Religious Education in Public Schools?

Tomorrow I will be presenting a paper for my “Critical Thinking” class devoted to the subject of compulsory religious education. In order to develop better thinking skills, the assignment actually involved preparing a well-crafted argument for both sides of the debate, i.e., I must be prepared to argue in support of religious education being a mandatory part of public school curriculum…and against.

In doing the research, I must say that the “pro-religious ed” seems to be the most logical choice as far as I’m concerned; for leaving out this segment of education would be to neglect such a crucial part of knowledge. Our politics, arts, economy, ethics, sciences, and nearly every other aspect of culture has been (and continues to be) affected by religion…so why in the world would we excuse this from the curriculum?!

There are, of course, compelling reasons not to. (Who would teach the classes? What would the curriculum involve? Who decides the curriculum? How would it be taught to ensure objectivity? etc.) All very important questions that would need comprehensive and convincing answers if this portion of our culture was accurately taught (and done so in a Constitutionally-appropriate manner).

I came across an article by Samuel H. Miller that I found particularly interesting, and thought you may enjoy. (I realize that this blog post will be found entertaining by very few of you out there, but I felt like this article really hit on the components of religious education and what we would possibly sell ourselves short on if our education was reduced to historical facts and objective data). Have fun:

It is probably this factor [objectivity in teaching religion] which leads us usually to teach religion, then, as facts, or as history, or even as a comparative study. We can thus objectify the data, treat all contenders impartially, and reduce religion to the status of another course. Such ideological reduction, however, is really no more religious than a course in mathematics or in economics. An undiscriminating array of factual phenomena, presented from a pseudo-neutral point of view, usually has a rather cynical result. In fact, teaching of this kind could be done with such a negative foundation that the whole superstructure would lack any sustaining sense of meaning or significance. And by “negative foundation” I do not mean intentional hostility or deliberate cynicism concerning religion, but merely a lack of understanding of the intrinsic and substantial functions which give any religion its proper and valid place in society.

Let there be no misunderstanding. The history, ideas, and structure of religion in their historic character are as necessary to religion as to any activity of man. But removed from the body of living functions, they are no longer living religion; and when the living functions are not articulated, when they are ignored as if they did not exist, nothing of value is left. In an earlier age one might not have worried about this, but in our day when the connections between religion and the healthy life of the individual or the dynamics of society have been largely lost, it is necessary to point them out and to give them special attention.

In short, then, the first step is a double one. The ideological reduction of religion in order to make it into a body of ideas or events for the educational process is the easiest way to fool ourselves. The teaching of religion must rest firmly on a base of a critical affirmation of religion’s function. There is an ecology of faith, a total world of roots and skies, of weather and growth, an environment in which it takes its place and fulfills its responsibilities with many other things—art, science, industry, government. To teach it as if it were a “special” history or concerned only with the cultic mysteries within the church or synagogue is not to teach religion at all. This is like appraising the body of a car without paying any attention to its engine.

If we really intend to teach religion, we must have some kind of interpretation of religion, some sense of the individual and society. Unless there is an honest way to respect its significance and to explicate its importance to the individual and to society, our cynicism will show through and cancel out every vestige of value.

Religion, after all, is a way of dealing with life, of organizing and evaluating the raw materials of existence, of weighing and measuring the meanings of human experience. It is concerned with eliciting the inner mystery, the hidden or obscure significance of events and things, no matter where or when they occur. It tries to get behind the surface, under the label, back to the core, where true integrity and the center of its being lie. Any subject taught suggestively enough may come quite close to being religious; any religious material taught blindly may end up being quite irreligious.