight over religion,it gives religion a bad name. Look at islam and values of Zakat,it is very applicable in a left community.

[Invincible Summer]

Sooner or later it all comes out; all the elitist talk that paints people with spiritual and religious beliefs as brain-addled children who have to be saved from themselves. It's childish and boorish. I expect the word "sheeple" to be used soon.

To use the old chestnut: Children may believe in magical fairies or unicorns or leprachauns or whatever, but adults tell them to grow out of it because they're not real. Yet, some of these same adults believe in some invisible, magical being that's just as "real" as the invisible pink unicorn I use to ride around town.

Religion is basically a "grown-ups" version of fairy tales. How is it childish to want people to get real?


Not necessarily irrational. Possibly dangerous (it can be very but doesnt necessarily have to be) but the crap culture that comes off the TV and popular music is more dangerous.

So, in the case of Christianity (and to some extent, Islam), believing that some random dude 2000+ years ago who just randomly claimed he was the Son of God, was indeed the incarnation of some mystical deity that has no proof of existing is "not necessarily irrational?"

If I said I was the son of Zeus and pestered people to beholden to Zeus, I'd get laughed out the door. Maybe I need someone to write a lengthy book about me.

[Ovi]

If people will still hold by the ideas that one should turn the other cheek instead of fighting injustice or that we should be doing nothing against our exploitation because after we die we'll go in heaven while the evil boss will go in hell...then we'll keep on living in this shitty world called capitalism and the rich will keep on enjoying their high privileges while making us drop to our knees at the slightest threat to their status. No wonder right wingers hold such extreme religious views, along with nationalism, religion is the most reactionary tool they ever created.

[Robocommie]

If people will still hold by the ideas that one should turn the other cheek instead of fighting injustice or that we should be doing nothing against our exploitation because after we die we'll go in heaven while the evil boss will go in hell...then we'll keep on living in this shitty world called capitalism and the rich will keep on enjoying their high privileges while making us drop to our knees at the slightest threat to their status. No wonder right wingers hold such extreme religious views, along with nationalism, religion is the most reactionary tool they ever created.

You know, you say this, and you completely ignore the prominence of social justice and movements of liberation theology, as well as every progressive figure in history who was devoutly religious, including Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and John Brown. You selectively quote Scripture, referring to turning the other cheek, when that was an admonition to not hold grudges and not be vindictive in your dealings with other human beings, and yet completely ignore everything Christ ever said about the poor.

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."

Ergo, to abandon, mistreat and betray the poor is to abandon and betray the son of God.

This is why I find this hardcore anti-religious sentiment so tiring, it doesn't seem to be driven by critical thinking so much as personal bigotry, as well as elitism.

[Robocommie]

To use the old chestnut: Children may believe in magical fairies or unicorns or leprachauns or whatever, but adults tell them to grow out of it because they're not real. Yet, some of these same adults believe in some invisible, magical being that's just as "real" as the invisible pink unicorn I use to ride around town.

Religion is basically a "grown-ups" version of fairy tales. How is it childish to want people to get real?

You know, if your belief in an invisible pink unicorn also encouraged you to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and treat the sick, to look on your fellow human beings with love instead of hatred, to abandon greed and selfish interest for the interest and well-being of others, and to seek out peace instead of war, then I might just think your belief had something to it. But because it doesn't, it's not in any way comparable, and any comparison to it is in fact absurd.

The fact is, you're coming at this from entirely the wrong perspective; you want to judge religious and spiritual beliefs on the basis of inductive reasoning - but this is impossible, because religion is self-avowedly irrational. Empirical absolutism is not the only legitimate approach to life, and empirical absolutism can not meet everyone's demands or desires for peace of mind.

The demands of the flesh, of the worldly material existence we find ourselves in are not the only demands of life. We must also have peace of mind and contentment. We have to have a way to check our anger, and find a way to look within and measure ourselves. Religion is just one way of doing that. It's a way of doing it that brings a lot of meaning to a lot of people.

I am a practicing Zen Buddhist, and I can't even begin to tell you how much my beliefs have improved my life. What gives you the moral right to deny me that?

[danyboy27]

It's gotta be nice to never actually give a fuck about trying to see how other people see things and actually understand what it means to them from their point of view.

Wasn't it you who said that it is religion that's narrow-minded?

dont get me wrong, i have no doubt that some people might find some comfort in religion and a certain sense of moral, and i have no problem with grown up being involved in various religious sect, i think its downright absurd, but its your life, if it make you feel good, well then keep it up.

choke it down the throat of children is another thing tho, beccause Unlike adult, they dont really have a verry strong sense of scepticism, if a teacher tell them the world is 6000 year old, they will in majority believe in it.

children should learn at religion from an historic perspective, and its very important.

after all that, when they will be adult, if they want to really learn about religion, no problem.

[Obzervi]

You know, if your belief in an invisible pink unicorn also encouraged you to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and treat the sick, to look on your fellow human beings with love instead of hatred, to abandon greed and selfish interest for the interest and well-being of others, and to seek out peace instead of war, then I might just think your belief had something to it. But because it doesn't, it's not in any way comparable, and any comparison to it is in fact absurd.

The fact is, you're coming at this from entirely the wrong perspective; you want to judge religious and spiritual beliefs on the basis of inductive reasoning - but this is impossible, because religion is self-avowedly irrational. Empirical absolutism is not the only legitimate approach to life, and empirical absolutism can not meet everyone's demands or desires for peace of mind.

The demands of the flesh, of the worldly material existence we find ourselves in are not the only demands of life. We must also have peace of mind and contentment. We have to have a way to check our anger, and find a way to look within and measure ourselves. Religion is just one way of doing that. It's a way of doing it that brings a lot of meaning to a lot of people.

I am a practicing Zen Buddhist, and I can't even begin to tell you how much my beliefs have improved my life. What gives you the moral right to deny me that?

You are viewing religion through rose colored spectacles by only focusing on the few positives while ignoring the historical horrors which have resulted from it. Are you saying people can't be empathetic and compassionate without religion? You have a very pessimistic view of human nature. The fact is that religion is by its very nature divisive. Adherents of the three major monolithic religions believe themselves to be superior to all others who don't follow their irrational faith. Much of religious doctrine focuses not on spirituality, but what differentiates the followers of the faith from non-believers, who are granted little more than subhuman status. Religion is dangerous because it causes people to think in absolutes, there is no reasoning with someone who believes that an almighty omnipotent omniscient being ("God") is on their side.

[Red Saxon]

If people want to be religious and to take religious classes, I find no problem with that.

[Robocommie]

You are viewing religion through rose colored spectacles by only focusing on the few positives while ignoring the historical horrors which have resulted from it.

I'm viewing them through my own glasses, from my own perspective, who the fuck do you think you are to tell me that perspective is invalid just because it's not your own?

The same can be said of you, you know. Your own biases by only focusing on the negatives and overlooking the positives, and just categorically assuming that the former exceeds the negatives. Do you really think so highly of yourself that you believe you're immune from bias, that you can start accusing of other people as a bias as a point against them?

I'd say that I think it's funny how people like yourself, who tend to talk about "the horrors of history" tend to not actually be historians, or even academics in general. Instead I'm just supposed to accept the idea that religion has done far more bad than good, because well, you say it does. Particularly since, as a history student, I have taken a lot of classes from a lot of people who know a whole hell of a lot more about history than you do, and I don't think I've ever met a single one who took such a simplistic stance on religion.


Are you saying people can't be empathetic and compassionate without religion? You have a very pessimistic view of human nature.

No, I'm not saying that, you're simply assuming I'm saying that - and then using your presumption to make a ridiculous assertion of what I think about "human nature." If you'll be kind enough to look at what I wrote, I said that religion is only one way of reaching peace, and that it also encourages compassion and empathy.

Ultimately, I can't take you very seriously, because we live on a planet inhabited by billions of religious human beings, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and before them, billions more who practiced some form of religious beliefs since the very earliest times when we drew paintings on cave walls. Billions of people who all follow an allegedly irrational practice that is inherently vicious, divisive and leads people to think of themselves as superior, and yet I am the one with the pessimistic view of human nature.


The fact is that religion is by its very nature divisive. Adherents of the three major monolithic religions believe themselves to be superior to all others who don't follow their irrational faith.

Yet more block-headed generalizations and outright bullshit. What you state to be a fact, isn't a "fact" at all. None of this is, actually, because not only is it completely baseless, totally unverifiable, and far more emotionally driven than scientifically derived, it's also totally bigoted and prejudiced.



Much of religious doctrine focuses not on spirituality, but what differentiates the followers of the faith from non-believers, who are granted little more than subhuman status.

You're becoming increasingly absurd, and not just because what you say here is, again, total bullshit. Religious doctrine is by definition the spiritual beliefs of that religion, so of course it all deals directly with spirituality - that is it's entire point! And of course religions differentiate followers from non-followers because if you're not a member of a religious group then you must, by process of elimination, be a non-member. Regardless, you don't strike me as someone who actually knows much about religious doctrines in general.

Finally, what you said is complete bullshit in regards to "subhuman" status - in fact, historically religion has been more responsible for enforcing the humanity of subject peoples. It was Protestant abolitionists who made up the fiercest corps of political opposition to slavery, and it was Christians in general who maintained the underground railroad before the actual abolition. During the conquest of Mexico by the Conquistadors, Franciscan priests and monks wrote numerous letters back to Spain, vociferously objecting to the inhumane and violent treatment of the native Mexicans at the hands of the Conquistadors. Those are just two examples, if I wanted to really spend time at it, I could come up with gazillions more.



Religion is dangerous because it causes people to think in absolutes, there is no reasoning with someone who believes that an almighty omnipotent omniscient being ("God") is on their side.

See, I read this, and I realized you really are full of shit, and just speaking out of some personal grudge against religion rather than from an objective deduction.

Because you complain about how religion is dangerous because it causes people to think in absolutes - when you yourself deride religious people absolutely of not just thinking as you describe, but of being supremacist, hateful, and irrational, and when you yourself feel the best course of answer is to absolutely banish religion.

You've been a bit of a tool in general since you started posting on this forum, from what I've seen of you, though, I don't suppose it does much good to tell you that, because there really is no reasoning with somebody who is so utterly convinced they know what they're talking about when they in fact have their head up their own ass.

[Invincible Summer]

You know, if your belief in an invisible pink unicorn also encouraged you to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and treat the sick, to look on your fellow human beings with love instead of hatred, to abandon greed and selfish interest for the interest and well-being of others, and to seek out peace instead of war, then I might just think your belief had something to it. But because it doesn't, it's not in any way comparable, and any comparison to it is in fact absurd.

Yes, these are aspects of some religions, and indeed there are people who do these things. But my problem with the stuff you bring up is that all the religions I'm aware of ask of the followers to do these deeds not for a common good, but rather to either "glorify god," meet the criteria to be able to enter heaven/some sort of afterlife, reach some sort of higher state, etc. It is in fact very self-interested.

Also, I know you aren't saying that religion is the only way to be compassionate, but if one believes that people inherently wish to do good, then what's the point of religion? Is it just to add a nice back story? These basic tenets that you laid out are pretty universal amongst many if not all religions... so why choose one over another? The choice seems arbitrary.


The demands of the flesh, of the worldly material existence we find ourselves in are not the only demands of life. We must also have peace of mind and contentment. We have to have a way to check our anger, and find a way to look within and measure ourselves. Religion is just one way of doing that. It's a way of doing it that brings a lot of meaning to a lot of people.
I won't deny that people do find meaning in religion, but I feel that it's a fool's quest. Religion nudges people towards a state of mind that ultimately demands a denial (at least partially) of the material world. What good is that? You may say it provides hope, but let's use an analogy: if your friend - who is of average intelligence and has attained an average education and is very average-looking - says "I'm going to live in a huge estate with millions of dollars in my bank account one day, and have a harem of women at my disposal" and really believes that he will, wouldn't you be sad that he is deluding himself since the chances of that happening are slim to none?

So yeah, I don't deny that some people are "happier" with religion, but I think given the appropriate psychological and social tools/skills/what have you, people can cope just as well without.



I am a practicing Zen Buddhist, and I can't even begin to tell you how much my beliefs have improved my life. What gives you the moral right to deny me that?
Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with Buddhism, I can't comment. But as for other religions (I suppose the more popular ones here in the West), the fact that the whole belief system is supported by basically arbitrary, unproven claims gives me the right.



I'd say that I think it's funny how people like yourself, who tend to talk about "the horrors of history" tend to not actually be historians, or even academics in general. Instead I'm just supposed to accept the idea that religion has done far more bad than good, because well, you say it does. Particularly since, as a history student, I have taken a lot of classes from a lot of people who know a whole hell of a lot more about history than you do, and I don't think I've ever met a single one who took such a simplistic stance on religion.

I agree with you. I dislike the "religion has a bad history!" argument, as it doesn't really attack the core of religion itself, but rather what some adherents had done in the past.

It's just as bad as the "communism sux cuz _____ killed ____" argument.


Ultimately, I can't take you very seriously, because we live on a planet inhabited by billions of religious human beings, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and before them, billions more who practiced some form of religious beliefs since the very earliest times when we drew paintings on cave walls. Billions of people who all follow an allegedly irrational practice that is inherently vicious, divisive and leads people to think of themselves as superior, and yet I am the one with the pessimistic view of human nature.
Robocommie, I thought you'd be better than to resort to what is essentially the "There are more religious people than atheists!! So there!!" line.

[danyboy27]

If people want to be religious and to take religious classes, I find no problem with that.

me neither, has long the people who are taking those classes are adults and not vulnerable childrens.

Beccause to me, that one of the main issues.

we shall not indoctrinate children for any purposes, but give them solid, clear, secular moral and ethical values.

if for some reason while they are adult they want to understand or fallow a religion, that perfectly fine, really.

[Ovi]

You know, you say this, and you completely ignore the prominence of social justice and movements of liberation theology, as well as every progressive figure in history who was devoutly religious, including Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and John Brown. You selectively quote Scripture, referring to turning the other cheek, when that was an admonition to not hold grudges and not be vindictive in your dealings with other human beings, and yet completely ignore everything Christ ever said about the poor.



I am a practicing Zen Buddhist, and I can't even begin to tell you how much my beliefs have improved my life. What gives you the moral right to deny me that?
I never said anything about banning a religion. It's stupid and pointless. You don't end capitalism by banning it through some sort of state law, nor will we end the 2 thousand years old mass brainwashing that Christianity is by banning its teaching. All I'm saying is if people will still be as religious as they are now, we won't have to worry about any socialist revolution any time soon. I live in a highly religious country and it makes me sick when some boss or government takes anti worker measures and many people who would otherwise would make great leftist revolutionaries, say that there's no point to fighting them. These evil people will go in hell while they will enjoy eternal happiness. Wake up! There is no eternal happiness. If you don't improve your life now, you won't get the chance to do it after you die, since you'll be dead.

[Obzervi]

I never said anything about banning a religion. It's stupid and pointless. You don't end capitalism by banning it through some sort of state law, nor will we end the 2 thousand years old mass brainwashing that Christianity is by banning its teaching. All I'm saying is if people will still be as religious as they are now, we won't have to worry about any socialist revolution any time soon. I live in a highly religious country and it makes me sick when some boss or government takes anti worker measures and many people who would otherwise would make great leftist revolutionaries, say that there's no point to fighting them. These evil people will go in hell while they will enjoy eternal happiness. Wake up! There is no eternal happiness. If you don't improve your life now, you won't get the chance to do it after you die, since you'll be dead.
Ah yes, thats another point I forgot to mention. Religion is the opium of the masses which keeps the masses from waking up because they have deluded themselves into believing suffering in this life equates paradise in the afterlife. It works into the hands of the Bourgeois.

[AK]

Ah yes, thats another point I forgot to mention. Religion is the opium of the masses which keeps the masses from waking up because they have deluded themselves into believing suffering in this life equates paradise in the afterlife. It works into the hands of the Bourgeois.
Won't they be upset when they never wake up? :lol:

[Robocommie]

Yes, these are aspects of some religions, and indeed there are people who do these things. But my problem with the stuff you bring up is that all the religions I'm aware of ask of the followers to do these deeds not for a common good, but rather to either "glorify god," meet the criteria to be able to enter heaven/some sort of afterlife, reach some sort of higher state, etc. It is in fact very self-interested.

Well, you see, if you want to get into this, you've left the realm of critiquing religion as a generality and actually entered the realm of critiquing specific theology, because that is actually a very common debate within many religious currents. In Hinduism, there is a path to realization called karma yoga. On the path, a person strives to do good deeds independent of its outcome, independent of its rewards, because as you say, even positive actions taken for spiritual gain aren't really compassionate. This therefore is the point of karma yoga, and you see that same concept throughout religion at large.

A lot of religious people feel the same way. It's actually funny you should mention it because I talk about it a great deal with other religious types. It's the reason why I refuse to even speculate on heaven or hell or reincarnation, because whatever is going to happen is going to happen. I want to be a better person because I want to live in a better world where people are kind. And that's part of religion too. Buddhism calls it the law of karma; act kindly, and the world becomes more kind through your deeds, act cruelly, and the world becomes more cruel.

Is that selfish, to want to live in a better world? Are we all selfish for wanting to see poverty and hunger ended? If you do a good deed and it makes you feel good about yourself, you're more likely to do another good deed later because of how it made you feel the last time. But does that mean it's selfish to do good?

I mean, this is fascinating, but my point is this; your argument is itself an argument made within religion, frequently. A mistake often made by hardcore atheists is that somehow religion is monolithic and has the same attitudes about things, including heaven, hell, what it takes to be "saved" and a view that all other religions are wrong. Except, this is bullshit. They're usually thinking of a more conservative interpretation of Christianity and just using that as a stand-in for religion at large - which isn't in the least bit fair.



Also, I know you aren't saying that religion is the only way to be compassionate, but if one believes that people inherently wish to do good, then what's the point of religion? Is it just to add a nice back story? These basic tenets that you laid out are pretty universal amongst many if not all religions... so why choose one over another? The choice seems arbitrary.
In fact the point you made, about these basic tenets being pretty universal among many if not all world religions, is a point that has been made to me numerous times by my Catholic father. He believes in the Catholic religion but doesn't feel that it's the only legitimate religion, it's just the one he practices and believes. Why does he believe that one and not another? Why practice one at all? Well, I don't know, I'd have to ask him that one. But chances are pretty good that every religious person you asked that would give you a different answer. I could tell you why I'm Buddhist and not Catholic, but that'd really only apply to me.



I won't deny that people do find meaning in religion, but I feel that it's a fool's quest. Religion nudges people towards a state of mind that ultimately demands a denial (at least partially) of the material world. What good is that? You may say it provides hope, but let's use an analogy: if your friend - who is of average intelligence and has attained an average education and is very average-looking - says "I'm going to live in a huge estate with millions of dollars in my bank account one day, and have a harem of women at my disposal" and really believes that he will, wouldn't you be sad that he is deluding himself since the chances of that happening are slim to none?
Heh, would you be doing your friend a favor to remind him of how incredibly average his life is?

But that doesn't really matter, because it's wrong to believe that religious beliefs only address the hereafter, and that it does nothing to improve our lives in the here and now. To use the Christian example, think of how Christ taught: through parables. When asked a question about what was the right and moral thing to do, he didn't simply say it, he explained it with a story, which forced people to think on it and reflect on what it was to be good, and why we should do so ourselves.

You have to understand that every religion is a road of development, a path on which we each struggle to refine ourselves and reach enlightenment, find oneness with God, attain salvation, however it may be expressed, its still the same thing; acting and thinking with love and compassion in our hearts. But that's not easy for everyone, in fact it's not really easy for anyone. We deal with stress, we deal with anger at things we can't control, people in our lives who frustrate us or whom we frustrate. To deal with this, we can use prayers or meditation, which are really just two words for the same thing, to refocus ourselves, and look to religious teachings as an ethical compass for when the right thing to do is not always clear. In time, as we progress along that path, we find it easier and easier, very gradually, to think and act with compassion. But it takes a lot of introspection and self-examining to reach that point, so we follow Commandments and Eightfold Paths and read holy scriptures to inspire us and guide us along the way.

Not everyone needs that, not everyone wants that. But some do. Some benefit immensely from it. I know I do. Meditation in particular has managed to get me through a few emotional crises in my life that would have been far more difficult to deal with otherwise.



So yeah, I don't deny that some people are "happier" with religion, but I think given the appropriate psychological and social tools/skills/what have you, people can cope just as well without.
Well, but that's not really your call to make. Not everyone agrees with you, and as far as its their own life, that should be respected. And really, it's not just about coping, but also about making yourself into a better person.



Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with Buddhism, I can't comment. But as for other religions (I suppose the more popular ones here in the West), the fact that the whole belief system is supported by basically arbitrary, unproven claims gives me the right.But they don't NEED to be proven, man. There's a lot of things in life you can't prove, you just choose to believe them. You can't prove that someone loves you when they tell you they do. Life at times is utterly irrational, but that's what makes it beautiful. I've never fallen in love because it was the rational thing to do. (in fact it was often the least intelligent thing for me to have done) I've never written a poem or sang a song because it was the most logically consistent action to take. Life doesn't always have to be about logic.



Robocommie, I thought you'd be better than to resort to what is essentially the "There are more religious people than atheists!! So there!!" line.It has nothing to do with numbers. Observi seemed to be making the argument that religious people are monsters, and I thought it was pretty funny that he accused me of having a negative view of people - because if it's true that religion is so awful and horrible, humans can't be that great if so many have fallen for it for such a long time.

[JacobVardy]

All of you who want to ban religious teaching are absolutely freaking nuts. Why start a war with people who are otherwise with us? And we're talking about a communist society here, right? No state, so how are you going to 'ban' religious education?

This is not the 19th Century. The established churches no longer work hand in hand with the state to uphold capitalism. There is no need for this kind of anticlericism.

[AK]

All of you who want to ban religious teaching are absolutely freaking nuts. Why start a war with people who are otherwise with us? And we're talking about a communist society here, right? No state, so how are you going to 'ban' religious education?

This is not the 19th Century. The established churches no longer work hand in hand with the state to uphold capitalism. There is no need for this kind of anticlericism.
Whilst churches themselves no longer have partial of control the state, voters everywhere can be and are influenced by the religious beliefs of politicians and political parties. There are fucktons of "christian democratic" parties everywhere in Europe and other parts of the world where Christianity has historically had a major influence. Not to mention all the Islamic, Jewish and Hindu parties.

Religion, race and nationality have been and still are ways that a ruling class maintains the popular support of the lower classes.
And it's a little idealist, but the revolution I envision is not only a social revolution, but also a conscious one where the working class begins to abandon religion and other oppressive aspects of culture and thinking that seek to control us. Racism and nationalism can be overcome with the advent of class consciousness. Religion is a more difficult question.

[danyboy27]

All of you who want to ban religious teaching are absolutely freaking nuts. Why start a war with people who are otherwise with us? And we're talking about a communist society here, right? No state, so how are you going to 'ban' religious education?

This is not the 19th Century. The established churches no longer work hand in hand with the state to uphold capitalism. There is no need for this kind of anticlericism.

i dont think nobody here oppose to religious education BETWEEN ADULTS

In due time religion will disapear, i am not even worried.

but in the meantime, to avoid damages, we must:
1. dosnt allow religion to dictate how society is run, and block any attempt made by religious groups to seize power.

2.put emphasis that religion is supposed to be something intimate, a matter of individual choice.

3.block any attempt to exploit the young or the weak.

has i said earlier, if an adult want to be a mormon or a baptist, i dont care.

also, no state dosnt mean no law established by the people.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think religion should be continued to be taught. I found RE interesting at school and it didn't have a bias slant. I think if it is taught in an objective way it leads to better understanding of why religions form and helps to debunk it.

[danyboy27]

I think religion should be continued to be taught. I found RE interesting at school and it didn't have a bias slant. I think if it is taught in an objective way it leads to better understanding of why religions form and helps to debunk it.

yea, and to be objective, they should be taught from an historic perspective.


i wont call it education if the guy in front of the children say stuff like: well, jesus was born, performed miracles, and died for our sins!

We had a teacher when i was young, and his job was to give christianity course.

the sheer number of idiotic nonsense he propagated was simply mind blowing: The big bang never happened, arbortion is wrong etc etc.

to me, religions education shouldnt be done by religious people, but by historians.

[Obzervi]

the sheer number of idiotic nonsense he propagated was simply mind blowing: The big bang never happened, arbortion is wrong etc etc.



I had similar experiences when I briefly attended a Christian elementary school. The brainwashing consisted of our teacher telling us that in heaven we could do anything we imagined, even fly. Of course this sounded very fantastical and appealing to us at that young age.

[AK]

I had similar experiences when I briefly attended a Christian elementary school. The brainwashing consisted of our teacher telling us that in heaven we could do anything we imagined, even fly. Of course this sounded very fantastical and appealing to us at that young age.
I think I was lucky when we had RE class in primary school.

"Noah loaded two of every animal on to the Ark."
*class proceeds to crack up laughing*

[danyboy27]

I think I was lucky when we had RE class in primary school.

"Noah loaded two of every animal on to the Ark."
*class proceeds to crack up laughing*

Ethics course are the best. We had this possibility in highschool and elementary school to choose between christianity course and ethics(well our parents had that choice).

Basicly, ethics is about respecting human being and the dilema we could face in our future regarding ethical and moral dilema.

we where taught about exploitation, slavery, all that.

[28350]

I used to be extremely anti-theist, but since I've mellowed down to plain old anti-clericalist.

Religion has some nice stuff, like community building.