We Should Not Teach Religion in Public Schools
Alex Zakson
August 01, 2005
Public schools should be expected to teach children reading, writing, math, physical sciences, biological sciences, civics, health and other subjects teachers learn in college, but not religion. Honesty, respect for one another, respect for the law, and discipline (as in restraint and perseverance) should be taught at home, and reinforced at school.
Religion is very personal and subjective, and therefore must be taught by parents. Even if the teacher and parent belong to the same denomination, they may very well differ on basic issues. Take birth control and abortion, people of the same denomination disagree vehemently about these subjects. Thus, when a teacher delves into religion, he/she might contradict the parent’s basic beliefs, and inadvertently violate the parent’s religious rights.
We don’t expect the bank teller to cut our hair, nor our hair cutter to change the oil in our cars. Why would we want to hand over the teaching of religion and morality to someone not trained in the field, and whose religion and morality may not agree with ours? I believe that it’s the Wal-Mart syndrome.
In your neighborhood Wal-Mart you can buy groceries, drugs, clothing, garden supplies, toys and more; and charge it on your Wal-Mart credit card. It’s one stop shopping, and makes shopping easier. So when we send our children to school, some parents abdicate all parental responsibility and expect the teachers to not only do what they are trained to do, but to do the parenting as well, and make parenting easier for them.
If I am not one of those abdicators, why do I care who teaches what in public schools? Two reasons: one, the time spent teaching religion is not spent on teaching basic subjects, so my children are shortchanged; two, my children will be subjected to an authority figure espousing beliefs that may be contrary to mine. Teaching purely objective matters is one thing, teaching subjective matters is totally something else.
Religion is very personal and subjective, and therefore must be taught by parents. Even if the teacher and parent belong to the same denomination, they may very well differ on basic issues. Take birth control and abortion, people of the same denomination disagree vehemently about these subjects. Thus, when a teacher delves into religion, he/she might contradict the parent’s basic beliefs, and inadvertently violate the parent’s religious rights.
We don’t expect the bank teller to cut our hair, nor our hair cutter to change the oil in our cars. Why would we want to hand over the teaching of religion and morality to someone not trained in the field, and whose religion and morality may not agree with ours? I believe that it’s the Wal-Mart syndrome.
In your neighborhood Wal-Mart you can buy groceries, drugs, clothing, garden supplies, toys and more; and charge it on your Wal-Mart credit card. It’s one stop shopping, and makes shopping easier. So when we send our children to school, some parents abdicate all parental responsibility and expect the teachers to not only do what they are trained to do, but to do the parenting as well, and make parenting easier for them.
If I am not one of those abdicators, why do I care who teaches what in public schools? Two reasons: one, the time spent teaching religion is not spent on teaching basic subjects, so my children are shortchanged; two, my children will be subjected to an authority figure espousing beliefs that may be contrary to mine. Teaching purely objective matters is one thing, teaching subjective matters is totally something else.
Print
Email
