A class on world religions

Remove all ads!

The prayer in school thread made me think of something similar. Here, in the province of Québec, Canada, the ministry of education implemented a new school program last year. It is called 'Ethics and religious cultures'.

The class is an overview of all the major world religions. It was added to the corriculums in an effort to promote not religion per se but understanding of our differences. It is the founders of the program's beliefs that by better educating the children, you make them more eager to learn about and accept the other for who he is.

It sparked a lot of contreversy for a lot of reasons. A lot of people view it as another coming of religion in schools (a lot of effort was put here over the last decades to seperate religion and education as much as possible, going so far as pratically banning christmas trees since it's a symbol of the christian religion). A lot more people have a problem with the program being compulsory. Every kid has to attend that class. They believe that the children should be able to choose if they want to listen about religion or not.

What do you guys think? Should such a class be mandatory or should it be a choice of the student and / or parent? Should this class even exist?

I, for one, strongly approve of this initiative. Yes, we all believe something, and yes, in all likelyhood we believe something different. But I think it's about time to have something that focuses on information and not heresay. We have to find what brings us together, not what seperates us.

Here is the link to a wikipedia page about the program.

 

We have had a similar course here in Sweden for as long as I remember. Religion (and ethics) is a subject on the curriculum from quite a young age. It is more or less the history of the different religions and religion in general and the basic tenets of each faith. I have never seen any problems with it and I think it should be part of common knowledge to have at least vague notions about what the major religions are about seeing as they are such a huge part of the world.

 

When I send my kids to school, it will be to learn about academics. Period. I will leave the teaching of morals and ethics to my Wife and I... talking about religion in a History/Social Studies class is fine, as it's part of History. As long as it's abstract and to the point of time that they are studying.... I do NOT want teachers in a public school teaching my kids about beliefs and tenets. I will never send my kids to a school with a program like that.

Edit - I'm against it if it's mandatory. If it's an optional class that is not part of the core curriculum(?), then I'm all for it...

 

I agree with you, joacqin. There is a problem though. It is a regular teacher who helms the class. It might even be a religion teacher (probably christian). Would a teacher like that have the knowledge necessary to really enlighten the students about each religion?

Wouldn't it be better to have a person from each faith come and give classes? They would really be more apt to better teach about their beliefs than someone who read in a book what the kirpan is for...

Blades, couldn't we say that the school's point is to enlighten us and prepare us to face society? We live in a society that is more and more multicultural as the years go by. Is it important for a child or a teen to learn about the different cultures he will encounter? And in college, we have compulsory philosophy course. Shouldn't they, by the same reasoning, be abolished?

 

I actually think it would be best if it was a person without faith who taught the class. Just teach the facts about each religion and leave the mysticism for the believers.

And an ethics class is mostly to make young people aware of the ethical dilemmas they can encounter and the different ways that others have solved them. It is atleast not here a pre-made set of ethics to be imprinted. More to just make the kids aware that such a thing as ethics exists.

 

when I was a child, we had "christianity" as a class, that was changed during my time in school to "religion" and that change was very positive. When I had christianity we just had a teacher who read the bible for us and then talked a bit about the part we had just heard, it was apparently optional for muslims (and muslims alone) wether or not they wanted to partisipate. Later when it changed to religion it actually felt like education and was worth it.
Now the somewhat funny part was, that my christianity teacher was an Atheist, while my religion teacher was a christian - and he was a much better teacher and actually quite open for other religions.

I think it is a good idea as long as the class focus on the aspects in different religions without any bias. Because having that knowledge can only help the children.

 

I agree! It's just that by having someone from a specific faith, they are more likely to know and understand their religion better. It shouldn't necessarily be priests. Only I would prefer having someone talk to me about his religion and culture (because the class is about both as they're not entirely distinct) than someone who read about the said religion. Of course, in the nature of the program, it shouldn't be several people trying to convert the children. That would just be wrong. It should be people trying to better inform others on their religion and culture.

 

Triactus - May I ask what is the difference in your opinion? I see them as two things that are very much alike... "Informing" them about about their religion is forcing it on them. That is better left for a more "Social" forum outside of public schools.

 

there is a huge difference between saying "christians believe that a man named jesus was the son of an almighty god" and saying "jesus christ is the son of almighty God and this is the only right thing to believe in".

 

If that is how they are "Informing" a student that is fine. It's how they teach a History Class. No big deal there. But when public schools take on this type of class, it needs to be monitored to make sure that is how the kids are educated. But since History classes already do this, what's the need for it?

 

Blades, most history classes that I had when I was a kid didn't really cover that part of history.

Joaquin, I am surprised by your post, to be honest. I'd have thought you'd be 1000% opposed to anything of the sort.

I took a class on world religions during my tenure at a Lutheran college. It was taught by a Lutheran priest. He surely had some bias but the bottom line was he gave some really good information -- he was a scholar, not just a priest, and I learned a lot from him about many religions.

 

I studied media communications at Ottawa U. We had a class named 'Theories on communications'. Through out the semester, we viewed all the major theories on communication and information (agenda setting, two-step flow, etc). Maybe some people felt more kinship with a certain theory over another, but the point of it all is to know what different opinions on the matter are and why do they have that opinion.

Its the same with religion. Of course, the goal is not conversion. It's not a single year long class about one particular religion. It's an overview of a lot of religions. By seeing all the religions one after another, they will make their minds on the subject. Let's not under estimate the intelligence of the children.

I think it's very helpful as a member of society to better understand the world you live in. To that effect, I think a class of world culture and religion taught by people of different beliefs is the best way to educate the students. Of course, the classes should focus on explanation of the faith and explanation of the rituals so the student better understand it.

Equester, exactly. Saying 'Jesus is the son of God' to the students is wrong. Saying 'We believe Jesus is the son of God' is a whole lot better in my book. There is a huge difference between the two, since the second one is explaining your beliefs.

LKD, you'd be surprise how many atheists / agnostics are curious about religion. I myself am an atheist, but I enjoy have a open minded conversation with religous people. I also work at a television production company, and we did a documentary series called 'En quoi tu crois?', or What do you believe in?, and we interviewed over thirty kids across Québec and Ontario about their religous beliefs and it was very very interesting and enlighting for me. Especially more obscur religion like Sikh.

 

One of the criticisms, fairly or unfairly, of some history classes is that they don't talk enough about religion or events that occurred as they relate to members of world religions such as why a given leader/figure felt he should disagree with another.

Also the general point of the class is to get people to appreciate that other people have different beliefs (and know some of the basics of those beliefs regardless of if they follow them) and society can and should carry on in spite of that without tensions or intolerance.

I would support such a class.

 

Really? Then they were biased and didn't show the whole truth. Surprising, hunh? I had a History class based on Western/European cultures in 9th grade. Religion was a big part of Europe's History over the last 2,000 yrs and if your text-book is accurate, it should have had plenty of religious history in it, otherwise it just a big waste of time for everybody.... We all know history books vary from region to region across the globe though...

 

The UK has 'Compulsory R.E.' or forced religious education.

I rebelled against it in every way shape and form, even telling a teacher to f**k off. Mrs Coleman was her name, I really got under her skin, a real religious woman, very pious, very proper.
Yawning in class and doodling on pages I was supposed to be taking notes on. When asked a question I would answer "sorry, I wasnt paying attention".

It was a good waste of time, when I could have been learning something useful.

 

If it is taught in a history/social/philosophical manner (and the last two could include atheism along side religions), then yes, it is appropriate. The moment it starts placing values of right or wrong, or even suggesting them, on any of the topics discussed, it is wrong. As for whether it should be mandatory, that depends. How much of your educational system is mandatory? Do students have to learn Canadian history? How about world history? Social studies of some kind (usually your own gov't system, etc)? Math? English? French? Foreign languages? The mandatory nature of such a class should be debated on the same points as the above. How important is it for exactly this to be learned? What about something along these lines (ala mandatory foreign language classes, but not defining which languages to study)?

Mind you, it should be taught well. I had a class in college, a college class, mind you, called World History from an Asian Perspective. The book was terrible, and the teacher was worse. At one point, the book claimed that Japan never had any caste system. The author then spent the next chapted describing Japan's caste system in detail. At another point, he claimed that the US NUKED every major city in Japan except for Kyoto! How did this guy get published? And just as bad, the teacher (a student aid from the theater department, to be fair) had no idea what was wrong with it. Teaching this class like that would do more harm than anything.

 

Yep, history is mandatory through out elementary and high school (both canadian and world, as well as Québec history... ). We also have an french class (duh) and an english class which are mandatory. We usually have a spanish class that you can choose, but you're not obliged to take it.

I think a world religion class should be mandatory. I mean, what could be the negative effects of such a class? (if it is teached in an open-minded way, of course) The children learn of all the biggest religions. Not only they can maybe find some answers they are seeking, but they at least get to know more about other cultures, in a society where we are getting to live closer and closer together. You reduce social tension and violence between ethnic groups with information and mythbusting.

Yes, maybe some people don't care about religion. But this is not someone in the front of the class telling you that a man transformed water into wine. It's a lot more closer to a history and /or philosophy class than a purely religious program.

By the way, I was reading the news tonight, and I stumbled upon an article exactly on the subject. With a controversial program like this one, there's bound to be law suits and such. Well, a collective of parents sued the ministry of education about the mandatory aspect of the program. Today, a judge from the superior court in Drummondville, Québec, rejected the law suit. He said (translated from french) ''the court doesn't see how the ethics and religious culture class infringes on the freedom of thought and religion of the students since they present a global overview of many religions without forcing the students to join a particular one''. The collective of parents stated they would appeal the decision, but there is one legal precedent in favour of the program...

 

LKD, why would you be surprised? Know your enemy my friend. Also, most people are quite ignorant about religion and the different faiths and in their ignorance they are of hte opinion that they probably make sense or else so many wouldnt believe in it. Actually learning the facts about religion helps you to not fall for it.

 

I'll agree with Joacqin that actually learning the facts helps one make an informed decision (be that acceptance or rejection).

 

Most schools in Ireland would run a religion class, as they were originally founded by religious orders and nominally remain under their control. Though given the tiny number of priests around now that doesn't make an awful lot of difference day to day, most schools would only deal with clergy in a head office type capacity. The classes would start when you're younger with the 'happy' bible stories and songs. By the late teens the classes are pretty much a joke, just vague moral discussions between those who are interested in participating. Which is pretty much just the teacher.

We did do a bit on other religions and I found it very interesting. It would have been very basic though and I can't remember much of it. I don't think there's much I wouldn't have known anyway, I tended to find that kind of thing interesting anyway.

Since I finished up Religion has come onto the state Junior Cert exam (equivalent to UK GCSE) as an optional subject. I don't know an awful lot about it but it's a lot like the Canadian one as far as I know. You learn about various religions without endorsing any. In practice it's more about giving an exam to all those classes spent in religion anyway I feel. Schools will select their religion as one to specialise in and spend most of their time on that. It just forces them to devote more time to other religions than they would otherwise. There's no option to continue the subject to the final Leaving Cert, it ends at junior level.

I think it is a very good idea to give world religion classes. When you're dealing with people outside your own culture it's one of the most important influences on their morals and practices that there is. Regardless of whether they believe in it themselves or not.