Religion in Education

[JakeGallagher]

<rant>
In my own opinion, I believe that religion should be taught from a historical standpoint only. Humanity throughout the ages has relied on religion to explain anything that they couldn't. However, if one religion's beliefs and stories are taught for the history concepts, ALL religions' stories, concepts, and beliefs related to the subject must also be explained.
For example, to understand the conflicting views between certain Muslim extremists and Christianity (sorry for being so general, but the west, and America aren't the only oppositions to the extremists), a teacher would have to explain the concepts that the Crusades were based on. Not only from a Christian standpoint, but also the Muslim standpoint as well.
As for the AP English teacher, she did overreact, but from what I've read, most of the AP English test is on western literature. In my class, we've read a lot of different western texts, from The Odyssey to Inferno. Right now we're finishing up some work on James Joyce and moving into Crime and Punishment. The Christio-centric views of most of these writers are unavoidable, as in the middle ages and later, Europe's literature was written mainly by the educated people, and for the most part...those were people educated by the Church.
To cut it short, religion in any schooling is unavoidable. The way it is shown, however can be changed. If religion is to be taught about, it shouldn't be based on ONE religion, unless there are no other religions in question. If this is the case, (and in every other case) the material should be taught in the most objective way possible, from an open minded platform, with no religious biases in the explaination of stories (ex: telling someone that they are wrong for suggesting that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, that homo habilis were, etc.).
</rant>
MHO.

<edit>
In years past, people were taught not to "tolerate" other religions and views, but to accept them. Tolerance is another word for absent minded acceptance.
The Nazi party in the 1930s was tolerated by the world community, and look what that lead to. No one would dare accept what they were doing, but no one would do anything about it because they were tolerating the actions for fear of a harsh repremand from the powerful German army.
Acceptance, however is a much more powerful weapon than tolerance. Acceptance is allowing people's views to be expressed in the fullest way possible.
Before anyone tries to misquote me about that, understand that when I say to allow the other person's view to be expressed, I'm not just talking about the religious view, I'm also talking about the counter to this view.
Think about what I've said.
</edit>