In my opinion whether you are religious or not, there is a fundamental need to be educated on the religion you associate yourself with (if you do), as well as other religions that impact our countries domestic policies and foreign relations. How to solve the problem of religious illiteracy in this country is relatively simple to me; we need to be taught how to learn about religion and subsequently how to speak about it. Prothero states that what we don’t know is how to talk about religion, besides a basic lack of understanding about the message and history behind it. You either hear religion from the perspective of a religious person or an atheist, usually not from a person without bias. So, what we need to do is have a more secular position in order to be able to fully engage in an environment where one can learn and also speak about religion without being tied down to one extreme or another. Prothero poses the very important point that this problem with religious literacy is not in fact a problem for religious people but one for all people. In consequence, a civic disconnect between knowledge, understanding, and usage. We have a political system in which politicians, both Democrat and Republican, manipulate religious texts to create sentiments of justice, rightness, and authority, but half the time their understanding or usage is incorrect. We’ve nearly created a church state without even realizing it: as Prothero says, a place where religion has come to define our political and social identity. Ironically the mostly mistaken use of religion in politics to persuade and reach out to people is the same thing that hinders our ability to connect to foreign peoples, subsequently hurting foreign relations, even causing domestic troubles. Simply put, people desire religion; morality, our own misinterpretations hinder our path to understanding it, and then in turn we’re “illiterate.” So you think, “how to fix this messy situation of understanding, bias, and civil right?” Prothero’s solution is that this civic problem should be addressed in public schools, where a course on the Bible followed by a course on world religions would be mandatory (opt-out provision available). The end goal would be an increased participation in democracy and civic duty of all forms, and a better understanding of religion free from being bound to its practices or implications in popular culture. To debase the point of a separation of church and state argument (backed by the1st amendment) Prothero plainly states, “There’s a distinction between preaching about religion and teaching about religion.” And that’s where the confusion ultimately lies. What do you think? Does learning about religion still allow freedom from it? And if not, how would you fix the problem of religious illiteracy, or would you?
Monday, August 29, 2011
Religious Literacy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that mandatory religious classes will never work because there will always be a vast minority who will be overly vocal and so relentless that the majority will just concede to not allowing religion in schools. And while I believe Prof. Prothero to be a very intelligent man, in my opinion-- which isn't worth much-- he takes a far too optimistic view of the world. He believes that you can teach the majority of the population, where as in my view at any given time on any given subject 90% of the world is more ignorant than they should be and the other 10% is split between being indifferent to it or caring to much to show no bias. Prof. Prothero believes you can solve the problems of religious literacy by requiring religious classes but to me he seems to ignore the idea that people have to want to learn to begin to understand something as complex as religion. Unlike a class like Algebra where a kid can be forced to sit in a room and give only 30% of his attention to the teacher and still learn and understand the majority of the material; a class on religion requires all of your attention in class as well as some personal reflection to truly comprehend religion. To try and require kids to comprehend something like religion, which was created (that's not the right word, it sounds to artificial like someone sat down one day and said god... thats such a good idea) to try and explain things which at that point were inexplicable either scientifically or philosophically, is a herculean task.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Prothero's ideas about religious literacy are noble and he is trying to better the world and each individual in it; but he asks too much. As the proverb says, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink; you can teach religion to the masses but you can't expect them to comprehend it. And in my opinion it is more dangerous to have a nation who who can parrot verses from religious text but doesn't understand the meaning than it is to have a nation who is ignorant on religion but doesn't try to speak about it.
Prothero’s motivation is more than pedagogical. In a world where nearly every political conflict has a religious underpinning, Prothero says that Americans are selling themselves short by remaining ignorant about basic religious history and texts, by not knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite or the name of Mormonism's holy book. Although the purpose would be not to evangelize but to educate, I think inevitably teachers will be catechizing. It would be better to teach religion in context with world history in high school. There is much to be learned from how religions came to be, how they spread and evolved, whose interests they served, and what their effect has been. It is said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, which is so true. Let us make history our religion and instruct that. Anything else would be religious indoctrination. Prothero laments Americans’ ignorance of religion, yet I question his understanding of religions. As a Hindu, I disagree with his analysis of Hinduism in his brief interview. This is natural because how one sees a religion depends on one's background and upbringing. Honestly, I think the best place to get a religious education is at home. And this is where part of the issue lies—rather than thinking America is a religiously fervent country, I think it is more secular, agnostic, and atheist. Although Prothero’s lofty goal of teaching religion in our schools is commendable in some regards, executing it will be nearly impossible without bringing up the differences, which may mainly arise from biased instructors.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Learning about religion (as long as the content is not force-fed down one's throat) is necessary and proper. During my senior year of high school, my school's administration decided to provide twelfth graders with the opportunity to take a course on world religions. I attended a Jesuit school, so everyone who signed up for world religions would have to take the mandatory religion course anyway (Intro to the New Testament). How many kids signed up for world religions? Five. Yes, I didn't make a typo on that number. In hindsight, I wish I would have taken this course, not because I was particularly interested in the subject matter per se, but just because I wanted to know more about the different make-ups of the world's religions. One of my favorite quotes is "Inquiring minds want to know." I believe that knowledge is power, and teaching Bible courses and some form of world religion may not be a bad idea at all. Prothero made an excellent point with the case of the invasion of the Middle East, and the fact that America never looked at Iraq through religious lenses. The US never saw Iraq as a devoutly religious country. Instead, the US viewed the war solely via secular lenses (economic and political issues). The point Prothero is trying to make? People need to be aware of their surroundings. Not everyone in this country has the desire to be a religious academic or a political philosopher. However, measures should be taken to ensure that students (especially young, high school students) learn to respect and look at religions through a different lense; notice how I didn't say "accept religions." One of the issues that struck me most was the fact that the Head of the House Intelligence Committee was unaware of the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. How can the United States alleviate a situation when it is grossly unaware of one of the main, underlying beliefs of these groups? Prothero's mention of Madeline Albright's book also boggled my mind. The president and his cabinet have all kinds of advisers: political, economic, photo ops secretaries, press secretaries, and the list goes on. Where's the religious adviser, and where has he/she been the last couple of years? We could have really used them. The American population should take measures in order to ensure that people of all ages have at least a basic of understanding of the religions, and, in turn, the people around them. Maybe studying characters of the Bible isn't such a bad idea. Maybe taking a semester on world religions would sharpen the minds of many a student and make them think differently about the world they live in and the people they come into contact with every day.
ReplyDeleteFrom what you guys have said, I definitely agree that the idea teaching religion in public schools (even thought I support it, despite the fact of not being religious) is a lofty goal for two main reasons; the first of which being taming individual bias among teachers. The second: lack of student interest in “religion.” Aparna made a very good point, that instead of teaching a course strictly based on religion, which could possibly open the door for indoctrination, teaching religion through history would be much better. This would also enlarge class enrollment, as the course would be geared towards history and not deter students with the philosophical nature of religion. When I was in 10th grade I enrolled in a course called World History, and although the class was not solely about religion, we talked about all the different religions and their roles in the development of various societies throughout time. We went over the basic split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, which started with a fight over who should lead the religion after the prophet Muhammad's death in 632 A.D. We learned about the three major forms of Buddhism, and the art of meditation. And towards the end of the course we discovered the religious fervor of 17th century Puritan New England. In this class I learned the history and basics of most religions and the cultural customs they’d instilled in society. Without being an expert on Sunni-Shiite relations I understand that the split is more than a political stance; it’s a feeling, a mindset, a heart, and a tradition. Touching on what Bryan said, I think it’s ridiculous that our government is incognizant of this religious tension between the various peoples we have been interacting with over the past 10 years. So, do you think religion through history could work? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteReligion is a very complex subject and I agree that it requires the full attention of students. Many religions have conflicting ideas and thousands of interpretations. Prothero suggests that two courses be taught in public schools—a course on the Bible and a course on all the world religions. First of all, this a unfair distribution of the teachings the religions. He puts an unfair importance on learning about the Bible. Students that attend public schools come from all different religions and backgrounds. To implement a course on just the Bible is as if the students are attending a Catholic School. I agree that it is extremely crucial for Americans to be cognizant of not only their own religion, if they practice one, but also of the other religions of the world. Classes on religion, in my opinion, should be left out of the public school system. Students have an opportunity to take a plethora of religion classes in college as well as their own places of worship (for example at churches, synagogues, and mosques). World History classes should try and incorporate a wider understanding of religions in the classes but thats as far as it should go.
ReplyDeleteI 100% believe that religion should be a mandatory class in all schools across the country. Now, it does not have to be a class in which you are told, or persuaded to accept certain ideas or beliefs, but a class in which students are taught the basic concepts of different religions. I have attended private Catholic school my whole life, therefore I have always had religion class. However, I would still consider myself to be a tad bit religiously illiterate. In my senior year of high school my religion class was based around different world religions as opposed to just being based around Catholicism. Not only was this world religions class interesting to me, but in learning about different religions I was able to see how people’s religion affect their culture. Now, since this class took place at a Catholic school, they were obviously not trying to push the beliefs of these religions down my throat. This provided an environment where I was able to learn the fundamentals of different religions and being able to form my own opinion about the religion and become more educated about the world around me. I think that this approach to teaching religion in public schools should be applied because it informs the students without any pressure on them to believe certain things. I think that teaching religion in public schools should almost be looked at as how you would teach a history class. Give out the facts and the basics about different religions, that’s it. This way no one is offended and everyone will be able to have a better understanding for different religions. I mean lets face it, religion is always going to be relevant in our world, it always has been and always will be. Turning away from it and not educating people about religion isn’t helping anyone, by teaching religion in all schools not only will we build a more knowledgeable community, but we will help people understand other cultures and beliefs as well.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has really great arguments, but along with Jon, I feel that Prothero's suggestion to implement religion classes in public schools may be slightly unrealistic. Prothero says that, "Preaching about religion can't be done" while explaining that the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that there is a significant difference between teaching and preaching. From personal experience, I find it hard to believe that there is a way to regulate how a teacher will explain topics to their students. What check would be put on teachers to prevent them from leaking their own personal opinions into the lessons? Although I agree that knowledge about religion is extremely important, especially in our current society, I believe in a different means of distribution of this knowledge... unless of course someone is able to clone my seventh grade history teacher. My teacher spent one marking period on world religions and although I remember very few details I do remember finding it both interesting and unbiased.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that religion needs to be taught through required history classes in high schools. My freshman year, our required history course was called African/Asian Studies. We focused on the history, culture and religion of these areas. A huge part of the class was learning that in many eastern religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. religion is culture. I started a class today called Intro to Eastern World Religions, and the fist lecture was titled "Eastern World Religions as Comprehensive Parts of Life". My professor specialized in Hinduism and pointed out that in India, you can't miss religion - It's part of everyday life. I think this is something that Americans tend to be ignorant about, and that shows when Prothero discusses unawareness of Iraq and how that countries religious affiliation is a huge part of their culture, politics and everyday life. Therefore, I believe it to me extremely important to be knowledgeable of all religions, be cause they affect politics internationally. While I firmly believe that politicians in the United States should not bring religion into their policies or speeches or any part of their campaign, we life in a country where apparently 96% of people believe in God (I had NO IDEA it was that high of a percentage). Despite our separation of church and state, being religious is basically a necessity for any politician who wants to be elected by the public. And for this reason we must be knowledgeable and religiously literate. I think if schools could introduce historical religion classes, America's religious literacy would greatly improve.
ReplyDeleteProf. Prothero’s discussion was very informative. I completely agree that most of the country is illiterate with regard to religion. It is especially obvious when an attempt is made to quote the bible but no such quote exists there. “Pride goes before a fall” is an incorrectly distilled version of Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” I believe that part of this illiteracy is caused by the Christianization of western thought. Throughout U.S. history, the most common religion has been various forms of Christianity. What I mean to say is that with such a large majority (75%) of the U.S. population identifying themselves with some form of Christianity, it seems to be the context behind the entire education system. This gives a sense of familiarity with Christianity without ever having read or understood anything about it. Our poorly constructed education on history gives no real insight into the development of the world or its religions. We get stuck looking at the history we do teach through a biased lens from the very beginning of our educations. The Roman Empire gets a dedicated chapter when during the same time span The Han Emperors were spreading the breadth of the Chinese Empire, The Mauryan Empire is broken into small states by an invasion from Central Asia, the Middle East is divided between the Roman and Parthian Empires and the Silk road is causing a great cultural exchange throughout these regions. Breaking down history into chunks out of context is what has led to America’s illiteracy on world religions. I don’t necessarily agree that an entire course needs to be dedicated to religion. Including the basics of different religions and their affect on History in a broad view would be the most beneficial tool not only for informing Americans on religion but international affairs as well. I do think it would be a good idea to add a course specific to U.S. History and the religious beliefs that helped shape the U.S. and its politics but never really defined it. Religion has played a pivotal role in how America developed and interacted with the world as a whole. While there is a vast amount of religious material to study along with the culture and politics of the area that shaped them, I think the single largest obstacle to overcome is going to be the Christian Right inside the U.S. Regardless of how the course it taught, issues are going to arise when material presented is contradictory to deeply held (sometimes literal) belief in religious teachings. The inclusion of religion, whether that be through adding a class or giving it more attention in history, would give Americans a much greater understanding of the world outside our borders.
ReplyDeleteProthero makes an important point when he argues that our illiteracy problems in religion extend beyond domestic borders. Because this "environment" in which we live also refers to our "space", we must acknowledge the consequences of rhetoric or action (whether intentional or not). As such, Prothero's proposal to teach religion in schools on the "civic and political side" is brilliant. He recognizes that specific details may not be necessary to teach, but a basic understanding of the religion and how it relates to us in a historical/political context can help solve many domestic--and more importantly, international--crises. Of course, there are concerns of teacher biases and deceptive explanations of these many religions which must be regulated somehow. Put simply, it seems as though a lot of recent conflicts have arisen due to cultural/religious misunderstandings of religions (i.e. uninformed interpretations of Islam or Christianity). How many generations may it take before we can we overcome this illiteracy? Will the simple teaching of religion in schools be sufficient to bury religious conflicts? If so, what would the consequent role of religion be in domestic and international politics?
ReplyDeleteFollowing up on what Jon said I agree that Prothero’s idea of solving our religious illiteracy seems rather optimistic. Religion being taught in schools is such a heated topic with very strong opinions on both sides that it seems it would be nearly impossible to implement this solution. If this were to be implemented another issue that we would face would be that kids would see this as just another mandatory class they have to take and there would be a dislike or ignorance associated with religion, thus enlarging our gap of understanding religion. There must be a will or desire to learn religion in order to understand it and usually mandatory things do not evoke will or desire. Another issue with Prothero’s idea that Jacqueline described is how could we make sure these teachers are teaching these religion classes in a secular manner and not implementing their own biases. Our school system is already a mess, I mean there many amazing teachers out there but there are also horrible ones, so if we can’t even check on these teachers we shouldn’t let such a subject as religion be handled this way. I agree with Prothero that religious illiteracy is a problem in our country both domestic and international, as it’s important to understand the bible in order to understand our politics, novels, history, art, etc. And it’s just as important for us to understand the religions of the world in order for us to clearly understand the different cultures, politics and economies of these regions. We live in such a closely connected world today that it is truly ignorant for us to not have a basic understanding of how religion plays a part in the societies of countries. Religious illiteracy needs to be solved but I do not see Prothero’s idea of mandatory religious classes in schools as a viable solution to the problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Professor Prothero's plan to teach religion in public school is too optimistic to be put to practical use. The first amendment establishes a separation of church and state, and even though it was intended to protect religious freedom in the United States, many Americans take it to mean that religion and government have a legal obligation to stay separate. Prothero states that the Supreme Court has ruled over 50 times that it is not unconstitutional to talk about religion in public schools, but the majority of Americans are unaware of this fact. Before anyone can even talk about teaching religion in public schools, the general American public needs to accept that mixing religion and state is not necessarily unconstitutional. After that task is completed, the organizers of these classes would have to agree on what exactly about religion should be included in these classes. Religion is so abstract; for every believer in a religion there is a different way of viewing exactly what that religion says. Kathy Slobogin said, "...would we have a revival of intolerance and doctrinal disputes and sectarianism, and would religion become so preoccupied with these disputes that they would no longer forge alliances to make the world a better place?" I share her fear. I worry that if the powers that be decide to make religion classes part of the public school curriculum, it will lead to a larger rift between the different sects of the major religions. However, I do believe that Americans do need more education about religion. It is essential for us to understand what our politicians are saying, since all politicians use religion as a way to connect with voters, and to understand world conflicts, such as the Iraq war. I liked Prothero's idea of teaching religion as part of a history course. By calling a class a "history" class instead of a "religion" class, I think he will have an easier time convincing everyday Americans that it is okay to talk about religion in public schools, since public schools already teach history. Whatever happens, something needs to be done about the religious illiteracy problem in this country and around the world. It will be impossible to resolve any conflicts, either at home or abroad, without at least some knowledge of religion.
ReplyDeleteThere have been multiple comments stating that the idea of teaching religion to High School students is a lofty goal. My attitude toward this view is, "if not now, when"? Philip makes a good point about how students will not necessarily be welcoming. But it is a step in the right direction, and frankly they'll have to suck it up. You cannot deny the importance of religious tolerance and education, and I believe those come hand in hand. Prothero's motives for his idea are noble. He wishes to eliminate the gap of religious ignorance between the US and the rest of the world. I believe that the classes should be aimed at teaching all religions. Prothero states that he would create a bible class and a separate world religion class. I believe that invalidates much of his "goal". The type of class that should be taught should include all relevant religions, and spend the same amount of time teaching each religion. We must also realize that this goal would take some time to accomplish. It could take decades before these classes would even affect the US, but that does not undermine their importance. This step could change the way our country operates its social system, economy, and political power. I do not believe that religion has to be a huge part of every person’s life; it certainly isn’t a huge part of mine. However it is knowledge that can hardly be deemed negative, and learning it in a secure classroom by trained professionals eliminates much confusion and uncertainty that will occur.
ReplyDeleteFrom the later responses it seems that there is a general consensus that these classes need to be taught, and moreover that they need to be taught and/or executed in a manner that the student population would adhere to and be at least somewhat interested in. The only thing left to think about is how would our country go about this change? As David said it could take decades. Do you think an overhaul is needed for our country's public school system or just that states need to require their schools to teach religion as part of their history curriculums? Or better yet how could we make people understand the importance of being "religious literate?" And where would this change even begin?
ReplyDeleteProthero‘s statement that religion should be taught and not preached is an essential concept in sustaining peace and creating global solidarity. I do believe in God, and so did the founding fathers, but that belief should not necessarily be intertwined with the establishment of political ideas and theory. When religion becomes the source of a belief, conflict arises. In American politics, the quintessential example is the debate over abortion. Those who oppose abortion cite that it is murder because the bible says life begins at conception. Arguments for abortion are a simple moral argument, not a religious one, that states that a person should have control over their own body. This debate is very heated and will not be resolved for a long time, not only because politicians today can not compromise on anything, but because of the religious influence in the debate. By teaching people the different beliefs, and teaching public policy without religious influence, clearly leads to social prosperity. In the former Yugoslav Republic, dictator Josep Tito managed to create solidarity by leaving religion out of the equation. While Tito was not the most peaceful leader that had ever lived, his death led to fighting over religion, not politics. Under his leadership, the different cultures had a greater level of respect hence government was more effective. In summary, by teaching people objectively about religion, a greater understanding is formed, leading to governmental and cultural prosperity within the society.
ReplyDeleteI probably have a very different view on this topic from most people. I attended an independent school for eight years, and although the sign outside said independent, it was a school based on catholic principles. Every month the entire school celebrated mass in the gym, with the Bishop arriving every year to induct the new Eucharistic minister. On top of this, a requirement for graduation was a religion course every year, whether it be world religion, christian ethics, social justice, or scripture through the arts. After 8 years of religion classes, I was surprised to see that I found some of the questions on our religion quiz difficult. I learned about both Hinduism and Buddhism in 9th grade, and could not answer those questions on the quiz. Although I agree with Professor Prothero that our country is significantly religiously illiterate, I do not believe it can be fixed by one world religions course and Bible course. The underlying issue is that religion is almost a taboo subject in American culture. Although politicians sneak references into their speeches, no one truly addresses the topic of religion head on. As Prothero said, they play the "R" card almost as if they are checking it off a check list. But no politician will ever touch the issue of religion in schools because it is to controversial. If any politician brought it to the attention of the media, it would make front page headlines and cause huge debates all over the country. I am not positive that the country is prepared for a controversial debate at the moment. I also think that Jon makes a good point that if people don't want to learn, they will not retain any of the information. I retained more information about the Bible in my years of religious study rather than information about Hinduism and Buddhism. These are the issues we face in our country. Sometimes people just don't wont to learn about Muslims because the first thing that pops into their head is 9/11. It is just like how when people hear Mormonism they automatically think of polygamy. But I believe that on a whole, the majority of the public is misinformed. Although we have every possible resource to learn anything, we choose the learn the things we want to. And I believe that even though Professor Prothero makes a valid point, it is going to take a whole lot more than classes in public school to get people to feel comfortable learning about religion.
ReplyDeleteI found that I related easily to this discussion not only due to my high school years at a private Catholic school, but in addition to my public elementary and middle school education. Nearly all I know of religion comes from my Catholic schooling, which as an American citizen has done more harm than good. Prothero's suggestions to incorporate a religion course into public schools would have provided me with an unbiased and historical view upon world religions. In my view, the secular teaching of religion as Prothero has suggested would be most beneficial and contribute greatly to the acceptance of other cultures. However, many radical sects that live in America would immediately accuse the encroachment of the First Amendment and halt any progress to be made. In order to promote religious literacy, I feel that religion needs to become synonymous with classes such as math, history, or science. My proposal is that instead of convincing Americans to take classes termed as "Bible", school boards need to broaden the horizons of the subject matter. Courses entitled "World Religions", "The History of Religion", or "Religious Literature's Influence" are more likely to be accepted if more of the population feels included. The American population tends to become more offensive if they feel they are not given the American "Land of Equal Opportunity" treatment.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Stephen Prothero's article, I would like to comment on two points. The first is that while I agree that religious ignorance has deleterious effects both locally and globally, it would be impractical and too controversial for religion to be taught at public schools in the United States. Mainly I believe this because most schools teach evolution and the Big Bang theory as part of their science curriculum, and this would directly conflict with most religion's doctrines on the origins of mankind and the planet. Science holds too great of importance in American society and educational system for religious studies to be integrated into the already struggling American school system. Secondly, I would like to disagree with Prothero's comment about how Americans are very active in faith and spiritually Christian, yet religiously ignorant. I do not believe that religion and faith holds as great of place in American people's lives as Prothero and many other secular intellectuals argue. This is because I believe in comparison to other countries, American society is too spoiled and modern to prioritize religion enough--to truly value religion enough to make an effort to become literate in it. When my sister lived in Morocco and I lived in Bolivia, the one thing we both noticed in the two drastically different countries, was how religion and faith were such vital parts of everyone's daily lives. Allah found his way into most greetings and sayings in colloquial Arabic, and Virgin Mary found her way into nearly every restaurant and home from Santra Cruz to Cochabamba. It is not surprising that Americans still remain ignorant to religious studies and cultures of other nations, because Americans often see religion as nothing more than an ornament or accessory to enhance or supplement their personal lives.
ReplyDeleteI find that most or all of what Prothero is saying has truth and merit to it. It is not my opinion that Americans hold their religion to be a vital and integral part of their lives, but it is his facts and statistics that say these things. I think every American uses their religion differently in their everyday lives, and though, like Hannah said, other countries like Morocco or Bolivia have their major religions present in their colloquialisms and establishments, our country has laws separating church from state, not to mention the vastness of religious diversity in this country, which sets it apart from countries of such homogenous religiousness. In terms of teaching about the Bible and world religions in public schools, I'm all for it. I believe Prothero is completely correct--the country as a whole and the individuals in it would benefit from a better understanding of not only their own religions, but of the religions around them. There is nothing wrong with intellectual enlightenment, as long as, like Prothero said, there is a solid line between teaching the religions and preaching the religions (which I believe is completely possible, given a well-crafted lesson plan and open-minded instructor). Realistically, however, I don't think any mandate of that sort will ever find its way into public schools. Though religion is ever present in today's American society, there is too much fear of indoctrination to teach religion in public schools, and the separation of church and state would be fervently invoked. Not only would there be storms of people aiming to keep any such law from passing, there would be enormous backlash against it if it did pass.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very thoughtful question. According to the Websters dictionary. Religion is defined as 1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. When people go towards religion, a lot of the times it is because they are finding a way to become spiritual. However, if you look at the grand scheme of things, almost all of the major wars that are being fought today (along with many in the past) stem from some sort of association with religion. Even Prothero himself is not fully educated about all of the religions as he would like to seem. His comment about most Muslims not knowing what they actually believe in because they do not speak Arabic is very false, considering Qurans have been translated into over 100 languages to this day. Along with that, all of these terrorists obviously know what the Qu’ran is ‘saying’ but they have extremely misinterpreted the words and twisted them to transform Jihad into a bloody war. These terrorists have ruined it for many peaceful Muslims around the world and have created a bad image of Islam, which a lot of the world now believes due to religious illiteracy. As a Muslim, I do not consider these terrorists Muslims and if religious literacy was taught in public schools, that does not mean that people would no longer be freedom from it, but the beneficial aspect is that the rest of the world could have a chance to look into each religion with an unbiased approach and decide and create an image by themselves about each religion. This will help to create a new tolerance level in the world, eliminating many of todays problems.
ReplyDeleteI think I need to preface my comment with this: I was raised a devout Roman Catholic, I've attended church almost every week (college will definitely/unfortunately change that), and am open to the beliefs of others. As many people have said, the thought of having students across America sit in on a required religious education course daily is absurd. This suggests that it is necessary for everyone to have to respect religions around the world. Although this is a nice thought, if I were a person who had no interest in building a respect for other religions, but was forced to learn about such beliefs, I would be a little more than upset. Yes, you may argue that students who aren't strong in math classes shouldn't have to take them because they too believe these classes won't aide them in the future, mathematics is not a controversial issue. I respect all religions, but I have no true interest in being required to learn about them in a public school setting. I have taken East Asian culture courses in the past and learned about Taoism and Buddhism, but this was by choice. I believe one should be able to choose whether or not they want to learn about other religions. I would much rather have a world with a handful of highly religiously educated people then an entire world of people who know little about religion yet choose to through their unimportant opinions around.
ReplyDeleteYes, religion is a key factor in many cultures around the world, but to think that learning the religions of others could possibly be the only way to learn to accept people of different religious background is absurd. If anything, that should be the last thing done. Religion should not be manipulated as a way to build strong relationships among nations, however it should be left for those who wish to divulge themselves in the spiritual world. I don't learn about Catholicism and pray to God just to build relationships with others of my religious beliefs, but I do it in order to stay true to myself.
If you think that forcing young Americans to learn about Judaism or Buddhism or any other religion for that matter will create a more peaceful world, then I think Obama is a good president.
I think that Prothero made several legitimate points that discerned the gaping holes in our country’s religious literacy and it’s impact on how we govern. Especially in reference to foreign affairs, America has expressed much ignorance towards important factors in our global interactions. My favorite example Prothero provided was the story of Madeline Albright. As secretary of state, Albright had dozens of economic advisors, but had no kind of cultural advisor to guide her through the murky waters of Middle East- American relations. I think there is a special kind of American ignorance, presented especially here, that shows how we overlook crucial facts to crucial issues. In analyzing problems like example of Afghanistan, we tend to look at the factors that we know and understand well, like economics, but choose to be blissfully ignorant to foreign cultural ideas. However, two ideas such as these are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the deep-seated culture and tradition of a nation affect the Western ideas we are more acclimated to. I strongly believe that until people are educated in both fields, that of the domestic and that of the foreign, we will not be able to solve anything we are so disconnected with. In regards to the religious education proposal, I have to say I am unsure. Especially after taking that religious quiz on the first day of class, I can’t help but thinking my Biblical knowledge could definitely be reinforced. My parents were raised around Buddhist practices, but they never passed their beliefs onto me. Essentially I grew up not even knowing what religion was or that it even existed until my friends started talking about their Sunday school. Living in liberal Seattle, this never really impaired me, but as I am more exposed to the world and my surroundings I realize that my lack of ideological knowledge is hurtful to my understanding of history and politics. So, I think that learning about the Bible and world religion is important, but I am not sure if the best place for this to be administered is in public schools. No matter how much the religion class is objectively taught, teachers cannot help but show portions of their own point of view. These biases could be manifested in regional and racial differences, amongst several other things. In short, I don’t think these religion classes would be efficacious. My best and most impressionable religious realizations came through experience and hands on learning, and I don’t think that something as important as this can be taught consistently nationwide.
ReplyDeleteAs Prothero states, it is necessary for our public school systems to include the teaching of world religions within their respective curriculums. In a world which is becoming increasingly more and more intertwined in an international sense, it is now, more than ever, vital for our nation's children to understand the viewpoints of their own, as well as others, respective cultural backgrounds. The model that Prothero has provided is adequate, under the condition that the instruction is "taught and not preached" is properly adhered to (ideally, someone of Christian faith should not teach the section regarding American history and it's related roots, in attempt to remove bias). And in regard to a previous post that mentioned evolution, my school (Catholic) taught me that science and religion go hand-in-hand, and that science can explain truths that religion cannot, and vice versa. Although my own bias can be seen, I feel as though students who think and question what it taught to them (no matter what the subject) are better accustomed to dealing with real-life issues that they will undoubtedbly be facing in their perspective lifetimes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Prothero that it is important for America to be more educated on different world religions and the bible. I'm not sure that it would be possible to teach this in a school without having bias, since the teacher would always have opinions of their own on the topic. Since many religions use the same "evidence" in a different way, I think it would be very hard to compare them to each other without developing an opinion that ONE is true. Since evolution is taught in most schools, adding religion would be very confusing. It would maybe even take away a students faith in Science. So although they will be educated on one topic, it would take away from another. Not to mention the controversy it would cause with parents. Educating America on religion is one thing, where basing a presidential candidate on their religious views should be another. If it makes sense for faith to stay out of these decisions, then we should not teach about religion in schools because it will have the opposite affect. Many people will become defensive about the topic, creating hatred between different beliefs. In a perfect world it would be possible to teach about religion in schools, but I don't think it would ever work due to personal opinion and the results of those opinions.
ReplyDelete