Religion and education; the two have been controversially entwined through centuries. Many say combining the two in a public school goes against “separation of church and state”, while others say separating the two limits a child’s education, or goes against local culture. While views on the issue have drastically changed in the last century, it has always remained a highly controversial topic.
State involvement has always been present in the issue, though it’s judicial role has drastically changed. In some places during the early 1900’s it was actually illegal to teach anything but creationism, or the belief that matter and all things were created, as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator. The most infamous example of this was the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which teacher John Scopes was arrested for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in a Tennessee public school. In the last few decades that view has been completely turned around. Teachers can now face criminal charges for teaching religion as absolute truth in public schools. Often this is misinterpreted, causing educators to stay away from presenting religion at all, especially in science classes. It all comes down to how limiting the constitution is. For simplicity, the conflict can be broken down into four major views, though it is important to realize this is a very complex issue and not everyone can fit in one of four places.
Exclusivist – those who believe that theirs is the only true religion, feel very strongly that their religion should be taught in the schools. Want their religion taught as truth. Some do not approve of religions other than theirs being taught on an equal basis to their own.
Inclusivist – those who believe that their religion is true but that some truth may be often found in other religions as well, want all major religions discussed in the schools, but want their religion to be given special treatment.
Pluralistic - those who believe that all religions are true when evaluated against their local culture. Feel that a truly education person needs to have some knowledge of all of the major world religions and belief systems. Some are concerned that, in practice, various teachers may teach one particular religion as truth.
Secularistic – those who believe that religion should not be taught in schools because attempts to do so often degenerate into indoctrination of the students with the beliefs of the dominant religion. Often Agnostics, Atheists, and Humanists, though a number identify with a specific religion.
Religion is an important part of many people’s lives, but it is not the jobs of public school teachers to press any religious ideas on students. It is vital to teach about religion, but not teach religion itself. As the Supreme Court ruled on case in Santa Fe, CA, “School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. ” It is important for students to understand the mechanics of world religions, how they’ve influenced history and sparked some of the biggest conflicts today. Comparative religion and history of religion classes obviously deal with faith, and in courses such as world history and American history it is imperative that religion is discussed and analyzed. Even science classes should explore the different beliefs in creationism along side evolution. But these things need to be done without bias, without presentation as truth.
helpful links:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_pray.htm
I think you miss my personal position on the debate. I would add the Rational Humanist: One who does not believe in any religion or God but who advocates the teaching of all major religions equally. A class that makes no assertion of preference in teaching the historical origins of each theology including the positive, negative, rational, and irrational aspects of each religion. Only then can children compare the similarities of each religion and realize that they are all man made constructs and all equally deserving of worship…which is to say not at all.
Happy Easter.
Super J.
I don’t know that a theology class in school would do any harm, but interjecting faith into other subjects (such as science) would clearly be an issue. Plus, f a parent feels that their child is missing out important things if creationism, say, wasn’t taught, it’s worth betting on that the child has familiarity with the idea to begin with.
It’s difficult to function on a global scale without being respectful of other’s views. If you’re not the slightest bit educated on their way of life it’s even harder. So, if we’re to understand other cultures, we have to become aware of what they practice and how they function. Religion is a key part of the majority of the people’s lifestyle on this planet, so if we neglect it, we’re missing the point of learning about other’s culture. Personally, I think that Comparative Religion classes, and those related to it, should be an option in public schools, but they should never be mandatory. Knowing that they function better with no bias from the instructor, I’d say that this would be the ideal way of teaching it. Nonetheless, it’s hard to find unbiased people, especially on a subject as touchy as this one. Therefore, in order to make a breakthrough, this problem has to be dealt with very early. If it can be dealt with, there might just be a future for the unbiased presentation of religion in public schools.
Great job resenting it in an unbiased way, though—I’m betting it’d be hard to do.
@Mario: When comparing religions who could do a better job at treating all religions in question equally and fairly than an atheist? Holding all religions in some contempt at least guarantees that none of them will get preferential treatment.
Super J
because contempt leads to bias, and thats what we’re trying to eliminate. maybe an atheist would be good for teaching religion, as long as were subjective enough to remain skeptical at worst. otherwise we’re just dealing with prejudice at the other end of the spectrum.