Op-Ed Argues for more teaching about religion in schools

[Mark R]

Unfortunately, once you cut through the blather on cable news, there is a real, if much less discussed, problem in that public schools are skittish about teaching much about religion.
(Clipped)
And that's not good news if you believe a working knowledge of the world's religions and their history is an important aspect of a well-rounded education.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039458,00.html)

As a high school history teacher I can appreciate examining the role of religions in how they shaped history. The primary problem I have with Rotherham‘s article (and one I think he is consistently guilty of in many of his articles) is oversimplifying an issue. He admits there is a controversy, and then provides an answer that does not address the conflict. Instead he resorts to cliché:

First, activists on the political right and left have to tone down the rhetoric.


This is the intellectual equivalent of saying play nice. This also assumes the vitriol is the same on both sides, and it is not. The example Rotherham uses at the top of the article shows that:
Through O'Reilly's prism, the letter — quoted selectively — was an attempt to squelch Christmas. In reality, the letter [by the ACLU] just asked school districts to avoid celebrations focusing exclusively on a single religion.


Imagine for a second the reaction of the religious right if a “working knowledge of the world's religions and their history” was emphasized in schools? These parents would freak out that someone was talking to their child about religion that did not fully and unequivocally support their beliefs.


In addition, teachers need better training and support to teach religion.


I will ignore the current economic climate and not focus on the ridiculous notion of the expense this training would require when school funding for necessities is being slashed to the bone. Instead, ponder how such training would be considered by members of the religious right? The words indoctrination and brain washing would be littered all over the headlines.

[Dancing David]

Religion and isntruction about religion is very aloowable, this is just rhetoric, my son goes to school and is a sophmore , he just finsihed a worl history section that was all about religion and the impact on society.

What is not allowed is specific religious instruction that does not happen as part of a standard history of social studies curriculum. You can not promote one religion over another.

We live very close to the school district where McCollum v. Board of Education happened.

[hgc]

Linky?

[Dancing David]

Linky?

From me? Or from the OP, the standard interpreation of the SCOTUS ruling is that you can teach about religion in context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education

The basis of the ruling was that it was 'religous intstruction' not education about religion and the fact that the students were stigmatized for not participating.

Now the wiki page is not exactly accurate, according to Dan MCullom's book it was his father, who was religious that objected to the instruction, it was the mother who persued the case.

So teh basis of teh case was that religous indoctrination and state support of one denomination or faith over another is not allowed in public time or facilities. However education regarding religion is allowed.

[hgc]

From me? Or from the OP, the standard interpreation of the SCOTUS ruling is that you can teach about religion in context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education
...


From the OP, where, I just noticed, the link was provided. Thanks for your link though.

[Baloney]

Just a note: my son returned from kindergarten (at a US public school) a few days before Christmas, explaining that he learned about "Baby Jesus" and that he believed in Jesus and God. After asking some questions, it turns out that the teacher discussed the different popular holidays of the season, probably limited to Hanukkah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa (the only ones he could remember at least). While the teacher apparently hadn't "promoted" religious beliefs, I'm guessing there was much more emphasis on Christian religiosity than was necessary. Either way, during the next Parent-Teacher conference I plan to discuss with the teacher what specifically was being taught during the holiday (and my opinions on promoting religion in public schools, if necessary).

Needless to say, I quickly deprogrammed my son back to a more critical and skeptical way of thinking, and warned him against jumping to beliefs and conclusions without looking for evidence or proof first. If anyone is interested in his logic for his late beliefs, I'd be happy to share them -- it may interest or humor any interested in how a five-year-old thinks! :D

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

In NYC, at least, "religious studies" are covered under high school history. Freshman and sophomore year Global History, that is.

When learning about ancient India and China, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. are covered. When learning about ancient and medieval Japan, Shinto is covered. When learning about the fall of the Roman Empire, Jesus is covered. When learning about Europe of the Middle Ages, a lot of Catholicism is explained. When learning about the spread of Islam, Mohammed is covered. Judaism was in there somewhere, too.

This seems quite reasonable to me. Teaching religion as part of history makes sense and doesn't offend anyone.

My freshman Global History teacher, btw, was an atheist and said so while teaching about religion. And no one objected to this, even the girl in class who was a practicing Catholic.

Maybe that's NYC, though.

[IMST]

The best class I took in High School was to a large extent comparative religion. The syllabus covered excerpts from the Bible, the Koran, the Bagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Art of War and lots of other stuff that I'm forgetting at the moment. We got a working understanding of what the actual base line beliefs are for many of the world's major religions and traditional philosophies.
And it was absolutely instrumental in my going from a former Christian looking for the right religion, or at least a more right one, and becoming an atheist as I gradually realized this was all ********.

[Brax611]

As others have said, I think that teaching about religions in a historical context is a must. Studying the religion of a civilization can speak volumes about them. What I am against is teaching that there is a correct religion. My wife and I are both atheists, and we are planning to teach our child about many religions and letting them decide for themselves what they want to believe.

[Baloney]

Brax611:

May I suggest: Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879756071/) by Dan Barker? It's helped tons with my son's critical thinking skills.

[Dave Rogers]

As others have said, I think that teaching about religions in a historical context is a must. Studying the religion of a civilization can speak volumes about them. What I am against is teaching that there is a correct religion. My wife and I are both atheists, and we are planning to teach our child about many religions and letting them decide for themselves what they want to believe.

All of my kids have had this sort of education - they know far more about Eid ul-Fitr and Diwali than I ever will - and have learned a lot about the richness of human culture. And, surprisingly enough, all of them appear to have chosen atheism. There's a clear difference between education and indoctrination, and the former is very much to be encouraged.

What's paradoxical to me is that in the UK, where Anglican Christianity is the established state religion, it's not just possible but commonplace to receive a broad and balanced view of world religions in general and their places in history, whereas in the USA, with no state religion, evangelical Christianity appears to erect major obstacles to teaching information about any other religion.

Dave

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't get this. We have mandatory courses labelled "Religion" in school, all the way up to high school, and provides a working knowledge of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Not in an ideal way, since the mandatory course is very short (and the second, non-mandatory course mostly focuses on sects, cults and the awakening movements), but at least we have a fair idea of the various religions.