Tell me, what makes this wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Rizen


But that’s a false equivalence. You can’t teach, for example, history without including its religious aspects. Would it be fair to teach Shakespeare without mentioning his views on religion? Would you exclude teaching about religious scientists whose religious beliefs motivated their inquiries (Newton, Mendel, Copernicus)? I think it’s not only possible but necessary to include religious aspects of these and other subjects without ‘forcing dogma on kids as a kind of brainwashing’. To not do so would be a disservice to students.

Apologies in advance if I misunderstood what you were driving at.

Boru

You missed the post where I said I agreed with arewethereyet:

Religion should never be taught in any tax funded public school except in the context of the history of a country or the social makeup of a country.  You simply cannot teach about fully about history without the mention of religion and religious based events coming into play.

While in Catholic school, I took a course called World Religions, it was actually a good class.

Agreed.

Gotcha. I think it was the word ‘aspects’ that threw me off. Mea culpa.

Boru