Anubis wrote:
Also, I resent the remark that Religion should be taught as fiction or like a story. There's no proof that it's real or not, and the purpose of it being taught is to allow understanding, not to convert.
Does that mean that children should be taught about pixies and fairies and little gremlins that steal left shoes? There is just as much proof for the existence of them as there is proof for God or any of the things almost any relgion believes in. Some people believe in pixies and fairies and small gremlins, so by your reasoning, there would be no justification in not teaching about them.
Hairy Munky wrote:
Even if you're taught about religion before you're 14 you can still make the decision (whether it be at 14+ or a lower age) not to believe in what you've been taught.
Yes, you're right, but there are still some who may not be able to make a rational decision. If you are taught about Jesus and God and stuff at the age of three you are more likely to unquestionably believe it than if you are taught it at 14 - at three, you cannot really make a reasoned decision on your own.
-
If some kind of religious education is taught in schools, I do not think it should centre upon one religion - all major, and some minor religions, should be covered - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Paganism, Satanism, Traditional Chinese - all of these should be taught. I went to a Catholic primary school, and the entire extent of our teaching about other religions was that Islam exists and one of the Jewish holy texts is called the Torah. Learning this little is frankly disgusting.
