Teach Our Children Well

Part one.

Should religion be taught in public schools in America?

The easy answer to this question is that no, religion should not be taught in school unless we mean by religion comparative religion, which is essentially the scientific outlook (comparison and contrast) applied to religion. And the U.S. Constitution supports this view, is essentially a recommendation and even a plan by which power is checked by power, so that no matter the power--whether an old and familiar one or new and not anticipated--it is arrested in its movement, prevented from causing society to fall back into the archetypal patterns of society ruled by one man (which depending on how we feel is monarchy or its negative, tyranny) or a consortium (which depending on how we feel, is an aristocracy or oligarchy).

Part two.

But unfortunately things are not so simple. The very Constitution of the U.S.--its recommendations and plans--is something quite new in history. And "what it means", essentially democracy, is new itself. In fact as we learn in the old English classic on political philosophy, Hobbes's Leviathan, democracy is so new and perishable that not only an aristocracy gone negative--oligarchy--is preferable to democracy, but that monarchy gone negative--tyranny-- is preferable. And the reason why is that democracy has the negative--anarchy--which is the worst of the three negatives. Furthermore history shows that the positive we call democracy over its negative--anarchy--is the most difficult of the three positives to establish.

What this essentially means is that no matter how clear the U.S. Constitution is about separation of powers and checks and balances, it will always (at least for the foreseeable future) be subject to being interpreted in the light of types of one man rule or aristocracy (and I should mention theocracy can be one or the other or both) for the simple reason that these latter forms of government are more common and easier to establish historically. The democratic impulse views aristocracy not to mention monarchy negatively, but the democratic impulse has not demonstrated enough consistency, success, by which aristocracy or even monarchy can be considered definitively negative. In fact democracy in even the most advanced nations shows itself all too susceptible to its negative, anarchy. We see this in the constant political stalemates and other areas of life in which it is impossible to arrive at a decision. In other words, the very secularism a significant group of people feel is a given is actually, historically, a rarity.

Part three.

The United States essentially does not know how special it is, what a historical anomaly it is. Many will say what I apparently mean, the democracy of the U.S., is actually becoming quite common, from England to India, from Japan to Australia. But the problem is so many places of democracy are not the mixing bowl the U.S. is, they are all too often not even an attempt at a melange let alone a success at such. Homogeneous Japan and Israel are good examples. The U.S.--most certainly according to Hobbes--is deluded in its belief that democracy is quite easy to establish. One look at the world, the difficulty of getting agreement on anything from the proliferation of WMD to climate change shows that for all democracy worldwide its negative, anarchy, is more apparent. But the U.S. apparently is not bothered about facts on the ground. Not only at home do we have the press for more and more secularism--and no, do not tell me the Republican party is an effective restraint on such, an effective restraint on the secularism of the Democratic party--we have our delusion, our unfounded optimism extended to even foreign policy.

Take how the U.S. treats a problem such as Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. essentially tries to apply the values it holds dear at home to those places. The inhabitants of those countries are just supposed to hold elections, to divide power intelligently, to not demonstrate any type of aristocracy let alone monarchy, worldly or divine. Certainly the U.S. cannot properly fight in such nations--it is restrained by the very laws applied at home. In other words the U.S. cannot impose itself in aristocratic let alone monarchic fashion in those countries. And certainly powers such as Saddam Hussein or the Taliban are viewed negatively by the U.S.--although they are arguably exactly what those countries needed. Hobbes would say the U.S. is not only weak but ridiculous. Far from establishing democracy in such nations the U.S. is creating the negative of democracy, anarchy, and all because it is so hostile to any hint of aristocracy not to mention monarchy within itself that it cannot see that in those nations--let alone the world as a whole--that such "primitive political processes" are necessary. The foreign policy of the U.S.--especially the left wing--is nothing more than a recipe for anarchy.

Part four.

We see this anarchy slowly creeping in the very homeland. The U.S. constantly emphasizes multicultural habits at home and constantly speaks of keeping anarchy at bay (or rather does not speak at all about such) by education, never mind that of what this education is supposed to consist--this education which should exist specifically to keep anarchy at bay--no one apparently knows. Education in science? Historical studies? Comparative religion? Classes in Civics? And be honest people, how many people really have what it takes to be such ideal citizens? The evidence so far as I can tell is that perhaps ten percent of the people in the U.S. and none in such places as...well, we shall keep quiet about that, will understand these very words I have written. So how can I not sympathize with such ideas as capital punishment--severe justice in general--or even aristocracy,--or even monarchy? Certainly I feel that in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. must ruthlessly establish order--proceed in even tyrannical fashion--or just get out, for nothing else will work. Certainly not the compassion of liberals (Democratic party in the U.S.).

Conclusion: Why should the U.S. not be turned into a Christian, theocratic nation? Because the Constitution says otherwise? Because that is irrational? More irrational than the idiotic and common belief--especially on the liberal side--that the U.S. can just integrate these people and that in some sort of secular state utterly immune from anarchy? Amazing how so many say they are on the side of reason in the U.S. and then when one examines their prescriptions against unreason they are unreason itself. And no doubt it would be too much to ask any American citizen to read Hobbes's Leviathan. Might take away from that true uniter among us: television. Yes, it seems the antidote to anarchy must be images pressed into the mind to the point of stupor. No wonder democracy is believed to be easy to establish worldwide. So far as I can tell we should not only not have religion in school, we should not have school itself. What point is school when democracy can exist by television? And besides, with no schooling at all we have nothing to fear from religion. Everyone in fact will be happy. Television will be our new God.

The question is not whether God should be taught in schools but whether religion should be taught in schools.

The curriculae of the public schools is fraught with political interfernce from state legislatures, who often buckle under the influence and pressure of dominating politically conservative Christians.

AS far as civics and history go, US publoic schools give a superficial first look to the subject, either leaving religeon out completely, or distoring its true historical impact.

In college, there are no limits to what is taught. They teach anything and everything. In public shcools, there is never even a whisper or a hint of a dark side to the history of Christianity.

The awful and shocking truth always comes out in college freshman, WesternCiv. (I still haven't got over the shock).

But anyway, Amereicans are presently too fractured, disunited, and bitter against each other to tolerate any reasonble references to religion in the public schcols.

Prof. Dennett has a grand idea here, and one that has been around at least as far back as the 1960's. My alma mater offered a graduate degree called 'Teaching Religion in Secondary Schools' which involved the academic/comparative study of various of the world's religions at the high school level.

How this was to be implemented was still in it's formative stages. This was clearly an idea whose time has still not come in any major way.

As I recall, this was to be elective rather than mandatory course work. I took a degree in Comparative Religions, but as far as I know this idea never took off in the public sector below the college or university level, and I moved on. My interest in world religions continues to persist after 40 years....

It's still a very good idea, but I suspect would be harder to mandate legislatively as part of a compulsory component of the public education curriculum than say, healthcare reform - probably much harder.

And another point of fact - the academic study of religion does not promote a belief in God, because it doesn't take a stand on the 'truth' of religious beliefs as Dr. Dennett mentions in his essay above. A good many religions and religious practices are not particularly theistic in that sense anyway.

Given that the general public is vastly uninformed regarding the actual range and variations to be found in the world's religions (both primitive and modern), one would think that ideally a broad education would include something about religious behavior as a universal human phenomenon. And yet, this kind of information is generally not available academically, below the university level of study.

Aside from the fact that the sort of exclusively pro-Christian religious prejudice setting the tone for this topic is to be expected from the Bible Belt in general and Texas in particular (Austin excepted), one wonders just how important a genuinely eclectic education is to the American public at large.

What the academic view of religion presents is an historical, cross-cultural and comparative overview of the continuum of religious practices and beliefs from an ethnological/sociological/anthropological perspective.

Seldom do people view the topic of religion as belonging in the perspectus of a academic curriculum vitae, and yet in my view, nothing has more central importance as a primary shaping mechanism for world history.

God should not be taught in public schools. Apart from the inherent problem of finding truly objective teachers of religion to abide by strict academic principles, and not impose their religious preferences upon the students, there is a commom sense reason for that: Render unto Caesar...

We live in an intensely multicultural society. Intense because the various cultures and religious backgrounds and beliefs have all been thrown into the stew and no single distinct flavor can be identified; there is an over-abundance of flavors.

The fact that each person can rightly claim that their flavor is the dominant, and correct flavor for the stew, is what makes the teaching of God so problematic in a public school setting. To select one is to offend the others. And the argument that it is better to obey God than man, is out of context. For each can make the same claim. This is Caesar.

The teaching of God belongs in the home and in religious gathering and in religious institutions. That is rendering to God...