Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula

When considering public education, that is paid for by a culturally diverse tax base, one must honestly ask this question:Can any religious dogma be equivocated to 'education'?With the exception of theology and maybe poetry, all disciplines of 'education' are based on some kind of physical evidence or observations, rather than faith, spiritualism, and mythology.Do we really want to waste a lot of student's time recapitulating all the myriad belief structures that exist ?Far better to keep public education COMPLETELY secular.That way all the bible-thumpers or Koran-thumpers or whatever can send their kids to their own brainwashing Sunday-schools if they so choose.
I don't want to have MY kids come home and have to spend time de-bunking a lot of mysticism they have been fed in school like so much mind-pablum.

I was sent to one too, but not for long.
I ended up being thrown out at the age of 6 or 7.
I asked far too many questions....I was brought up brainwashed as a protestant Christian, but I always rejected the simplistic rigidity of it all, the 'black and white', 'good and evil', 'heaven and hell' etc. etc.I instinctively knew there had to be more than 'poof' to the mystery of life....The problem is one of generational ignorance.
Parent believers WANT their children to be brainwashed into sharing their beliefs because that’s their anchor, their reference point, their stability. Any objective criticism of these beliefs shakes the shallow foundation of their self-justification.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-08-2005 10:18 PM

I can't argue with that. However, from my perspective, it seems like what a lot of parents want and are willing to pay for - at least in our part of the world (US bible belt). But then where do we draw the line between religous education and indoctrination? I think Brian over in Scotland can do it, but I don't trust the religious right in this country to do it.From my perspective all forms of 'religious education' are adequately available (and eminently well funded) in the church system. I don't object to a detached treatment of religious doctrines in the public school, only to religious values influencing the currciulum. The problem is to distinquish between those 'teaching *about* religion' and those trying to instill the values and moralities of their particular religion (= brainwashing). It is the insidious agenda of the religious right in this country that forces me to demand a completely secular education for my kids, but I think I would have the same demand in an islamic country.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-09-2005 10:12 AM

I would think that everything taught in school in the disciplines of science, philosphy and history should be taught and tested for objectively. Art is a different matter.But where are we going to make space for this course ?
If you want to broaden the curriculum, what are we going to drop from it to make a place for this religious studies course?Consider the already pathetic levels of general literacy, math, and science education our public school system is currently achieving. Wouldn't it be better to devote resources to improving the curriculum of these, dare I say, more important subjects? I don't think you will get an argument there.
Most educators would probably assume a priori that that is what they are doing, regardless of what they teach.
There is just a wide range of variation in the degree to which they are successful. I don't agree theat adding a sacred studies course would necessarily help kids learn to think any better. I would favor more emphasis on logic, deductive reasoning, and creative writing to achieve this goal.

I had a problem with the school's mission statement before I got to the curriculum. That, alone, is a sufficient deterrent in my view to prevent me from ever considering sending my kids there.Also here: Sorry, but I don't want any form of "Chrisitan education" for my kids.
I want them to reason and use logical inference effectively, not buy in to some dogmatic belief structure, whether it be overtly promoted or concealed in thinly-veiled subtexts of their course materials.
But that's just me - the atheist, if you hadn't gathered as much.Now this isn't to say that the school doesn't probably do a good job teaching all the other subjects you mention. But they are also a century-old, well-established school, with likely excellent financial support in a very wealthy state.Is it reasonable to expect the same depth from a public school with a shoe-string budget in a poorer state? The reason I oppose adding sacred studies in these cases, is they don't seem to have the resources they need to teach (what I consider to be) the important courses as it is.

Yes, but I am still going through it.I finished the sections on religious studies and biology.Couldn't help but notice the word 'evolution' is never mentioned.
Do they want to de-empahsize that this is taught, or is it not taught? True, because I have many. No, I wouldn't say that it is impossible.
But I am not yet convinced that the level of 'excellence' in education that you claim for this school is in fact the case. True enough. But given a limited pool of resources for public schools, I would rather see better allocations, to science, math, English and history, than to see a slice cut out of the pie for religious studies. But then I obviously don't place the value on religion that others do.By the way, isn't St. Paul's a *private* school.
Sure looks like one, although they don't say so explicitly.