9 Answers

  1. In fact, nothing but imposition. It will be wrong if such lessons are included in the mandatory program. Elective – yes, at least learn the Bible by heart there.

  2. it is dangerous to mix the secular with the spiritual, and as a result, such a mixture leads to serious problems, the main one of which is atheism and further atheism. Parochial schools and seminaries brought up the godless Stalin .

  3. Personally, I am against such lessons, especially if they will be introduced as compulsory subjects. I think it is more correct to make something like the “Culture of the peoples of Russia”lesson rather than a religion lesson as such. That's where you can talk about Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. But again, the story should be superficial. Those who want to know more can ask their parents to enroll them as additional lessons in an Orthodox seminary(I don't know where those who want to study Islam are enrolled in this case). But even there, you need to pay attention to what kind of teacher and what he will say to students. Otherwise,new Enteos will grow, both Christian and Islamic.

  4. As with literature. The school has too great a chance of trampling the fuck out of any interest in anything.

    If the teacher is adequate , then it is not dangerous at all…

  5. In my former school, the subject “Military industrial complex” was introduced – the basics of Orthodox culture.I was in an open class, and to say that I am outraged is an understatement…The lesson is taught by a teacher of philosophy and a representative of the Orthodox Church of our city.I am against this “innovation” for several reasons:- The item itself. “OPK”. Well, what is it!? As Eduard – Religious studies wrote, this is very good. Where students would study all the known religions of the world. They simply impose Orthodoxy on the students themselves. This is not good.- This was made a mandatory subject retroactively. How? Very simple… They set the lesson as the “4th lesson”. Since students are not allowed to leave school at this time, they are simply forced to sit in this lesson, and not wander around the corridors.- Well, the most epic thing I've seen: When the priest entered the classroom, everyone was ordered to get up. When the priest read a prayer to the Lord before the lesson began, the teacher told everyone to be baptized.

    That's horrible…

  6. It is dangerous because now religion is on a horse and meddles in secular affairs, where it is not supposed to meddle. Why teach children what they don't need? This can be done as an elective for those who want to study a particular religious direction. That is, only voluntarily.
    The adoption of the law on insulting the feelings of believers shows that this is very bad. �

    It is necessary to introduce students to religion, but do it while paying attention to all major faiths, perhaps within the framework of the history of the state or world history.

    PS I want to remind you that the Bible has not changed, and millions of people have already been killed on its basis in past centuries. Therefore, it is necessary to use it as a reference point very carefully and it is better to start at a conscious age, so from the age of 18 🙂

    P. P. S. If someone is offended by this answer-relax, so that's what God wanted 🙂

  7. This is a very slippery slope. I know that many people oppose the introduction of such classes, but for some reason they do not oppose such subjects as music, physical education, art and even literature. After all, it is also a kind of imposition.�

    Well, that was a lyrical digression.�

    I think that the introduction of a separate subject ” Fundamentals of Christianity “is not correct, but the subject” Religious Studies ” is very good. I had such a subject when I was studying at the technical school. We have studied the emergence of religion in general and its individual representatives, and its impact on society in the course of historical development. Many of my classmates learned that there are a lot of trends in Islam and that not all of them are radical))). And even some people were surprised when they found out that Armenians and Georgians are not Muslims: – D.

    I hate to look at high school students who claim that they are atheists and prove it with posts from VKontakte. Or, foaming at the mouth, talk about intolerance to LGBT people, but mock a peer who has religious parents and sometimes goes to church.�

    All this is due to gaps in education and upbringing.

    The danger of entering such a subject is only a lack of competence and possible bias of the teacher. In our multinational state, such a subject would even be useful. BUT only with the correct program.�

    Religious Studies-from Sumerian myths to Scientology: – D.�


  8. Outbreaks of atheism and Satanism in society. Given the intolerance of our high school teachers, then so be it. It should be noted that in Germany, for example, such lessons do not cause fierce rejection in view of the tolerance instilled in society.

  9. There are a lot of related clarifications that need to be made. How well-trained and competent teachers will conduct these lessons? What programs? With what accents? Any good idea can be ruined by a lousy implementation.

Leave a Reply