13 responses so far ↓

• 1 Elise // Mar 7, 2007 at 9:09 am

  I think a comparative religion course - taught on a secular, historical, “these-are-the-facts” level of understanding - is a great idea. In a world with many problems stemming from foundations of religion, I would view a comparative religon course as more of a study of current affairs or politics, and not a breach of the amendment requiring separation of church and state.

  We’d have to be careful in the presentation, though. Showing such films as “Jesus Camp” would make me uncomfortable. Discussing the historical and doctrinal beliefs of major religions, or talking about the sociology of religions in general, would need to be the standard. We’d have to agree to leave faith out of the classroom (save it for Sunday School) and talk about the objective parts of religion in public settings.

  One of the responses in your link says
  

  “‚ÄúTeaching religion‚Äù sounds simple. It isn‚Äôt.”

  I don’t think it sounds simple at all. But we study Greek mythology, comparative literature, etc pretty objectively. With care and planning, mandatory study of religion could give students a better understanding and clearer perception of the world we live in. Understanding the basics of world religions provides the foundation to understand worldwide politics and to relate better to people from all different backgrounds and cultures.

• 2 Elaine Frei // Mar 7, 2007 at 9:19 am

  Again (and as usual, I’m afraid) my first thoughts, before looking at any linked material: Absolutely, the public schools should teach about religions. In a world where a wide variety of religions are practiced, it is important to understand what the adherents of those religions believe and how they live out their beliefs.

  Even though the West is becoming more and more secularized, it is important to understand that this is not true all over the world and that some (but not all) religions impact more than just believers’ views on what will happen to them when they die, and often are instrumental in how they see and act in this world.

  I don’t see how teaching what believers in different relgions and denominations believe, in a nonjudgmental, non-proselyting, and academic way would be impacted by the Establishment Clause. As far as I am aware, that only pertains to advocating a particular belief over other beliefs in a way that would imply official endorsement. Anyway, that’s what I remember from my Constitutional Law class, lo those many years ago.

• 3 Amber // Mar 7, 2007 at 9:27 am

  Mandatory? No. But I agree with Elise that a comparative religions course, taught from a secular perspective, is a good idea. If, that is, public schools can find someone qualified to teach the course from an academic, scholarly perspective instead of a faith-based one.

• 4 Miko // Mar 7, 2007 at 9:57 am

  In a perfect world, I’d love to see it pulled off. Realistically, I don’t think it’s possible to mandate (or suggest, hat-tip to Amber) objectivity and not end up advocating. I went to a Jesuit university that required two Theology “core” classes: one lower & one upper division. Most of the lower were “The New Testament” or “The Old Testament” or “The Gospel of Luke” none of which really appealed to me. I don’t remember the title of the class I wound up with but it was a great comparative class. There were definately some Catholics (or other flavors of xianity) in the class, and it was taught by an Atheist (secular humanist?). We all managed to check our beliefs at the door and the assignments had enough wiggle room that those who wanted to prove something in their papers could without offending anyone (they weren’t presented). I don’t know if it was me or the teacher (if the latter, it may not be a great model to follow, in terms of objectivity), but I ended up loving the Humanist Manifesto…

  Sorry, losing track of the conversation. I guess my point was that it’s possible, at least at the University level. In HS, I was required to take “Theory of Knowledge” which was a set of philosophy classes, each taught by a different teacher. So, in the one taught by our Maths professor, we learned about logic. In the one taught by our (communist Irish) English prof, we learned about Marxism…I’m not sure what the point was, but the effect was exposure to a broad range of ways of thinking. I wonder if something similar could be achieved with religion.

  Certinaly I believe that the history of religion should be mandated in classes for our presidents politicians children. *ahem* So much of history itself has been colored by if not directly caused by religion. Teaching any period at all without discussing the religions at play at the time is shoddy history, IMHO. It should still be respectful of the people who held those beliefs, but it can’t be ignored.

• 5 Elaine Frei // Mar 7, 2007 at 12:43 pm

  As far as objectivity being observed in teaching about religions (as opposed to teaching religion), I believe that can be achieved. I’ve seen it happen, in fact. When I took my upper division psychology of religion course at university (at a Christian-run university, by the way), the professor was a trained psychologist…and a very active Assemblies of God member. He was quite able to compartmentalize and teach what different psychologists believed about religion without bringing his personal beliefs into it.

  Of course, being a Christian university, he did sometimes mention his own beliefs, but even then he was very clear about labeling them as such and indicating where psychology differed without implying that psychological theory was faulty or “lesser than” religious belief.

  The same was true of the professors who taught my sociology of religion and world religions courses there. They were all strong Christian believers, but managed to teach about a variety of non-Christian belief systems, as well as about Christian denominations other than their own, with admirable objectivity. Additionally, in a cultural anthropology course there I was not only allowed to, but encouraged to, do my field study on Wicca and Wiccans in a completely objective manner.

  All of this, I suppose, is the long way around of saying that I don’t think it is a good idea to assume that anyone teaching a comparative religions or history of religions class would automatically privilege their own beliefs in their presentations.

  The bottom line is, I think, that knowledge about what other people belief is essential if we are going to get along in this world. And where else will it be taught, if not in the schools?

• 6 Elaine Frei // Mar 7, 2007 at 12:54 pm

  Oops. That was supposed to be “believe” in the second line of the last paragraph, just above. Just got finished with work for the day and I’m not completely coherent at the moment.

• 7 Miko // Mar 7, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  where else will it be taugh, if not in the schools?

  That’s true. I’d be interested to know more about what psychology has to say about it. A friend of mine who majored in psychology (and was a staunch atheist) maintained that religious belief was indicative of a weak mind…what do other, perhaps even published psychologists think of it?

• 8 Amber // Mar 7, 2007 at 2:40 pm

  So more or less, we’ve all seen it done (objective teaching about religion) in universities. I don’t know if any of you have taught in public middle or high schools, but… secondary school teachers are hardly university professors (and I certainly say that not to knock them down, because I was one!). So then what?

• 9 John White // Mar 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

  I’m a bit puzzled. I definitely remember discussions of religion incorporated into history classes. World religions were ignored in the same way in which the history of the region was ignored or taught about in a very Euro-centric/colonial viewpoint.

• 10 Hueffenhardt // Mar 8, 2007 at 5:00 pm

  I believe a comparative religions course should be mandatory. I believe that it already is in Britain. Some British atheists have credited that course with contributing to the general apathy in Britain in regards to religion. The theory is that once you see the many different ideas that are out there, you can’t help but put your own beliefs in context. You see that so many people think their religion is right, but they can’t all be right, and no one seems to have any greater evidence of their religion than anyone else. Many students begin to wonder if all religions are false. I am all for promoting that uncertainty.

• 11 Elaine Frei // Mar 8, 2007 at 5:27 pm

  Mmmmm…Miko: It’s been a few years since I took the class, so I don’t remember a lot of the details. Of course, Freud wasn’t a big fan of religion. He taught that belief in religion had to do with being stuck at an infantile stage, and I think he tied belief in God to wanting a father figure. Jung was more sympathetic and did work with religious symbolism although he, himself remained an agnostic. Someone else…wish I could remember who it was…proposed that there were two kinds of religion, which he (I assume; I think we only talked about male psychologists in that class) termed “immature” and “mature”. The immature kind had believers most concerned with their own relationship to God in terms of getting themselved “saved”, however they conceived of that. The mature sort of religion, on the other hand, led beleiving individuals into concern for helping others.

  See, this is what I hate about getting older. I forget stuff. There were other psychologists that we covered, but I can’t remember who they were or the details. The main reason I remember as much as I do about the “immature” versus “mature” theory of religion is that some of the students in the class had some trouble with it, as their own denominations were more oriented toward individuals worrying about their own salvation, but they didn’t much appreciate the implication that their beliefs were immature in any way. It led to some lively discussions in class.

• 12 Miko // Mar 9, 2007 at 7:09 am

  H?ºffenhardt: I think I could accept it if comparative religion caused atheism…One hopes that the pluarlity of religions would have some affect on the Almighty Truth.

  Elaine: I like the immature/mature religion concept, especially the “mature” religion that causes you to do good to others.

• 13 Miko // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:26 pm

  USAToday’s article on teaching religion in schools and how ignorant most Americans are of even their on religions…incidentally, I got 42 (of 50) points on the side-quiz.

Leave a Comment