It seems to me that there are multiple ways of privatizing religion. On the one hand, I completely agree with Kennedy that “what made America so special was its revolutionary assertion of freedom of religion. No nation on Earth had ever framed in law that faith should be of no interest to government officials.” Separation of church and state is a huge part of what the United States stands for, and it is of utmost importance that candidates should be judged based on their political decisions, not based on their religion. I completely agree that there should be no religious “test” for office and that religion should remain privatized in the sense that it should be separate from politics.
However, it seems that religion may be too privatized in the sense that most Americans are religiously illiterate and religion has become, in many cases, a sort of taboo topic that is not frequently discussed. Why is this a problem? Because it is clear to see that religious intolerance is a huge issue. We talked in class about how Bryan Fischer argues that the First Amendment rights apply only to Christians and not to Muslims. How do you even get to such a claim as “but [building mosques] is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States” (Fischer)? You do not have to know much about Islam to know that it is not a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. Islam began way before the United States was even country. Why do people believe this? A lot of that has to do with fear and hatred, but I think that ignorance is the more fundamental problem. If people were more aware of what Muslims believed, they would never fall for such a statement.
So, it seems that religious intolerance would be less of an issue if people were more educated about what people of different religions believe. It is much more difficult to demonize Muslims if you are friends with them or if you know something about what their beliefs actually entail. But how is this religious education to be achieved? I never learned anything about other religions (besides Christianity and Hinduism) until I took a class at Butler, and I still don’t know as much as I should about them. Teaching World Religions in schools would be disastrous because it would violate all three prongs of the lemon test. It would be impossible to regulate the curriculum to make sure that it was not biased in favor or one religion and to control all teachers to make sure that they taught objectively. Not all religions could be included, but it would not be fair to include some and to exclude others. All in all, it would not work. But still, it seems that religious education would help people to empathize with people of other religions rather oppressing them. Is it possible to ensure that religion remain privatized in the sense that it is separate from politics, but at the same time to de-privatize it in a way that would allow people to become more aware and accepting of beliefs other than their own? Or is this the wrong way of approaching the issue?
Religion is a very touchy subject because it is not set in stone. Each religion believes their own claims, based only on tradition and that their prophets are correct. However, even though there are so many answers to what is out there, there is one thing they all strongly believe, only one of them can be right. These debates get so heated because many religions believe that if you do not believe exactly what they do then you are not going to go to a happy place in the after life because their way is the only way to salvation. I have noticed this even with my other Christian friends. I am Catholic and my other friend is simply Christian. However, she believes that since I do not believe exactly what her church believes then I’m going to hell. This is a touchy subject because it is hard to say to someone’s face I believe, regardless of your good deeds and good life; you are going to hell because you do not believe this one thing I do. That is why it is so hard to discuss religion in a public setting because it is not just a philosophy to these people it is salvation vs. damnation.
ReplyDeleteDarwin faced this problem when he was debating publishing his 20 some-odd years of research in to the book Origin of Species. NOVA did a very good movie with PBS called Darwin’s Darkest Hour which details the year leading up to publication and flashbacks to his mental breakthroughs when everything started to fall into place and everyone who influenced his Theory. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwins-darkest-hour.html One of the very touching and telling relationships is his relationship with his wife. He is presented as a barely religious man on the brink of atheism because his facts aren’t matching the church and it is tearing him apart that he cannot believe in God. The polar opposite is his ever supportive wife who is deeply religious. They have many religious debates during the movie as they try to reconcile what he has found with her beliefs and those of society. He is also told by many mentors and other characters that he needs to be careful because he is going against the church. But instead of being rational during discussions people got angry and would storm off, because like I said before, you are not just attacking their philosophy when you attack creationism and religion, you are attacking their eternal souls and salvation. That is murky water. So to answer your post, I agree that it needs to be private because what you do with your soul is only your business but talking about religion (salvation) with people, who are not close to you and who are not at least open-minded enough to agree to disagree, can only led to bad feelings and maybe even come to blows
First, I really like what both of you said. But this also got me to thinking more about something I was having trouble with in class, and I have decided that I don't really agree with the Lemon test. I was trying to bring up in class (but I don't know how effectively) how if one wanted to, they could probably prove that anything was in violation of the Lemon test if they argued well enough. This is because it is kind of to me saying that if enough arguing is done then it is too complicated and is dismissed as "in violation". This may be an incorrect interpretation, but I think it is what makes the Lemon test too vague to be a consistent determiner of what should be allowed to be taught and what shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteI bring this up because I truely agree with Kala in that one of the biggest problems is religious illiteracy, but I also agree with Danielle in that people believe you are attacking ones eternal soul and not simply their particular religion. I think that despite this situation of risking offending someone on an existential level, it is necessary for at least History of Religion to be taught in schools. Yes, this would probably be in violation with the Lemon test because it is so hard to monitor, but if no attempt is made to teach history then (like Kala said) many people won't even know that Islam was around before the USA was even a country and is not all about fundamentalism.
There is a definite risk of a bias teacher, but isn't there a risk of a bias teacher in whatever subject is being taught? Isn't school just a risky situation where whenever someone opens their mouth someone elses fundamental beliefs might be questioned? I don't agree with religion being taught in schools, but I took a world religions history course when I was a freshman in high school and got really lucky with an unbiased teacher interested only in history. If I hadn't taken this course I would feel very ignorant and unprepared to defend a lot of what I claim about other religions. I think that despite the risk, an attempt at literacy is more important than worrying about the Lemon test. I hope that isn't too bold of a statement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an important matter to bring up, as it really is a sad indicator about the state of our society. From my observation and experience, the majority of the population who call themselves religious in fact know very little about their own faith. When this is the case, what basis is there to hold these people to the high standard of respecting other religions, when they don’t even have a basic knowledge of their own? This general environment fosters the kind of extremist behavior, such as Quran burning, that we see on a daily basis. In fact, I overheard an interesting point once that theologians or people deeply versed in religious teaching are less likely to unequivocally accept its teachings, and more open to debate or doubt, than the average person. Thorough knowledge of a particular subject involves critical thinking, discussion, debate, and open-mindedness—blind acceptance and a sheep-like mentality only invokes hostility and ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI do have to correct everyone who said that history of religion courses would violate the Lemon Test, because teaching about religion (as opposed to teaching religion) is entirely constitutional. These courses are actually quite common in school curricula—the only mistake is that they are not as prevalent as they should be. This site actually breaks it down pretty well: http://cassisultemeier.com/?page_id=27. It highlights the major differences between the two aspects of religion in public schools: academic vs. devotional, awareness vs. acceptance, etc.
These rules exist as a result of the 1995 Federal Guidelines for Religious Expression in Public Schools (http://www.adherents.com/misc/fed_guidelines.html), which outline acceptable policies with regards to the relationship of religion and public schools. These are largely reasonable and do not come in contention with the premises of the Lemon Test. I agree with what has been said about history of religion courses being invaluable to increasing respect and understanding of other religions, and I honestly do not have as big a fear of instructor bias, for this reason: if a teacher did happen to trespass his/her authority and actually promote a particular religion in the classroom, this action could always be open to constitutional challenge. The Lemon Test is a constitutional defense of out First Amendment right to freedom from religion, and has prevented many questionable laws promoting creationism to seep into public schools. Of course it relies on a set of pretty absolute standards, and may not be perfect, but it cannot be used to prevent the teaching of the history of religion as part of human civilization—as long as the actual manner in which it is taught does not violate the Constitution.
Thanks for pointing that out, Aja. I guess I had just assumed that if you mandated the teaching of World Religions in all school curricula, it would have the effect of advancing religion in the sense that it would imply that religion is an important subject that merits study. But what you said definitely makes sense, and I was wrong to assert that. Although, I’m still a little unclear on exactly what things are allowed/prohibited under the Lemon test, because like Kelly said, it seems that it could be overextended to any argument pertaining to religion. And just out of curiosity, for those of you who have taken classes like this, was only the history of the religions taught, or did you learn anything about beliefs/philosophies that were central to the religion as well?
ReplyDeleteI also like what you said about how little religious people know about their own faith, which has been my experience as well (and I don’t know nearly as much as I should about Christianity either). For the most part, I think that is the fault of religious institutions, but at the same time, if world religions history classes were taught more often, it might intrigue students about their own religion as well, encouraging them to demand that the religious institution they are a part of teach them more about it.
And to respond to Danielle’s comment that religion should remain privatized because it is such a touchy subject, isn’t it such a touchy subject because people are so religiously illiterate and take personal offence to any ideas that don’t agree with their own indefensible ones? Like Aja said, “Thorough knowledge of a particular subject involves critical thinking, discussion, debate, and open-mindedness—blind acceptance and a sheep-like mentality only invokes hostility and ignorance.” I think the point of making people more religiously literate is to make them realize that you’re not attacking their soul by teaching them about another religion. If people knew more about religion, then it would be less of a touchy subject that people could discuss without hostility, which would mean that it could be less of a private matter without having those repercussions. Of course, this would take a huge amount of work, but shouldn’t we at least strive for it?
This is in response to Kelly's comment...
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is too bold a statement. However the problem we face in this debate is not people wanting to discuss the facts and history of religion; it is people wanting to preach what they believe as facts of nature rather than faith and the fear of parents that teachers will indeed preach to their children. I personally have had first hand experience with the fine line history teachers must walk in the classroom. In my 7th grade World history class I had a Jewish teacher. Other than knowing she was Jewish and that she wrote God G-d as a religious preference on the board when we discussed world religions, I knew almost nothing about her personal religious beliefs. We spent two days covering the three main Eastern religions, another day on Islam, several days on Egyptian, Greek, and Roman gods and another two days on Christianity alone. We even learned to mediate and took a whole class period on guided meditation. Finally we got to Judaism. She taught it the exact same way, talking about the history and what they believed. I thought it was a very well informed unbiased lesson. However, some parent did not...even though they were not there. I assume the school got a phone call because, when we came to school the next day she apologized if she made anyone uncomfortable and she had not intended to preach about Judaism. To this day I do not think she did. I heard her venting to a fellow teacher later that day and she was amazed how she could spend two days on Christianity and then only one class period on Judaism and get in trouble. What was she supposed to do? Not teach it just because it was her personal faith? It angered me at the time and still angers me today. People are so touchy about their religion and what their children are taught, especially in public school. I understand where you are coming from and totally agree that we need unbiased professors and teachers in our school, but it is so hard. Also much of the problems we are facing are not teachers preaching or governments making laws it is parents getting upset. Hell hath no fury like an angry parent with a religious vendetta. Hence the current problems with the Creationism/Evolution problems our country faces.
Yes Aja, thanks so much for the reference. I was definitely a little confused. Kala, you were asking about what various people experienced in their religion classes in high school. Like Dani, I found my experience to be very enjoyable and unbiased. My teacher wasn't religious at all, but said she had more of a system of beliefs. I got to be really close with her. I never once felt like one religion was dealt with more than another, and as Kala asked, yes specific philosophies/beliefs were taught. It wasn't just history in that way. But I do feel like this is part of the history of a religion, and part of religious literacy is knowing how other religions function today. This might prevent the common notion that most of religions different from the Christian majority (mostly Islam) are extremist. If kids learn how other religions practice their religion and what they believe in an unbiased way, there might not be so much paranoia and fear in future generations.
ReplyDeleteI was also lucky because I had someone who practiced Buddhism and a few Jewish people in the class, so there were many enlightening discussions that never condemned another religion. Obviously this is rare, and more often than not you won't be in a religion class with a group of open-minded people, and as Dani said, "Hell hath no fury like an angry parent with a religious vendetta." Haha I really like that phrase! I am still shocked that I managed to land this kind of class as a freshman in high school. Especially when I went to a private school where, to put it bluntly, the majority were rich white Christian kids whose parents and grandparents had also graduated there and there was this hidden sort of cult of barbie moms... ect. I found that many other kids (when religion came up in other classes) were simply not able to defend their Christian beliefs, and got defensive, often just following in the steps of their parents. I was pretty violently bashed on more than one occasion by expressing athiest/agnostic beliefs. Which was very hurtful because I AM very spiritual, I just don't identify with a specific religion. I did not like being told I was a terrible person just because I don't consider myself a Christian.
In the end, there is no standard religion class. I got really lucky. Not so lucky later on in classes like "Theory of Knowledge" and other random classes where a religious convo would creep in, but I think the basic history of religion I got was ideal. I don't have an answer to the problem of how to regulate religious teachings in school, and to be honest I don't think there is an answer. The school system is just too big and if there was intense regulation then everything would be TOO standardized/generalized and not enough would be taught for fear of being controversial in some way.
I completely agree that political candidates shouldn’t be judged based on their religious beliefs, but rather based off of their political beliefs. The issue of morality has been brought up when discussing this. I don’t think morality has to stem from religion. There are plenty of atheists who have better moral systems than someone who would describe themselves as deeply religious. I do think there are morals associated with religion; however, morals can come from other aspects of life like your upbringing and how your parents raised you.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that many Americans are religiously illiterate and ignorant when it comes to discussing other religions that aren’t their own. However, I don’t think the problem is that religion isn’t frequently discussed, but rather it is discussed in an uninformed way. The example you gave concerning Islam is a perfect example of people attempting to discuss religion but failing because their religious illiterateness and ignorance is shining through to their arguments.
I completely agree that religious education is essential to fighting religious intolerance. However, I think it is a never-ending battle. Some people are going to stick to their uniformed views and defend their beliefs no matter what. Other people are never going to get the opportunity to educate themselves on other religions because their religion forbade it. On the other hand, there are some people who are educated on the religions of the world, and it is their job to correct those who say ignorant things. It is their job to educate others on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to other religions. It is their job to uphold a knowledgeable and sophisticated connotation of the religions community.
I am not one of those people who are educated when it comes to religions of the world. I wish I would have had an opportunity to take one of those classes in high school. Since I didn't though, I am taking the Text and Ideas course, Religions of the World, next semester. Has anyone taken it? If so, what did you think of it?
I took Religions of the World with Valliere! It. Was. Awesome. The reason I loved it so much was that I found the class left room for the student to choose how involved he or she would be. I was able to read the texts from the class and understand the beauty in each religion (sounds cheesy. I'm for real) and the history of the religion itself.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I took out of it. But someone easily could have read the history book, and then read the religious texts from each religion just to synthesize the ideas in the textbook. The student could choose to invest what he or she wanted and gain whatever combination of academics, inspiration, and understanding he or she liked.
Granted, this setting was ideal because if the student registered for the class, they likely weren't about to refute everything other than their own religion at the first mention of it.
To tie it back to Kala's post, this kind of situation would, in theory, be great if it was optional in a high school so those willing to talk about religion would sign up. Again, in theory. But probably not. Of course, then those who would undoubtedly be offended by it would argue that tax dollars shouldn't go to funding a class that focuses on religion. I wish it would work though. :(
But anywho, Religions of the World is one of the best classes you'll ever take. :)
Kala,
ReplyDeleteI find the topic of religion being a taboo subject of conversation in our culture almost disturbing. It was brought up in my Peacemaking and Religion class this semester and a lot came of it. While the religion that we consider privatized, like Christianity, Judaism and Islam were subjects that are too touchy to be brought up in discussion. But secularism, another form of religion, where followers worship the state is ever-present in conversation. American Nationalism is the most obvious and in our face almost daily. As was demonstrated for us on Hampton on Sunday night, citizens have ceremonies celebrating its victories and loudly proclaim they are from America when an enemy is sacrificed for the betterment of the state. Soldiers are willing to die for their country the way radical Muslims are willing to die for Allah. Like this same sect of Islam burning American flags, we chant that we are from American or scream that we killed Osama Bin Laden. It has been frustrating me that recently religion is taking the blame for a lot of the unblamable, if that is a word, problems of humanity. But if religion is even definable. the definition is too broad to apply only to those with a divine deity. Thus, it is necessary that religion not be defined as Islam versus Judaism because it is such a broad subject. And if this type of definition was appreciated, it would be necessary that there was more worldy tolerance because all humans worship something, whether materialism or a God.
Oh also, a new thought that occurred to me that I will dub my sixth comment. If we are to determine, as I have, that religion is too broad of a topic to narrow to Islam or Christianity, it is possible to make the claim that creationism is in fact its own religion. Even if a definition was necessary, it would meet the standard criteria: it has a central deity, an intelligent designer, religious texts, Of Pandas and People, and a congregation willing to work for publicizing. And this congregation believes so strong in its cause, so who is to say that it isn't a religion? And then who of this class would want to practice religious intolerance by dismissing it as bad or unnecessary? A little bit to think on as an end-note of the class :)
ReplyDelete