Embed Notice

@realcaseyrollins

> I don’t agree, because there are too many “understandings of life”. Everyone doesn’t need to know everything.

Not every student needs to take every class on every subject. But that is vastly different than not offering it at school at all. Obviously not every topic needs to be covered, some might be so obscure as to not be needed. But they would be exluded only because other topics take priority, not because you want to deny someone the chance to learn it.

> We shouldn’t have any of those. I think putting the education about morality and religion into the hands of government-funded institutions is a rather dangerous decision.

Again you arent teaching them what morals to have. You are teaching them all the ways people have evaluated morality and teaching all the varied perspectives to them and giving them the tools to accurately judge morality on their own.

The only time governments teaching kids should be suspect is when they intentionally exclude teaching them about one facet of a topic. So long as the coverage is complete, and teaches how to learn and not what to think, then its good.

Also who said anything about government. Schools can be private schools too, they dont have to be public schools.

> That is the parents’ fault. I will never be one to say “parents do a bad job so the government should parent the kids instead”.

Huh how did we go from "teach them the ways to think critically" to parenting. No one is asking or expecting schools to parent, they should be teaching not parenting.

@SirBemrose @josemanuel