Don’t be obtuse; he’s said no such thing.
Uhhhh…
I acknowledge that there may be some variation in interpretation, but it certainly sounds to me like clairobscur has a real problem with agnostics sending their kids to Sunday school.
Kids don’t need God to be civilized or moral - they need parents who are willing to take the time to talk to them and teach them.
From my limited experience (I only know 2 people, fundamentalists, that link morality to God and both dropped ethics for the short period when their faith faltered), those that link being civilized and morality with God tend to drop both when their faith was lacking. Personally, I’d prefer to lay a stronger foundation than one that can be eroded later in life.
As for the cultural background, I never attended a Sunday school that provided this, nor were the Sunday school teachers formally educated in the religion or religious history. I can understand wanting your kids to learn and understand the concepts, but Sunday school is not an objective learning environment. Of course, my experience is limited to Baptists and while I can not say whether my husband’s Catholic experience greatly differed, I do know he learned more about religion from his Catholic school (taught by Cistercians) than he ever learned from a Sunday school teacher.
I also would not abandon a kid at the border of the woods for an hour and a half with no adult supervision.
You might want to check with Nancy Reagan about that. Not to mention that astrology significantly predates Christianity. What principles do you use to not belief in astrology that aren’t valid for religion? Or is it that you don’t have faith?
The difference between some religions, especially Christianity and Islam, and other beliefs is that these religions are convinced they’ve got God’s own truth, that non-believers will suffer, and that it is okay to force non-believers into following their religiously-based morals for their own good. There is a long tradition that forced conversions, bribery for conversions, and lying to get a conversion is proper.
Gay marriage is a perfect example. We’ve never seen a non-faith-based argument against gay marriage. It all boils down to preserving the sanctity of marriage. So, people lose an important right due to some (but not all) religion.
Learning about political philosophies is good, but I don’t think many Christian parents would send their kid to Commie Martyrs Sunday School to have the morning free.
The OP is a non-believer. Assumedly, he thinks that what is taught in sunday school is false. I can’t see how it can make sense to send a kid to a place where he will be taught something you think is false. That’s as simple as that.
Other people mentionned various advantages : activities, learning about the dominant religion, socializing, coloring Jesus drawings, socialization, whatever…All of these things can be done without adding to them the “false teachings” part. There’s no added value in sunday school that can’t be found in many other activities. And there’s a negative aspect to it. So, why would a non-believer want to send his kids there?
Let’s take the example I mentionned a couple times. How many christian parents will be willing to send their kid each week to somewhere where they’ll be taught Islam? What the kids are taught there about religion is false from the christian parent’s point of view. Whatever other activities the mosque could offer is equally available at sunday school or in various other places. Why would the parents decide to do this instead of sending the kid to sunday school? How many would even consider doing so? I bet the answer is : none, basically.
So, why does it suddenly becomes weird or a position difficult to understand when a non-believer thinks it doesn’t make sense for a non-believer to send his kids to sunday school?
A person simply must be out of their mind if they think that the influence of the Judeo-Christian ethic on the American people is in any way comparable to the influence of astrology. Seriously, get a grip. Come back when you find a dollar bill in your wallet that says, “In the Age of Aquarius We Trust.”
I have no idea how many Christian parents have done this. But I think it would be a Good Thing if it did happen. Some actual knowledge of the teachings of the Koran might cut down on all that noise, like “all Muslims are taught by their holy book to kill babies in their sleep,” or whatever other hate-filled ignorant lies are being spread around nowadays.
On a related note. I was talking to a Muslim last night who told me that there are more references to Jesus in the Koran than there are in the Bible. I have no idea if this is true, but certainly if there is a grain of truth to it, it might behoove even fundamentalist Christians to learn more about Islam.
Finally, I think you’re taking the concept of “religious learning = learning untruths” to a blinding extreme. For example, I see a benefit to someone being able to know the story of Job, regardless of whether the person believes that his reported hardships were inflicted by an actual big white powerful man in the sky. For that matter, the word God is not mentioned once in the entire book of Esther. Would it be okay for an atheist or agnostic to read that book and feel confident that they are not studying a lie?
My point, which went right past you, is that a lot of people use astrology for far more than entertainment. Obviously religion is a bigger deal - I’m still wondering why people believe in one and not the other, though.
Information about different religions is taught in public school, and rightfully so. But why would a teacher in an Islamic Sunday school not teach that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God? That’s the kind of thing that might get the Christian parent upset.
In my experience a higher percentage of atheists have read the Bible all the way through than theists. Reading the Bible, along with commentary explaining the historical context is something everyone should do. But will the Sunday School teacher, after reading the flood story, tell the class it never happened? My Hebrew School teachers, who were far from irrational or orthodox, never did.
The point deserves to be ignored. If I understand you correctly, you acknowledge that Christianity has had a great impact on how our nation functions, and astrology hasn’t. That’s the only salient point here. Period.
Perhaps it is in your area, I don’t know. If it is, great. I went to a public junior high and high school and I didn’t learn jack about any religion. Nada. If you contend that teaching world religions are a standardized part of a public school education in the United States, I would request a cite for that.
I’m not sure I’m following you.
Your atheist friends sounds like smart people. But tell me: How many religious people do you personally know who have not read the Bible?
Yeah, and I can’t buy tires for my car at the grocery store, either. Presumably, well-meaning parents will not expect that one place of learning or a single activity will teach a child all of life’s lessons. My school district had a decidedly liberal bent: one of our junior highs was named after Malcolm X, and we always got X’s birthday off from school. My father told me that he didn’t agree with making Malcolm X to be some type of hero, and thus I learned not to believe every single thing taught in school. I am supremely confident that other parents – especially ones conscientious enough to want to expose their children to disagreeing viewpoints – are more than capable of impressing the same sort of lesson on their children. In fact, agnostics sending wee ones to Sunday school probably aids this effort more than anything else I can think of.
Again, I think the idea that parents are willing to go out of their way to expose their children to different viewpoints – even those that they disagree with, but acknowledge are important – is an admirable thing. If organized religion is as silly as you believe, then the parents should have no problem in teaching that same lesson to their kids, even if the children are – gasp – exposed to the insideous teachings of the Bible.
One hardly has to go to Sunday School to learn that. One just has to read the papers. I grew up Jewish in New York, and I got it without going to a Christian school.
I’m sure you are aware that there is no national curriculum. My daughter had this unit in 7th grade social studies. I live in a very liberal district, here in the Bay Area, where the biology books have a great section on evolution. I don’t remember if I had it in school 40 years ago, but it happens. An unbiased look at all religions, with just the facts, seems a better way of learning than going to a place where the purpose is indoctrination into a faith. (Which is the whole point - Sunday school is not meant just as baby sitting after all.)
No such religious school is going to teach the facts, they are going to teach dogma. The very same Christians who would say come to my Sunday School for information, what could it hurt, might get upset about their kids going to a similar school for another religion. The point is, that’s their right.
They all read the good parts. Cover to cover, though? I don’t think that many. I’ve been in newsgroups where the atheists had far more Bible knowledge than the theists. Do ministers encourage their flocks to read the part where Abraham offered Sarah to the Pharoah, for instance? There are lots of bits in the Bible that raise uncomfortable questions. Remember that the Catholics discouraged Bible reading for a thousand years, and for all I know still do.
As I said above, I had no problems with my kids going with their friends. I exposed them to the Bible first myself. Nothing builds better atheists or clearer logical thinking than a clear and unbiased reading of the beginning of Genesis.
I chose the flood as an example because none but the most fervent fundamentalists believe it really happened. I doubt that even liberal churches (or shuls like the one I went to) are going to go out of their way to say that the Bible is wrong. We’re surrounded by flood imagery. Scientists and the smarter of us may know it didn’t happen, but the flood is part of our culture, in cartoons, in Fantasia 2000, all over.
The bottom line is that there are better ways of learning about religion than submitting to an indoctrination program, and it is perfectly reasonable for non-believing parents to not want their kids to attend such a place. But not, may I reiterate, to have their kids pulled out of a comparative religion unit in school.
It doesn’t make sense, since the gospels are entirely about Jesus. I read the Koran twice, and I dont remember it being filled with references to him. I must admit that I actually don’t remember much of it, but still…
Myths are very interesting, whatever their source. And knowing the tem the most important christian ones should certainly be part of the general culture in wstern societies. The problem is them being presented as a truth.
Besides, why did you pick Job? It’s all about being faithful to the Lord. That’s not a very useful moral teaching for a non-believer…
And then? It would mean that more time ought to be spent explaining what this religion is about, and what influence it had on society (the good and the bad).
But that’s history or sociology, not sunday school. Once again there’s this annoying part with sunday school presenting it as a truth.
I don’t know for the poster you were responding to, but I’ve known plenty of them. My mother, to begin with. An ex, also, who not only had not read it, but didn’t even read the shortened version I had bought for her. Granted, catholics might be less fond of reading the bible, and french people less interested in religion than american people even when they’re believers. But still…
Yeah, I’m fairly sure he was trying to make a fine distinction that was being lost on me. There was a bit of a language barrier, but his overall point was that Jesus was mentioned more frequently than most would believe.
When I was trying to think of a way to explain that learning about the Bible isn’t nearly on the same level as learning about astrology, the phrase “patience of Job” popped into my mind. I guess it kind of stuck around semi-subliminally for a few paragraphs. 
By the way, Voyager, I’m curious as to which “very liberal” school district you mentioned. I was in the Berkeley Unified School District, so the Bay Area connection makes me curious.
And, I know there is no national program of study – what I’m saying is that I don’t think that it is common for public schools to require students to learn about religion. If you are saying that it is common, I would appreciate a cite for that.
Fremont - not liberal compared to Berkeley. When we moved here I was quite concerned, and have been very active in the schools, including a stint on the high school site council. I was on the committee reviewing text books - it was a bit of a joke, since we got just a few hours, and were expected to pretty much rubber stamp the staff selections. However, for the new biology books, I made an effort to look up the treatment of evolution in each one, and was quite pleased. The book for the continuation school had an error of fact, and was pretty superficial, but the AP book had a full page interview with Richard Dawkins.
I think the high percentage of non-Christian students in our system helps a lot.
Fair enough. Try this one. It does not say exactly what percentage of classes teach about religion, but it certainly seems to be pretty standard.
My 10th grade World History class glossed over world religions. Of course, they may have discussed it in more detail, but that was a long time ago and at the time I considered learning about religion a waste of time and promptly forgot everything other than how uncomfortable my teacher (football coach - what were you expecting, it was Ft. Worth, Texas) was while going over the material.