Revenant said:
As I see it, comparitive religion and proper science (including the theory of evolution and excluding Young Earth Creationism) should be mandatory. Comparitive religion classes would go some ways in increasing tolerance towards other belief systems. Both atheists and fundamental Christians could take a lot from these classes, as both seem to have members that are highly intolerant.
I agree that comparative religion classes would be good. I agree that it would make religious people more tolerant of other religions, and probably help them relativise (and attenuate) their religious faith and fervour. However I disagree that it would make Atheist people more tolerant. In my experience, the more I have learnt about various religions, the more unreligious I became until becoming an Atheist. And the more I learnt about the (irrational and conflicting) beliefs and the politics and money involved in many religions, the more annoyed and intolerant I became of religions and religiousness in general.
I had a pretty positive view of Buddhism before coming to Japan. It was a bit damaged when I saw how Japanese Buddhist priests made such a big business out of funeral, with huge sums of money asked to the bereft family to obtain a "better" Buddhist name, which would
grant acess to Nirvana (add to that that the name in question came out of a computer software that anybody could have bought for a fraction of the price !). Another thing I disliked was all the superstitions attached to Buddhism in Japan (e.g. the Daruma dolls). I still have a fairly good image of some purer forms of Buddhism (NOT Mahayana) where superstitions and money doesn't conflict with the true quest to self-improvement. But that's more of a personal code of conduct, rather than an organised religion...
If a school is religious, the two above mentioned classes should also be mandatory, and propoganda religious classes completely seperate from those.
That will never happen.
kashii:
I can't see telling parents that they can't raise their children with the belief systems that they absolutely believe in, but neither do I think that the children should not have some working understanding of other belief systems as well as hopefully an understanding that promotes more tolerance, for example, that religions don't cause war, or the Koran isn't a book of hate from front to back.
I am the kind of person who believes that people shouldn't even be allowed to become parents if they do not have the necessary knowledge/skills and motivation to raise children properly. This means knowing the proper nutrition for a pregnant woman, for a baby, for a child; learning about children psychology, pedagogy, etc. Isn't it a full time job to raise a child ? Maybe there should be some laws limiting the number of children as well, as the dedication and care of parents to their children tends to be increasingly divided (and thus "bad") the more children they have.
I find it vital not to teach lies that could be detrimental to the psychological development and self-accomplishment of a child (not just lies about religions, but about nature, the world, laws, social conventions, etc.). It is part of being a good parent. And if we want society as a whole to improve, governments should assure that all parents be good parents, so that children will become better people, and society will be allowed to progress.
There are already thousands of preventive laws about almost everything (against ecological problems, monopoly of big businesses, unfair trade, racial and sexual discrimination...); why shouldn't there be preventive laws against bad education in homes ? Isn't the most fundamental and important thing in preventing crime, delinquency, vandalism, unemployment and many other societal problems typical of lower (read poorly educated) classes ?