Marxist teachings should be more focused on in high school curriculumns.

Thanks to my opponent for posting his rebuttal. I do understand that much of Marx's beliefs did stem from Hegel and HIS beliefs were from many other beliefs intertwined into his philosophy, but that is of, for this argument and in my opinion, another matter. Now to address the statement "How could Marx say what he did about religion being the opiate of the masses if he knew anything about Eastern religion? " The entire quote being -"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Karl Marx is stating that religion is the opiate, or the stimulant drug to the people of the world; who in his opinion, use religion as a drug that calms them and gives them reassurance in life, from the belief that there is something greater than them and that the entity(ies) controls the universe and gives hope to the poor or weak of the world, and all of the beliefs associated with religion. Eastern religion, Buddhism in particular, is more of a philosophy than anything. It focuses on the principals of life and the effects that can be visually observed. Such as the observation of someone being cruel to another, and that person being mentally/physically abused and all of the effects that follow (Karma). It very little attends to the idea of a higher 'God', and uses Buddha as an example of someone attaining the sought after state of being, Enlightenment. So, this is less of a religion than it is a philosophy. And I believe that Marx meant not the abolition of religion but the removal of the ignorant hope and subservience associated with it. Even though he did state that to attain true happiness, religion must be ostracized; though, in the age he lived, he, most likely, observed religion to be a tool for control and false hope. But I believe we have digressed from the true meaning of this argument. My intention is to implement teaching styles of Paulo Freire or any other Marxist-oriented teaching (meaning the de-centralization of education towards certain classes (Reference: Jean Anyon's article of the Hidden Agenda of Education, any who are reading this should read this article) ). The type of education that digresses from the typical "Banking Concept of Education" (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) and focuses more on the Problem Posing type of education in which the teacher and students are equal in that they both teach and learn equally. Mere memorization and regurgitation of thrown out, and instead the education brought in assumes this order of, 1. Teacher's stimuli to the 'student' in which they obtain information and process it. 2. The 'student' takes this information and analyzes it and compares it with their knowledge of the subject at the time and logically and assertively creates a new 'understanding' of the subject 3. The 'student' then converses and argues with the teacher of both of their understandings. 4. A possible new consensus or continuation of disagreement occurs. 5. The new understanding is applied to their lives and methods of understanding in any manner, by de-compartmentalizing (contrary to the regimented education where, and I know this personally, as I am still in school, students gain information and hinder it by compartmentalizing it into ONLY the specified subject and willfully ignoring any possibility of applying it to any other 'subject'. Last but not least I want to address my opponent's statement of "Now wouldn't you rather study Marx on your own without some teacher's idea of what is important?". Are you poking fun at the fact that I first was interested in Marxism from the information I received from my teacher, which was the case at first, but I know independently research the virtues,beliefs, and merits of Marxism. Or are you addressing the fact that it shouldn't be taught at schools because some 'teacher' thought it was important that the students should understand it?