Religion ranks as one of the most divisive factors in the world today. Yet it has also brought billions of people together forging a sense of shared belief and unity of purpose across wide racial and geographical divides. The word itself comes from the Latin re-ligåre, which means "to bind back together." So how has the power which binds become a force which divides us?
The answer is complex, but if we had to boil it down to one word, that word would be ignorance -- a condition shared by believers and nonbelievers alike. America today is a nation of religious illiterates. Even many who attend worship services and profess to be devout may never have thought deeply about the tenets of their faith, still less wrestled with God, as the Jewish tradition exhorts its followers to do.
Leaving aside the question of God-wrestling for the moment, most religious believers have only a cursory knowledge of their own faith, and know next to nothing about the beliefs of other religions. This is something like learning geography by memorizing the names and capitals of all the states, but never finding out about other countries and continents which lie beyond the borders of the U.S.
As a Jew, I am often asked by Christians whether we "believe in Christ." The answer, of course, is that Judaism accepts the historical existence of Jesus, but does not regard him as the Messiah, for whom we're still waiting. Jews, for their part, are equally ignorant of the tenets of the Christian faith, and in many cases suffer from what one friend of mine calls "Jesus-phobia," a reluctance -- no doubt forged by centuries of Jewish oppression in Europe -- to speak or even think about the founder of Christianity.
If Jews and Christians know so little about one another's traditions, how much less do we grasp more exotic faiths like Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism? Yet it has never been more vital that we learn. This is important because religious passions are some of the most powerful forces -- for good and for ill -- at work in the world today. Whether we think the religious are wise or deluded, we owe it to ourselves to learn what makes them tick.
Conflict between religious communities and the rise of religious fundamentalisms worldwide has led to violence in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa and South Asia in recent years, and it has fueled the culture wars here in the U.S., where religious conservatives blame nonbelievers for many of our current social ills. How do we lower the rhetoric level at home and abroad and defuse the mutual suspicions that fan the flames of conflict?
A good place to start is with religious literacy. What if we took seriously our religious pluralism, and made learning about the world's great faith traditions a mandatory part of American education? We study art, music and literature in school, because we recognize that these are key elements in human culture. Yet religion, which has had a massive influence on history, is left out.
I understand the difficulties of treating fairly the deeply held beliefs of millions of people in the school environment. Nevertheless, history, politics and government are also sensitive and controversial, but we find ways of teaching about them. There are excellent books available, like Professor Huston Smith's classic texts on world religions, which could serve as the basis for an objective examination of this topic.
My question is: What is the alternative? The alternative to learning about religions is remaining in ignorance, as we largely are today. And ignorance is a breeding ground for prejudice, stereotype and mutual suspicion.
Teaching about religions is not advocating for them any more than teaching about war advocates for war. And as for the objection that it would violate the separation between church and state, that's not true. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It does not deny our young people the right to learn about this critical part of their human heritage.
A neutral and fair minded study of religion would include the alternatives to religion too -- atheism, free thought, philosophical inquiry -- all of the many approaches that humans have pursued. I know that some people will object. They will say that the responsibility for religious education lies with our religious institutions not the public schools. But what we are talking about here is not learning the exclusive truth-claims of this or that denomination. It is a broad-based exploration of how people have sought meaning and direction in life.
Granted, this enquiry will offend those who are convinced that only their way is valid -- fundamentalists will be the first to object. But real education has always offended. It challenges our notion that only our own views are correct. If teaching about religions broadens our minds and makes us more open to other ways of seeing things, it will have fulfilled its mission.
A study on religious literacy in the US was published last year that categorized knowledge of religion by religious beliefs. The group that was the most knowledgeable about religion was atheists. It found that on average, atheists know the Bible and the history of Christianity better than Christians do. That would present another problem for educators: The more one learns about religion, the more skeptical of religion one becomes.
It is part of cultural studies, in any case,
in light of
the importance of religion
in culture, government, wars, peace
and the belief systems which determine
dress codes, liesure activities, interpersonal relationships, commerce and interaction with the rest of the world.
It's OK to analyze *other* religions, dissecting and explaining the cultural reasons people adopted them. This is called "studying mythology". Go ahead and analyze roots of the religions of the Greeks, Romans, Norse and Sumerians. And the Hindus and Buddhists, for all I care. But if I'm a Christian I will be offended if you do the same to Christianity (or Judaism). MY religion is not a cultural phenomenon like those myths, it's the TRUTH.
So you have to teach two classes: Religion (which presents my beliefs as fact) and Mythology (which presents other beliefs as fiction). And the parents in your school district will never agree which beliefs belong in each class.
With that in mind, who is going to be teaching the short comings of all these half religions,
having had as primal purpose, all through the ages, to serve blind faith beliefs ?
Whole classroom of kids mentally scarred and crying. Sounds like fun.
Then of course there are the all time favourites, astrology and divination by "reading the bones".
I am an atheist, and a progressive, AND a teacher. I would have no problem with a religious studies course that treated all of them equally, from a historical perspective. That would satisfy the 1st Amendment on all counts.
It is when ONE group attempts to push their own beliefs to the exclusion of all others that folks like me rankle.
And, of course, when those beliefs are pushed in where they do not belong, like a science class.
At the same time, include general classes on philosophy and logic.
Sadly, I don't see any clear way this could actually be accomplished short off perhaps a senior year course or college classes. Most younger students would have a hard time with the material, and the parental issues would be...problematic at best.
And how, pray tell, is there going to be time to teach about all religions?