debate-points, religion, children, educationThere are many discussions on this site about taking children out of religious educations, but I recently heard Daniel Dennett make a comment on an old episode of Point of Inquiry (the podcast hosted by the Center for Inquiry) when discussing his book Breaking the Spell. He there discussed a very different viewpoint about the most reasonable approach to religion in the classroom.
In this interview he claimed that it would be better for us to include religious education in all schools including public schools, but that it should be an education about the history and beliefs of the world’s religions, not indoctrination in any particular religion. He argued that this should be mandatory, not only for public school children, but for privately schooled and home schooled children as well, as a sort of governmental standard.
He argued that any religion that cannot withstand such an education relies upon the ignorance of its followers to continue its existence, and thus to deprive children of that is tantamount to child abuse.
I’m not sure if I agree with the severity of the last claim, but at the very least his argument is good enough to be debated. I was wondering, has anyone strongly supported or argued against this argument in the atheistic community? What are the arguments and data strongly in support or against his claims?
Edit:
Most of the responses here have referred to practical reasons why some have opposed this, but few have talked about many public figures who have explicitly supported it. Are there any?
In Québec, religious education has been replaced by a course name Ethics and religious culture which has been first taught in 2008-2009. It is mandatory to nearly everyone.
It's essentially a course on multiculturalism. It teaches children about each religion, with the hope that it will lead to a better understanding and greater respect of others' religions. It was deemed necessary after the crisis over reasonable accommodation.
The course is criticized from all sides:
The Liberal government has defended the program, saying "We cannot make such a drastic and important shift without risking to step on someone's toes."
I'm not sure if that answers your question, but I thought you might find this interesting.
I see his point, but logistically I’m not sure we could achieve his goal any time soon. The faintly hysterical climate around religion in the U.S. (more than “faintly” in the south) would erode the “history and beliefs” standard into “indoctrination” before it ever hit the classroom. (The Texas Board of Education recently removed Thomas Jefferson from the history books. So, yeah.) So many fundamentalists would lose their marbles that “our children are being taught to worship Islam!” (even when that’s not remotely the case) that we could never reach a consensus of “governmental standard.”
I also think it might be skirting the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment prohibiting the government from establishing a religion. It isn’t, explicitly, but it’s a bit close for comfort.
I think more education is always a fine idea, and I plan on doing pretty much what Dennett describes with my own sprogs, but in the U.S. public schools? I can’t see it flying.
I have no personal experience, but Susan Blackmore, once a paranormal “scientist”, now an outspoken debunker has mentioned that her children get that sort of education in England. She said she overheard them joking about the strange beliefs of various cultures and she considered it an “inoculation” against taking up a specific belief.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.