Public school teaches the shahada

[pr126]

Would it help you to further research the subject on the web, just to see if there is any truth at all in the article?

Or it is deemed unnecessary, as it would be utterly inconceivable for such a thing to occur in the education system?

At least it could be confirmed once and for all that this is just a hoax and prove me wrong.

Type this in the search bar and see what is out there: "Islam in the american education system"

[Atheon]

What's the big deal? They're not teaching the kids to pray this; they're just teaching its existence as a tenet of Islam. I learned about it too back in school, along with the Jewish Shema and the Christian Lord's Prayer.

The key is they're teaching about it, rather than teaching it.

[pr126]

What's the big deal?

Religion has no place in our state schools 

WE do not need more religion in our secular state schools. The Federal Government should resist all calls for the national curriculum to include more teaching about Christianity and God.

I see my mistake now. It only refers specifically to Christianity. My bad. Apologies.

[Atheon]

There's a difference between "teaching religion" and "teaching about religion".

Like it or not, religion plays a significant role in historic events. Crusades, holy wars, the Spanish Inquisition, and so much more. It was in a history class that I learned about the shahada and the shema. (I already knew the lord's prayer from my grandparents.)

Indeed, I think classes in comparative religion should be taught in schools.

[Sal1981]

In public school we were taught Christianity as part of the curriculum. No one, I think, took it more seriously than they took history class, and after I went to gymnasium we were taught about Islam (among others) in an aptly named class called 'religious studies' and that was taught purely theoretically. I don't see what the big fuss is about.

[SGOS]

What's the big deal? They're not teaching the kids to pray this; they're just teaching its existence as a tenet of Islam. I learned about it too back in school, along with the Jewish Shema and the Christian Lord's Prayer.

The key is they're teaching about it, rather than teaching it.

The motivation for teaching this, as well as the actual content of instruction, is unclear to me.  I would never trust a news report to automatically get something right either.  News reports strive to create discussions like this one.  I'd probably have to be there as a parent to decide whether this instruction seeks to promote a religion, or if it's even a necessary part of the curriculum.  As I read the article, I'm suspicious about the motivations for teaching it.  I'm also wondering if it's appropriate at that level.

Yes, it would be nice to learn about different religions, but it would be nice to learn about a lot of other things, and lower schools are primarily set up to teach fundamentals of reading, writing, and "rithmatic."  We can add extras to that basic curriculum but we need to decide if it's worth compromising the basics.  We also need to prioritize which of these extra commitments are most necessary if we feel they are vital enhancements.  Lots of people have pet ideologies they would like to promote, or certain things that are vitally important to them that  they would like to load into the schools, but those agendas may not be necessary in the minds of others.

[pr126]

OK.  According to consensus, religions in schools are just fine. And that is coming from atheist.
Sorry,  I did not realised that.

I still oppose ANY religious - call it what you will, -  in my opinion it is stealth proselytization at best.
Indoctrination at worst.

[SGOS]

OK.  According to consensus, religions in schools are just fine. And that is coming from atheist.
Sorry,  I did not realised that.

I still oppose ANY religious - call it what you will, -  in my opinion it is stealth proselytization at best.

What I'm reading here is that religion in public schools is fine, [depending on the motives for teaching it].  That's what I'm sensing here.  However, I would avoid teaching religions at lower levels at all.  When a teacher closes his or her classroom door, it becomes an opportunity to express religious bias.  I think most teachers try to keep such biases out of the classroom, but from experience we know that many do not.  But the overriding concern for me is that I don't see instruction about religions in public schools as an important goal.  I think there are more important things to do.

Now lets say that teaching ABOUT Islam is mandated by public schools in the US.  Given that most US teachers are Christians, I would expect a bias against Islam as a viable religion.  I would expect the outcome to be somewhat favorable to Christianity.  Although it would not be the intention, we are opening the door to religious instruction, most likely Christian indoctrination.  This would not be sanctioned by public schools, but it's a probable outcome, perhaps not for everyone, but some kids would get a snoot full of Christianity.  Others, would probably get some, depending on the religious make up of the classroom as a whole.

I think college is a good place to study philosophy of religion.  I found it to be a wonderful experience, but I was of a less impressionable age.

[Aletheia]

I think college is a good place to study philosophy of religion.  I found it to be a wonderful experience, but I was of a less impressionable age.

Agreed. Teaching children at a young age about religions would be too complex of a subject in that it essentially involves people believing in things they do not have evidence to substantiate. Young children still see things in black or white - either it's true or it isn't. Their minds are geared to believe most of what adults say is true. By the time a student reaches college age, they are capable of understanding more complex ideas, can be taught critical thinking skills, and approach the study of religions in a more detached way.

Learning about religions is important so what we understand why there is such a strong incentive for people to believe in things they do not have any proof to support. Within the details of a given religion, a person can see what it is people had hoped for, what they feared, and see what sort of mental gymnastics a person was willing endure in order to receive their desired reward. It's vital to understand how a person's morality, skepticism, and rationality can be circumvented in the pursuit of what is essentially greed. However, these are not concepts a child can fully grasp and given the impulsive nature of children, they run the risk of falling prey to indoctrination. Children simply do not have the means to study religion without the risk of succumbing to it.

Yes, religion needs to be taught so that we may learn about it, but it would be risky and inappropriate to do so in grade school.

[Poison Tree]

I still oppose ANY religious - call it what you will, -  in my opinion it is stealth proselytization at best.
Indoctrination at worst.

How do you suggest teaching history without talking about religion? Limiting ourselves to Europe, would you simply ignore the roll of monasteries and religious orders in (early) medieval history? Ignore conflicts between the popes and kings? Gloss over the protestant reformation, Thirty Years' War, Spanish Armada?

[pr126]

How do you suggest teaching history without talking about religion? Limiting ourselves to Europe, would you simply ignore the roll of monasteries and religious orders in (early) medieval history? Ignore conflicts between the popes and kings? Gloss over the protestant reformation, Thirty Years' War, Spanish Armada?

I think there is a difference between teaching history where religion was the driving force, or teaching religious rites, rituals and prayers under the guise of "religious studies".

[Solitary]

Religious teachings have no place in a secular societies' public schools period! They want to teach it in private schools fine. History is not teaching religion. Solitary

[Minimalist]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/education/revere.asp

Gee.  Why am I not surprised that something trumpeted in a fascist rag like American thinker turned out to be bullshit?  Why oh why?

[PickelledEggs]

Ah, Snopes.com.  The indisputable fountain of truth.
No further research necessary.

It was a Zionist propaganda all along to make Islam look bad.

Thanks.

Not sure if sarcastic or serious....

[Jmpty]

Not sure if sarcastic or serious....

Oh, you're sure.