The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum.

Seeing as how we appear to be challenge light at the moment, I thought I would throw this one out there.

Resolution: The study of religion should enter the educational curriculum.

Daniel Dennett is a Philosopher and Cognitive Psychologist, who argues that the factual study of religions should become part of the education curriculum.

"Religion's influence over human behavior is precisely what makes gaining a rational understanding of it so necessary." - Dennett

He argues that religions are a significantly important natural phenomenon and that we should teach religion i.e. the facts about different world religions - to every child in the country, the same way we teach English, American History and mathematics. Teach your children whatever creed you like at home, but make sure they have this basis in the factuality of religions.

"No religion should be favored, and none ignored. And as we discover more and more about the biological and psychological bases of religious practices and attitudes, these discoveries should be added to the curriculum, the same way we update our education about science, health, and current events. This should all be part of the mandated curriculum for both public schools and for home-schooling." - Dennett

I find the concept interesting and it certainly has its merits. Religion is as important aspect of culture as arguably any other factor. We teach history, why then do we not teach religion? This would not be the teaching of any value judgements of religions; its basis is on facts, history, cultural relevance, texts, music, and art. All major religions and any minorities that can muster an acceptable "portrait" can be included. Time and resources are allocated on the basis of relevance - that is, the percentage of adherents to a religion, form a basis for allocating the time spent studying that religion (though not the sole method for such allocations).

This is not meant to be some "hard core" debate topic (though debate is definately welcome), but an expression of ideas. So comments are more than welcome.

no your stupid.
ok think about this.
why is religion there?
to control people, think about the people in the country you live in
60percent believe in a invisible man.
so take that banana out of your buttocks and think about this without your wingdingaling.
this idea seriously needs to take a shower.
because it smells.
THAT IS ALL.

"no your stupid.
ok think about this.
why is religion there?
to control people, think about the people in the country you live in
60percent believe in a invisible man.
so take that banana out of your buttocks and think about this without your wingdingaling.
this idea seriously needs to take a shower.
because it smells.
THAT IS ALL."

Well that was disappointing to say the least. I am in no way advocating any value judgement of the worth of any one religion. Perhaps you missed the part about being an educational facet on the facts of religious systems. It is in no way a system designed to 'push' any one religion. Its goal is the education of the populace about what religions entail; their cultural contributions, their historicity i.e. the facts, not the values.

"As long as parents don’t teach their children anything that is likely to close their minds -- through fear or hatred or by disabling them from inquiry (by denying them an education, for instance, or keeping them entirely isolated from the world) then they may teach their children whatever religious doctrines they like." - Dennett.

i'm sorry it took me a while to reply i was puking from my anus from what you wrote.
And you know what came out? methane, from what you ask? your smelly words! they dont even touch me.
did you even read what i said?
THe reason for religion is to subconsciously control as all. even atheist have an idealistic morality mirrored by the creation of fundamental religion.
Education for such a reason is counterproductive if you suggest it shound be taught your a jackass and smell like one too because you said that your not against any religion.
seriously how many showers did you take this week?
because you smell.
THAT IS ALL.

"THe reason for religion is to subconsciously control as all. even atheist have an idealistic morality mirrored by the creation of fundamental religion."

This, as far as I can tell, is the only bare essence of a semblance of an argument. While this debate appears to have turned futile the moment my opponent clicked on accept, I will address these two points.

"THe reason for religion is to subconsciously control as all."

Religions purposes are many, it was once, and by some still is a tool for explaining the natural universe. By the inclusion of the study of all such basises of religion you enable the rationalist discourse in the nature of religion itself. How they form, evolve, and accomodate over time would be a facet of such an education. Teaching factual studies of religion does not hinder free thought, it enables it. If any one given religion can not stand up to this scrutiny by its faithful then they and everyone can question the validity of its form.

"even atheist have an idealistic morality mirrored by the creation of fundamental religion."

This is not relevant to the debate itself, however, morality systems were appropriated by religions, most notably greek philosophical traditions (for the monotheistic religions). Morality may or may not be inherent in humankind, its values however are a facet of the society and the cultural norms of the time.