Though I am an atheist, I would say that religious doctrine should indeed be required reading in high school just like Shakespeare or Whitman.

Most religious doctrines are written beautifully and use literary devices in ways that most authors in our day can only dream of. The doctrines obviously should not be taught for their truth, but for the way they are written, just like any other book that students read in high school.

As long as the teacher did not start preaching the doctrine instead of just assigning the normal projects for novels, I believe it would work out very well. Students would begin to not only be educated in ancient writing, but simultaneously in the religions around them.

I agree. Learning about religions AND cultures is very important at any age. It encourages tolerance and understanding. It also gives you a solid basis upon which to argue coherently in places like CreateDebate about religious subjects.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

A drop in the bucket

A man after his own heart

A multitude of sins

A thorn in the flesh

All things must pass

All things to all men

Am I my brother's keeper?

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth

As old as Methuselah

As old as the hills

As you sow so shall you reap

Ashes to ashes dust to dust

At his wits end

Beat swords into ploughshares

Bite the dust

Blessed are the peacemakers

Born again

By the skin of your teeth

Can a leopard change its spots?

Coat of many colours

Eat drink and be merry

Faith will move mountains

Fall from grace

Fight the good fight

Flesh and blood

For everything there is a season

Forbidden fruit

Forgive them for they know not what they do

From strength to strength

Get thee behind me Satan

Give up the ghost

Good Samaritan

How are the mighty fallen

In the beginning was the word

It's better to give than to receive

Lamb to the slaughter

Let not the sun go down on your wrath

Let there be light

Living off the fat of the land

Love of money is the root of all evil -The

Love thy neighbour as thyself

Man does not live by bread alone

Many are called but few are chosen

My cup runneth over

No rest for the wicked

O ye, of little faith

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings

Physician heal thyself

Sour grapes

Spare the rod and spoil the child

The apple of his eye

The blind leading the blind

The bread of life

The fly in the ointment

The fruits of your loins

The powers that be

The root of the matter

The salt of the earth

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak

The wages of sin is death

The writing is on the wall

Thou shalt not kill

Three score and ten

To cast the first stone

What God has joined together let no man put asunder

Woe is me

(from http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bible-phrases-sayings.html) )

Just a few of the well known sayings from the Bible. Religious texts are a great literary resource, but also contain many important moral lessons (whether true or not).

Its simply an example of the Bible's literary use. I don't believe in reading it for religious purposes at all.

Religion has been a major driving force in human history. In order to understand that force one has to understand the beliefs that define a religion. Beyond that many religious documents are literary masterpieces in their own right. There's obviously simply not enough time in a year to read through and study all of the many, many religious texts that exist. But any world history course should take time to study parts of some of the major texts.

Yes. I am fond of Daniel Dennett's idea of objective comparative religion.

It's not teaching doctrine as truth, it's just teaching the doctrine, and of all majors and past religions. Not just Christianity.

Religion formed the framework for civilisation, it got us to run in the same direction - the wrong direction - but it was a start. It's history and as George Santayana said: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'. It is essential to ensure all those attending academic establishments have a solid grounding in comparative religious studies.

You have it totally backwards. High school is not a democracy, you are not in charge of your education. You are told what you need to learn and given the few options available.

It is in college that you choose your educational path after you have the groundwork that high school has given you.

I agree as well, learning about not one but many religions will go a long way to building an understanding and, most importantly, tolerance of other faiths.

No no, the part about Xenu would cost over $300,000 per student...

I can say, as a working class citizen, that I would not be able to eat because of the debt I would have for taxes.

I don't think RevFred has ever heard of groups up in arms because Odysseus and the Iliad are being read in high schools, as if that is a constitutional violation. I would also like to see some photos of protests over the teaching of Aten-Ra and the implications of the great pyramids. This is all I advocate. A comparison of major religions current and past.

I'm not too sure what you mean by 'Studying religious doctrine for the sake of religion'. I'm also not too sure (now) what the original debate question means. Religious doctrine of all flavours is a massively influential fact of human history. On that tack alone, it should be taught. Religious instruction as fact is inimical to a well rounded education.

Religious people base their behavior, either consciously or unconsciously, on their religion. Therefore, it's important to study foreign religions in order to understand foreign cultures. Being able to understand foreign cultures is important in order to get a broader view on humanity. Therefore, religious doctrine should be taught in a scientific way, i.e. from an external, analytical and critical point of view.

There would be large swaths of history that would be unexplainable without looking at religious doctrine. Try to explain the Crusades or the Nicene Council with no mention of religious doctrine and you have no explanation for those events. Is it necessary to read all of the Roman Catholic Canon laws, no, but so much of human history has been preserved by, and written by religious gatekeepers (monks, Egyptian priests etc...) that no clear picture of human history could be presented without pieces of religious doctrine showing up.

I'm an atheist but I do think its important for people to be informed about other religions.

Unless we are determined to dispel the study of both history and literature, I don't see how we could effectively teach them without some background in various religious doctrines. Wars were, and still are, fought on the basis of religion; societies were, and are, built on the basis of religion. I don't think ignoring them causes them to go away, nor do I think lack of knowledge will offer more effective understanding of past, present and future events.

There is little to gain through ignorance, and ignorance of religious beliefs and their role in the world around us won't make us enlightened; it will make us uninformed. How is one ever more educated through virtue of knowing less? It's nonsense.

Promotion of a particular religious ideal, however, is an entirely different proposition and it is a mistake to intertwine the two as if they were the same. They are NOT, in even the vaguest sense, the same thing.

Teach a child one god and it's indoctrination.

Teach them many and it's inoculation.

I think it's important for it to be taught from a historic, poetic, but objective standpoint. As long as all religious doctrine are taught equally so that the student can be better educated to the beliefs of the world they would one day inherit, than sure

However, I'm against it being taught to force beliefs onto others, which I am more inclined to believe might happen especially in places of high religious influence such as the southern US.

Yeah, i mean, Most required reading nowadays is already boring, so why the fuck not?

to me? I think Stephen King should be required reading. Now that's some kickass read.

I would be very supportive of teaching students religious doctrine including all the worlds major belief systems. It would be my wish that this type of reading and education not begin until junior high simply for the level of understanding one must have to absorb the similarities and differences.

It would be a dangerous subject matter if the teachers got into trying to change ones beliefs and/or "spreading the word." The curriculum must be well thought out and taught "as a matter of fact" similar to History or Literature but not be a part of either subject. The part religion has played throughout the history of mankind is huge in its impact and it continues to this day.

So, yes, I think it is extremely important that students learn how and why religions have had and have such a tremendous impact on our lives from the beginning and throughout time. One can achieve this by learning all religious doctrine thereby bolstering their understanding of World History as well. It is a heavy subject matter that would take some time to absorb but I think it's well worth learning.

I believe that if religious doctrine was required reading, much greater tolerance understanding towards other religions (especially those facing discrimination, such as Islam) would be achieved.

In this day and age, with multicultural societies everywhere, I think it is a travesty to not teach pupils the fundamentals of each religion. Not preach it. Not sell it. Just teach what the religion advocates and the principles of it.

And no, you don't have to go into the details of it all, and it doesn't have to take days to teach each one. What you can do, is go to a leading scholar of each religion, and tell them to sum up the doctrine in a couple of pages. That way its fair for everyone.

I had compulsory religious studies at school and I can tell you, we loved them!

I may not remember most of it, like I don't remember most in-depth Maths I learned... but I'm far more aware, understanding and tolerant of cultural differences than most of my friends.

If they don't learn it at school, all they have is the extremist and outrageous headlines of tabloid papers.

I'm sorry....., but..... my karma ran over your dogma. ;)

Maybe in college courses, but in public schools, REQUIRED? No. It should be optional, always. No one enjoys forced reading of any kind.

This has to be the furthest possible thing from debate that I have seen on this site yet.

Separation of church and state please.

In my opinion, all the books that are literally valuable are equal, while religious books also carry religion with them, which is another debate.

I have to go to the negitive the way the title is phrased.

With that said, the teaching of all religious dogmas should be introduced in HS, by saying religious doctrine might suggest a specific doctrine vs all, or lets say a large varity of the myths.

We can see in many HSs in the US that teachers take it upon themselves to go a step or two further in such classes, actually preaching instead of showing what the dogmas are and why they're in place.

Remember DEBATE FAITH 24/7 is always around at stickam

Not everyone shares the same religious views and therefore instead of forcing everyone to believe in jesus, all religious views should be taught so that no one is left out, but we all know that's never going to happen.

There's churches and Sunday school for that sort of thing. A school should not be teaching biased religious views. Math, art, science and so forth are much more important to learn.

Thats exactly the point. In high school, they have to teach kids as much useful knowledge they can in 4 years. Going over every possible religion, and the implementations of each, would eat up a lot of valuable time learning about science, math, or any other completely tangible subjects.

Not every possible religion. It's just important that, for example, we know the difference between Shiite and Sunni. Religion plays a surprising roll in geopolitics and local affairs. Society would function much better are a melting pot if we understood what all the ingredients were, and that includes religion.

I completely understand your point, and believe your right even. But, high school just isn't the venue for it. You wouldn't be able to pick and choose what religions got taught in school. It would be a HUGE discrimination issue to omit even one. Not only that, but they would all have to be given equal time. So, if you had to spend a couple days to go over the complexities of Shiite vs Sunni, in turn, you would have to spend a couple days explaining how Xenu terrorized the universe thousands of years ago.

I don't think religious doctrine should be taught in public schools as truth. But I do feel that teaching religious philosophy and aspects of religion is a good thing. It is good for people to know what other religions believe. Also, many religious books are fine literary works, and it would be wrong to deny people the ability to read literature.

It is true that there are a lot of things to cram into kids heads in short period of time, but room can always be made. Think of it as an extra module in Social Studies. Let's face it, we all remember those units about the history of Japan or Mexico, which is basically a Cole's Notes version light of detail. Yes, you could teach all the subtle nuances of every religion, but you could certain give the kids a basic understanding, which I think would be positive.

Ha, I was thinking "Absolutely not", and that's.... yeah, you get it.

I think theology courses are ok, and I would think, if students are smart enough these days, or should I say, wise enough, that it would be a good course, but too controversial to be a mandatory class.

The question though, is of Religious Doctrine, specifically. To that, I have to disagree. For one, most high schools are public, paid for by tax revenue that comes from the government, and indirectly from the populous.

Government<-----|----->Religion

They are supposed to be separate, so obviously, no. Secondly, if they are only doing it for the "religious philosophy" then they should make PHILOSOPHY mandatory, and maybe a latter coarse could deal with theology.

I believe philosophy /should/ be mandatory in high school, more so than language classes, so I'm all for teaching religious philosophy after introduction and logic.

I think before religious philosophy should come philosophy in general.

Think about the kids in the class that would initially disagree with what they were learning because they were raised in a non-religious home, or worse, a religion that disagrees with something they are being taught. Now, I know for a fact that JW's wouldn't allow their children (students) to participate in this class... what would happen to them? Get an exempt pass while everyone else has to deal with it???

History, Mathematics, Science, Health, English Lit, PE, ROTC, computer classes, you name it. None of these classes are debatable if they are kept up-to-date.

Studying religious doctrine for the sake of religion would be absurd, and would impose certain religions into the students. It is true that religious doctrine (such as the Bible) is one of the three most influential sources of literature (along with Shakespeare and mythology) and provides valuable literary information. If studied from a literary perspective, it would be effective.

However, this would inevitably lead to conflicts amongst parents and the school board, no matter how the religion was studied. School should have optional electives such as religion studies, but it should never be reqiured.

I am sympathetic to that too. Understand Greek literature (which includes the Gospels) and ancient literature only amplifies our modern literature, as far back as Shakespeare, who makes endless allusion to Greek, Roman, and Semitic culture.

Religious doctrine is extremely influential, and would be effective material. However, doctrine doesn't necessarily mean books like The Bible or the Qur'an itself. Doctrine is defined as a code of beliefs or principles. If parents found out that their Jewish child was learning about how Christ is their savior from a Christian teacher, conflicts would surely arise.

Let me pose this to my fundamentalist Christian friends. Yes, I accept the premise that religion must be forced down everyone's neck: but it must be my brand of religion, not yours. Oh, wait, that's different! You say that shouldn't happen? Well then I agree. And the same applies to your religion.

If the proposition is to teach many different types of religion so that we may put it in historical context, and get a far better understanding, then yes, it should be offered as a course, but it would be very difficult to do.

If the proposition is that a particular brand of religion should be taught and forced as the only right religion, no way.

This was a tough one to choose, especially the way that the choices were worded. In theory, I think it'd be great for religious texts to be taught OBJECTIVELY in school. But we live in reality, where that doesn't always happen. Teachers take it upon themselves to preach their own beliefs, and even if they're objective, not every major religion will be represented. You think schools are going to allow teachings from Islamic texts? I bet the majority of Americans think that all followers of Islam are violent, even though it's not true. The schools will only teach what they wish. Again, it's a great idea in theory, but I don't think it would work out the way we envision.

To look at something with as complex a history as (for example) the bible - which has been translated and retranslated and updated and corrupted endlessly - in the depth it deserves would be a massive undertaking. By ancient writing what language to you mean, exactly? Hebrew? Ancient Greek? I learnt Latin at school, and I love classical literature, but it's a complex language and not one that everyone can appreciate, and not one that we should try and teach people for the sake of a "normal project for novels".

If by 'ancient writing' you mean 15th century English, I still don't see what makes studying the bible any more worthwhile than studying any other text of that time. Most European drama from then has Christian themes, anyway. And the Bible is not a novel: telling students to critically analyse any religious text will provoke members of that religion (Marxist readings of the New Testament, anyone? A feminist perspective on the Nativity story? Freud and Oedipal themes relating to people called Mary?). It'll seem disrespectful to Christians, and asking students to write essays on the Bible is practically inviting them to play that up and deliberately provoke Fundamentalists. I don't see how looking for 'literary devices' in the bible teaches us more about Christianity than you could learn in Religious Studies or more about English Literature than you learn by studying something less contentious. If you want to study religious doctrines, why don't you wait until college.

No specific religion should be a requirement for high school pupils. A general overview of each religion and a basic understanding of what religion is all about is enough, in my opinion anyway.

No, definately not! Religious doctrine being taught in school causes a variety of problems. First, what about those individuals that are of a different religion than that being taught or have no religious beliefs at all. Making these teachings mandatory, when there is no verifyable proof of its accuracy, and then subjecting ones ability to graduate from high school based on this would be unconstitutional. Also, just look at Arab Nations that have the study of Islam as a mandate just to be alive and the problems that it has caused and you can see the irresponsibility of this.

There is a vast difference in teaching "Christ is your savior" from teaching "The Christian faith is built around Jesus, whom Christians believe to be the son of God" A subject that would be necessary to teach something like the following:

"It is this issue of the messiah which divides the Middle East. With Jews, Muslims and Christians all being Abrahamiic, they see most things the same before the introductions of Jesus and Mohammad. It is their commonality, in relation to Abraham and Canaan keeping Jews and Palestinians at war. They claim the same land as sacred and as divinely theirs."

I just happen to think that this is pretty important to understand. I don't think we gain a thing by fearing the information will "infect" the kids who'll immediately jump into the aisles and commence "speaking in tongues". Perhaps, they'll be less likey to join cults and the like with a truer view of Religion and it's extremes.

We are treating these issues as if understanding them has mystical power. One example is the stupid CE and BCE replacement for BC and AD; what in the heck do CE and BCE mean? The current era remains determined by the birth of Jesus, no matter what it's called. When kids ask "Well, what defines the current era?" are teachers supposed to answer: "Well, nothing. It is just a random thing and for no reason at all, people decided to re-start the calendar".? For one thing, that's dumb --- for another, it's an outright lie. Rewriting history to align it with what one chooses is something we vilify while doing it. I cannot grasp the reasoning.

I haven't touched on literature and the fact that we'd need to render so many works opaque that we might as well burn them. I don't believe one needs to be a Christian to appreciate Dante's Divine Comedy, and a great deal of Steinbeck's "East of Eden" is lost without the concept of Cain and Abel. "The Brothers Karamazov" deals with religious doctrine and dogma. With Dostoevsky being one of the most influential writers ever, I'm pretty much against trashing his work; I don't see how anyone benefits from it.

You're confusing teaching with promotion. They are different. Not teaching this is to turn out illiterate graduates.

Rather than think: "The Arab Nations" (who do NOT teach religious doctrine, btw, they mandate a particular belief) Think: "The Cultural Revolution".

So, like reading, it's just too hard, so we'll leave them ignorant. Besides math and gym, what is left to teach without a comprehension of religious doctrine?

I suppose we could touch on English, but we'll have to burn the books and dump literature, Oh, and forget etymology! Ban anything leaning towards linguistics. We can teach science, but none of its history. It is all produced in a vacuum.

This is sad...it is really, really sad. Our kids are being cheated from any true depth or context and therefore, equate education with blandness. At the same time, they're told to treat a flag as if it holds mystic power and it's a "sin" not to cover one's heart, ritualistically, in its presence.

What for? The search for spiritual truth is a personal one.

I do agree that religious text is relevant to society; but to expose young minds to the complexities of what is in fact a ' psychological doctrine'(- SPJr ),is not something that should be mandated to minors.

Minors are shown pieces or parts and mostly recite in school; they have no or little practical experience putting things together. It would be down right insidious to impose such psychological complexities into a minors life.In my opinion.

Hells to the no! As a current high school student I can't stand when my teacher's discuss religion. They don't know as much as they think they do and a lot of the stuff that they say is offensive to me when they discuss my religion because they think that they know about it but they really don't. And one of the expressions that this country is described as is a "melting pot of different cultures" so if they teach one religion in high school, then they have to teach all other religions too, and IMHO there isn't enough time in 4 years to learn about all the different religions and holy doctrines that they follow within the US alone, let alone the entire world! I think that schools should stick to basic history on events that happened and why they happened.

It should only be taught under the title: "Religious Doctrine". It's perfectly reasonable to know what religion X believes.

It wouldn't be unfair to have it as required reading (again, under the title: "Religious Doctrine"). There is one reason to include it and one reason not to:

- for: so much of the doctrine is left over in culture, and knowing it may also help students understand history.

- against: it's just plain poorly written and incoherent. Generally, the goal of a school is to help young people think clearly, so reading a piece that's so scattered and inconsistent may not be very helpful in helping children learn to articulate themselves.

I'm also an atheist, and I'd agree that it should be an option. It's the "required" part I don't agree with. Who decides which religious texts are required, and which are not.

And in each religion, which sects' text should be used? Protestants would want the King James version. Catholics would want the Latin Vulgate. Muslims would want the Koran. You'd end up seriously pissing someone off.

To be fair, we'd have to require all religious texts, and there are far too many to be covered in any reasonable length of time.

Being taught the differences between Shiite and Sunni religious philosophy isn't going to help you understand them better.

A Shiite doesn't kill a Sunni because the Sunni disbelieves the "heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed". They fight for the same reason every other ethnic groups fights with different ethnic groups. Competition for scare resources.

No, it should not be required(key word) in public schools. It should be an option.

"To be fair, we'd have to require all religious texts, and there are far too many to be covered in any reasonable length of time."

You've hit the nail on the head. The reason we cannot teach religion in schools is because it will violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman the Supreme Court established the Lemon test which applies to government action on religion.

It consists of three "prongs"

"1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion."

If any one of these tenants is violated, then the action is unconstitutional.

While teaching religion in schools could be done in such a way as to not violate the first two prongs, there is no possible way to teach religion in schools that does not violate the third prong. As Cerin said the government would have to choose which religions to teach, which denominations to focus on, which of the variations of their holy books et cetera. Having to make these choices would clearly "result in excessive government entanglement with religion." There are a vast number of religions. And what about unpopular religions? Do you teach Scientology? Do you teach various unpopular cults? Do you teach a religion that advocates horrible, heinous crimes? Setting a standard of acceptance or recognition would cause the government to become entangled with religion. It is for this reason that religion has absolutely no place in schools.