My new book "Religious Literacy" makes the case that, while the United States is overwhelmingly religious, Americans know surprisingly little about their own religions, or those of others. Many Protestants can't tell you any of the four Gospels. Many Catholics can't name the Seven Sacraments. Many Jews can't tell you the first book of the Hebrew Bible. But this isn’t just a religious problem; it is a civic one. Whether you like it or not, American political debates -- about abortion, stem-cell research, and the environment -- are shot through with religious reasons. And it is impossible to understand the international scene, not least the war in Iraq, without some basic understanding of Islam and other religions. The place to attend to this civic problem is the public schools. Rather than raising up yet another generation of leaders who know nothing about Islam and Christianity, the Quran and the Bible, we need to educate young people about religion. More specifically, we need courses on the Bible and on the world's religions in every public school district. This is not an easy task. We will need to select curricula with some care, making sure that the materials read in the classroom take pains to TEACH religion rather than PREACH religion. And we will have to educate teachers so that they too know the difference between the academic study of religion and pious proselytizing. But these are challenges that can be met. And we owe it to our children to meet them.

There is no doubt that there is alot of cultural illiteracy in America. There is also alot of geographical, historical and scientific illiteracy. The public schools should place a much higher priority on rectifying those last three categories. Moreover, the fact that politicians routinely dreg up religious arguments in making policy should be an argument for politiicians sticking to reason and the shared values of our Constitution in making decisions and not one for teaching religion in schools.

I agree that there are other forms of illiteracy in the United States, but religious illiteracy is particularly dangerous, since it is in the name of religion that so much evil (and good) is done in the world. So I think religious illiteracy needs to be a priority. But the key issue in your criticism below seems to be that teaching about religion is somehow unconstitutional. This is simply incorrect. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said not only that the academic study of religion is constitutional but also that it is important. For example, this ruling in the 1963 religion and public education case: "It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment." So there is no constitutional issue here.

Well we currently teach about the Bible in roughly one out of every twelve US public schools. Is that teaching unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional to discuss how the Bible was used in the debate over slavery? Or how Lincoln used it in his "House Divided" speech? Or how Martin Luther King Jr. used it? If students are reading Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" novels, which refer to the Fall in the Garden of Eden must teachers ignore that element of the text? If you are saying no discussion of the Bible then that's ridiculous. Or, for that matter, of the Quran. The only legal question here is HOW these texts should be taught. And as long as they are taught academically, non-devotionally such teaching is proper, whether it's in a day-long discussion, a month-long module, or an entire course.

In my proposal for a Bible course and a world religions course for every public school student in America I have an opt-out provision, which means that any student who feels such a course would violate his or her religious freedom can take something else. But in a world religions course mandated in Modesto, CA, only about 2 or 3 students (out of 3000) each year opt out. As for other forms of illiteracy, I agree we need to know more about geography, including finding Iraq. But religious illiteracy is deadlier. When the US went into Iraq, its leaders knew shockingly little about Islam, and particularly about how bitter was the Sunni/Shiite rivalry. Moreover, why is this a "geography first, religion second" question? If we do REAL historical literacy then religious history would be included. But in too many US history textbooks today religion is scandalously ignored. Religious beliefs were major motivators in the Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, the civil rights movement, abolitionism, environmentalism, etc. Students should not be left in the dark about all this. It leaves them unprepared as citizens to face the realities of US politics and international affairs.

Why should the Bible have its own class? Good question. The answer is because it is the key scripture in American political rhetoric, and has been since before the founding of the nation. I understand that you and other strict separationists think that this is a bad thing. And I agree that there are a lot of deleterious effects--on both politics and religion--from mixing the two. But wishing something does not make it true, and the fact of the matter is that at least during my lifetime politicians are going to talk about religion, and when they do their touchstone will be the Bible. The same is true of American literature. Here the touchstone is not the Upanishads of the Hindus (which I teach my college students) but the Bible. As for "which one" to teach, I'm up for bringing various translations into the room. That makes the point that the Biblical books were written in other languages, which is a good history lesson in itself.

Correction: Howard Dean said "Job" was his favorite book in the NEW Testament.

No, no, no. By saying that we'll only talk about the "biggest" group in a faith tradition a public school would be taking a theological position on some of the most serious religious questions in world religious history. And if you want to rip communities apart, just tell the PTA that you'll be teaching about the "largest" Christian groups (Amish need not apply). I have a section on all this in my latest book "Piety & Politics". I hope you check it out.

Thank you Stephen and Barry for joining us.