• @APassenger
    link
    31 month ago

    Per Dan Dennett, I can get behind teaching religion.

    I’m reasonably confident that’s not what the OK legislature meant to have happen, but it’s the only constitutional way to do this. I think.

    • shastaxc
      link
      fedilink
      111 month ago

      I had a religion class in my public high school. It was an elective and they covered all the major religions since the beginning of written history. I think they started with Zoroastrianism. It was a pretty interesting class. However, don’t think even a class like that should be mandatory.

      • ✺roguetrick✺
        link
        41 month ago

        I think it’s unfortunate to constrain it to written history. Linking the commonalities between the proto-Indo-European religions like the Germanic, Greek, Persian and early Hindu traditions and just how they interacted with things from the semitic and then Buddhism to taoism and neo-Confuciusism which also influenced back West.

        The history of religion is incredibly convoluted but really teaching how syncretized religion is would be a great value. Not to Christian nationalists of course.

      • @APassenger
        link
        41 month ago

        I agree generally on not making it mandatory.

        That said, I wish more people were exposed to other forms of thought and this would help. To me, an elective seems fair.

        I dunno that I’d be sad about philosophy and world views (with religion being embedded) as some kind of civics class that enhances one’s high school diploma.

      • @APassenger
        link
        31 month ago

        This = teach any aspect of Christianity.

        The constitution won’t allow favorable treatment, so if they want the Bible, they get Satanism too.