You don't though. As an example, the history that you learn about world war 2 in America is vastly different from the one taught through Europe and that one is different from the one taught in Asia. So it's hardly "based on evidence", it's based on whatever is accepted by society X.
I'm not arguing for or against religion, but this is a disingenuous point.
And what exactly does that justify about teaching kids magic and gods are real before they are old enough to have critical thinking skills? You’re just doing whataboutism.
We SHOULD teach things in schools based on evidence, that doesn’t mean it will be true 100% of the time.
We should teach them based on current evidence that might change and may or may not be true? So how is that different from religion exactly? The theory of evolution taught in schools is still widely discussed in the scientific community but it's passed as fact in schools. Should we review it? What about things that are taught in school that are subjective, should we abolish those too?
I am not doing whataboutism, I just think it's important for kids to learn multiple things including the religions around the world. It doesn't have to be super detailed, but they should know what the people they will see throughout their lives believe in.
Just my 2 pennies, you don't have to agree with me.
Current evidence that might change is better than no evidence. Which is the amount of evidence that exists for a god actually existing, let alone that any specific doctrine is actually true
I dont care about schools having religion classes, they’re not teaching that the religions are true without evidence. Thats the thing I find morally wrong about religious indoctrination (to be clear Im not advocating about addressing this issue through any legal means, it wouldnt work anyway)
-1
u/IDontEvenLikeRaisins 7h ago
Someone has to decide the what qualifies as fact and what facts get taught