Would you support academic study of religion in public schools (SEE CONDITIONS)?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

HERE ARE THE CONDITIONS:

The teacher must be certified as having no religious agenda.

The course will be taught in an anthropology model, i.e., examining the culture / subculture.

Students would read (1) exerpts of the sacred texts of the religion(s) as literature (including critiques), (2) history of the religion(s), and (3) current status of the religion(s) in the world.

Participation available only after parental approval.

Would you approve of this kind of class in public school?

Would you prefer to change the conditions? In what way?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

Here in the UK, we already have that. It's called Religious studies, and in the first few high school years, you study Islam, Buddhism, Christianity (and it's denominations), Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, then if you choose to continue it for the last two years you focus entirely on Judaism and Christianity.

It's compulsory for the first 3 years, thereafter it's compulsory only in the form of 'Morality studies' where you look at the different views of religions to issue's like abortion, homosexuality, suicide etc (for students aged 14-16).

It's good, and doesn't discriminate against or pressure students into anything.

I loved it, and chose to continue with full Religious Studies and Morality studies until the end of High School, and I got an A and and A* respectively in the exams!

x

Answer 2

It would be great if all students learned more about religion. You really can't understand the history of western civilization w/o a good understanding of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - but especially Christianity. For better or worse, Christianity has had a profound impact on Western Civilization. The West and eventually the whole world as it has been in the last 2000 years would have been completely different if not for Christianity. Love Christianity or hate it, you gotta know about it. Learning history w/o knowing anything but Monty Python-esque caricatures of Christianity is like learning anatomy without ever studying the skeleton.

Unfortunately most public schools do present a Python-esque caricature of Christianity's role in western history - stuff about the "dark ages" where the church supposedly burnt people at the stake for saying the earth wasn't flat and similar nonsense. Tell that to any professional historian of the middle ages (most of whom are atheists, btw - they have no dog in this fight, they just want the facts) and you'll get laughed out the door.

My concern is your stipulation of "no religious agenda." I don't think that's the best approach. In my experience, the misinformation about religion's role in Western history that public school students get is caused by a "non-religious agenda" that says nothing but negative things about the role religion (esp Christianity) has played in history and ignores all the postive contributions of religion. Students never get to learn what Christianity actually teaches - or what different branches of Christianity teach - and how the different teachings effect how religion interacts with the world. Instead all they get is the Monty Python version. Now I love Monty Python, but it's not history.

The model for teaching the history of religion in public schools should be how the history of religion is taught in universities. Teachers shouldn't have a "religious agenda" but they shouldn't have a "secular agenda" either. The only "agenda" should be a scholarly agenda - just the facts please. And the facts will show Christianity looking pretty bad sometimes and looking pretty great sometimes. The same will go for Judaism and Islam. And people will be offended. Oh well. Deal with it.

Answer 3

"The teacher must be certified as having no religious agenda."

This I don't think is quite possible. It is like asking a person to have no theoretical assumptions about the nature of the universe and humankind. Everyone has presuppositions that inform the way they recieve and critique life experience and other views of it. The only "certifiable" view is a pluralistic one that implicitly suggests no religion is actually true, only what works for you personally. This would undermine the very nature of the subject.

I think a better way is to have teachers openly reveal their biases about whey the believe to be true and learn from that vantage point, rather than from a mythical position of neutrality. Or a teacher could have several guests come and speak about their beliefs.

Difficult subject, but I agree it should be addressed in public school. Multiculturalism demands a greater awareness of other religions and belief systems.

Answer 4

Absolutely. I think the world's religions should be taught in school. They are as much a part of history and cultures as anything else.

People need to know that there are indeed many ways that people perceive God (or not) and even the reasons that people make different choices.

There is nothing at all wrong with shedding a little light on the subject of religion. We might even wind up with kids who are a little bit tolerant of the different beliefs.

Finding a teacher without any bias may be the tricky part though.

Answer 5

I don't see why not.

I don't know what "the teacher must be certified as having no religious agenda" means, though. I don't think this one is necessary - instead, a teacher who pushes a religious agenda (that is, tries to promote a religion rather than explain it) should be warned, and then fired if he/she does it again.

The idea of "certification" introduces all sorts of problems.

Doing this might shut up some of those anti-ACLU people who are complaining that we're trying to keep people from practicing their religions. It'd put the ball in their court, clarifying the fact that the reason that Americans oppose the Christian agenda in school is not that we're trying to censor Christianity, but rather than we're trying to keep anti-American Christians from ending religious freedom by having teachers promote Christianity in public schools.

I don't agree that it would be that hard to find teachers. It would be difficult (but still possible) if you insisted on only looking among religious people, but certainly there are a LOT of atheists who could effectively teach a course like this.

Answer 6

I think it would be virtually impossible to find enough teachers to teach it. And how on earth could you *possibly* certify "no religious agenda"? (Keeping in mind that "I think all religion is hooey and I want kids to know it." *is* actually a religious agenda in its own right; this isn't just about monitoring believers.)

Besides, at this point, while I wish all children received a good, classical education that included an in-depth study into the social, political and religious practices of many nations, I'm starting to hit that point where I'd settle for an education that includes a knowledge of punctuation marks and the fact that "I" as a word is always capitalized.

Answer 7

Hypothetically, yes.
But 90% of the study of religion is history, and that is the subject where public schools have completely failed in the modern educational system. So why bother? In an attempt to avoid law suits, US textbook manufactures have composed a completely sanitized history, where nobody has ever done anything bad, all contributions to society and culture were made by an evenly distributed population of race and gender, and nothing is ever offensive.

Answer 8

I think it's important to teach religion the way you described to understand cultures. It would also help kids to start on logical thinking instead of following dogma.

The only problem is the "certified teacher". I don't see how a person can be certified as having no religious agenda.

Answer 9

Religion is a part of our world like it or not. It seems to have a basic understanding of the precepts of the world religions would only help individuals to better understand the dynamics of society and civilization. You're going to have a rough time finding a teacher though.

Strike that last statement. I know a guy who would be killer for a class like that.

Answer 10

In my opinion I would like for everyone to be educated about all religions, but it would be to hard not to have people throwing what you believe in your face, and having whoever was teaching the class not lean towards what they want to believe in. There is just too much differentiation.