Religious Education
Vjack, at Atheist Revolution, is on a roll. He’s been writing some really insightful posts for the last week or so. It started with “Let’s Get Solution Focused,” which he put up on Saturday.
In this post, I call for the beginning of a shift toward a greater focus on solutions to the problems we have identified. We are right to continue addressing the problems until they are more widely acknowledged. However, religious belief endures through the ages in part because it satisfies human needs that are not easily met by the alternatives. Thus, I believe that increased attention to solutions is required to achieve real change.
Can I get an Amen?
It’s too easy to slip into an endless cycle of criticism without proposing any answers. I’m as guilty of this as anyone else. So, I’ve created a new category called “Solutions,” and this is the first of what I hope will be many solution-oriented posts. This time, I want to talk about religious education, and I don’t mean Catholic School.
I propose the introduction of mandatory religious education into public school curricula nationwide. WAIT! Don’t leave. Let me explain that. I would like to see America’s high school children take a one-semester religion survey course covering ALL of the world’s major belief systems. As I’ve said before, there is no better antidote to religion than learning about it.
First of all, from a strictly pedagogical perspective, broad knowledge about religions is a prerequisite for a complete understanding of history and current events. Along with distribution of resources and strategic considerations, religion is one of the three main drivers of large-scale human conflict. For example, how can one truly understand the Sepoy Mutiny without knowing a few things about Hinduism and Islam? Can one fully appreciate ancient Egyptian civilization and its accomplishments without some background in Egyptian religion? Is the Thirty Years War anything but a war with a boring name for students who don’t understand sectarian conflicts in Christianity? I would be ready to support this measure for this reason alone.
However, such a plan would have an added benefit. As I have read the deconversion stories of many atheists on the internet, I have found that most of them involve exposure to another religion. When a child sees how seriously other societies have taken their beliefs throughout history, it becomes harder to draw the line between the “myths” of the “others” and one’s own religion. Humans have fought, died and suffered greatly in the names of a thousand gods over millennia. It takes a lot more faith (read: vigorous denial) to justify the belief in any one particular religion after learning this.
There is a ton of material to cover. I’m not sure where to draw the line. Do we only teach religions with over 5 million adherents? 1 million? Or do we need to teach Rastafarianism and Raelianism, also? Do we only teach current faiths, or dead ones, too? I have my thoughts on these questions, but I’ll leave that to the school boards to figure out. Frankly, even if we just manage to get the top five current religions on the curriculum, it should be good enough.
So, there’s my idea. Now, readers, how do we start to make this happen? Actually, do you even agree with me? I’m hoping for a lively discussion on this one.
~I AM~
November 3rd, 2005 at at 1:09 am
I will certainly hop on board with this. As you may remember from our first exchanges I too endorse the notion of a mandatory “religions of the world” course in high school. I guess the trick is to convince school boards that it is a good idea. The best way to do that is to get friendly board members in place and then to lobby for the change. This would be a monumental task.
Unless, there was a way of tricking the religious right into backing it? I think if the ACLU or similar organization supported it you would get too much back lash. There might also be way to leverage the ID debate. Maybe use this as a conciliation prize? If they can’t get ID into the science classroom, maybe they would actively support a curriculum that included ID as one of the many religions.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 1:15 am
This is a wonderful idea… but implementation will be tough.
For actually teaching the class, the scariest plan I can come up with would be to invite local religious leaders/teachers/thinkers in to give their view. I learned about other sects and religions while I was growing up with one particular brand of Christianity… but the majority of this was from others within my sect… and it was mostly of the “they believe this crazy thing. we don’t know why. it contradicts the truth in this way” sort.
There was no stepping out of context, no attempt at understanding the hows and whys of other belief systems. If you want to know what a Presbyterian thinks, you ask a Presbyterian. If you want to know what a Mormon thinks… you sure don’t ask a Presbyterian.
You have a normal teacher who compares and contrasts, goes over dead and unrepresented religions and discusses contemporary events with religion in the forefront. You also have, a day or maybe two each week, a guest religious leader there to talk on their corner of the religion market. They wouldn’t be allowed to accept conversions and there’d be rules on literature they could offer… and other such limits… but they’d give their side. Bringing in just one religious leader to proselytize would be horrible, bringing in a damn parade would be truly educational.
I think the best part is that you’re bringing in religious leaders from the community… you’re not learning about what weird people in distant lands believe, you learning what your classmates and neighbors believe. This won’t be so hot in tiny, homogenous communities… but this sort of class wouldn’t be expected to anyway, right?
[Insert disclaimer about denominations and sub-sects and how each individual is different... and then move on.]
November 3rd, 2005 at at 1:20 am
Your idea is a pretty good one, but what will happen when the “religion education” teacher is one of Pat Robertson’s followers? Or a Quaker or a Muslim or Scientologist? You’d feel pretty uneasy sending your kids into that classroom.
I don’t think we’ll ever see religion as a required class in public schools because of the controversy it would generate (especially if the teacher were an Evangelical Atheist).
I do believe that Critical Thinking should be taught. Thinking critically does a lot of good, including steering people clear of internet scams and helping them to recognize media biases. And of course a critical thinker will question his faith rather than mindlessly following his religious leaders.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 1:20 am
This is a fantastic idea. My comparative religions class in high school was awesome.
In my class, we had a bunch of groups present various religions. This made sure that most religions, even obscure ones, were covered. (I had Rastafarianism.)
For actually teaching the class, the scariest plan I can come up with would be to invite local religious leaders/teachers/thinkers in to give their view.
Actually, we did that, and it worked very well.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 3:39 am
I posted a short while back about a new textbook on the christian bible designed for use in high schools. The writers got a wide range of input and claim that the book is approved as “public school safe” by at least one liberal group. (I think it was People for the American Way, but I don’t remember.)
Commenters were concerned, though, about teachers using such a class as an opportunity to proselytize, and I agree. However, I would definitely support a religion class that you were teaching, IAm.
Maybe public school aren’t the place. These kinds of classes would be great if offered by local Humanist groups, perhaps in conjunction with other religious groups who support ecumenicism and/or some amount of free-thinking. (The UUs might already offer this sort of thing. I don’t have kids, so I’ve never really been motivated to look into it.)
November 3rd, 2005 at at 5:33 am
That’s a fine idea, but it falls into the same problem I discussed on my own entry – it’s not something that any of us can actually do. Are we discussing hypothetical solutions or real life here ? Because if we’re discussing hypotheticals, we can simply posit “we all realize there is no god. the end” but that’s not very interesting.
I think when you deal in such hypotheticals you lose sight of the fact that the struggle against collectivism is a constant of human history, and that anything we can actually do is basically futile.
Now, I’m not saying it’s NOT worth being evangelistic – I would be hypocrite if I thought so ! But I think we have to be realistic and admit that we have only a hope that we work for. There’s nothing shameful about that.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 5:35 am
Although i very much agree with the whole idea of getting people of different faiths to speak about their religion in front of the class, i can see how it would be unworkable. In a nation such as the UK which is heavily cosmopolitan or in areas of America such as LA or New York which are also heavily cosmopolitan, this would be fine. In rural areas (particularly red state) that are almost 100% christian where would you find a muslim, buddhist, hindu and jew to come into your class room. How many hindus does alabama have?
November 3rd, 2005 at at 8:16 am
Veeery Interesting. The X-ians would have a hard time arguing against that with out looking like the intolerant hypocrites they really are.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 8:24 am
LBBP:
“I think if the ACLU or similar organization supported it you would get too much back lash.”
I agree. Property 1 of the solution, then, is that it be grass roots. BTW, if the ACLU took a stand on this at all, I think they would oppose it. Actually, getting them to vocally oppose it would be great!
Rufus:
“Your idea is a pretty good one”
This is certainly not an original concept. I’ve seen this discussed in any number of places.
“I do believe that Critical Thinking should be taught.”
Great, but where do you propose we find teachers qualified to teach THAT class?
Sportin’ Life:
“Maybe public school aren’t the place. These kinds of classes would be great if offered by local Humanist groups, perhaps in conjunction with other religious groups who support ecumenicism and/or some amount of free-thinking.”
If we could get theists to send their children to classes offered by Humanists, the problem would be solved already. It has to be public schools for it to even make a dent.
Franc:
“anything we can actually do is basically futile.”
Crap. Oh well. I’m shutting down my blog and going back to church, then.
How do you live with such overwhelming negativity?
Gribble:
“where would you find a muslim, buddhist, hindu and jew to come into your class room.”
Indeed. I’m not convinced that this is the best method, anyway. I think the class should be taught by an objective individual. If the teacher is a theist (so 99% of the time), I think a second teacher of a different faith should be brought in to cover the primary teacher’s religion when it comes up.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 8:48 am
Franc:
You know, the main difference between you and the theists is that many of them contribute something substantive to the discourse here, and I’m happy to have them.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 9:30 am
When a child sees how seriously other societies have taken their beliefs throughout history, it becomes harder to draw the line between the “myths” of the “others” and one’s own religion.
I’m one such case. Freshman year of high school, I was exposed to Greek mythology in my lit class. This was the first phase of questioning, though admittedly, I’d already expressed some degree of doubt – the whole “how do we know our god is the right god?” line of questioning (for which there wasn’t ever a satisfactory answer.
Later that year, my World Cultures teacher did a marking-period long unit on the 3 big monotheistic religions. I’d known little about Judaism and Islam prior to that, so this was a major awakening. Not only that, but it was my first exposure to religion from a non-theological standpoint. It made a huge difference for me, hearing about religious concepts from a non-biased, non-evangelical perspective. I was able to question certain aspects of my own religion for the first time and get actual answers instead of the whole “you have to have faith” line of reasoning. I also learned that the Big Three had a whole lot more in common then I’d ever realized… it wasn’t the total end of my religious beliefs – and this wasn’t the only factor in my deconversion… but I know without a doubt that this exposure was what sent the house of cards tumbling down. I never exactly decided, oh that is it, I don’t believe anymore. It was more of a gradual process, and I one day realized that even though I missed certain aspects of church I couldn’t go back – I just didn’t believe anymore.
When I went to college (a public school) the first time around, there was a course called “The Bible as Literature” that I always very much wanted to take, but never did. The point is that you CAN do this in a public institution… I’m not exactly sure how you’d make it universal. You’d probably have to present it as an exercise in cultural awareness, from more of an anthropological perspective than a theistic one. For example, right now in the world it is rather important to have a basic grasp of Islam… but how many students do you think have that in this country? I’d gather not very many.
One thing for sure – it could NOT come from atheists. We’d have to get it pushed by some other group, because none of the particularly theistic states would deal well with it if it came from us. Can you imagine Alabama saying, oh yeah, that’s cool with us! for example?
A big part of the problem in this country is that each state has its own curriculum, and sometimes they are even more localized than that. I’ve never understood this. There’s no good reason for students in Florida to be learning anything different than the students in Idaho – aside from the history of ones own state, I’ll grant, but that could absolutely be part of a national, universal curriculum. If there was a national standard, perhaps our students wouldn’t be so damn stupid compared to the rest of the world. I’m not saying that we’d take away choice from high school students – they’d still get to pick which foreign languages to take, for example, or which literature classes… but the backbone of their education would the universal curriculum.
I think you’d have a much better go of getting something like this taught universally if education was mandated on a countrywide level. I grew up in New Jersey, not an especially religious state. The teacher who taught that class I had in high school would likely have been
burned at the stakefired in Mississippi!November 3rd, 2005 at at 9:51 am
Great idea. I would think that realisticaly in a USA setting covering just a few Xtian variants and say 4 or 5 major and two or three fringe ones like raelians etc would be so much more than most folk get exposed to it would make a difference. Some folk are going to stay deliberately ignorant no matter what you do, but many just have never heard of anything other than what they grew up with.
If the attendees knew up front that they would be hearing from many religions it would make a big difference too. I am not worried even if one has to use Pat Robertson type devotees as spokespersons for particular religions; I think that the setting would actually make folk listen more critically. The fact you know you will be having to listen to other views does that as most who served on a jury will confirm.
The earlier one does this in life the less chance kids grow into the bigots so many are as adults, so I would think somewhere in the schooling process would be good timing.
But how do you sell the idea to a school board?
November 3rd, 2005 at at 10:20 am
I am afraid that in my area, North Georgia, the class would go something like this:
“Today, class, we are going to talk about different religions in America. There are the Baptists, Presbyterian, Methodists, Church of God, Mennonites, Wesleyan, Episcopal and those Mormons. Now which church do you think Jesus wants you to go to?”
The problem is that we could never trust most Christian teachers, principles or school board members to handle a subject like this fairly.
BTW, I am on the road until Monday. Please don’t let me get beat up too badly on my blog while I am gone.
Alan
November 3rd, 2005 at at 11:45 am
Already been there and got the t-shirt. In the late 60’s, in the once progressive hamlet of Sierra Vista, Arizona, (now a bastion of Evangelistic Christianity) our junior high school had such a class. It was a one semester elective on the religions of the world. We took a very high level look at everything from Christianity to Janism, as well as examining the ancient religions/mythologies of Greece, Rome and even the Nordic scheme of gods. And you are very right in that it does tend to create skepticism in anyone who has the ability to think for themselves. It really got me on the road to “heathenism” when I started to realize the concept which is now known as “God in the Gaps” where all religion originally was is as way to put an explanation to what we cannot explain. I read somewhere that a high school in Illinois or Minnesota also had this course approved but cancelled it after just two session due to lack of interest.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 12:33 pm
Or you could just teach students about religion from a historical perspective. I took a class in college called History of Christianity, and since it was taught in a public university they weren’t allowed to go into religion — it had to be taught based on actual research by actual historians.
Apparently historians don’t neccesarily think the bible is very factual. Among other things, I learned that Jesus was probably born in Egypt, and his mom definitely wasn’t a virgin, and that he wasn’t white and never himself thought he was the son of god. Who woulda thunk?
The most interesting development was watching the changing attitudes of a couple of very bible-oriented Christians as the course moved forward. They started out absolutely livid that a professor could stand up and tell them that the new testament was written by humans and Christians didn’t start celebrating Christmas for centuries after Jesus’ death. But as the class moved on and they learned more about how their religion evolved, they became very interested in it and very challenged by the way the materials conflicted with the dogma they’d grown up with. I think it was a good eye opener for them, and I wish that more bible thumpers would have such an opportunity.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 12:49 pm
I wonder if one way you could sell it would be just straight-up academic advantage?
Admittedly my situation is a bit different because I went to an ethnically and religiously diverse school where church non-attendance was the norm, but I found that knowing my Bible stories and my Greek mythology gave me just an incredible advantage over my unchurched peers, particularly in English.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 1:00 pm
We had comparative religion classes at my high school, and world literature classes that used religious texts, such as the bible and the epic of Gilgamesh, as literary sources. I’m sure a few slightly open-minded theists were made more aware of their own faith and its silliness as a result of them. I met someone over the summer that refused to acknowledge fossils of evidence of evolution and that the earth was older than 10,000 years. She claimed the fossils were put there by satan to fool humans. Never mind the fact that as one goes through the layers, the organisms change, generally becoming more complex, or adapting to their environments. A person like this is already lost, and no amount of comparative religion classes or critical thinking classes would help them over their ignorance.
A lot of people say religion gives them comfort and structure. Perhaps if atheism is to prevail, it must offer these intangibles as well as the smug logic. The comfort part is a no-brainer, meaning those with no brain are the ones who would buy into a loving sky daddy idea. Personal responsbility means nothing if we can just appeal to some invisible force to solve all our problems. Some folks claim that without religion, we would descend into chaotic nihilism, anarchy. Others say that without it, the social order would disintegrate. I don’t see how this is so in either case, but it is still something that would need to be addressed.
I think people believe the things they do because it’s easier than thinking. A sky daddy is easier to comprehend (oddly enough) than a more objective understanding of how the universe works. It is easier to shove aside responsibilities than to face and deal with them directly. It is easier to let someone else define one’s moral code than to fabricate and adhere to one’s own. It is easier to let someone else determine what is best rather than spending some time to think about it.
We call ourselves humans and think it means something special, but many of us behave like herding animals. Wake up, moocows. When folks start using both of their brain hemispheres, we’ll be rid of religion and other such silliness. “We will have good masters when everyone is their own.”
November 3rd, 2005 at at 4:01 pm
I think a secular organization should push for a “mythology” or “religious history of the world” class in like elementary or middle school. The EARLIER the BETTER. Im sure though that Christians would be very opposed to the idea of including their own religion in a “mythology” class, as well as many school administrators.
But Vjack and I AM are totally right: exposure to multiple faiths, especially at an early age, tends to destroy religious belief within oneself. A big part of the increase in the “nonreligious” percentage of the American population is due to multiculturalism and families with multiple cultural backgrounds. The children of parents from different faiths and cultures tend to have no faith of their own other than a vague agnostic or atheistic spirituality.
It would soooooooo ironic to have a secular organization pushing for a religious class in school, while simultaneously having the religious organizations fight against it. They would fight against it because it would look at all faiths, including their own, from an outside and objective and even critical perspective.
How do we start this kind of thing up? By writing letters to FFRF, American Atheists, various school boards, etc… But first we need to come up with a catchy name. Everything nowadays needs a catchy name.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 5:05 pm
If we could get theists to send their children to classes offered by Humanists, the problem would be solved already. It has to be public schools for it to even make a dent.
Well, I was thinking more of roping in the “unaffiliated” people who don’t have any religious identification. If they want to learn what religion is all about, better they get a comparative and critical analysis than what’s currently available to them.
Like I said, I really doubt that the vast majority of public school teachers would handle the material the way we would like. At least, not in the geographical regions where it is needed.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 6:24 pm
If it’s done right, I think it’s a great idea. Obviously finding a curriculum and a teacher who could expose the students to all the different religions objectively is the key.
However, as a follower of Christ, I think it would be beneficial for the following reasons. Too many people think they are Christians, but have no idea what they believe and have failed to really test their faith. These people would need to confront their doubts and that is always a good thing. Would some of them be “deconverted”? Sure, depending on how you define the term though since most of these folks had no real faith they could articulate in the first place.
On the other side, I think some atheists and pantheists would actually convert to Christianity. (please hold back your laughter for another minute…) Since most people in the U.S. grew up in “Christian” households, they mostly went thru the motions but often did not really seriously consider the evidence & rationality of Christianity like they did the new ideas to which they were exposed.
It’s essentially a naive, childhood view of Christianity vs. adult versions of pantheism and atheism such that the latter choices seem so much more sophisticated, rational, “reality-based”, whatever. It has not been a fair comparison for many people. I say make ‘em read Aquinas, Assisi, Merton, Lewis, Chesterton. Then they can read Paine, Russell, Hawkings, etc. After which point, they will be equipped to make what amounts to a huge decision, whatever that may be. Good post, I AM. Cheers!
November 3rd, 2005 at at 6:40 pm
I fear it would eventually backfire. While at first it would be an eye opener for many, this would eventually become a tool for fundamentalists of any religion to use to their advantage just like anything else. We would be doing them the favor of getting their foot in the doors of our public schools. from therem, they are a hop, skip and jump away from changing the curiculums to their liking. They have not spent the last twenty-five years permeating school boards and the like to sit idly by and watch a bunch of heathens make light of their beliefs after they have been told public shcools are off limits.
Sorry, I like the idea of showing the follies of religion as much as any other atheist, but I wonder if this would do more harm than good.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 7:07 pm
Having said that, I think this topic is not only a good idea, it is the next necessary step in affecting real change. I’ve been dreaming of the day when atheistsd get together, pound out ideas, and institute plans of action. vjack’s ideas have been good starting points and I Am’s new topic should be very successful and important.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 9:11 pm
Chad has an interesting perspective on it. I think we all appreciate your input Chad. And its somewhat suprising to see a Christian support the concept. So good job on breaking the stereotyped preconception of what I thought a “Christian” would say.
But I think youre being a bit optimistic. Sure, we could expect the class to convert a few people here and there, but I think overwhelmingly it will be detrimental to the number of devotees for all faiths. And I think the studies concerning worldly cultural educations back me up here.
November 3rd, 2005 at at 10:53 pm
Perhaps an easier and potentially better approach would be to start a grass-roots effort to get a logic course taught in grammar schools. The problem I see with that, is the tendency for school systems to insist that the subjects they teach be mind-numbingly boring. I am also pretty sure that this would be unpopular because it would allow many kids to outsmart their parents in an argument. I’m fairly sure that the class would quickly devolve into a Trivial Pursuit game of “who said what and when”, instead of actually teaching critical thinking skills.
(carved into desk)
Nietzsche was peache, but Sartre was a fartre.
November 4th, 2005 at at 12:34 am
All the comments about how difficult it would be to get into schools has me wondering if there isn’t another venue that could accomplish the same purpose. Maybe television or movies? It would have to be very entertaining with mass market appeal and only subconsciously educational. Television has had many examples of counter culture life styles being very popular. For example it was very ironic to me that during the peak of the Gay Marriage scare “Will and Grace” was one of the most popular shows on television.
How about a sit com set in Guantanamo Bay. Wherein 5 very different religious zealots share a cell and experience Hogan’s Hero style adventures while sharing stories about there life before being captured.
November 4th, 2005 at at 1:54 am
I AM:
Very good, very thought-provoking.
Rufus said: ““I do believe that Critical Thinking should be taught.”
To which you resonded – “Great, but where do you propose we find teachers qualified to teach THAT class?”
Ummmm….never having taken this particular class (& it shows sometimes), but isn’t that taught in Debate, or Fundamentals of Debate, or somesuch thing? I don’t recall if my HS had that particular elective.
Of course kids (& some adults) will veer away from a title like that (“Critical Thinking? Sounds boring.”).
1 of the larger problems, IMHO, is that intellectualism is looked down upon in the US. Being smart isn’t (& as far back as I can recall, some 40 yrs ago) & wasn’t considered cool.
Classes could be incorporated into the sociology, anthropology, & other electives offered, unfortunately, academia (from my limited knowledge) always suffers from a lack of funding.
I’m sure something like you propose could fly in CA (probably already has, for all I know), but somewhere like Indiana, or Oaklahoma? Texas?
Sadly enough, LBBP’s idea probably is 1 of the best offerings thus far (sorry, LBBP, it’s just that I don’t like Reality shows, nuttin personal). It’s an unfortunate fact that, at least in the US, many people garner info from the ‘Glass Teat’, as Ellison so aptly titled it.
It would be difficult, as was pointed out earlier, that some Fundies (Xtian or otherwise) would (try) to hijack the class, trying to leverage some potential newbies.
The concept has distinct merit, &, as others here have pointed out, it has worked before.
If you offered such a class, I AM, I would love to attend it. You’d might be well advised, however, to leave out the ‘God is a dick’ from the syllabus (ducking my head, kidding! kidding!).
November 4th, 2005 at at 2:37 am
Hey, I hate reality shows myself. I was proposing a sit com, “Guantanamo Bay Meets Hogan’s Heros”. Although, if the market continues to eat up reality shows the way it has been, that might be the more popular format.
November 4th, 2005 at at 6:51 am
I went to school in the UK and had RE (religious education) lessons from the age of 11 to the age of 16. I was taught about Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism and Islam (no Buddhism from what I remember but the curriculum changed just after I finished so it’s probably now included). It was always taught as ‘this is what people who follow this religion believe’ and I never had a problem with any of it, despite the fact I was agnostic through all of school. I have never understood why teaching religion in this way would cause a problem. It provides a greater understanding of different cultures and provides a context to most of history.
The main criticism of teaching religion that I’ve seen is that teachers will endorse their own faith and deride others. Based on my own (admittedly limited) experience I do not understand how this can be an issue. A teacher is there to teach, not preach.
I am going to show my complete and utter ignorance of the US educational system and ask – why are comparative religion classes such an issue? I realise that there is a separation of church and state but I have always taken this to mean that you go to school and learn and go to church (or temple or where-ever) to pray. How do children learn about different cultures if they don’t have the religious context? (Though I doubt it’s on the syllabus in the US, we learnt about the Reformation (Henry VIII) and the Tudors and Stuarts which has a large religious component. It would be impossible to understand this history without an understanding of the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation). I’m sorry to be going on so much but I have never understood how I can have been educated in an Anglican country in an Anglican school and yet appear to have a deeper understanding of other religions that children who have gone to secular schools. I was able to keep my (lack of) faith in spite of this knowledge. Many of my friends of numerous christian denominations kept their faith in spite of this knowledge. Why is this such an issue in the US?
(please be kind in your responses – this is my first ever post and I realise I have chosen one hell of a topic to comment on!)
November 4th, 2005 at at 8:27 am
Warthog:
“I read somewhere that a high school in Illinois or Minnesota also had this course approved but cancelled it after just two session due to lack of interest.”
That’s why it has to be required. If we relied on popularity, math classes would be cancelled in schools nationwide.
tr1c14:
“I wonder if one way you could sell it would be just straight-up academic advantage?”
I agree that this is the only possible way to get it done.
I’ll respond to more of these comments later when I have more time.
November 4th, 2005 at at 11:22 am
Aaron:
“The EARLIER the BETTER.”
My first instinct is to agree, but I’m not sure this is true. I don’t think kids can process this kind of thing in a critical and thoughtful way until high school. This information in the hands of a nine-year-old would be too easily defused by family and church.
“But first we need to come up with a catchy name. Everything nowadays needs a catchy name.”
How about “The Religious Heritage Curriculum.” It sounds like something Bill Clinton would make up, doesn’t it?
Chad:
“If it’s done right, I think it’s a great idea.”
Cool. The Christians are on board. We’re done.
BTW, I WAS starting to laugh exactly before you told me I had to wait.
Atheist Messiah:
“We would be doing them the favor of getting their foot in the doors of our public schools. from therem, they are a hop, skip and jump away from changing the curiculums to their liking.”
“I think this topic is not only a good idea, it is the next necessary step in affecting real change.”
?!?
LBBP:
“Maybe television or movies? It would have to be very entertaining with mass market appeal and only subconsciously educational.”
Have you been hacking into my computer? That was going to be my next topic in this catgory.
“‘Guantanamo Bay Meets Hogan’s Heros’”
I would SO watch that.
Reluctant:
“isn’t that taught in Debate, or Fundamentals of Debate, or somesuch thing?”
No way. Debate is about winning, not about drawing logical conclusions. I was president of my high school debate team. I won many debates arguing points with which I disagreed.
Sarah”
“please be kind in your responses – this is my first ever post and I realise I have chosen one hell of a topic to comment on!”
You stupid ass…
Kidding. Your comment was excellent. Thank you for participating.
In American history classes, kids are taught only the bare minimum religious context to understand a situation. When learning the reformation, they are given a barely accurate thumbnail sketch of indulgences. However, the don’t touch transsubstantiation vs. consubstatiation, which is critical to a full understanding.
November 4th, 2005 at at 12:24 pm
I AM, I think youre right. Let me change my stance. I think a good age to start is around 9 to 11. Think thats a good age to start the class?
The name you got is fine. Weve got an entire package now. This is sweet! I think a big part of the potnetial for this curriculum is how it will portray each religion as a cultural and mythical invention of the mind. It will put Christianity on equal footing with Hinduism and Polytheisms and all that and view them from an outside and analytical perspective. Such a wonderful dream.
The cirriculum would have to be decided upon by a really intelligent and knowledgeable scientist or doctor that studies cultures and religions. Maybe an anthropologist.
And I got the perfect anthropologist in mind: David Eller! He wrote “Natural Atheism” which is an awesome book.
November 4th, 2005 at at 6:13 pm
I just got back from a week long school trip and am very tired, so forgive me if I repeat something already said.
I love the idea. It might very well work in Newton, where I live. I know a couple of Alderman. . .
[warning: html follows, please ignore mistakes]
Rufus:
Your idea is a pretty good one, but what will happen when the “religion education” teacher is one of Pat Robertson’s followers? Or a Quaker or a Muslim or Scientologist? You’d feel pretty uneasy sending your kids into that classroom.
What the hell is wrong with Quakers? I was for quite some time a Quaker and take offense to that. I always pictured Quakers as one of the most accepting sects, apart from unitarianism. Please explain.
November 4th, 2005 at at 6:41 pm
I Am, what I mean by this topic is a good idea is that I am happy to see a call for atheist activism. vjack asking questions about what and how we should be active atheists- that kinda thing.
Your idea, teaching religion in school, is one possibility among many other things that we could focus our time and energy on. I just felt that specifically, we would be better off trying a different approach than teaching in schools.
I like the idea of a cable television station devoted to teaching religious and philosophical programs. Mainly, a 24-hr talk show with different hours devoted to different topics. It could be supported by other programming such as nature, history, and science shows as well. I mean, why not? There are a myriad of religious evangelical stations. It would be a first for secular TV.
November 4th, 2005 at at 7:13 pm
Rufus:
Gonna have to side w/Aeger, on the Quaker mention. Sorry.
My (limited) understanding is that the Quakers are (as Aeger says) far more broad-minded than most Xtian sects (I for 1 admire people who walk the talk).
Yes, Nixon was a Quaker. Bad example. Paine was raised by Quakers. Good example.
Not to mention that the Quakers were at the early forefront of abolition in the 1600’s (or 1700’s).
If memory serves (& it is spotty at best), Paine (I think) wrote about how Quakers view (or at least in his time) the bible as ‘dead letters’, instead tried (or trying to) adhere to the spirit, not the words.
Will take correction in this. Am getting older, my retention may not be as it was.
November 5th, 2005 at at 10:27 pm
I’m a moron. I was thinking Amish. I wrote Quaker. Sorry. I honestly know nothing about the Quakers.
And before everyone jumps all over me for mentioning the Amish, the reason they were on my mind is the recent polio outbreak caused by their unwillingness to vaccinate the kiddies.
“If God meant for my child to have polio, then that’s the way it’s supposed to be.” (Source)
November 5th, 2005 at at 11:32 pm
Great, but where do you propose we find teachers qualified to teach THAT class?
I don’t know how to find good teachers. The point I was trying to make is that a generic critical thinking class would be less controversial than a religion class. Because the class is not about religion, it can be taught by anybody who can read and think. If it were taught by a believer or an atheist, it would be taught in the same way.
November 6th, 2005 at at 3:11 am
What a great thread!
Chad, thanks for participating over here. (Everyone else, too!)
LBBP, great brainstorming. How about juvenile novels? Nothing too polemical, just an outspoken (and very ethical) atheist character or two–and maybe a hypocrite christian–added to the standards of the genre.
I don’t think I’m up to good fiction writing, but if someone writes it, I’ll donate to all the school libraries in my area.
But only if it’s good!
November 7th, 2005 at at 6:26 am
Realistic scenario in a typical American classroom:
Teacher: “So, class, this is what ____ believe”
*Snickering from the class*
Student 1: “How stupid. Everyone knows Jesus is God.”
Student 2: “Yeah, that’s why they’re getting bombed. ‘Cause they’re so stupid.”
Teacher: “Well, Jimmy, you have to understand that these are a primitive people…”
And so on.
I grew up in Ohio. I promise this is as realistic scenario as any.
November 7th, 2005 at at 3:38 pm
Dub – just like teaching evoultion in places that don’t want to teach it, having testing standards that hold the teachers accountable for a “realistic” (used in quotes because I’m not sure how to teach about invisible pink unicorns in a realistic way, but you get what I’m saying) presentation of the religious beliefs of others. If they’re all shown in terms of where they come from– in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, learning how they descended from Sumerian/Chaldean belief structrues can prove quiet useful in terms of fostering mutual understanding, at least. The real key I think is to make sure ALL the religions have not only their base-message pointed out, but also some of their sillier elements.
It’s a lot harder to snicker at the Muslims for worshipping a meteor when you realize you worship a God who supposedly cared about the smell of burned sacrifices, and whether or not they had fur-spots. For instance.
November 8th, 2005 at at 7:36 am
When I took a course in Buddhism in college, I realized that there was far more than Christianity out there. Although I was already an atheist by this point, I remember thinking that Buddhism was far more appealing and less destructive than Christianity. I think this idea has merit.
November 11th, 2005 at at 12:59 pm
Solutions to the Problem of Faith: Progress so Fa
Since I suggested that atheist bloggers start working together to identify possible solutions to the problem of faith, some great ideas have been put forward. In my original post, I envisioned a collaborate endeavor where solutions would emerge from …
November 15th, 2005 at at 1:58 pm
If only we could find teachers who would encourage questioning… I’d love for students to question even the fundamental tenets of science… teacher could no longer simply state “accepted” theories as premises for the days lesson… student might ask “why do we believe that”… teacher would then have to research & discuss how existing scientific experimentation & observation supports the theory… they may have to discuss some opposing theories or even some discenting opinions… this could be eye opening for the children… no more “I believe this because someone told me it was true”…
… I always wondered how children that were constantly lied to (Santa, Easter bunny, the stork brings babies, the tooth fairy, the sandman…) continue later in life to accept these same adult’s explanation for things like the origin of life… is it possiblt that the early teachings of falsehoods opens us up to gullibility later in life?… are we being trained to believe fairy tales?…