Growing up, my parents raised me as a catholic. I attended a private catholic school, where the catholic faith was taught on a daily basis, and in addition to that my parents had me attend catechism classes, which taught about the bible and other aspects off the catholic faith. With all of the education I have received in Catholicism, I feel that I am highly knowledgeable not just in Catholicism, but in Christianity as well.  Although I choose to be an atheist, going to church every Sunday, attending a catholic school, and knowing all about the catholic faith has not been a waste. It provided me with the knowledge to make my own decision on what I choose to believe in, which is why this topic is relevant to me. Not only is it relevant, but it interests me due to the fact that I am well informed about religions, and it shows that even though I do not believe in a religion, I value knowledge. 

I believe that I am qualified to write on this topic, because I have a first-hand experience, and I have knowledge on the subject. Having knowledge on religions benefits both you and others in multiple ways. Knowing about other faiths primarily makes you a more knowledgeable person on other cultures and religions. It also would make it so that there is less judgment and stereotyping when it comes to religions, because there is currently much of this going on in our society. The previous would then lead to more acceptance.  And having knowledge on other religions provides the means in making well informed decisions when regarding religions. 

In the article titled "Harvard Scholar: Religious Ignorance a Big Problem," Jon Becker is arguing that people should not be ignorant on the subject of religion. A professor at Boston University, who teaches religion, said "there are compelling reasons for people to have some knowledge of religions" (Becker). Religion illiteracy extends far beyond schools and colleges into American society. Becker quotes Prothero, a CNN Blogger, when he mentions that there is a difference between preaching and educating (Becker). Becker speaks about knowledge being the value at stake. Religion is everywhere in society, and it is a "public and private power" (Becker). People do not have to believe in religion to have a basic understanding of them, because ignorance is not always bliss. Becker and his article are credible, because it was posted on a daily news website for a city, Midland, in Michigan. Becker does not have bias on this topic, because he is not stating his own opinion. Becker has interviewed people as to why religious ignorance is a problem, and has used their opinions to write this article. 

Another article, "Religious Stereotyping is Bullying" by Warren J. Blumenfeld, is arguing for people to be religiously literate as well. Blumenfeld uses an example of people protesting and opposing Christianity in a vulgar way. He then says to replace Christianity with Islam, because that is what society is doing to Muslims (Blumenfeld). Jon Ritzheimer, a former U.S. Marine who sponsors the American Freedom Defense Initiative, states that "larger groups like ISIS do not represent the extremes of [Islam]" (Blumenfeld). Stereotyping based on ignorance that all Muslims as terrorists is one way in which people bully others because of their different religions. The main value at stake in this article is the treatment of people in our society. Religious ignorance "[depersonalizes] and [dehumanizes] people and their ideas," and has led our society into stereotyping and bullying others due to their religion (Blumenfeld). This article supports my view that people should be knowledgeable about the basic aspects of different religions, because it will improve our society for the better by having people become for accepting.  For the majority of the article, Blumenfeld is speaking about stereotyping and bullying from his perspective, which makes it have bias, because he is clearly for ending the problem of religious ignorance. The article is also very credible, because it is from a noteworthy source, The Huffington Post. 

"The One Reason Religion is Harmful" is an article written by Greta Christina that talks about the reason why religion is harmful to society. This article opposes my viewpoint. Christina speaks about how there is no proof that anything in any religion exists. Although I am an atheist, there is still also no proof that something out there does not exist, which makes Christina's point a terrible reason. Christina also uses the argument that religions influence political leaders of the world and give them reason to justify for wars (Christina). In the article, Christina doesn't speak of a value at stake, but rather says the knowledge of religions is not a value we should have, because it only proves to be harmful. Values that we will still have without any knowledge of religion are " ... community. Charity. Social responsibility. Philosophy. Ethics. Comfort. Solace. [And] [a]rt" (Christina). This source is credible, because it is from an organization's website that has many sponsors. Greta Christina is obviously biased towards the topic of her article, because she is an atheist who thinks religion is harmful, which I do not agree with. 

Being informed on the different religions can be arguable, because some people may feel that being educated is the same as being preached at. There are those people who will refuse to be educated, which will cause them to remain religiously ignorant. As seen in my sources, the first two articles agree that people should be well informed on religions to an extent. There is no need to know everything about every religion, but the articles see it as knowing enough to stop stereotyping and to be more knowledgeable. The third article uses many opinion-based reasons as to why people should not have knowledge on religion. There are differences in the articles due to their reasons for knowing about religions, and for the third article opposing the view of the first two. Regardless of the differences, my point was well made that people should be informed on religions, and the perspectives of the articles do not affect my viewpoint, because I agree with the articles. However, my research question could be revised to be less broad, and focus on more of a specific topic. 

