Ka-pi96 said:
monocle_layton said:
You'd think religion (which has a huge impact on culture and history) would be considered useful.
|
Nope, not really. Don't think history is that useful either. Culture can be, but you can learn about culture just fine in language or geography classes.
|
Failure to understand history only ensures you will repeat it again.
Jpcc86 said: Religions shouldn't be taught in public schools. This is a secular state. |
Whilst I agree to an extent, I think it's important to teach religion in a non-religious context, I.E. Not indoctrinating kids into a cult.
Whether we like it or not, Religion is entwined in our lives, Christmas, Easter, International issues, Politics... You name it.
None of my schools had religious techings... (Thank goodness for a Secular state!) But it would have been nice to have known about religion within a historical context during Social studies or History class.
OdinHades said: I had to visit religion as a school topic back when I was in school. I hated it. One time I got an F because I said that I don't believe in god. I'm not kidding. At least I only had to go there while in elementary school. Later I could chose "ethics" as an alternative, where all religions were taught without trying to convert you or something. I liked that a lot more. Today you can choose to keep your kids completely away from the christian-only religion classes here in germany. But I still think it's horrible that those classes keep existing at all. School should be all about the scientific method, in which no god has any place. |
I failed a project in Social studies in high School because I was using wording in my project that was apparently to advanced for my age group.
I actually had to take another test to verify I could read and write on that level and get a written letter from my English teacher.
If I had a religious class and I failed that simply because I stated that God doesn't exist... I would ask my teacher to provide evidence for the existence of their particular deity as the burden of proof lays with the claimant. I.E. Them. And then take the issue farther.