The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
gonovice
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Major religions should be taught in school. Minor religions should at the very least be covered.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,485 times Debate No: 2319
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (17)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Alright here is your challenge.

Obviously taking the time to teach every religion in school would be far to time consuming. So here is what I propose:

Begin educating about religion in school starting freshman year of high school. This education will contain equal parts Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, and Agnosticism. Each of the above 6 will be covered for an equal part of the school year, a 7th and 8th session of time will be spent studying a combination of: Chinese universe, Buddhism, Taoism, Ancient Greek and Roman, Paganism, and True Satanism (no this has nothing to do with believing in the devil).

This education will of course compromise one class during each school year. Thus each segment will be given a half a year of attention as there are 8 semesters in the typical year. This will be modified depending on the situation/school.

Furthermore, new religions will be considered upon request. This system will not be set in stone. Mindsets and times often change.

Your turn.
gonovice

Con

This is ridiculous. Why would a child want to learn about religion? I don't. It seems like a waste of time.

What makes you think that parents would accept this? If they don't practice any religion then why should their kid sit through a class about it? Also, if they are against one of the many religions that you listed, what makes you think they would allow their kid to sit through it?

you have a very detailed plan, very impressive, but it may not work. i don't think that a parent would make or even allow their child to take these courses.

why are they necessary? that seems like a fair question. answer that and i'll come up with a better argument next time.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Hahaha, I thought I might get a response like that. I'm going to cite each of your paragraphs and respond to them in turn.

"This is ridiculous. Why would a child want to learn about religion? I don't. It seems like a waste of time."

>>Urgh. What is so ridiculous about this? We learn about the United States government in school don't we? We learn about science in school don't we? Its information isn't it? I'm not saying we are going to preach Christianity in school and then inform them how the other 11 religions I mentioned are horrible. I'm suggesting we teach all religions as a religion not a faith. Not preaching, teaching.

Then you ask me why would we want to learn about religion? Simple, think about the last debate we had "separation of religion and politics". You argued that people making their political choices solely based on god is ridiculous. And to some extent I have to agree but not for your reasons. I feel it is ridiculous because half of those people are simply Christian or whatever religion they are because they were told to be. And of the people who are religious for a reason how many of them truly have read the bible. How many religious people out their could give me an informed and truthful interpretation of their belief. I would argue, not many. This is why we would want to learn about religion. So that not only could the people of America make an informed decision on what religion they wanted to be (as opposed to only having the one choice they grew up with) but also so that the influence on our politics through religion would also be educated.

"What makes you think that parents would accept this? If they don't practice any religion then why should their kid sit through a class about it? Also, if they are against one of the many religions that you listed, what makes you think they would allow their kid to sit through it?"

>>Well first off lets look at the resolution. I'm saying it should be taught in school. I'm not arguing that it could be taught in school or that it would pass the parents approval. However I have possibilities for your questions anyway.

First off, we're teaching the religions in equal parts. We're not favoring any particular form of religion. We're even teaching Agnosticism and Atheism so if they don't practice any religion they are more than covered.
Secondly, by the off chance that some parent objects so horribly to one of these religions being taught then sure, that child can have a study hall for a semester. I'm arguing Religion should be taught in school, not religion should be mandated by law to every child. Thirdly if a parent truly feels their religion is the truth, what fear do they have of their child sitting through the others?

"you have a very detailed plan, very impressive, but it may not work. i don't think that a parent would make or even allow their child to take these courses."

>>Haha, I can't speak for America on my hypothetical plan. I can speak for myself, obviously I would. I suppose this one will have to be left to our voters. If interest isn't shown it could always be dubbed down to simply an elective course. Meh.

"why are they necessary? that seems like a fair question. answer that and i'll come up with a better argument next time."

>>Why is anything in school necessary? Nothing really is, is it? I could technically skip school and still get some kind of job and live my life. School is all about education, and thats what i'm suggesting. Increasing the education of school. These would be like any other class in the curriculum.
gonovice

Con

If children want to learn about religion then they should go to parocial school. In public schools,you learn about religion, just not detailed. Why does it need to be more informative then that?

I never said you were going to favor one religion, but the thing is that teachers may give their beliefs on the matter then what? did you think about that.

it is also unconstitutional, if you didn't know.

i don't mean to cut this short, but i'm at work. my next argument will be better.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, I am going to go argument by argument.

"If children want to learn about religion then they should go to parocial school."

>>Except for the fact that Parochial schools are only going to teach you one religion and give you a very very biased opinion at that.

"In public schools,you learn about religion, just not detailed. Why does it need to be more informative then that?"

>>Our public schools are on a slow decline in all types of information. We're getting to be the lower percentile in everything. If I have the time I will make debates about the other subjects of school also. As far as you saying that we learn religion in school, not really, I learned greek + roman mythology and the only reason they got away with that is because the school system considers them to be mythology.

"I never said you were going to favor one religion, but the thing is that teachers may give their beliefs on the matter then what? did you think about that."

>>Considered the possibility. Teachers would have to be screened, we can only do our best in this aspect. Every bodies opinion is going to be a little biased for something; so while finding the totally unbiased teacher may be difficult we can find nearly unbiased teachers. If the students feel the teacher has a substantial bias they will be reported and reviewed. Religion is a touchy subject, nobody is going to want their religion biased against in a classroom.

"it is also unconstitutional, if you didn't know."

>>This point is debatable but at the same time holds no ground in THIS debate. My resolution says "should be taught" it does not dabble into the realm of constitutionality. My resolution is purely a hypothetical, it only deals with what should be ideally.

"i don't mean to cut this short, but i'm at work. my next argument will be better."

>> I implore that your next argument is simply a rebuttal and summary of all points you have already made as I will have no chance to respond to them. However if you would like to bring up a bunch of new things I suppose I have no ability to stop you. I just ask the voters to judge on what I had the ability to respond to.

Conclusion: I advocate learning about religion in school because no one else teaches about it (to this extent). I see, under my resolution, a United States that is educated on the facts of religion and chooses wisely what religion to have. Not a United States that blindly lets religion lead their views on everything. And no, this isn't everyone, but like I said in my first speech on christianity, "how many of them truly have read the bible." I myself am an atheist but I believe religion to be a wonderful thing that has helped many many people. I just want everyone else to realize exactly what it means to be whatever religion they are. The United States consists of people, not mindless drones.
gonovice

Con

The parocial schools thing is good. If a parent does want their child to learn about religion, then they can send them to parocial school and they can learn about THEIR religion.

In 7th and 8th grade i learned about religion in my social studies classes. So, you do learn about them.

Your whole plan is basically forcing religion on these students. You're teaching them about religions. Some kids are easily influenced. They might go to a religion that their parents don't approve of. Did you consider all of these things when you started this debate?

Just because you screen teachers doesn't mean it will work. When a student reports something like that, what is the statistics of how much it works? Teachers are not always as "honest" as they seem. And, some people don't always believe students. Did you consider any of this?

I'm agnostic but i think that a child should be able to learn and decide on THEIR OWN. if they want to believe in something, then they should be able to decide it by themselves. You don't need a teacher to do that for them.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I was thinking required class unless you have some reason not to take it. But that ended up sounding more like "strongly pushed elective" so I just settled on elective in round. Hope it was interesting.
Posted by NzAnti 9 years ago
NzAnti
Yeah… Can't trust everything on the internet. Even some things on wiki are wrong XD

If the intention of the Pro, was to have optional class's. That would be alright. Not forced though (which I think he was intending in the first place.)
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Ah, I understand now. I think that the internet is an interesting idea, but one that could foreseeably have issues. My main issue is that not all internet resources are too straight-forward, or credible on religion. While it would help, internet research would be a secondary choice (for me at least) behind actually taking a class.

As for the optional class, I agree with you in that it would be a good idea. I have no idea if that was the intent of Pro, but regardless, It seems like it could work.
Posted by NzAnti 9 years ago
NzAnti
>>How could one become educated about religions (key part being the plurality) by joining a church? I could understand learning about Christianity by joining a church, but about religion in general?<<

Whoops, what I meant was if people wanted to learn religion, they could go to a church, library, do some research, and learn it them self's out of general interest.

How ever if they made a subject like this optional at school. That would be a good idea considering it won't be forced, and that way only people who are interested in that topic can do it. And people who aren't don't need to.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
I think the great majority of commentator's have misunderstood Pro's intent. The system he advocates is one of education, not indoctrination. It'd be an interesting elective, and one I would have loved to take.

On a side note, in response to NzAnti:

How could one become educated about religions (key part being the plurality) by joining a church? I could understand learning about Christianity by joining a church, but about religion in general?

As for the last line of what you said, you misunderstand the purpose. The purpose isn't to blindly educate the masses, but more of to preach a wider understanding. Go read Ender's Game.
Posted by NzAnti 9 years ago
NzAnti
Stupid idea.

If kids where interested in religion, they would search it up them self's, join a church, or anything like that.

It would take up to much school time.

And you would have to admit no one would like to be forced to learn a religion they would never use, never believe, and never follow in there life's.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
If you want to teach kids a faith in school, teach them Unitarian Universalism.

If you're going to conduct a religion class as a part of social studies, or history, it's always a good idea to focus on the vast number of religious beliefs that people have held and given up.

If you want to teach religion, it might be a good idea to tell the story of religious progression. A historical argument which notes how very interesting it is that certain views were adopted at certain times, such as Zoroastrianism being the first faith to really incorporate a good god and a bad god, and how maybe the Hebrew folks might have been influenced by that view point when Persia ruled over them for a dozen generations or so.

If you want to educate about religions, it should be done in a non-egocentric point of view.

Also, the point of physical education classes starts with the discovery after the arming before the United States entering the First World War, that few of their soldiers had ever been trained in any calisthenics. It was meant to make for a more athletic pool of young men to send to war.
Posted by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
OK, the teaching of religions in school isnt unconstitutional. The first amendment says that the govt. cant promote a religion, or make a state sanctioned religion.

THis means that if they are educating from an unbias point, that they arent advocate or sanctioning any certain religion.

THis would also help to clear up various stereotypes, and help to advocate religious tolerance.

Remember, information on its own is unbias, and always important and positive to know
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
You're also missing the point of physical education class. The goal is not to teach us to be physically healthy, but to help avoid being physically unhealthy. Presuming the point of the public school system is to produce good workers, it doesn't help if these people are unhealthily obese and get sick as a result.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Haha, you are saying the only point of school is to further our people to become workers in society. I disagree with your point on principle however I would like to point out that people with religious backgrounds can become very successful in our society.

Gym is mandated in school is it not? Can you tell me that it in some substantial way helps our people become successful? I would argue that intellect helps your success more than physical prowess ever will. Intellect can be applied to any aspect of life, can physical attributes?
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by desk19 9 years ago
desk19
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Gao 9 years ago
Gao
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Truth 9 years ago
Truth
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ithuwakaga 9 years ago
Ithuwakaga
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jacobgunter 9 years ago
jacobgunter
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
YraelzgonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30