Religion
Related: About this forumA Religion Class Done Right
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/17/a-religion-class-done-right/September 17, 2014 by Hemant Mehta
We often hear about Bible classes in public schools and how many of them (like the one created by Hobby Lobby President Steve Green) are just ways to proselytize in the classroom.
But in California, the Modesto Public Schools are receiving some well-deserved appreciation for their mandatory World Religions course.
The teachers there have figured out how to teach about religion in a comprehensive, effective, and neutral way:
Johansen High junior Arianna Sibaja said the course helped her get past stereotypes of other religions and have a more informed view of events unfolding in the Middle East. It helps us understand why its going on and what their motives are, Sibaja said.
In an introductory lecture, McIntyre stressed the importance of respecting all views, even those that reject religion. Were not talking about agreement. Were talking about honoring the right, she said. Gesturing around the class, she said, We are not a cookie-cutter-looking room in here, neither is the state, neither is the world.
They invited religious leaders from the community to weigh in. That was instrumental, she said. The First Amendment Center and Anti-Defamation League gave assistance in teaching sensitive subjects without controversy.
Teachers visited the Islamic Center of Modesto, Congregation Beth Shalom Synagogue, the Greek Orthodox Church and other religious centers. But teacher training was done by professors of California State University, Stanislaus purposely removed from faith practitioners, she said.
more at link
Rhiannon12866
(205,551 posts)We had mandatory religion classes in my (private) high school, but it was comprised of Old and New Testament and I didn't retain much of that. I think we could all benefit from learning more about different religions, would certainly cut down on misconceptions and bigotry. After 9/11, I had to look Islam up in the encyclopedia since I didn't have a clue...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The only religion I ever got was at church. One of my kids went to a catholic high school, and he got some more academically based religious studies, but there was still quite an emphasis on Catholicism.
But tho is good stuff and, I agree, could really cut down on bigotry.
Rhiannon12866
(205,551 posts)We had special classes in preparation for Confirmation, don't remember a lot, but I was 10. And what helped me most with religion in high school was that great film "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," since that stuck with me more than anything I read, LOL.
There are so many misconceptions about religion, particularly now, that learning about different faiths would be extremely helpful, especially if it happened early. Kids could even help their parents learn a few things.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That could certainly happen.
Rhiannon12866
(205,551 posts)I've always thought that the most important way to make progress in eliminating conflict and bigotry, whether it's the race issue in this country, the division in Northern Ireland or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is to educate and enlighten the next generation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the better.
It's hard to hold onto hate when you have actually met people that you previously hated for no good reason.
Rhiannon12866
(205,551 posts)Since nobody mentioned anything, not my parents or my grandmother or my teachers, it never dawned on me, all on my own. But I realized that I did have a kind of prejudice when my grandmother asked me to accompany her and her peace group to the USSR in the late '80s. I was scared witless, but then I'd learned that the Russians wanted to kill us from the time we had to hide in the school basement during air raid drills in kindergarten.
So it was a real revelation to me just meeting ordinary people. They seemed genuinely pleased to meet Americans and I changed my opinion from the time I got off the plane. My friend used to teach third grade and he'd have me come in and talk when they studied Russia. The thing I emphasized was that they're just like us, want the same things, especially peace, since they suffered so terribly during WWII. Experience changes everything...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We took a road trip into the south when I was very young so that my parents could show us what was going on down there.
They also introduced us to other people that were different, including GLBT people and people of other religions.
I still remember the air raid things, and I do think I had some substantial prejudice against the Russians.
So cool that you got to go to Russia. I find the more I travel, the more I truly appreciate that we are all so much more alike than we are different.
Someone told me not long ago, that life is not about accumulating things, it is about accumulating experiences.
Rhiannon12866
(205,551 posts)My grandmother was a great traveler and it became my father's hobby. He traveled all over the world, Europe, Russia, China, Australia, the Middle East. And he also inherited my grandmother's way with people, liked and accepted pretty much everyone.
I also had an early experience in the deep South, though it took me years to understand it. When I was eight, I traveled for Spring vacation to Florida, where my grandmother was for the winter, with my aunt, uncle and cousin. My aunt was my father's sister and my cousin was the closest thing I had to a sister.
We drove, and I remember that we stopped at a car wash in Georgia since the car (station wagon, we kids rode in the tailgate. ) was pretty muddy. It was run by an older couple and they were very nice to us, gave my cousin and me pens with the name of the car wash on them.
While we were waiting, I couldn't help noticing the bathrooms. There were three doors and I could read. A blue one said Men, a pink one said Women and then there was a third one, painted yellow, which said "Colored." We lived in New York and I had no idea what that meant, had never seen anything like that before, though it was the '60s, so I asked.
I still remember sensing that there was something wrong, since I didn't get an answer, could tell that this was the wrong thing to have asked, but I had no idea why. I'm surprised that my aunt didn't address this question later, but maybe she thought it was better not to open up that kind of discussion and all the other questions that would have come with it, but I've always been sorry that I didn't bring it up when I was an adult, since it obviously has stuck in my mind.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They wanted to show us the bathrooms and the water fountains and the lunch counters. They wanted us to see the shanty towns and the cotton fields.
It left an indelible impression on me.
It sounds like your aunt was a really open minded person, but times were awkward and not everyone was comfortable with the discussion.
Bottom line, though, is that you grew up to be a very open minded and loving person. I don't think I have ever seen a stitch of intolerance from you.
Rhiannon12866
(205,551 posts)I never realized the extent of all that went on until I watched Eyes on the Prize on PBS back in the '80s. I lived in Saratoga Springs, NY, for most of elementary school and junior high, went to school with kids from lots of different backgrounds, but, like I said, nobody ever said anything, so how was I to know? I've always thought that this was a clear indication that bigotry and prejudice is taught.
And I think my grandmother was the one who instilled these values in my father and my aunt. She told me once that a neighbor, commenting on her lack of intolerance, warned her that "one of her children was going to marry an Eskimo!" I guess that must have been the ultimate minority back then, LOL.
My aunt is gone now, as is my grandmother, and I miss them both a lot. And I've often wished that I'd mentioned that early experience with either of them. Maybe my aunt thought I was too young to understand and that's probably right. I don't understand that kind of thing now.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think that realising that just because someone is wrong about something does not mean you do not have to be polite to them is a good thing.
I do not think that factually incorrect or unethical views should be respected.
I think the ideal religion class would involve getting children to try and explain to one another why it is that they think their views are correct and the people who disagree with them are incorrect, in a polite, constructive and rational manner.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)incorrect or unethical, you have a very good point.
But I don't think that is what this is about. I think it is about educating children on the general tenets of a given religion and teaching them to respect diversity.
I could not disagree with you more about your ideal religion class. This is exactly the opposite of trying to convince people that your view is correct and everyone else is wrong.
It is much more about acknowledging that there are many different beliefs and there are those without any beliefs, and that's just fine.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"This is exactly the opposite of trying to convince people that your view is correct and everyone else is wrong."
That's what "having a view" means. If you don't think that your view is correct and everyone else is wrong, you don't have a view, you just don't know.
I think that one of the most important things an education could do is to teach children to think, reason and argue. I think that actively suppressing that will result in children less capable of thinking. To teach children to think, we need to argue, to work out which conclusions are correct and which are incorrect.
And I think that consensus that we will refrain from doing that, and pretend that mutually-contradictory statements of fact may all in some nebulous sense be "valid", is likely to result in children growing up stupid.
If you can't present a coherent explanation as to why your view is correct and people who disagree with it are wrong, you should recognise that that view is not based in sound reasoning, and stop holding it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think presenting children with different concepts that may contradict each other, but still all be acceptable, is exactly how you promote their ability to think.
All of religion is about "not knowing" and anyone who claims to know is foolish. Embracing what you believe is what faith is about. There is not need to convince anyone that yours is the correct view and that theirs is wrong.
Thinking, arguing and reasoning are all good things, but there are also times to step back and realize that some things are not absolute. Sometimes there are no correct or incorrect conclusions.
I guess we just could not see this any differently, but I don't think either of us is wrong or right.
And that is the whole point.
You can try to present an explanation as to why your view on this matter is correct and how I am wrong, but you won't be victorious.
My POV is just as valid and worthwhile as yours.
What you promote sounds like dogma. I couldn't be less interested.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)>>I think presenting children with different concepts that may contradict each other, but still all be acceptable, is exactly how you promote their ability to think.
Here are two different framings:
1) Some people think X, other people think Y. We don't yet know who is right and who is wrong, so it's worth assessing both so you can make an informed judgement about what the right answer is.
2) Some people think X and other people think Y. Even though they're mutually contradictory, it's not nice to call people "wrong", so let's use words like "valid" and "worthwhile" to describe them both, and stigmatise trying to work out what the truth is.
>>All of religion is about "not knowing" and anyone who claims to know is foolish.
No, that is not true. Most of the major world religions directly contradict observable evidence, so we can be confident they're wrong, and while we can't refute supernatural or supreme beings of some form, they belong in the same category as Descarte's invisible demon or the Matrix. Schools shouldn't be teaching that, they should be remaining neutral, but they *should* be teaching children that claims about the nature of the universe - like "There exists an omnibenevolent supreme being" and "The existence of an omnibenevolent supreme being can be disproved" can and should be assessed objectively, and encouraging them to do so.
>>Embracing what you believe is what faith is about.
Possibly, possibly not. But faith is a *bad* thing, not a good one; the whole point of thought, science and education is to minimise the amount of stuff we need to take on faith, and enable us to make evidence-based judgements instead.
>>There is not need to convince anyone that yours is the correct view and that theirs is wrong.
If that view doesn't influence their actions then up to a point I agree; if it does - and religion often does - then sometimes it does. But doing so is a very useful intellectual exercise, and should be encouraged even if it's not strictly necessary.
>>What you promote sounds like dogma. I couldn't be less interested.
There are two wonderful essays on this subject by G.K. Chesterton, called "Heresy" and "Orthodoxy".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Faith is not a bad thing. You employ it all the time. Everyone does.
There are good arguments to be made for science and evidence, but that is not the entirety of life.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I employ an amount of faith - I take it on faith that I am not living in the Matrix, for example.
But the point of science is to push the need for faith as far back as possible - to say "we no longer need to take X on faith; instead we can deduce X from Y, and take Y on faith instead". You can never eliminate the need for faith - it's turtles all the way down - but you can push it back.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The point of science is to push the need for faith as far back as possible? Well that's one I've never heard before.
The point of science is to expand our understanding of that which can be understand. It has nothing to do with faith.
Do you really wish to wage a war in which the goal is for science to vanquish religion?
This is sounding a lot like a video game.
I guess if your goal is to win, then I can see your POV on this. But that's not my goal.
I see the value of both science and religion and would hate to live in a world where there was only one of them.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I don't support wars against religion. I do support arguments against religion, and I wish it didn't exist. I think that religion does immeasurably more harm than good; I also think it's factually wrong. But this isn't about that - I don't think that schools should be opposing religion any more than they should be promoting it.
What schools *should* be promoting is *thinking*. They should be encouraging children to ask "Is this statement true or false? What evidence is there to support it or its converse?", rather than accepting cop-outs like "it's 'valid'".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)For all the arguments about the harm that religions has caused and causes, there are an equal number about the good.
Have you seen Half the Sky? Have you visited places where women are driven out of their communities because they have contract the HIV virus and have found asylum in religiously based places? Have you ever been to an orphanage in a place where children are left to die on the street?
There is a lot to criticize about religion, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Not everything is true or false. It's a sad state of affairs to believe that is is the case, because it means you must take a hard stand when there is only quicksand.
There is a good case to be made for supporting what is good about religion, whether you are a believer or not. And there eis a good case to be made for pushing back against that which is not good.
Extremism is problematic from whatever direction it comes.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)In particular, any meaningful statement of objective fact - "God exists"; "Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha had certain supernatural atrributes or performed certain acts"; "There is life after death; it is like this" is either true or false.
We can't always be certain which, but there's a world of difference between not being sure if a statement is true and it not being true.
I never either said or implied "everything is true or false". You, I think, are trying to imply that nothing is true or false.
And what is really sad is to encourage people to wallow in quicksand needlessly, rather than trying to work out which bits are solid.
>>Extremism is problematic from whatever direction it comes.
Nonsense. There's nothing whatsoever problematic about extremist opposition to, say, sacrificing babies to Moloch. The reason that extremism and closemindedness have semi-justified bad names is that often it's a lot worse to be fanatical and wrong than it is to be tentative and wrong, but usually only a bit better to be fanatical and right than it is to be tentative and right, so on balance one should err on the side of tentativity and considering the possibility that one may be wrong. But, when it comes to statements like "Logical thought is good; woolymindedness is bad", I am absolutely certain that I am 100% right.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The insistence that everything must be is risky, as it can lead to rigid and dogmatic positions based on flimsy or no evidence.
If someone takes a hard stand that God exists, the burden of proof is on them. If someone takes the hard stand that god doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on them. The reasonable person will take the stand that they believe one or the other, but are not certain.
I am not trying at all to imply that nothing is true or false. That would be as silly as saying that everything is either true or false.
Your description of extreme opposition to a particular activity is not at all why I meant by extremism. Certainly you recognize that and we can agree that extremism is problematic.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And forced into religious facilities like what happened in Ireland?
No, I don't credit religion for building an orphanage when the church is responsible for the parents deaths.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The inability to see that would indicate some rather extreme blinders.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I think it's a good idea and it serves a child's interest to have a well rounded understanding of the religious traditions that we live amidst. As an atheist, it's akin to teaching Greek mythology, to my mind.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There is a big difference between teaching Greek mythology and current religion. To equate them seems to only serve the purpose of dismissing religious beliefs and those that hold them.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Yes, I have dismissed the beliefs, with tolerance for those that hold them. Tolerance would be the goal, I would think.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)when you compare major, current religions to ancient mythologies.
I would hope one of the goals would be to refrain from making judgmental statements about those who may or may not see things the same way you do.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 20, 2014, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)
I think those stories also contain some truths.
Have I mentioned that my daughter is a self-styled pagan pantheist? I think I have.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They are in a different category.
I respect your daughter's right to believe anything she wants and I do not reject paganism in any way.
But that is not the same as Greek mythology. I am sure that you realize that.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think that in some ways - social impact, liability for offence, for example - they are clearly different, while in others - evidence base, for example - they are entirely equivalent.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and none of it is Greek mythology.
They are by no means entirely equivalent unless one has the goal of ridiculing or dismissing those with religious beliefs.
You want to throw Santa Claus and the tooth fairy in there? That's usually the low point in the conversation when that comes up.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)What *is* a specific goal of mine is attacking and destroying an attitude to life that says that working out what is and isn't true, or is and isn't likely to be true, by analysing evidence and drawing conclusions, is not very important indeed.
While I disagree with people who say "I believe that the existence of God can be deduced from the observable evidence", I can nevertheless respect their position. I think they're wrong, but it could be that I'm wrong and their right. And we can have civilised and potentially productive discussions about their analysis and mine, and potentially I'll point out where they're going wrong, and potentially they'll point out where I am. "It is not possible to deduce anything about the existence or non-existence of God from observable evidence" is, of course, also a perfectly respectable position.
What I reserve my unalloyed contempt for is woolly thinking - people who say that... well, sequences of words with no meaning, generally, but the broad sense is that trying to draw conclusions from evidence is bad and judgemental, and that you should just leave your brain switched off and not offend anyone by thinking or trying to draw conclusions.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Certainly Greek mythology has a great deal of influence in Astrology,for example. And there are a great many people currently who do incorporate that into their belief system.
Why are you being so dismissive of religions that predate Christianity? Mightn't they also contain as much truth as other, more mainstream belief systems?
okasha
(11,573 posts)or a belief system. What influence, other than planetary names, does Greek mythology have on it?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)If you'd like to know more about how Greek mythology informs Astrology, I suggest you do some reading on the subject. I very much resent that there seems to be a list of real religions and mock religions around here. It's dishonest and unfair.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Astrology is basically an early form of archetypal psychology, apart from its "predictive" function. I do know a bit about Greek mythology--Classics minor on my BA--and recognize that the two share some of those archetypes in assigning names and functions to the planets and signs. The associated character traits, however, have changed significantly over time.
I don't think anyone has argued that Greek religion wasn't real. It 's just that there isn't a lot of it about these days. Except for some schools of Wicca that emphasize Diana/Artemis, much of modern paganism is more or less Celtic-based or rooted in various indigenous religions.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)From reading your posts, I would have guessed you were a Christian of Liberation Theology leanings. It's interesting that you claim the pagan label.
Okay, I'm not into astrology or Greek mythology or Egyptian mythology. But my daughter tries to explain things to me sometimes. Tolerance. It's what I do.
The story of Aries is linked with the myth of the Golden Ram, which saved two kids, a brother and a sister, from being sacrificed in order to appease the gods.
The next sign of the greek zodiac is the constellation of Taurus (bull), associated with the legend of Theseus and the Minotaur.
According to myth, Theseus volunteered to be one of the youths from Athens who would be offered as food to the horrible monster Minotaur (half man, half bull) who stayed in Crete, in the labyrinth. But, when he was there and with the help of Ariadne, the legendary hero managed to kill the beast and thus relieve his city Athens from the terrible punishment imposed by the Cretan king Minos.
More at the link.
As for whether people have argued that Greek religion isn't real, that's a very fine point. Some people seem to have taken offense that I mentioned it while discussing modern religion with a fellow atheist. My motives were called into question because it must be mockery.
okasha
(11,573 posts)My maternal grandfather was a Tsalagi adeweh-- a holy man and traditional healer. So was his father. It runs in the family.
You don't have to be Christian to work within either Liberation or Process theology. Both fit very well with Native American religion.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Do you know how much traditional Cherokee religion might differ from (or coincide with) Sioux religious tradition? The reason I ask is that my brother has been adopted into the Sioux tribe. He is definitely a Christian with Liberation Theology leanings, although he has incorporated Sioux spiritual beliefs into his own world view.
okasha
(11,573 posts)There is a lot of religious overlap among Native American nations, as well as syncretism. Eg., White Buffalo Calf Woman, originally Lakota, has been "adopted" as a pan-Native figure.
It's not uncommon for Native Americans to practice both an ancestral religion and Christianity, and your brother would not be unusual in that way.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that would mack sense.
But taking the position that Greek mythology is in the same category as any of the worlds current major religions is inaccurate.
I'm not dismissive of religions that predate christianity at all. I am merely making a distinction between those that are no longer believed or practiced and those that are.
More truth than current mainstream belief systems? Like what for example?
I find it hard to believe that you don't see the difference and hard to understand why you would want to conflate these two things, other than to denigrate current religions.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I don't believe either of them. They are equally valid in discussing the human experience. Also, I am not sorry that my disbelief offends some.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's about teaching tolerance and understanding and acceptance of others whatever they believe or don't believe.
You might benefit from the course.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You have admitted to laughing at the book of Mormon, yet get furious when someone does the same to other branches of christendom. Hypocrite is what the bible calls those types of people.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)However, I wasn't holding up Greek mythology for ridicule. We still study it in academic settings. The yardstick some of us seem to be using is that it's not a real religion unless it's mainstream in modern society. That is a narrow and parochial view, to my way of thinking.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The point of this curriculum is to educate young people in order to reduce prejudice and increase acceptance of others.
The teaching of greek mythology really has no place in that discussion, other than to explain some of the roots of current religions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Both are things that both Mormons and non-Mormons can find amusing and quite entertining in parts.
Hypocrite? Isn't that an ad hominem?
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)One day when I was still very young, I asked my father about his parents. I knew my maternal grandparents intimately, but I wanted to know why I had never met his parents.
Because they died, he said wistfully.
Will you ever see them again? I asked.
He considered his answer carefully. Finally, he said that there was nothing he would like more in the world than to see his mother and father again, but that he had no reason and no evidence to support the idea of an afterlife, so he couldnt give in to the temptation.
Why?
Then he told me, very tenderly, that it can be dangerous to believe things just because you want them to be true. You can get tricked if you dont question yourself and others, especially people in a position of authority. He told me that anything thats truly real can stand up to scrutiny.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/04/my-dad-and-the-cosmos.html
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the problem arises when you assume that people with religious beliefs only hold those beliefs because they want them to be true.
It doesn't take into account the vast variety of reasons that people believe or what they believe or the paths they may have taken to get there.
What is and is not "truly real" is not really the point. Some things can't be proven or disproven no matter how much scrutiny you apply, and that's the bottom line with religious beliefs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)alongside evolutionary theory in biology class, and the kids should just sort it out.
Oh wait, no that can't possibly be what you meant.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)When I was at school (lo, those many years ago), I have a Religious Education class that taught me the basic beliefs and history of Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Christianity. It would have taught me about Hinduism but I was out sick that term.
So I've long thought that a World Religions class that neutrally taught the basic beliefs and history of, say, the top eight world religions would be a good idea. According to a quick Google, that would also mean teaching the basics of atheism (which doesn't have any unifying belief system but does have a history that can be taught). The more we understand about what others believe, the less scary those beliefs become.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The point, imo, is to teach children that there are a variety of ways of looking at the world when it comes to religious beliefs. I agree with you that it could go a long way in reducing fear and prejudice.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)While atheism isn't a religion in the normal sense of teh word and doesn't have a belief system, we can teach kids the history of atheistic thought and educate them that "some people don't believe in god and that's fine too".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)could go far in decreasing the jingoism that swirls around the topic. I'd also like to see similar comparative political classes that would neutrally provide an opportunity to look at the role various political points of view, movements have played in an historical and social context. In some instances, they would overlap come to think of it.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)My intention here is to foster understanding and, thereby, decrease fear.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Note that the teaching here was done by professors; in order to purposely remove teaching from "faith practitioners."
What tends to happen with this kind of class, is that it starts OK. But then when they go looking for their next instructor, the only type of instructor widely available is the "faith practitioner."
It's extremely easy for this kind of class to quickly degenerate into an attempt to make Christian converts.
I took this sort of class in the University; where that tendency was well controlled. But it's much, much harder to retain this focus in High Schools. A lot depends on selecting just exactly the right teacher.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Comparative religion classes should be elective.
I assume sleeping through the class isn't an option.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)might decrease intolerance and prejudice?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)about atheism would increase understanding and acceptance and decrease prejudice?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I said; "Between religious groups, perhaps."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and decrease prejudice between believers and non-believers with a program such as this. I am assuming that when you say "between religious groups", you are making a clear distinction between those groups and non-believing groups.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)As you well know, we know more about religions, on average, than religious people know about their own damn religions.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2010/09/why-do-atheists-know-more-about-religion/22880/
Unless you want to hold us up as captive specimens, there isn't anything to be gained by showing up to a class like this.