The Pitch: Banning All Religion

[Zophia]

I just wonder when you say "educating about its contradictions, flaws, etc." do you mean only these things? There are also many benefits/wisdoms in individual parables and laws/commandments, consistencies within and between religions, etc. Some would likely construe only teaching the negative aspects of religion as bias if not complete propaganda. And some would view teaching anything about any religion or all religions as unconstitutional, at least in public institutions.

There are positive teachings in religions such as Christianity, but those things do not need the religion to flourish. Morality does not need a god or gods. Those consistencies between religions prove that well enough... they have no consistent entity of worship (and in some religions, such as Buddhism, none at all), yet they still come up with some of the same thoughts on right action. Which, to me, illustrates that a particular religion is not needed to be a good person. Coupled with my own atheism and views on morality, I am able to ascertain that NO religion is needed to be a good person. (And really, is a person who needs a religion to do good things a good person?)

Religion is often treated carefully because no one wants to offend anyone. I would like the opposite -- a more critical, truthful eye. The reality is that a lot of things about religion do not stand up to scrutiny... Such as in Christianity, where the texts constantly contradict themselves, moral contradictions with today's world views run rampant (yet still, God is the author of an "objective" morality), and contradictions with science start on the first page. People also usually aren't told the historical truth about what they are reading, such as that various books in the New Testament are thought to be forgeries. Is it wrong to bring these things to light? Can truth be biased? If something does not make logical sense or is shown to be false, do we ignore it to protect those who believe it, or to protect the institution itself? Do we go out of our way to give people reasons to believe it anyway, or just say "here are the facts"?

If you're expecting me to ignore the good that religion has done for the world, I won't... (I do not believe it is 100% evil) but I also won't ignore the bad, and I think we can have the good without it. I think above all, the truth is important here, not preserving what I see as an unneeded tradition.

I don't think if I said "Myths like Betsy Ross sewing the first American flag or Columbus being a hero should be erased and replaced with real education" that anyone would call me biased for it. (Or maybe I'm naive?) Do the stories give us a sense of patriotism (or make us feel better about atrocities committed)? Perhaps. But we don't need them to feel patriotic. Reality can serve that purpose just fine.

I am also all for separation of religion and state. So teaching this in public institutions wasn't quite what I meant. In terms of the advertisements, my actual thoughts were more in line with the organization having an educational website on the subject... and that our individual goals should also be to educate when placed in an appropriate situation (like East did). But in the classroom? No. This has no place there. Religion & government should be two separate things. How sad it is that they are often not.

(Sorry for the book. LOL. A little wordy, aren't I? )