While I support the idea, in principle, of comparative religion being taught to secondary students, I think of my own high school history teachers and can't think of one who would have had the background necessary to present such material objectively. I'm not comfortable with local school districts choosing which of the Texas-based textbook providers would supply the material to be used in such a class, and I'm less comfortable with the curriculum being designed by the dipshits who tend to hold positions on school boards.
Furthermore, suppose there was a teacher adequately versed in the subject and able to teach it properly. As others have pointed out, the parents would have a collective meltdown: "The government continues to undermine our God-given right to indoctrinate our children as we see fit . . . blah, blah, blah." Just imagine such a class, in which one section is devoted to -- oh, let's say -- ancient resurrected savior figures. They'd go after the teacher with a gelding knife -- in the name of religious liberty, of course.
Sadly, I don't think it can work to treat our students like the near-adults they are simply because too many of them have fucking children for parents.
Furthermore, suppose there was a teacher adequately versed in the subject and able to teach it properly. As others have pointed out, the parents would have a collective meltdown: "The government continues to undermine our God-given right to indoctrinate our children as we see fit . . . blah, blah, blah." Just imagine such a class, in which one section is devoted to -- oh, let's say -- ancient resurrected savior figures. They'd go after the teacher with a gelding knife -- in the name of religious liberty, of course.
Sadly, I don't think it can work to treat our students like the near-adults they are simply because too many of them have fucking children for parents.
