As I have written a number of times, though, it's very unlikely that such classes will ever become common and those that do exist will probably not reach their full potential. The reason is opposition from Christians.
To understand why Christians will prevent America's children from receiving a solid grounding in comparative religions, it's important to understand what such a class should look like: it will not treat any religions as being worse or less true than others and it won't treat any religions as being better or more true than others.
This means that all religions must be treated with an even, equal hand — including Christianity. For many devout Christians, though, this is intolerable because it will contradict what they teach their kids at home.
PZ Myers links to a story about an incident in Washington where a teacher has been reprimanded after students complained about his "denigrating" Christianity. All he did was treat Christianity the same as other religions:
On Jan. 31, [Gary] McDonald gave the class, which consisted of juniors and seniors taking it as an elective, an assignment to read an Iroquois tale of creation, "The World on the Turtle's Back," in the course textbook.
The textbook's teacher edition suggests having students compare the creation myth with other creation accounts, as well as discuss their own concepts of good and evil. McDonald used the textbook's worksheet. On it, students were to give examples of how the Iroquois tale reflects four functions of myth - to instill awe, explain the world, support customs and guide people. But he adapted the form, and had the class do the same for the biblical account of creation in Genesis. He provided a paraphrase of the story.
After they completed that assignment, he gave them another handout, titled "The Problem With Evil." That handout, which was not part of the textbook's materials, asked questions such as how evil could exist if God is good and all-powerful.
Junior Lanae Olsen, 17, said it all went too far. The assignment was offensive to her Christian beliefs, and came one day after McDonald told the class he was atheist.
So, Gary McDonald did two things which were intolerable to local Christians: he asked students to describe how the Christian creation story fulfills four basic functions of myth like other creation stories and he asked them to discuss the problem of evil, something standard in theology and religion courses.
"I would like to convey my deepest regret regarding the assignment given by Mr. McDonald," Superintendent David Burgess wrote in a letter last week to the student's parents. "I too was offended." ...
"I just don't think it had a lot to do with the literature," Olsen said. "You can learn about religion but not in that way, by putting it down." She has since switched to another class taught by a different teacher.
It's "offensive" to treat Christianity like other religions. Asking students to look at Christanity in the same way they look at other religions is "putting it down." As utterly absurd as such positions are, they are precisely the way many Christians in America feel — they are completely sincere in their belief that the only way to teach religion is to teach that Christian is true/superior while all other religions are false/inferior. It's OK to teach about other religions as myth and culture, but it's wrong to treat Christianity as if it were in any way the same thing.
This is not a constitutional issue, as some seem to be trying to claim:
"From a constitutional perspective, schools can't teach the truth or falsity of religious belief, and atheism would fall in that parameter," said Alan Brownstein, a constitutional law expert at the University of California at Davis' School of Law.
The teacher is an atheist, and mentioned that after he was asked, but it's not teaching the "truth" of atheism or the "falsity" of Christianity to treat Christianity like every other religion. Gary McDonald is teaching students to think about Christianity from the outside in order to better analyze what it teaches and how it affects culture. That's just what such a class should do, but it's also intolerable to a great many Christians who are unwilling to have their religion treated like any other religion — any action that doesn't privilege their beliefs is treated as denigrating and oppressing their beliefs.
This is thus the reason why good comparative religion classes will never become widespread in America: too many Christians continue to believe that they, their beliefs, their institutions, and their religion should be privileged in American culture, society, and politics. They won't allow the proliferation of classes which do a good job at teaching kids to think critically about religion because that would entail thinking more critically about Christianity.
And some Christians wonder why many atheists treat Christianity as anti-intellectual...
This would have been such a good and defensible stance… if he hadn’t gone the extra mile with the “Problem With Evil” handout, which is understandably seen as equivalent to an atheist conversion tract. Let’s be honest. This guy was proselytizing. I’m 100% for comparative religion, but an extra handout on nonreligion is going too far.
1. Discussion the “problem of evil” isn’t “nonreligion.” Believers don’t deny that there is a problem, after all. They agree that it’s a difficult issue, but they think it’s solvable.
2. It’s stated that it was all going too far — not just the second handout.
3. Even if we assume the worst intentions on the part of the teacher, how is it that the principal can claim to have been offended by it? What’s offensive in having students in a comparative religions class discuss a question that is standard religion and theology classes?
I completely agree that the principal being offended is utterly irrelevant; I just think that this was pretty blatant proselytization on the behalf of the teacher, particularly given the timing right after his “coming out” as atheist.
Imagine a teacher announcing to the class that he’s Mormon and a few days later giving out handouts showing statistics on how family togetherness nights lower crime rates, increase blah, etc. etc. This just feels like a classic case of a double standard on our parts.
I went to Catholic high school, and we had, of course, a mandatory religion course every year. Not comparative religion (study of other religions was mainly a social studies topic), but an actual “this is what you should believe as a Catholic” course, along with church history and scattered bits of philosophy.
Yet senior year, we did a whole segment on the problem of evil. We read and discussed the book of Job, and we watched a video by some rabbi or other discussing “why bad things happen to good people” and whatnot, where his main point was, essentially, “people give lots of answers to the question, but none of them are really very satisfying, are they?”
So, was my Catholic school with Catholic teachers teaching us atheist propaganda (we learned about the theory of evolution, too!)?
The problem of evil isn’t just an argument for atheism. It’s a prominent philosophical problem that all intellectually honest theists have to wrestle with at some point. Atheists present it because they have an obvious answer, but they are by no means the only ones who bring it up.
Quite frankly, as irrational as I think it is, I find presenting the problem and saying, “we have no good answer, but we still believe in god,” the way my high school did it, much more respectable than simply burying one’s head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn’t even exist.
But then, I suppose such a hippy, liberal, Catholic education doesn’t work, because I ended up becoming an atheist (although I don’t think I can cite that as being a factor at all).
Remember, he only said something because he was asked (though in such classes, it’s a good idea to simply not answer that question). If he’s given this out before around this time in the lesson plan, there’s really not “timing” issue at all from his standpoint.
But what you say does raise an interesting problem — and for those who complained. Was his handout really objectionably because he recently revealed his atheism? Would a discussion about the Problem of Evil have been accepted as relatively unobjectionable if they believed he was a theist or Christian? If so, that suggests the reaction had something to do with his atheism itself — that people reacted the way they did because it was an atheist doing it.
Dan,
Me too, but the interesting thing is that we had a world religions course, complete with an actual “let’s look at where the Bible came from” segment. I think it was one of the best classes I had there.
I also went to a Catholic high school, though I was (at the time) Evangelical Protestant. What remember from the “Ethics” class as they called it was the wishy-washiness of their stance on God compared to my previous education.
I remember the teacher explaining how David didn’t actually slay Goliath with his sling, and it was more likely he raised an army to slay him. I asked why on earth would you suppose that… the answer was “because it would be almost impossible for him actually to have made that shot”
Feel the cognitive dissonance.
This brings to mind a study recently conducted by the Texas Freedom Network about Bible classes in Texas public schools.
(http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/texascourses/)
These classes are taught as part of Social Studies (because of the profound impact the Bible had on society) or English (because it is the most widely printed and read(?) piece of literature, although it is not very good literature).
Christian teachers often give the class their own spin and turn it into religious instruction. This is tolerated, probably because there are not too many non-Christian students taking the class.
These classes are taught as part of Social Studies (because of the “profound impact the Bible had on society) or English (because it is the most widely printed and read(?) piece of literature, although it is not very good literature).”
Actually, much of the Bible (at least the Hebrew Bible) is excellent literature in Hebrew and in many translations, particularly the King James (which was translated by excellent scholars). The Bible is read in English courses because you cannot really understand English literature unless you know the Bible. English poets were deeply versed in the Bible and in Classical mythology.
Religion and literature are intertwined in many (maybe most) cultures. Teaching religion is central to an education in the Humanities and Social Sciences. It really helps if you start it in high school.
Comparative religion classes probably will not work at the high school level because the same people that want religion taught in school, only want THEIR religion taught. They do not want their beliefs compared with those of other religions. Even though christian myths, like the flood, were taken from much earlier Mesopotamian and Sumarian myths, they insist that the biblical version is fact. How can a rehash of earlier myths be fact? To point this out, however, is insulting.
I, as a Protestant, believe that more high schools should teach a comparative religion class. It would be beneficial for the students to learn more about those arouns them. So, to say reall genereally that Christians see this as intollerable, is wrong. Many will, yes, however I have encountered many devout believers and many devout Catholics that have desired such a class.
In these classes, however, I believe that it is important to not call the religions, or their teachings, a myth. Even though I believe that my faith is the only true faith, in a class such as this, we cannot call others myths. We should rather just teach what the different walks believe.
I don’t write that Christians generally see this intolerable. I specifically wrote that for many devout Christians, a good comparative religions class would be intolerable. The simple fact is that opposition to such classes will come almost exclusively from Christians and it is because of Christians’ opposition that such classes won’t ultimately get anywhere.
Comparative religion classes would be excellent to have in the high school curriculum, if they could be taught fairly and objectively.
To understand why it is almost impossible that a comparative religion class will ever actually be fair or objective, spend some time in all the religion chat rooms and at your local school board meetings — put the two in a bowl, stir it up, and serve half-baked.
Most of the differences in theology are hard to care about. They are mostly preposterous.
I think a comparative religion class would be helpful & beneficial in high schools. I think it would bring a cultural awareness that is so lacking today. Just so long as the students realize that that is all it is: a general comparison.
Students are not going to get the whole picture of each religion from such classes: at most just a cursory look. After taking these classes, they should not fool themselves into thinking that they know everything about these religions.
Most teachers are not equipped to give an in-depth look. They hold their own biases which inevitably will come out in their teaching. It would sort of be like me teaching a Darwinism class. I could probably do it [insert insults here], but it would be an overview at best.
i took a comparative religions class and the word “myth”, as the professor made clear, was not being used in the common way to denote something as false, but rather to say that a story had meaning on different levels. when we talked about different religions we saw them as all equally true, maybe even as hypotheses. we talked about the one we were studying as though it were true, then when we studied the next, it was true, and so on.
I take a comparative religions class currently as a senior in high school and I feel that it could be alot more objective. Currently objective seems to mean athiestic. It shouldn’t.
I am personally a Christian, but I feel that this class does indeed takes an athiestic perspective in an attempt to not esteem any religion higher than another. As a result it refers to each religion as simply a cultural tradition or as interesting myth to study but not really anything to take seriously. It sometimes feels offensive (and we have to yet to even reach the unit on Christianity).
The class should be taught without the subtle assertions that religion altogether is for the foolish and unintellectual but with the same regard for academic relevance as a History or English class.
I also feel that athiesm should be taught with the same “fairness” as all the other religions. It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn’t exist as it does to believe He does. Perhaps if the the religion of athiesm was taught along the same lines as theistic religions, the author of this article would have a different feeling about the bias of the teacher in his example.
What’s wrong with that?
If it weren’t anything to take seriously, it wouldn’t be studied in a class devoted entirely to that subject. Do you mean that no religion is treated as though it should be taken any more seriously than any other?
Why is it offensive to not have any religion treated as any better than any other?
Can you provide any concrete examples that this is occurring in your class?
That would be a mistake, because atheism isn’t a religion.
That is also a mistake.
Perhaps atheism should be explained in your class simply so that you wouldn’t have so many mistaken ideas about it. Until then, I recommend spending some time reading some of the introductory material on this site, especially the parts dealing with all the myths about atheism which are popular among Christians.
Really? Perhaps you could explain what sort of change would occur and why.
To Williams,
‘I am personally a Christian, but I feel that this class does indeed takes an athiestic perspective in an attempt to not esteem any religion higher than another.’
Do you feel as though christianity should be taught as more important because its what you believe? What about people who believe say judaism or islam? Should they get to say their religion should be taught as the more important?
‘As a result it refers to each religion as simply a cultural tradition or as interesting myth to study but not really anything to take seriously. It sometimes feels offensive (and we have to yet to even reach the unit on Christianity).
The class should be taught without the subtle assertions that religion altogether is for the foolish and unintellectual but with the same regard for academic relevance as a History or English class.’
Well religion being a myth and a set of cultural traditions is an opinion, just as believing in God is, and its just as valid an opinion at that. You seem to find your class offensive because it is in taught in such a way that implies that religion is incorrect, if people want to think that, why can’t they? If atheists can’t go into christian schools and say that they shouldn’t be teaching biblically (and don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting they should) then why is it incorrect for a school to teach religion as wrong? Would you be complaining if they taught chrisitanity as correct and other religions as something not to take seriously?
‘It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn’t exist as it does to believe He does.’
How so?
‘Perhaps if the the religion of athiesm was taught along the same lines as theistic religions, the author of this article would have a different feeling about the bias of the teacher in his example.’
So you’re arguing that because religion is taught incorrectly (as you claim, because it isn’t taught as fact) atheism should too so that everything is equally misunderstood? Regardless, atheism isn’t a religion, by teaching religion as interesting myths and cultural traditions your class isn’t teaching/promoting atheism, its simply giving all religions an equal viewing.
‘Actually, much of the Bible (at least the Hebrew Bible) is excellent literature in Hebrew and in many translations, particularly the King James (which was translated by excellent scholars).’
Much perhaps, but there is still much that is uses appaling language, so its hardly the best way to learn good english skills.
‘The Bible is read in English courses because you cannot really understand English literature unless you know the Bible.’
Care to explain why? I can think of pleny of people with a very good grasp of literature who know almost nothing of the Bible. To suppor this claim you’d have to provide a link between the Bible and the very founations of English Language (not the history but the structure), I’ll be pretty surprised if you succeed.
‘English poets were deeply versed in the Bible and in Classical mythology.’
Thats a bit generalistic, care to name a few?
‘The Bible is read in English courses because you cannot really understand English literature unless you know the Bible.’
I think Richard Dawkins said something to that effect but I can’t find it. Still, I do not have an English Lit degree. I do read a lot instead of watch tv and I’d have to say that the Bible with it’s endless genealogies, and other endless lists sucks as a good read.
Competently-taught, objective courses in comparative religion would be great, but thin-skinned theists would never stand for it.
I am a devout Christian who agrees that these classes should be taught. However one group which may be smaller than I feel but larger than you believe is the group who gets that teacher who is actually critical of certain faiths. I’ve been on both sides. I’ve seen many faiths misrepresented in Sunday School, and recently seen my own misrepresented by my college comp religion teacher through citing those claiming to be “sympathetic authors” and since this Doctor of history is friends with the school president I doubt that even my request that the curriculum sources be reviewed and tweaked will be heeded.
If you really want a plan for comp religion classes, it should include a guest speaker in open forum for each major belief. Those who are true adherents would likely stand out in their desire to come and spread their beliefs or “witness” to a class who is eager to hear what they have to say (eager to hear but maybe not eager to embrace)
I would argue that there would be no shortage of authority in that arena either, Call a local church, mosque, Buddhist temple etc. (then again I live in NJ 10 min from Philadelphia where we actually do have a worship house of every major religion not far away)
But one also needs to keep in mind that religion, like politics, hits people deeper than most other topics and a moderator/teacher with a gentle hand must be at the center of it all. It must be an environment which students can feel comfortable with questions. Perhaps do Christianity after several other beliefs (and while covering the beliefs use standard questions and emphasize that later on Christianity will also be asked these same questions)
I would like to thank you for your time and jovially admit that you have helped me choose a good topic for my public speaking class assignment (a persuasive speech topic)
The bible teaches that followers of Christ are to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”
Anyone who thinks about that for any length of time will conclude that it means to assume nothing, take great measures to understand why the bible says what it says and why Jesus is who He is.
This is not possible if questions are not asked. Ignorance solves nothing. If any belief or plan is worth following it must be able to answer the important questions.
Faith… What is faith? Preachers say that faith should be like when you go to sit in a chair you have faith it will support you. But IMHO few “get it”
Why do you have faith in the chair? Is it blind faith? Is it because someone else to you faith?
No. You’ve used a chair before (many times I hope!) and know from experience it won’t fail you.
Yet so many American Christians still have “faith” just for the sake of faith.
In my 25 year church experience (the last 5 of which I actually worked at it)
I’ve noticed those who are quick to attack others and get emotional when questioned do so because they don’t have they answer and its eating at them (eating at them that they should know the answer or that they are asking themselves the same question and are afraid of not getting an answer)
Also remember: Hurting people, hurt people.
I hope this provides some perspective which was lacking, (otherwise I’ve wasted your time and mine.)
Andrew
p.s. the question of evil is a great one. But then you also should ask the question of good. (why is there so much good?)
My school doesn’t have comparitive religion education (yet), but as part of a Civic Action Project, I’m trying to get them to at least attempt to find an instructor. I am a strong supporter of it and I think that sometimes an atheistic persepective is what’s needed if you want to teach each religion as equal. Unless, of course, it’s the perspective of those atheists who act like everyone who follows a religion is an idiot (I’ve met quite a few atheists like this).
I also think that atheism and agnosticism should be taught in those classes. They might not be considered “traditional” or “conventional” to some people, but they are still belief systems. I don’t think that theaching about atheism is going “too far.” It’s called “comparative religion education” not “education on only some religions.”
No, they aren’t. They can be part of belief systems, including some religions, but they are no more belief systems by themselves than theism is a belief system by itself. Theism, at least, is a belief whereas atheism isn’t even that.
Good luck on your project, though.
In High School, I took a regular World History class and we had a section on religion in that class which was pretty objective. We learned about the three main religions and no emphasis was put on any of them, and the teacher didn’t tell us his religion in the first place, though I’m assuming he was Christian. People in our class learned some general info on Islam that they never knew existed because of propaganda. Same with Judaism, and also Christianity. I’m not even Chrisitan and I answered some questions about it better than those who were in my class.
I think it takes a lot of faith to be an atheist…you cannot know whether or not a god-figure exists, and you are taking the risk that you could be condemned if Christianity has it right, or Judaism has it right, or Islam has it right, etc. Atheism is a belief, but I wouldn’t call it a system. It would be more a system if all atheists believed in the same morals, or whatnot.
I also feel that comparative religion classes would be highly beneficial to today’s society. As a pagan, I’ve been harassed and threatened by a lot of misinformed people. But if it’s optional, then people might not take it–a group of girls at my school were throwing a fit in history for learning about the Salem Witch Trials because “learning Witchcraft violates their religion.” Which is fine by me, if you are actually being taught witchcraft…none of the women in the Salem Witch Trials were actually witches, anyway, so their misinformed statement seems to have no basis, and history is not witchcraft.
In my world history class, we learned about Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Surprisingly, we learned the most about Islam, but I think that’s because the teacher knew that most of the kids in there were children of the “if they’re Islam, they bombed us” families and she wanted to try and get some information out there for them.
Prove it.
Depends on how “god” is defined. Regardless, such knowledge isn’t necessary to be an atheist.
So are all the followers of those religion — they might be following the wrong one.
No, it’s just the absence of theism.
It certainly benefited me, helping me become an atheist.
So are atheists. For example, we constantly have to deal with people who don’t know what atheism is and who try to tell us that we’re taking a big risk not believing in their god.
i don’t think christians are the reason public schools refuse to teach religion, quite the opposite in fact… i think it is atheists that create the dissension. for example, taking ‘under god’ out of the pledge of allegiance, this is purely a matter of atheists trying to bracket religion out of public schools. christians surely would not mind saying ‘under god’, any hindu, muslim, or even buddhist, if sincere in their faith would have no problem saying ‘under god’, and the simple reality is, if you don’t wanna say it, then don’t. such a decision was clearly only reached to appease the continued arguments of atheists…
i am very disappointed that religion has suffered so much, and has even come so far as to be ignored… religion has been the primary motivated factor of most of the world, through most of history… jesus, shakyamuni buddha, and muhammad, i think, are the most influential individuals to ever walk the earth. billions of people the world over, and throughout the centuries, have been greatly effected by these men and their teachings… to ignore them is a shame, if only in the respect of history and cultural studies…
Prove it.
Except for all the religious and theistic people who also agree that “under God” should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Did you forget about them?
Except that many do because they recognize that the “God” in the Pledge isn’t theirs. Others do believe in that deity but object to the state administering a loyalty oath around their god.
The simple reality is, if you want to personally add “under God” to the Pledge, then do so. Upon what authority does the state base creating a religious loyalty oath?
And you have yet to provide any substantive legal objections to any of their legal arguments. Whyis that?
What has religion suffered, specifically?
Why shouldn’t it be?
OK, prove it.
I did study comparative religions in public high school shortly after leaving Jesuit seminary school after grade 11. The teacher was, among other things, an Anglican (Episcopalian) Minister. Not only did he do a very fair job on not showing a preference for Anglicanism or Christianity in general, when problematic issues were pointed out in other religions he would point out that a similar problematic area existed in Christianity. Of course, within the Jesuit seminary I taught a number of classes on atheism. Real theologians have no issues with atheism, in fact understanding it is part and parcel of understanding any theology.
Unfortunately for people in this country those things occurred in Canada, not the U.S.. There seems to be a prevalence of both religionists and atheists in the U.S. who are not confident enough in their beliefs to be able to sanction things that challenge it. And more unfortunately this lack of interest in any ideas other than one’s own seems to be spreading.
This would seem to be a subject best presented in the new computer-age classroom. If all religions represented could agree on a neutral, fair course of study and have it taught by a neutral, fair instructor and piped into classrooms throughout the United States, then and only then could we be sure that the local instructor was not teaching in such a way as to influence the students’ beliefs one way or the other. I am an atheist, retired teacher living in Alabama and I would find it hard to trust a classroom teacher not to proselytize if given such a golden opportunity.
I had the privilage of an unbiased Comparitive Religions class as a sophmore at a private college. This class was first going to be taught by the wife of a methodist preacher. Without explanation the Husband took over the class. He started by explaining who he was, what his beliefs are, and that he will teach the class without bias. This pleased me deeply as I have always had an inner turmoil about my place and my beliefs. Being raised as a Christian that didn’t go to church much makes Christians who go to church all the time condemn me to hell as an unbeliever. So I walked through life as a bad christian a heathen, not understanding or knowing my place. While I did study some other religions as a child I always felt like I was doing something wrong. I know better now. Thoughts I had that I thought bad were actually true. I wasn’t crazy or evil or practicing wichcraft I was using my brain to unfold the truths that are hidden from the children of this country.
This professor freed my mind, from the guilt I felt as a bad christian for even being curious about the other religions. I now had a basic understanding of what I consider to be one of the most crucial topics on the planet. I could now see how religions started. In the end I decided to define myself on what it means to be a good human. I could also see how other religions have some of the same core beliefs. I finally came to the conclusion that religions delevoped with social and cultural needs. Many times religions change for personal gain such as profit, food and water, and politics.
It is my firm belief that comparitive religion should be taught in public schools as early as 5th or 6th grade. Not as elective but as a required social studies class. These children have the right to know fact from fiction and to chose their religion or non-religion. The plague of America is it’s Christian fundamentalist values past to their children. How can we evolve as a nation if we can’t teach our children the truth. Or if we can’t have true seperation of church and state or practice true freedom of religion.
Disregarding all the talk about religion and not, I found it amusing that when I read this article, I had no problem switching out “christianity” with “feminism” and still get valid claims. Could it just be that modern people are raised to be whining brats who are offended by anything and everything?
(also, my nick is an anagram of my name. I LOL’d)
I challenge you to show how.
I have a different take on the comparative religion issue. I teach the world religion class to confirmation students at a Jewish Reform synagogue- the second year of a three year program. My students (High School sophomores) have already studied how to apply Jewish ethical and moral teachings to daily life and topics of Jewish culture. In the next and final year they will be with our rabbi to apply their lessons to improve the world, serving in soup kitchens, collecting and distributing aid for the homeless and actually lobbying their representatives in Congress on a social issue, that they have researched and prepared a position paper on.
The reason I feel my course works so well is that in addition to studying the core values and history of different religions, we attend a service and meet with their clergy. We and they are from the liberal areas of our respective faiths and believe strongly in interfaith dialogue and action. Those meetings and the chance to talk with and share a meal with congregants are transformational.
I am pleased to welcome other religious groups to our synagogue to view a service and learn more about our faith and in my conversations with their teachers, one common theme emerges: students grow through their understanding and hopefully tolerance, but also gain a greater appreciation of their own faith. So my view is that getting out of the classroom and text book really enhances the subject.
I will never forget the words of an Imam at a Muslim prayer group we visited. He had attended Catholic schools in Lebanon, and was forced to leave the country due to his ecumenical views. The gist of his comment (at an inter-faith event) was that since 90% of our important values are the same, why do we spend so much time talking about the 10%?