Williams College Prof. Mark Taylor has another facet to the question of whether we teach about religion in schools, in an opposite-editorial page article in the December 21 New York Times titled “The Devoted Student” (subscription required after December 28, 2006). Taylor wrote:
Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including “unacceptable” books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students.
Distinguished scholars at several major universities in the United States have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts in their classes and published writings. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition.
This contrasts interestingly, and vexingly, with trends like the Texas high schools who teach the Bible as history, many of whom probably cross the line into advocacy for religion according to one study.
So, on one hand we get religious fanatics who want the Bible taught as a faith document in high schools. On the other hand, the students at whom those classes are aimed want it taught only one way, their way, when they get it. There is no thought of actually learning beyond what the fanatics want to learn.
Alan Bloom was wrong: THIS is the closing of the American mind.
Taylor ends his piece with a warning:
Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not.
The warning signs are clear: unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.
Case in point: This discussion at Pharyngula.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
There are no discussions at Pharyngula. Only a vast echo chamber of Myers’ sycophants patting one another on the back on how smart they are and how benighted the Christianists are.
That is not a place for informed discussion.
LikeLike
I thought that discussion at PZ’s place pretty good until the goofy troll like person appeared.
‘ know there is a growing movement within the religious community to cast off the Bible as allegorical. However, I adamantly refuse that. I think that religion aside, I think the Bible can be a great source of history, cultures, and even science. ‘
Thats an interesting comment.If your getting your science from that book that is pretty poor.
‘Do you think that Richard Dawkins and some of the others he counts in his corner are really interested in a meaningful conversation’
You know I’m pretty tired of hearing people like you say things about Dawkins. Have you read him? He isvery much into meaningful conversation but he refuses to give you any special preference for your religious ideas. Nor should he. If you can’t meet him on the same field with the same rules to bad. It’s no he who has the problem. He is one of the most fair mindedmen I’ve ever read.
LikeLike
I’ll agree with that. People always have the alternative of going to a private school, home school, etc, if they want to be preached though, rather than taught.
And while I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I recognize that many others do not share that view. I think there is a way that teachers can touch on this is what Christians think and why, this is what Muslims think and why, Jews, atheists, etc, and while they would have to be careful, I think there is even room for them to say what they believe. However, that is where it could quickly get sticky, especially if the kids are impressionable.
What I don’t get is why there is so much resistance, both within the Christian and anti-Christian ranks, to have the Bible mentioned, let alone taught in schools. How can one really teach the crusades without religion? How can one teach early political powers in Europe and ignore the Pope? Heck, how can one teach early colonization of the United States?
The thing that I think educators have to remember is that religion was a motivation for some of the founding fathers as much as religion was a motivation for David Koresh and 9-11. Without teaching the religions reasons why people of different beliefs act, there is no way to understand the causes and the ramifications of those actions.
I know there is a growing movement within the religious community to cast off the Bible as allegorical. However, I adamantly refuse that. I think that religion aside, I think the Bible can be a great source of history, cultures, and even science. You should check out the link I put on my blog a while back pertaining to one man’s work finding the Star of Bethlehem.
I think that many non-Christians and Christians alike are afraid: afraid of being wrong, so they would prefer the blissful ignorance rather than approaching their questions openly seeking answers. I made that decision long ago, and I chose Christ.
However, I would agree that if parents did their jobs, it probably wouldn’t have to fall on schools to do it. And in response to your comments that “Many religious activists in the US really don’t want the dialog,” that quite a double standard. Do you think that Richard Dawkins and some of the others he counts in his corner are really interested in a meaningful conversation?
LikeLike
Thanks for dropping by — and welcome.
As to your points, we’re on the same wavelength, I think. Oh, but under the law, we can have classes in religion, and the Bible, in public schools. Studies of religion, not advocacy; academic study, not worship. The difficulty is that most of the people who want the classes don’t want an academic study. Especially they don’t want any of the critical study that marks serious academic work. There are curricula which offer legal, First Amendment-approved methods of studying religion, available for high schools.
Here’s a study of how religion courses are in Texas schools, showing the dangers, chiefly: http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/texascourses/execsummary/
Here are the recommendations from the Texas Freedom Network, on how to conduct religion classes in the public schools:
Here is the First Amendment Center’s explanation for how to do it: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/topic.aspx?topic=teaching_about_religion
Here is the curriculum recommended by TFN and the First Amendment Center, The Bible Literacy Project: http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/index.htm
School is the place to do it. We can’t study history without addressing these issues — though, I fear, what happens is that most teachers ignore the topic completely (that’s rather what the test scores indicate).
It’s also important that our news outlets address the issues. The Dallas Morning News has a very good religion section once a week, as do several other good dailies across the nation. Broadcast coverage is generally abysmal, NPR and PBS excepted.
And parents should teach it at home. Of course, parents have to know it, and practice it, to teach it. That’s a seprate problem.
Many religious activists in the U.S. really don’t want the dialog. They’re happier yelling, I think. Americans will have to make the point more clear, at the ballot box, and in other ways.
LikeLike
Ed,
I thought I would take some of the limited free time I have today and check out your website. Quite the eclectic assortment of topics. Clearly you have been blogging much longer than I.
In regards to the warning in your post by Taylor, “The warning signs are clear: unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly,” what do you suggest?
I think that a lot of the hatred and prejudices in regard to religion are often due to ignorance and misconceptions. Obviously, there are overarching claims that are mutually exclusive that will be refuted by members of one religious community to another. However, there is more commonality between them than many would be aware in my experience.
If people can’t be taught religions in school (with separation of Church v. state), and can’t be discussed at work (due to political correctness and sometimes outright work policies), then how will they ever become aware of the differences and similarities in religions to establish a beneficial dialogue?
LikeLike