Education about religion in public schools

[Toto]

An interesting article in the NYTimes about a school district in Modesto Califoria:

Beliefs (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/us/02beliefs.html?ref=us)

For the past five years, all ninth graders have been required to spend nine weeks — half a semester — studying major world religions. The course begins with a segment on the First Amendment and religious liberty in the United States, then describes in succession, though not comparatively, the beliefs and practices of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The semester’s other half covers world geography; apparently, students should know about seven spiritual continents as well as the physical ones.

In a rare example of empirical research in this area, Modesto’s experience has been studied by Emile Lester, a visiting professor of political science at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., and Patrick S. Roberts, an assistant professor at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. Their report, “Learning About World Religions in Public Schools,” is available from the First Amendment Center’s offices at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.



It can be downloaded from this site (http://cisac.stanford.edu/publications/learning_about_world_religions_in_public_schools_the_impact_on_student_attitudes_and_community_acceptance_in_modesto_calif/) or directly from here in pdf format (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/FirstForum_ModestoWorldReligions.pdf)

[Jennie]

Sounds like a good thing to me, I don't object to people learning about religions in public school, only indoctrinations; and that isn't what this course is about as far as I can tell.

I'd support it.

[Heathen57]

The idea of comparative religions course is a good idea. I would support such a program in our area schools if I could guarantee that the RRR wouldn't be running it, which is a distinct possiblity here.

However they need to include a few others in the course. The rise of 'alternate' religions is allowing them to become more prevelant and this would mean that some of the students could possibly be of those religions. Besides the mainstream religions, especially the Abramic seem to have such outlandish bigotry about other religions that it would do them good to learn the truth.

[Toto]

Interesting observation from the end of the report:But privileging one or several religions over others is not the only form of bias that world religions courses must avoid. Modesto teachers were less successful in avoiding what Rabbi Gordon described as a “warm and fuzzy” approach to religion. One reflection of this “warm and fuzzy” bias was the excessive emphasis which several teachers placed upon the similarity of religious traditions. Many teachers gave their students hand-out sheets with statements from the sacred texts of seven religions intended to demonstrate that these traditions shared a belief in the golden rule. One teacher reported that at the end of each semester, several students inevitably came up to her and said that the more they studied world religions, the more they realized how they were like each other. The teacher would congratulate these students and respond: “That is exactly the point. That’s what you were supposed to get from the course.” In our interviews with several teachers, the discussion of their emphasis upon similarity was not accompanied by a discussion of the ways they emphasized the differences between religious traditions.

The “warm and fuzzy” impression provided about religion was reinforced by the absence of discussion of the unsavory aspects of organized religion. Teachers do not discuss, for instance, the historical use of religion to punish heresy, to justify war or to suppress scientific inquiry. When we asked one teacher whether she discussed learning about world religions in public schools less-attractive aspects of religion, she responded that she did not believe that several religions including Buddhism had any negative attributes. Many teachers addressed student questions about terrorist acts by Muslim groups by reminding students of dangerous extremists who had claimed to act in the name of Christianity. While this response helps to counter negative stereotypes about Islam, it ignores the position of many atheists and humanists who argue that organized religion has an inherent tendency to produce extremist behavior. The course’s textbook provides almost no discussion of the unsavory aspects of religion. Only three paragraphs are devoted to the use of religion to justify war, persecution and the oppression of women.

Modesto’s director of curricular and staff development, Linda Erickson, defended this “non-critical” approach to religion as being consistent with the course’s purpose. The goal of the course, according to Erickson, is to convey facts about religion, and not to have students engage in a critical evaluation of particular religions or religion in general. To be fair to administrators and teachers, achieving a fully neutral discussion of religion is exceedingly difficult. It could be argued that Modesto has chosen the lesser of two evils by choosing an approach protective of all religions rather than opening the door for critical discussions of religion which would inevitably single out minority religions.

Still, the negative consequences of a “warm and fuzzy” approach should not be ignored. We have already identified the serious problems with overemphasizing the similarities of religions in a previous section, but the omission of the darker side of religion is an equal cause for concern. Neutrality requires that public schools neither encourage nor discourage the holding of religious beliefs. Decisions about students’ religious beliefs must be left up to parents, religious communities and students themselves. Omitting the darker side of religion may illegitimately encourage students to adopt or deepen their religious beliefs. It alienates non-religious students and parents by failing to recognize their concerns and perspectives on organized religion.

[Reanimator]

Anything to get people to actually read their Bibles would be nice. So that when I point them about: Leviticus 24:16, Deut 13:6-11, Exodus 31:15, Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 21:17, Exodus 20 & Exodus 34, etc, etc. their inital reaction isn't to shout "THE BIBLE WOULD NEVER SAY THAT!!!"

:mad:

[Mathew Goldstein]

Interesting observation from the end of the report:

The teachers could be coached to strive for balance in identifying both the similarities and differences of the religions. The textbook can help here by clearly identifying the differences to compensate for the tendency for some teachers to de-empahsize the differences. That is a separate issue from including a critical perspective. It is probably better to take a non-critical approach when studying each religion, and to be up-front about that, because of the potential complications that such criticism introduces for everyone involved. However, a general pros and cons of religion section at the end of the course that is not specific to any religion may be manageable. I hope this course becomes more popular, it has a good mix with both a polytheistic (Hindu) and non-theistic (Confucism) religion.

[Padre Bear]

A worthy goal of broadening awareness of the breadth of religious expression which probably should, also, include secular humanism, as well as, a unit on smaller sects like Bahai, and sectariansism in Christianity. The textbook and class materials will be very important.

Anything which increases accuracy and understanding of religion and other belief systems helps to identify those who use them in aberrant ways.

[Mathew Goldstein]

A worthy goal of broadening awareness of the breadth of religious expression which probably should, also, include secular humanism, as well as, a unit on smaller sects like Bahai, and sectariansism in Christianity. The textbook and class materials will be very important.

Anything which increases accuracy and understanding of religion and other belief systems helps to identify those who use them in aberrant ways.

I think there would have to be some material on Sunni versus Shia, Catholic versus Protestant when covering Islam and Christianity. The other religions could be introduced briefly as part of a summary comparison on the last day before a final exam. You just list them in the rows of a table ordered by approximate number of adherents worldwide with columns for each of the comparitive features filled in with the corresponding information. For example, there could be a column for deities that are filled in with the number of deities and/or their names, a column for holy book with list of holy book(s) with one or more identified as "founding document", approximate date that religion was founded and founder(s) name(s) (both historical and mythical versions if different), etc.

As a post exam, not graded, supplement there can be a day of uncensored, everyone gets to speak for fixed amount of time, opinion sharing about religion with some guidence by the textbook on areas of disagreement and controversy for such discussion. Students take turns making their presentation (pre-written or ad-hoc) and the other students get to question\challange the speaker. That somewhat compensates for the lack of critical content in the course without biasing the course. The teacher notifies the students about that last class day on the first class day.

[doubtingt]

Sounds like a rather dangerous course that has nothing to with "neutrality" or "facts". Basically, it's nothing but forcing students to be exposed to pro-proganda for the select major religions.
Also, I'm betting they mislead students into thinking that all these religions are theistic (which is false).

It is not possible to teach the facts of these religions without emphasising differences and aspects that some might view as negative. What they are doing is both an unconstitutional promotion of certain religions and just plain bad education.

[Mathew Goldstein]

Sounds like a rather dangerous course that has nothing to with "neutrality" or "facts". Basically, it's nothing but forcing students to be exposed to pro-proganda for the select major religions.
Also, I'm betting they mislead students into thinking that all these religions are theistic (which is false).

A demographically Christian country teaching Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucisim from a pro Hindu, Buddhist, Confucist perspective, in addition to Islam and Judaism, is a big improvement over not teaching those religions from that other perspective. This is what they do in the UK, except in the UK they spend more time on Christianity than the other religions and I don't think they cover Confucism. So if you are going to say this is "dangerous" then you need to explain why UK, which has this in their curriculum, does better than the US in terms of religious skepticism.

It is not possible to teach the facts of these religions without emphasising differences and aspects that some might view as negative. What they are doing is both an unconstitutional promotion of certain religions and just plain bad education.

Its a lot better than courses just on the bible. You cannot teach about religion without focusing on some religions to the exclusion of others given the limited time frame and large number of religions. The choice of religions that have the most adherents or are most prevelant in those parts of the world that are most in the news or are representative of the overall diversity of religions are reasonable secular justifications. So for that reason, as well as others, I think your argument is too impractical to prevail.

[ninewands]

While adopting coursework in comparative (or "world") religions is fraught with risk of CSS violations I support it strongly, subject to certain safeguards, especially including positive action by school boards/administrators to prevent it turning into, "Aren't the things those Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists believe ridiculous,? Everybody KNOWS that God revealed himself to man through the Bible and sent Jesus to save the world from sin."

That being said, I think it would be VERY difficult to find an instructor who could, or would, teach ABOUT religion without veering off into indoctrination. It almost seems to inherent in the nature of the type of person who would want to teach a course like this below the university level.

ETA: I also think a well-taught course in comparative religions would eventually become the downfall of the Radical Religious Right which seems only to thrive in a climate of theological and educational ignorance.

[doubtingt]

A demographically Christian country teaching Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucisim from a pro Hindu, Buddhist, Confucist perspective, in addition to Islam and Judaism, is a big improvement over not teaching those religions from that other perspective. This is what they do in the UK, except in the UK they spend more time on Christianity than the other religions and I don't think they cover Confucism.

The biggest problem in the U.S. is not negative attitudes towards other faiths. It is the negative attitude towards the absence of faith and secularism. That is what poses the greatest threat to liberties. Based upon some of the comments by the developers and teachers of the course, it sounds to me like they are sending the message "religion is nothing but positive, they all agree so they must be right, faith is great, and therefore by implication, lack of faith is bad and incorrect."
They are lying to kids, pure and simple. The various religions are far more different than similar, and often logically incompatible. To ignore this is to deceive the kids.
Given their stated ideological (and wholly unscholarly) committment to promoting the misinformation that all religions are the same, it seems highly likely that most kids walk away assuming thaT buddhism and confucism are theistic in the same manner as Xtianity. This would be simply false. Thus, they would not be teaching them about other religions at all. They would be leading them to believe that all religions support the same ideas as Xtianity.



So if you are going to say this is "dangerous" then you need to explain why UK, which has this in their curriculum, does better than the US in terms of religious skepticism.


Well, first you need to provide evidence that the UK lies to their kids about the religions, deliberately withholds factual information about the differences, logical incompatibilities, and promotion of attitudes that are far from the "golden rule".
Second, the entire UK culture has long been more religiously skeptical than the US for centuries. Even if they had such biased and factually inaccurate pro-religion courses, they wouldn't be sufficient to override the long-standing and widespread cultural skeptism. However, in the US where every other sector of the culture from government to media promote and unquestioning postive attitude towards faith and negative attitude towards skepticism, a class in school that does the same thing would be far more danerous.


Its a lot better than courses just on the bible. You cannot teach about religion without focusing on some religions to the exclusion of others given the limited time frame and large number of religions. The choice of religions that have the most adherents or are most prevelant in those parts of the world that are most in the news or are representative of the overall diversity of religions are reasonable secular justifications.


Giving students misinformation designed specifically to get them to hold a particular positive attitude towards faith and theistic religions has zero secular justification. At minimum, they must address how non-theism and non-faith based perspectives address the same issues or morality, etc. Failure to do so promotes the factually wrong conclusion that these moral issues are only addressable from a faith perspective.
They also must address religious differences and the aspects of the religions that might be seen as morally suspect, because these are the facts about these religions.
IT is clear from the comments by those involved that their failure to do these things has nothing to do with practicalities. They deliberately leave this information out, because it is not compatible with the factually wrong conclusion they want students to reach.

Bottom line is that this has nothing to do with education. It is indoctrination.
They are not learning the facts about these religions. They are being presented with a biased set of information for the purpose of creating a specific attitude about religion generally, namely "they're all great and they're all correct".

There's little that scares me more than a bunch of fluff brained, post-modern, liberal educators "teaching" religion in our schools.

[Mathew Goldstein]

While adopting coursework in comparative (or "world") religions is fraught with risk of CSS violations I support it strongly, subject to certain safeguards, especially including positive action by school boards/administrators to prevent it turning into, "Aren't the things those Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists believe ridiculous,? Everybody KNOWS that God revealed himself to man through the Bible and sent Jesus to save the world from sin."

That being said, I think it would be VERY difficult to find an instructor who could, or would, teach ABOUT religion without veering off into indoctrination. It almost seems to inherent in the nature of the type of person who would want to teach a course like this below the university level.

ETA: I also think a well-taught course in comparative religions would eventually become the downfall of the Radical Religious Right which seems only to thrive in a climate of theological and educational ignorance.

Ideally this would eventually be part of the state curriculums. Some states may be willing to do this. The globalization of commerce makes such a course attractive for many employers. It doesn't have to be a difficult topic to teach or learn. The course material would present each of the covered religions from the perspective of its followers and avoid criticism of other religions to make it easier for people to accept and to make it easier to teach. It would be an introductory level overview course and could target high school juniors or seniors.

Today some public schools still sponsor Christian prayer. So every public school isn't going to deal with this well. That is true. But such imperfection isn't an argument against pursuing improvements. A course like this would be an improvement even with its limitations. I think you are exagerating the extent of the problem with not having minimally competent teachers.

[Padre Bear]

Disproportionate time on Christianity is an issue difficult to sort out. Should it be based on the idea of there is a broad cluster of groups self-identified as "Christian" and treated as one or should it be based on the greater likelihood of students to encounter the differences of these groups in life and benefit from understanding the differences which are broad in their impact on culture.

Besides a course on world religion it is legal to teach The Bible in a comparative lit class. As someone who uses both higher and lower criticism in my study and sermon prep and who continually battles against literalistic understandings of scripture I think such knowledge is beneficial for believers and non-believers alike. True history of religion classes are helpful, too, including the ones exposing the best and the worst of religious history, such as, founding of the modern social services networks and prison reforms as a positives to witch trials, Stalin's and others' religious purgings, the Inquisition, the Holocost, right up to Muslim religious wars today.

The point of all these classes should be to help students think critically of religious issues not to embrace any faith; to see and to understand.

[Mathew Goldstein]

Disproportionate time on Christianity is an issue difficult to sort out. Should it be based on the idea of there is a broad cluster of groups self-identified as "Christian" and treated as one or should it be based on the greater likelihood of students to encounter the differences of these groups in life and benefit from understanding the differences which are broad in their impact on culture.

Besides a course on world religion it is legal to teach the Bible in a comparative lit class. As someone who uses both higher and lower criticism in my study and sermon prep and who continually battles against literalistic understandings of scripture I think such knowledge is beneficial for believers and non-believers alike. True history of religion classes are helpful, too, including the ones exposing the best and the worst of religious history, such as, founding of the modern social services networks and prison reforms as a positives to witch trials, Stalin's and others' religious purgings, the Inquisition, the Holocost, right up to Muslim religious wars today.

Neither bible as literature nor history of religion is an adequate alternative or substitute to an introductory religions course. An introductory religion course would contribute more to producing an educated public and enhancing our economy and diplomacy. Religion is part of world history and is usually mentioned there but only a world religions course would focus on religious beliefs and practices which is a distinct topic that merits its own course. The importance of religion is obvious given how much time people devote to it in their own lives and the role it plays in history and the present. A better appreciation of history and the present and the bible follows from a better knowledge of world religions.

The point of all these classes should be to help students think critically of religious issues not to embrace any faith; to see and to understand.

A prerequisite for good critical thinking is having a good knowledge base. The bible as literature is too narrow a focus and the history of religion is too broad a focus to form a good knowledge base for thinking critically on the important topic of religion. Neither a bible as literature nor a history of religion course is ostensibly about religion, they are about literature and history both of which are already included in the public school curriculums.

[Padre Bear]

A prerequisite for good critical thinking is having a good knowledge base. The bible as literature is too narrow a focus to form a good knowledge base for thinking critically on the important topic of religion. Such as course isn't even about religion, its about literature.

You are probably thinking a far narrower course for Bible as literature than I am. For me it would include material similar to James Campbell. Historical and critical methodology as well as the skills of literary criticism. I would include comparative mythology and examples of modern mythmaking and legendizing. I run Jr. High kids through the basics of this regularly. They love it and are fascinated. It rarely threatens kids world view although it does shake up a few of their parents.

The skills learned are applicable to critical thinking about many things in life and are as much about helping kids move from concrete to abstract thinking as biblical content.