All Comments (26)

Zanaflex free prescription

Your conclusion, "forcing people to do that would disastrous," does not seem to follow from your arguments. Nor does the element of coersion in the proposals of Dr. Prothera and others to add study of the world's major religions to the required curricula of American middle and secondary schools rise to the level you seem to imply. Mechanisms for being excused from the requirement are included.

I would also disagree with your premise that teachers and students are incapable of distinguishing religious teachings from the faith which may be required by their adherents. All of us who have ever cracked a book have applied the same process to any number of subjects. Political idealogies and the organizations and movements have their own "faithful," and yet I cannot imagine you seriously suggestion we remove their study from our public schools because of elements of "dogma" which are involved.

This goes far beyond a simple matter of literary appreciation, akin to the study of Greek and Roman mythology in order to recognize allusions in classic and modern literature. Understanding the religious beliefs of the protaganists in current political discourse is crucial to evaluating their arguments. In some cases it may even rise to questions of survival. Remember the "what's the difference between Sunnis and Shiites" stumper posed to an American official responsible for mideast policy?

We keep ourselves and our children ignorant of these subjects not only to their and our detriment, but in fact, peril.

Religious Education is a subject just as much as any other. Maths is mandatory, English is mandatory, why shouldn't Religious Education be too. It's not really the nightmare you are making it out to be.

Once again the concern is that, by having an unbiased study of all religions, your religion will be taken less seriously. Well I'm afraid that's the same worry that every religious position will have. Still I am confident that my religious beliefs can withstand scrutiny and so should you.

Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315

Mandatory religion to a captive audience has a bit of a hellish sound about it.
Many panelist and commentators have serious doubts concerning the simple mechanics of implementing such an idea in a fair way. They could be right, "The devil is in the details", may well be the order of the day when all is said and done on this matter.
Nonetheless, what an intriguing proposition we have here. Religion could be taught in all schools. Religion should be taught in certain schools. You know those schools where children truly are captives to a hellish existence that to them is just normal everyday life. Introducing religion into these children’s lives could provide them a firm hold on the reality that life is both temporal and spiritual.

James and Norrie --

The problem with waiting until college for a course in comparative religion is that a lot of people will be missed -- kids who don't go on the college, and kids like me who wouldn't have taken religion even in college, because I wasn't interested in it (or thought I wasn't, based on what I'd learned in Sunday School).

Teaching religion in public school will be very difficult, at first, I have no doubt, but I think it must be done.

Maybe we could start small with a model program. Some teachers have posted here about their successful experiences. Let's hear more about this.

James,

Whatever happened to "Released Time"? Is it still around? This was a controversial big deal decades ago. Children of a particular faith would be released from school and driven off-campus to receive religious instruction from teachers of their faith. It was like Sunday School on a weekday.

It was very controversial, was upheld by the courts, and the controversy went away. I was dead set against it at the time, but, for some reason, it doesn't bother me now. If this program still exists, perhaps a group of parents could institute the kind of course you and I would like to see as part of a released-time program.

It would have to be a private effort and probably wouldn't reach the kids who would benefit the most: the children of fundamentalist parents (of whatever persuasion). But there might be a place for it in the more enlightened communities.

Does "Released Time" still exist?

James,

Thanks for your post above.

I think it's fine if private secondary schools teach about religion. Parents and students know what they're getting into.

I went to a private day school for high school. It was completely secular but with a Protestant background and ambience. We attended chapel every day, heard interesting speakers, including many clergy. We sang hymns which I enjoyed. I liked that chapel experience. None of this had the slightest effect on my religious thinking.

Public schools are a very different matter. Students have to be there if they aren't in a private school or being home-schooled. The government stands behind and vouches for everything that's taught.

I'm actually more concerned at the prospect of the social discord that is likely to be generated by a public school religion curriculum than I am that some student will be converted to some particular religious viewpoint.

You wrote: "I would like us to find some way to let 6th graders know that there are more religions in the world than Christianity."

I agree with you. At the moment I don't have a solution as to how to accomplish this without negative consequences. I can envision some teachers presenting things so that students come away from it thinking that "Yes, there are all these other religions, but as teacher indicated, our Baptist Christianity is really the best."

I'll try to think more about how our goal could be accomplished.

Reverend,

You said:
"Can you comprehend the works of William Shakespeare or Toni Morrison, or indeed any Western classic without knowing Christianity? Can you delve deeply into world literature without knowing the world’s religions? Of course not."

You got me really worried now. I don't know Christianity, and had thought that I understood Hamlet, The Taming of the Shrew and King Lear. What the Bard wrote about - the whole gamut of human emotions and foibles, is universal. King Lear was retold and nipponized as 'Ran" by Akira Kurosawa without losing its theme and thrust in spite of fabulous Samurai costumes and God turned into Buddha.

In a secondary school exam on English literature, I answered questions on Shakespeare. I now wonder how the Muslim examiners graded my answers as neither they nor I fully know Christianity.

"Interfaith" efforts, inclusive of nonbelievers, are fine, but the essence of religion isn't the food, dance, music, and clothing---it's the specific belief (or nonbelief) in supernatural events. The dogma should not be sidestepped. It's the real reason why this website exists and why our future as a species is threatened.

But I'm not sure how religions, and atheism/etc, can be treated fairly, especially in a very limited amount of time in the public schools.

I can hear it now: "That's not true", "That's taken 'out of context'", "You are cherry picking",
"Why didn't we cover MY religion [or "my cousin's religion]?", "My daddy says that,[yada, yada,yada]", "Am I going to burn in hell, teacher?".

On this last question alone, if the teacher answers in the affirmative, or in the negative, she will be violating constitutional neutrality. The only thing she can say is: "I don't know" or "Go ask your parents" or "What do YOU think?" or she can remain silent. Do we really want to pay teachers to be so ineffective?

Even if that wasn't an issue, the results of public schooling are so mediocre nowadays, who really thinks that religious education in those schools would be any less mediocre?

Religion isnt just theology,it is the food of the people.Right.Lets give Religion to hunger peoples.Peoples of different faith can learn a lot about each other by cleaning up the local park togather and live in peace,perhaps?..Couldnt we learn since 2000 years?

Norrie

I have great respect for your many posts on this site.

I am somewhat agnostic on the question of teaching comparative religion in secondary school. I came in thinking it was a good idea, but you do make me question it.

We both agree College is a great place to do it.

I would like us to find some way to let 6th graders know that there are more religions in the world than Christianity.

Any creative solutions, if you agree, and if you don't think we can trust our public schools to do it responsibly.

It seems a Great Desiderata: should we leave it to parents?

Of course, I forgot about dead religions, some of which we covered as well.

I remember taking a wonderful comparative religion class in high school. We covered the three-headed monster of the Middle East, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, various kinds of animism, Confucianism, and a smattering of Native American religious beliefs.

Barbara Palmieri wrote,

"......our constitution and laws were based on the ideas in the English Bible that were taken for granted by the founders even though they were not "religious men" but of the age of enlightenment and interested in science.....remember it was the leaders of Christian churches who first said that slavery was wrong."

You paint such a rosy picture of Christianity and biblical teaching. Actually, many of the founders of our country were at most deists and they were certainly secularists. The enlightenment was an effort (a fairly successful one) to throw off the yoke of orthodox Christianity (both Catholicism and Protestantism) that had contributed to centuries of religious wars and persecution, and the repression of freedom in general. Because of Christendom’s sketchy record, the founders were worried about the antidemocratic nature of an established religion and sought to prevent that from happening in the new country.

As for your point that slavery was opposed by the church, you seem to be unaware that the pro-slavery forces also used the bible to promote slavery as the natural order of things. It is easy to pick and choose parts of any document to justify belief. However, using the bible as the basis for morality is fraught not only with contradictions and advocacy of some of the most monstrous behavior imaginable, but it precludes change because of its supposed inerrancy. The enlightenment values of the founders were an antidote to the biblical justification of unacceptable behavior. As such, the constitution and the laws of this land were written by men and for men and could be changed as society and the moral zeitgeist changed, reflected by their votes in the exercise of democracy. And change it did. Eventually almost All Men and ALL WOMEN were given equal protection and equal rights. Unfortunately, because of biblical proscription, there are those today who would happily throw gays into concentration camps and impose their morality on the rest of our citizens.

Athena,

"What inevitably happens at K-12 levels is that you end up with indoctrination."

This is absolutely the case. When you were taught about the Greek gods, there were not thousands of worshippers of those gods ready to take to the streets with violence to enforce conformity to their beliefs.

When you try to get agreement on a public school religious curriculum, or when parents object to what they think a teacher taught their child, you'll see social discord and probably even violence.

Keep religious courses out of the public schools.

Susan, I noticed (1) that you kept your children from going to public school & (2) that in private school they had some religion courses. NOW, you're not recommending that religion be taught in public school. How was it THEN, when your children were pre-schoolers? Were you then against teaching religion in public school, & then also against sending your children to public school because there they'd get no education in religion? My question is not about your religion but about your integrity & your common sense.
"Mandatory" is a weapon of mass distraction. On a non-mandatory basis, public schools could offer the same religion courses your children took in private school.
Your witness in this matter is both sound & flawed.
SOUND: You say "My children...went to a private, non-religious school [which] had religion as a subject in several grades, the better to interpret great literature....it is critical for everyone to know as much as possible about all religions."
FLAWED: Logic as well as fairness argues that all children, not just upper-class children, should have the school-benefits you rightly support: why do you not support this democratization?
The "separation of church & state" is another weapon of mass distraction on the religion-courses-in-public-schools debate. Tax money has long paid the salaries of religion-teachers--mine, for example, when I taught religion in the University of Hawaii. Do you think public education should be consistent here, paying religion teachers at all age-levels or at none?
But what I see as the deepest issue you do not even touch on, namely, religion as a factor in sense-making. Increasing numbers of America's children have no contact with church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious institutions. The public schools implicitly teach that sense can be made of everything in life, including life itself, without reference to religion. Instead of being central, as is normal in the history of civilizations, religion--excluded from public-school curricula--is marginal,peripheral, optional in the sense that it's nothing important enough for public education to pay attention to. Since religion is an essential aspect of humanity, this exclusion of religion-in-history-&-life from public education leaves our children with the consequent thin religion of secular humanism, an enemy of the historic religions. Sadly, we must anticipate an increasing alienation between American public education & the American people. Have you nothing to say to this, Susan?

the last post was mine

Athena

I think conditions have changed a lot in the 30+ years since I was in school. Maybe there are places in the US now where teaching classical Greek mythology at K-12 level could get you in some trouble. Of course, it could be that Apollo and Athena are sufficiently removed from the vast majority of modern religious experience as to be considered safe. Ba'al and the other Canaanite deities maybe less so :)

I suspect trying to teach the existence of non-canonical Gospels in, say, West Texas, might still be a bit of a challenge for somebody who wanted to keep their job.

World religions as part of history or social studies in high school and college would greatly benefit all students. It's very easy tell the story of what each religion believes without indoctrinating people. People who hate all religions will know their enemy better. People who don't will have a better understanding of why the world is the way it is and how it got that way.

It's always funny to see people become intolerant and dogmatic in opposition to religion. 300 years ago, those same people would likely be the first to burn heretics at the stake.

I think it is practially impossible for students to understand our history and culture if they don't study the fact that our constitution and laws were based on the ideas in the English Bible that were taken for granted by the founders even though they were not "religious men" but of the age of enlightenment and interested in science. We need more transparency definitely in our senior high teaching about our history and faith-remember it was the leaders of Christian churches who first said that slavery was wrong-there is nothing wrong with learning about the Puritans, the Quakers, the Mormons and other groups that helped found this country even though they did not have all the answers-like the country music song says I'm a work in progress and this is what our country is-remember the civil rights movement was only 40 odd years ago and the blacks churches were key in this movement and so were many whites who believed in this from their church pulpits--I don't think you have to tell people what to believe in "religion" to tell them the story of our country- the founders thought separation of church and state was good and it is-but we don't have to be completely ignorant and not teach about religion and its force and part in our culture and history as if it doesn't exist--if we do we will be poorer for it - Barbara Palmieri

We interviewed Susan over at my own site. To see what she had to say about the upcoming elections and progressive faith click here on the following link

http://www.faithfullyliberal.com/?p=184

And once again, she hits one out of the park.

I really don't see how religion could ever be taught in schools. I think that people are too tied into their "belief systems." We have those who believe in their religion, and those who don't believe in religion. And then the people who are caught in-between. My concern is that one of the two groups will obtain complete control, and then we have serious problems. You have the radical left who would probably teach children to hate religion, and God. That religion is the reason for all the worlds problems. That one does not need God, when one has the government. Or the radical right who would teach only one religion is right, and that everyone must obey that religions beliefs. And that religion is the answer for all the worlds problems. I believe that the answer is in between those two opposing beliefs. And that finding the answer is difficult in it self, let alone attempting to teach one on how to find the answer. I know it sickens me to hear and to watch so called educated people burn books, and anything else that they disagree with. And yes, plenty of people who did not believe in God, nor religion are just as guilty as those religious people who did those things. Yet all we hear is how religion started all the wars, etc. And like everything else in our schools, only one side of the issue would be taught. And of course the Liberals would think their way is the right way, and the conservatives would think their way is the right way. And the fighting would began big time. Our schools are screwed up enough. They keep falling behind Europe and Asia with each passing year. While we all do what we do best. Blame someone or something else for the problems we have created. Putting religion in schools would give our politicans just another scape goat to put that blame on, and to divide people even more. Lets just let people find their own faith if they chose too.

"What inevitably happens at K-12 levels is that you end up with indoctrination."

Not necessarily, if it's taught in a historical, social studies, or "world cultures" context. Learning about the classical Greeks and their Gods in 9th grade Latin class didn't make me a Pagan - although it did spark a lifelong interest in Greece and Rome. I was still a good Catholic girl up until college. :D

"What inevitably happens at K-12 levels is that you end up with indoctrination."

Not necessarily, if it's taught in a historical, social studies, or "world cultures" context. Learning about the classical Greeks and their Gods in 9th grade Latin class didn't make me a Pagan - although it did spark a lifelong interest in Greece and Rome. I was still a good Catholic girl up until college. :D In America,

I agree with you completely.

As an atheist (and a biologist), I would strongly encourage education in comparative religion, one of the most interesting subjects there is. It is a hobby of mine, maybe when I retire I will make a second career of it.

But it is difficult to approach the subject historically or critically without walking a minefield.

What inevitably happens at K-12 levels is that you end up with indoctrination.