Taken from The Winnipeg Free Press, April 22, 2007:

Should university students be required to study religion?

A curriculum committee at Harvard University thought so. Last fall it
made waves across North America when it recommended that every student
at that university be required to take one course in the subject in
order to graduate.

In making the recommendation, the committee stated that it is important
for graduates to know "the role of religion in contemporary, historical,
or furture events - personal, cultural, national or international". The
committee went on to say that students often struggle to make sense of
the relationship between their own religious beliefs and teh secular and
intellectual world they encounter at the university. It also noted that
wars are sometimes fought in the name of religion, and that the topic is
central to some of the most contentious contemporary debates such as
evolution, stem-cell research and same-sex marriage.

The proposal made a lot of sense - after all, there's hardly a subject
that doesn't have a religious dimension. But, not everyone agreed.
Faced with sharp criticism from some faculty members, the committee
decided to drop the recommendation. In its place, it is substituting a
course on "what it means to be a human being". Since what it means to
be a human being includes making decisions about religion - choosing
whether or not to believe in God - this may not be an entirely bad
thing. But it's still too bad that Harvard didn't adopt the new course;
the university is seen as a leader in higher education in North America,
and what it does is often copied by other schools.

What about public elementary and high schools - should they consider
teaching religion, too? Lois Sweet thinks they should. In her book,
"God in The Classroom: The Controversial Issue Of Religion In Canada's
Schools", the Carleton University journalism professor promotes the idea
of "religious literacy", which she describes as "not just a knowledge of
one's own beliefs, but a capacity to encounter and analyze respectfully
the religious views of others, and to see that enterprise as personally
worthwhile.

Such courses of instruction, she adds, would not promote one religion
over another, but support a range of religious perspectives that teach
respect for religious thought and religious diversity. Why isn't
religion taught in more public schools? For Sweet, the issue boils down
to a new kind of intolerance - toward religion. "We've gone from times
when the religious were often intolerant of the non-religious, or those
with a different religion, to today when it is those who hold religious
convictions who are subjected to societal intolerance", she says. "This
intolerance also takes the form of ignoring, even prohibiting religion
in our schools".

One Canadian school board has decided to buck the trend; last year the
Calgary Board of Education instituted a study of the world's religions
for students from kindergarten through Grade 9. "The study about
religion is important in developing well-rounded students", the board
states, adding that "education about religion can help to reduce
barriers between groups and develop an understanding of and respect for
the belief's of others". In creating the course of study, the board
made it clear that it is sponsoring the study of religion - not the
practice of religion and that schools may expose students to all
religious views, but may not impose any particular view.

Dr. Jack Miller studies the role of spirituality in education at the
Ontario Institute For Studies in Education. "My concern as a citizen is
taht in public schools, as they are set up now, people with religious
viewpoints can't bring them into discussion", he told the Hamilton
Spectator last May. "The human spirit or soul of whatever you want to
call it, is part of all of us. If we ignore that, we're diminishing an
important part of the human being".

But maybe the last word should to to Annie Kidder of the Ontario parent
lobby group called People For Education, an organization that supports
public education in that province. She wonders if reintroducing
religion to the classroom might be a good thing, considering how many
children are growing up today without religion or even a defined set of
religiously based values to guide their behaviour. "I grew up in the
50's and 60's", she told teh Spectator,. "I'm part of a generation that
was loath to simply pass along a ready-made set of values to my kids.
Now I look at my kids and think, Hmmmm....they could have learned more
about that - and maybe about religion too".

yup. pull God out of the schools and satan takes over. Big suprise, huh?

I am not a religious person. I am quite spiritual though. I remember
what kept me out of trouble in my younger years. #1: Fear of my parent's
(in my case, Grandparent's) action. #2: Fear of police and legal action.
#3: Fear of eternal damnation. SOMETHING had better be done, and done
quick. Our children are being taken from us. Children today fear NOTHING
except non-acceptance from thier peers.

I have said it several times in here, that the educational systems need
to improve, keep up with the changing times, the diversity of our world
and it looks like Canada is taking it on. I think it's a wonderful
concept, to teach about all religions, faiths and believes, past and
present.

AMEN...........Knowledge IS power.

It sure is and I think it's great they want to expose students to all
religious viewpoints. What better way to have young adults being capable
of making their own decisions when it comes to religion and forming
their own educated opinions, views and beliefs and not having anything
shoved down their throat by parents, the media or the govenment.

Oh my, a class in elementary school called "God in the Classroom" to
promote religious literacy and this was spoken in the same sentance.
This infuriates me, what knowlegable, socailly intuitive person would
consider that religious literacy should illude to the notion that "God"
is in the classroom.
ok, got that off my chest, now to my question.

I'm confused at some of the posts that follow the article. If you
actually read it with an open mind, you would have concluded that there
are two types of education being referred to here. The first is at the
UNIVERITY LEVEL, young adults. The purpose of the class was not
intended to instill any kind of religious moral or value. Its main
purpose, the goal was to generate acceptance if not tolerance of all the
differences in these moral and values by way of explanation. Through
historical events, wars and disputes, mass destruction of life and to
show how these same religious beliefs see and are affecting current laws
as relates to continued growth and development of the scientific
community, not to mention the community at large and their right to make
'life' decisions without the interferrence of government on some
religions behalf.

So my question to all of you is - would you want a religious class in
elementary school that dealt with the subject matter as stated above?
- OR -

are you saying you prefer the following:
Then there was the idea of religion in elementary school, which looked
an awful lot like teaching about God, in traditional terms, to me.

If you prefer the second, I must ask you how you reconcile in your mind
that this is sound and good preparation in any fashion, in broadening
the mind and the developing a conscience that includes acceptance and
tolerance of all religions?

i am all for the teaching of religions at the university level, and even
making it mandatory. a university serves to turn out well-rounded
individuals, not someone that is just trained for one position. they
serve, mainly, to teach the student how to think for themselves.

critical thinking skills and a diverse knowledge base are GOOD things.

as to religion on an elementary level...as it pertains to history,
absolutely. maybe even concepts and such...if i wish for more, i'll
send my kids to the local catholic school.

I think as a historical lesson it would be great to have a class about
religious impact on our and other culture .
I dont go to church as I am not into organized religion but I do feel
morality and values are best taught in the home.
Having God out of the schools isnt the problem,its the lack of community
and parenting that is .

I think it's a great concept, and long overdue. Children and young
adult's need as much information of the past and present to form their
own opinions and find their own beliefs. Diverse knowledge aids in the
development of a healthy, well rounded mind. Knowledge is power versus
being narrow or closed minded. How can that ever be a negative....

And you're right Lori....if parent's or young adults want more, they can
seek it, or not.

the problem I see with this is simple.

what religion will the teacher be?

No matter the good intentions that teachers individual feelings on the
subject will creep into the curiculem.

I do not want someone teaching my children in an area that is soley MY
responsibility.

As we each have our own ideas on religion so to will the teacher.

Honestly... Could you teach a class on religion and NOT put your spin on
it.

AB, the concept of haveing a class relating to religion would not
include "teaching" a religion. It might be called something like
"theology throughout history" or "theology in history". Of course in
discussing the historical nature of a theological war, would have to
include the reasons for the war, which would require relating the
various and differing beliefs among the factions.

If classed of this nature were begun in grade school there could be one
class each year, there are certainly enough conflict in history to
support more that that. In highschool, the class could begin to bring
in more current aspects of disagreement. For example, why there are
differing opinoins as relates to laws about
stem cell research, or cloning, or same sex marriage and so on.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT TEACHING ANY SPECIFIC RELIGION, only what is
necessary to explain past and present conflicts.

but red...

How in the name of god would the teacher NOT put their own spin on such
teaching.

A class on THEOLOGY is still fraught with religion.

Can you imagine a teacher with christian foundations teaching a class on
the crusades from the point of view of a moslim.

Or a teacher with a moslim foundation teaching the crusades from a
christian view.

Or someone raised wikken teaching about the inquistion or the salem
witch trials.

AB you have a good point. One of the biggest reasons the Holocaust
Museum was developed was because some teachers refused to teach the
truth, or because they taught that the numbers were overstated as a
propagada move by the government of that time.

So I see your point. I suppose like any other class, it would have to
be somewhat structured and have very good history books that are written
with truth and fact, and not like a newpaper.

There is danger of bias and misinformation in almost any class. It would
still be better to have some theory than to continue to allow children
to view the world through only the one perspective of what they are
taught in their one religion world.

Well I am not one to knock something with out giving an alternative.

Perhaps we could have a teacher that guides the class and supplement
that education when necessary by bringing in a teacher that can teach
from the point of view of the particular religion in question.

sort of like a guest speaker.

Ab, I'm not sure you understand, yet the nature of the classes that I
would endorse. There is no religious perspective, there is only
history. This war started because there were two opinions on how this
law should be written. Side A (this religion) believed so Side B (that
religion) believed this and the community clashed and war began.

You see, history, no opinoin offered, just history. If opinion or
discussion occurs it would be handled with a perspective of, how could
acceptance, tolerence and a fair law have been negotiated?

You see the class is basically history, but at it's base are those
events that occured in history that had a religious beginning.

i took world religions in college...and the professor was amazing.
never, not in the three semesters that i took under him...did i EVER
figure out what his personal religion was.

he taught each religion's history and concepts...theories regarding
each...and did so with a neutrality and yet with a passion that was
infectious and inspiring. with EACH religion, you could understand
where they were coming from...and felt "in tune"...

he brought in specialists, as well...we had buddhists, for exhample,
come to lecture and show us how they meditate. we watched movies, read
books, wrote papers...

and i still have no clue what he personally believes in. none.

I would have to agree that the teachers do NOT practice nor endorse a
personal or specific religion. I believe that not everyone has a
personal agenda. The whole intent is not to teach a religion, but to
expose students to all religious views. Teachers and schools may not
impose any particular view. In this day and age, it can be done and is
being done.

Exposing and educating children and yound adults of the many different
views, diversity and perspecitives is a postive thing. I think this
could be said about their education as a whole to be honest.

AB, I think your points are most valid if we are talking about
elementary school - where children have the least development of their
own critical thinking skills, and teachers have the least educational
requirements.

On the college level, though, I agree with Lulu and Red. I've seen
university professor's do an astounding job of keeping their personal
opinions out of the curriculum, even in religion classes.

I'm totally against mandatory subjects that are unrelated to the degree
area no matter what they are.

If a person is going for an English major they shouldn’t be required to
take anything other than English courses, etc.

I’ve never condoned mandatory subjects that are unrelated to the degree
area. I totally disagree with that educational philosophy.

Students should be able to take whatever they want. Just list what they
took on their record and let employers hirer them based on that
information.

The idea the educational institutions should ram any knowledge down
anyone’s throat is totally appalling to me. I don’t see that as being
the purpose of educational institutions.

Let people chose what they want to learn. It’s their time and money!
It’s their life! Why should educational institutions dictate to you
what you have to learn?