…and this is a 
Why comparative religion classes will never work in American public schools
Category: Academics • Religion
Posted on: March 3, 2007 9:18 AM, by PZ Myers
Sometimes I think that what public education in this country really needs is a good general requirement for a course in comparative religion. I've thought that one obstacle, though, would be finding teachers who wouldn't warp it to proselytize for their favorite cult. It turns out that there's another major problem: parents will sue teachers who make their kids think about that which must be believed dogmatically.
On Jan. 31, 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.
That all sounds fair, and far more gentle with the material than I would be. It basically sets up four virtues of religion and asks students to explain how an Iroquois myth and the Genesis story fulfill those functions — isn't that what people are always telling us uncompromising atheists, that religion has a significant role in culture, and that we should consider it? The teacher had a specific goal in mind, too, with this exercise.
Religion played an important role in early American literature, he said. The goal was to prepare students for the study of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," based on the Salem witch trials.
Apparently, Christians are exempted from having to think about Christianity's place in literature and history and society.
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.
"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."
"Putting it down"? Being asked to explain how religion is used "to instill awe, explain the world, support customs and guide people" is putting it down? Sounds more to me like it's exalting it. Oh, but he also asked them to consider the problem of evil — something that's standard in theology schools, or do they think that's only brought up by atheists? — and he himself is an unbeliever.
Ken and Claire Olsen are proud of their daughter.
"She made a stand," Claire Olsen said. She doesn't expect public schools to teach or cater to one religion over another.
Total bullshit. These are Christian twits who a) object to the fact that a teacher doesn't believe in Christianity, and b) think it's OK to analyze how Iroquois beliefs affected Iroquois culture, but reject the idea that one can analyze how Christian beliefs affect American culture. They are entirely about giving special privilege to and catering to Christianity.
So scratch the idea of having American schools giving courses in comparative religion. Thinking is offensive and a sin to some Christians, so all it will do is lead to lawsuits.
I sure hope Lanae and Ken and Claire Olson are just as active in keeping creationism out of Lake Stevens High School.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Thanks for reminding me once again why I'm glad to be no longer teaching.
I can't believe this happened in Washington, with such a liberal general population. It only goes to show how loud the ignorant voices get.
I guess the only thing that would make these people happy is if the Iroquois culture were exterminated (bring back the Indian Schools?) along with any other belief system that departed in any way from theirs.
I guess that these are the same people who don't want the Harry Potter books in the school library because "they promote witchcraft and Satanism" I had one of them in Florida go so far as to say the Narnia series was anti-Christian because the animals spoke, a violation of God's Natural Law. They were totally unaware of the book as Christian Metaphor, and when I told them, they accused me of lying and stated that CS Lewis was obviously a godless atheist bent on keeping children from Christ.
((sigh))
This is a shame, because I used a lot of comparative religion in my literature classrooms. How can you get around it when you are teaching multicultural lit?
Posted by: dorid | March 3, 2007 9:37 AM
That doesn't surprise me in the least. When I was at school, my parents wrote notes to exclude me from (a) assembly, where sometimes prayers were read and hymns sung (in NZ that was OK, apparently, at least at the time) and (b) from 'religious instruction' classes, which were Christian religious instruction classes as far as I know. But our little sect was the only true Christian one, and learning about other Christians would have been a corrupting influence.
Actually I missed the first day of religious instruction class (perhaps I was home sick), and didn't know what was going on the next week when suddenly a different teacher turned up. Our class teacher, as she was leaving, came over and hissed to me that I should leave and join the other girl, who had left already. (There was one other from my sect in my class.) But I didn't know where to go, and was too scared or shy to ask, so wandered around the school for a bit until I saw a bunch of kids sitting on benches in the playground while some guy talked to them. I went and joined them, thinking that was where I was supposed to be. After a bit a kid from my church came rushing over and grabbed me and hauled me away, but not before the girl sitting beside me turned and said, incredulously, "I didn't know you were a Catholic!"
I'd been sitting with the (oh horror) CATHOLICS! I didn't even know they were real! I thought they were sort of bogeymen adults made up to scare children with, or at least that there weren't any in my little universe. It was a huge shock to discover that children I knew could be Catholics.
My little mishap was reported to the church elder 'brothers', of course, and they came to visit me. I don't remember much about this. All I remember is sitting in our living room with three guys sitting there solemnly lecturing me and asking difficult questions, and me weeping and feeling very, very sorry for my sinfulness. I wasn't quite sure how, but I knew I'd been horribly corrupted by blasphemers and idol-worshippers.
I was eight years old.
I think I was 16 or so when I first discovered that Catholics were Christian. Before that I didn't even realize they even had anything to do with Christianity. Learning about other Christians was a total taboo in our sect. Even learning about our own history was only something I was able to do after leaving (aside from a greatly sanitized version).
I imagine that even if the religious classes you write about were taught by Christians teaching only about Christianity, it STILL wouldn't make all the Christians happy, because for some it would be the WRONG Christianity. A DISTORTION of Christianity. A BLASPHEMOUS MOCKERY of Christianity. Having an atheist teach a class and including other religions was just asking for trouble.
(Sorry about the length of this comment, but this issue is close to my heart. Teaching comparative religion would be a good idea IF the parents let it happen, but I can't see them letting it happen.)
Posted by: BadAunt | March 3, 2007 9:54 AM
Blind faith does not include thinking.
Posted by: Dutch vigilante | March 3, 2007 9:55 AM
In the UK, we have always had Religious Education in schools, and ideally it would involve comparison of all the world religions, but my lessons ended up being mainly about Christianity, with the odd lesson on Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism (when we were learning about the parts of the world where those religions predominate). However, I don't think RE itself has managed to convert anyone to Christianity, noone I know that has gone through the same schooling as me has come out a believer!
Posted by: Amy | March 3, 2007 10:14 AM
I am curious why the teacher felt the need to tell the class he was an atheist? I'd think that a teacher leading a class like that would try to keep their own personal beliefs out of the discussions regardless of what they are.
I believe that comparing various religious beliefs belongs in history classes where they could be considered along with other historical aspects of various cultures.
I think what probably upset the parent was that various religions in most comparative religion classes are barely touched upon in any beneficial way other than to compare the most elementary "mythical" aspects of each. In the end, there is the unlying assumption that religion is merely an ancient mythical belief that is of comfort to society but without any real merit.
For atheists and agnostics, this would be an ideal setting as the courses offer very little meat, but rather skim the surface of various religions.
But, for those who hold their religious beliefs as a path in providing meaning for their lives, these courses offer little to consider and are quite confusing to those who have had little exposure in the depth of various religions.
Posted by: Forthekids | March 3, 2007 10:14 AM
But we need to analyze Judeo-Christian mythology like that so that we can better appreciate most of Post Classical Western literature. I'm always reminded that in modern English literature, most allusions are made either to Shakespeare or to the Bible.
Posted by: Bobryuu | March 3, 2007 10:21 AM
Bad diplomat.
(Why did he tell them at all whatever beliefs he had or lacked? Had someone asked him?)
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 3, 2007 10:22 AM
When I was in 6th grade (back in the early Oligocene), we studied various religions as part of studying world history (back then, the world consisted of Greece, Rome, and Europe). So we learned all about Zeus and Apollo and Athena (although not Priapus). Later in the year the class was divided into groups to present the basics of the modern world religions (in those days, the students were all Christian or Jewish. I forget if there were separate groups for Catholic and Protestant). The Christian group did a nativity scene and explained why Christians consider that birth important; the Jewish group did a Passover scene and explained the significance of that holiday. The Hindu group perhaps could have done some more research--they presented a fellow killing a cow and being machine-gunned for his disrespect for life.
Posted by: mark | March 3, 2007 10:24 AM
Posted by: afterthought | March 3, 2007 10:28 AM
It's not clear how the subject of his beliefs came up -- if he'd been asked, it's perfectly reasonable that he replied truthfully; if he bounced in and out of the blue announced he doesn't believe in god and neither should you, that's a problem.
Again, though, let's demand consistency. If a teacher is not allowed to mention his lack of faith, then I want all the people who are irate at his disclosure to be similarly dismissive of teachers who display religious iconography at their desk, wear a crucifix or Muslim covering, or even mention what church they attended. Let's strip everyone of any hint of their cultural context -- maybe we should demand that teachers wear a uniform.
Or we could tolerate some measure of religious identity as long as there is no attempt to proselytize.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 3, 2007 10:29 AM
I guess they must be royally pissed at David Paskiewicz, no?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 3, 2007 10:33 AM
Well back when I was in high school we had a course called comparative religion, which I unfortunately did not take, that took a very even-handed approach, much like what is described here. Much of this material is included in our current world cultures and world literature courses, and is in fact mandatd by state standards. Some of the teachers in my schoool are even known to be other than christian and so far we have had no serious problems, but there have been sporadic complaints. The problem is just as PZ puts it: critical analysis is ok as long as we are dealing in false religions and evil cults, but any thoughtful approach to the favored cult is a put-down.
I am up in the air about acknowledging personal religious views in class. Our christian friends naturally do it all the time. I suspect that anything said by an athiest (or a librul--I think that is how they spell it) is automatically discounted. On the other hand it would do this crowd good to see living breathing atheists who are not actively engaged in genocide. I vary my approach, and many students who spend time with me know my views. Usually when I am asked directly in class about my religion I tell them to stake me out and see where I go. Sometimes I refer to my undergraduate ordination in the Church of the Universal Life and direct the conversation toward the liturgical and social function of the clergy.
Anyway, it's a messy business and there is no way, short of a complete eviceration of the curriculum, to prevent the hardcore believers from being offended. End of rant.
Posted by: barkdog | March 3, 2007 10:38 AM
The link is a bit misleading - the story doesn't say anyone sued or threatened to sue anyone. They only had to whine to the principal to get the grovelling they desired.
Posted by: Edwin | March 3, 2007 10:39 AM
In my high school we were required to take a course called "Inquiry Skills" that included a large comparative religion component. Students were divided into groups and had to do a large presentation where they explained the roots, beliefs, and differences between sects for the religion they were assigned. It was very interesting, not only in the comparison of the religions but particularly in the comparison of the sects. Our high school was fairly diverse, including Christians of course but also Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and probably some others I am not aware of (religion was not really a subject of much discussion). I can not remember any complaints, and the teacher (who actually invented the course although it was later copied elsewhere) was just promoted to teaching a more important class called "Theory of Knowledge" (which dealt with religion in an even less PC way when I took it).
And at another website I talked to a guy who insisted to no end that Catholics were not Christian. Basically he defined Christianity as anyone following a narrow set of Protestant practices and not "flubbing or ignoring" parts of the bible. People are allowed to simply not follow parts of the bible if they don't like them, but they can't ignore him. When I asked him what the difference was he stopped responding.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | March 3, 2007 10:40 AM
Oy! I proofread and "athiest" still got through. It must be the superlative form of "athy" because I could never be guilty of a typo.
Posted by: barkdog | March 3, 2007 10:41 AM
Here's why he said he was atheist: "McDonald said he only shared his beliefs after a student asked him about his faith. The boy had noticed that McDonald skips "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance."
And, apparently, just *mentioning* that he was atheist "tainted" the lesson. Oy.
Posted by: OmegaMom | March 3, 2007 10:41 AM
Just comparing Genesis myth to Iroquois myth is about as insulting as picking up poop with the bible, it seems. Honestly, is calling biblical story a "myth" really so insulting?
Posted by: daenku32 | March 3, 2007 10:53 AM
You don't have to label the classes as "comparative religion"...you can leave the r-word out just to get even with poopferbrains that never want to hear the e-word. When I studied Greek mythology in 7th and 8th grade history classes, it was a revelation to me. I think you have to trust that intelligent twelve year olds will often tumble to the obvious conclusions: "people make this shit up all the time."
Posted by: greensmile | March 3, 2007 11:02 AM
I'm glad to see that you and Brayton can agree on things once again. Ed covered this topic a year ago, and you both come to similar conclusions.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 3, 2007 11:18 AM
I think we did exactly this exercise (though with a different non-judeo-christian creation myth) in my high school way back when, in Moral and Religious Education, a compulsory class.
I had pretty good experiences with those classes in my (Montreal, protestant school board) schools. I learned enough about the tenets, stories, and holidays of other religions (my family is pretty catholic) to be able to speak intelligently about them. There were some gaps, and I think a couple teachers who were jewish stuck to what they knew (I swear, I know the various holidays stories well enough I've been mistaken for jewish myself), but it has been useful in my adult life. We had decent sex ed that nobody was pulled out of in those classes, too.
I'm still amazed that that sort of thing isn't universal. If religion is so important to so many people, and we need to be so respectful of it, (at the expense of other moral views, I sometimes think) what's wrong with understanding what it is that we need to respect?
Posted by: Carolyn the Red | March 3, 2007 11:19 AM
--- Honestly, is calling biblical story a "myth" really so insulting? ---
YES!
The greatest danger to a national religion is to let its citizens think for themselves. That's why we enforce the public recital of "under GOD": so we can make note of those who don't mouthe the words and whack them.
Posted by: June | March 3, 2007 11:31 AM
PZ wrote:
"Again, though, let's demand consistency. If a teacher is not allowed to mention his lack of faith, then I want all the people who are irate at his disclosure to be similarly dismissive of teachers who display religious iconography at their desk, wear a crucifix or Muslim covering, or even mention what church they attended. Let's strip everyone of any hint of their cultural context -- maybe we should demand that teachers wear a uniform."
I wonder if, in a comparative religion class, it might be a bit more important to keep one's own religious views to themselves. It's a different situation in that type of class, IMO. Anyone would consider the teacher's bias regardless of what religion they were (or weren't).
In other classes, I don't see a problem with it as religion is probably not part of the curriculum. So, a cross necklace or something shouldn't really be so horrific.
For example, in my boy's elementary school they are both taught by the same music teacher. He has mentioned that he is an atheist and they've sung songs about dinosaurs and he talked about evolution, and he has been quite obvious about his disgust with the current Bush administration and has made numerous negative comments about Bush in class. Now, I have no idea how this relates to music, but nonetheless, there it is. Now, if he were teaching a comparative religion class rather than a music class, I think I'd be pretty pissed.
I've never said a word to ANYONE about what he has said (swear to God), figuring that he is welcome to his beliefs and opinions, but I do wish that he wouldn't talk about politics in such a blatantly biased fashion in front of the kids.
One time he was explaining the meaning of hypocritical (came up in a song) and he refered to preachers being hypocritical. He might have tried a different example, but whatever.
It's all in the way that one presents their beliefs, IMO.
And, I'm thinking that if that teacher felt that he couldn't even mentioned God's name in the pledge, he was a pretty die-hard atheist. I know quite a few atheists who have no problem with the word god in the pledge, but then they aren't at all militant about their atheism. They merely don't believe in God, but they aren't pissed at everyone else for believing in him.
Posted by: Forthekids | March 3, 2007 11:41 AM
To be fair...and trust me, I'm not excusing these people's oversensitivity...it seems that the parents and kid were not so much critical of the two creation myths being examined side by side, but the teacher's subsequent handout titled "The Problem of Evil." If you look at the handout, it has your standard "college freshmen having a pseudo-intellectual discussion over a joint" examination of the problem of evil existing in a world which is supposidely ruled by a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent ruler. I mean, seriously, I've had deeper conversations about religion on myspace, if that gives you any indication of the shallowness of it...BUT....
I can see how just a high school girl could feel that the teacher was being a little too harsh in examining Christianity (or, more accurately, the Judeo-Christian religious philosophy). Teaching that Christianity involves an all-powerful, all-knowing diety is fine. But involving the class in a philosophical discussion on that diety's effectiveness (or problems with his existence) is stretching it.
Once again, I'm torn, because I realize that these are all very elementary, glaring problems with Christianity which are dealt with eventually by almost every person of faith (by "dealt with", usually compartmentalized or rationalized, of course), but I don't think that a high school comparative religion class is the place to start the process.
I have no problem with the worksheet comparing the two creation myths, in fact, I thought that was highly appropriate and probably very effective. But I think with his "The Problem of Evil" lesson, Mr. McDonald was stretching it, and I'm surprised nobody said anything sooner (he'd apparently been using it in his lessons for the past seven years).
Oh, and for those that didn't bother to read the article, the teacher didn't "come out" about his atheism to make a statement or to try to influence the poor wittle children. He stated his atheism when a kid asked about it. He had noticed the teacher omitted "under God" when he said the Pledge (and that's what we're SUPPOSED to do, isn't it? Just let the religizoids have their way, and quietly omit it without bothering them?), and directly asked him about his faith.
Posted by: Jen | March 3, 2007 11:47 AM
"When I was in 6th grade (back in the early Oligocene), we studied various religions as part of studying world history (back then, the world consisted of Greece, Rome, and Europe)."
My son is in 6th grade this year and this is exactly what they are doing. They are learning about various religions in their social studies class. He's really enjoying the class, and I think it is the perfect way to learn about various religions.
It makes more sense to me to learn about them within a historical context than to lay them out side by side and discuss their "mythical" characteristics. That can be contrued beyond belief, as I found to be the case in the comparative religion class I took in college.
Would there be a downside to learning about various religion in history classes?
Posted by: Forthekids | March 3, 2007 11:47 AM
I teach an elective at my high school that deals with a variety of epistemological issues, including belief (religious and otherwise). While I give the teacher credit for offering the course, he undeniably made a mistake by expressing his personal belief on the existence of god. His mistake was not legal or political, it was pedagogical. The students need to believe that the teacher's motives are professional and educational. By "outing" himself, he put his personal motives on the table and, if only temporarily, shifted the focus of the class from the academic content to his personal perspective. I suspect his motives are educational and every bit deserving of our praise; however, those with the best of intentions can make mistakes.
Consider a converse situation. Wouldn't we all be a bit suspicious of a biology teacher who followed prevailing standards regarding evolution but was also a known creationists? I'm not saying that McDonald or the creationist cannot do some excellent teaching in either case. It's just that the goal of effective teaching is made all more difficult in both cases.
Lastly, McDonald did not owe the student an explanation when asked about his skipping the "under God" bit in the pledge. I don't recite the "under God" bit either. If a student asked me about it, I would say that reciting the pledge is a personal decision available to all in the US. My choice is none of the student's business and the student's decision is none of mine. What could be more American than that? If a student really wanted to know my opinion on such matters, they can buy me lunch some day after they graduate and we can talk all about life's big questions.
Posted by: ChemJerk | March 3, 2007 11:49 AM
I wonder if, in a comparative religion class, it might be a bit more important to keep one's own religious views to themselves.
No. If anything, I think it would be more relevant to know what the religion is of someone teaching a comparative religion course. You need full disclosure to be able to better determine if the course content is being subtley biased.
Posted by: Jen | March 3, 2007 11:55 AM
Consider a converse situation. Wouldn't we all be a bit suspicious of a biology teacher who followed prevailing standards regarding evolution but was also a known creationists? I'm not saying that McDonald or the creationist cannot do some excellent teaching in either case.
I'll make the same remark to you as I did to FTK. I think it would be highly relevant to know if my biology course was being taught by a creationist. Because if I took the entire course, and learned later that the teacher was a creationist, that would necessarily throw a shade of suspicion on anything I had learned that semester. I would have to go back and recheck everything just to make sure it was done by the book. I'd rather just know up front.
Posted by: Jen | March 3, 2007 12:00 PM
Dorid wrote: I can't believe this happened in Washington, with such a liberal general population.
Washington's not really a "liberal" state. The heavily populated I-5 corridor west of the Cascade range (which includes Seattle and Olympia) is liberal, but eastern half (which makes up the bulk of the geography) is all farming country, very reactionary (I'm loathe to use the term "conservative"; in many ways I consider myself one), and very Christianized. Lake Stevens is one of those places caught on the verge between the two and the culture war there has erupted in the past.
Heck, I live in Burien, a suburb just south of Seattle, and you can't throw a stone without hitting a church. Most of them are pretty liberal, but the one across the street still has What's Darwin Got To Do With It and Defeating Darwinism on their bookshelves.
Just south of me is Federal Way, where one whackjob earlier this year managed to pull a high-school showing of An Inconvenient Truth because the movie implied that God was not in charge of our destiny. These people are everywhere.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | March 3, 2007 12:02 PM
I have some better names for comparative religion courses:
1) Dare to Compare - Craptastic Religions of the World
2) Compare O'Rama of Fucked-up Fantasies
3) Stupid Superstitions We Must Know (and Loathe)
4) Dumb and Dumber - How to Tell One Idiotic Nutcase from Another
Truth in advertising!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 3, 2007 12:07 PM
I guess they must be royally pissed at David Paskiewicz, no?
Interesting comparison. Gary McDonald apologised for his error, even though what he did couldn't in any reasonable sense be considered an error. Paskiewicz made a serious error; lied about it; played burning martyr when confronted with the evidence of his transgression; and remained unrepentant. McDonald gets raked over the coals; Paskiewicz enjoys the support of his principal, superintendent and school board.
You all seem like intelligent fellows: how is it that you managed to survive an education system this bad?
Posted by: AV | March 3, 2007 12:14 PM
I just read "the problem with evil" page. Yeah, as a Christian parent, I'd probably take issue with that one. I've read tons of books and article regarding the problem of evil, and that one page simplistic overview is kinda insulting.
That issue is huge and should be covered at length, not thrown out there in a one page conclusion.
It's an issue for students to consider at a higher grade level, and I wouldn't have a problem with an atheist sharing their views about it with my kids because they'll have the opportunity to also hear my opinions as well as their Pastor's opinion on the subject.
But, many kids don't attend church and only have the chance to consider these issues in the public schools or from their parents who may have no opinion on the subject. That's unfortunate, IMO.
Posted by: Forthekids | March 3, 2007 12:14 PM
I just read the letters to the editor about that story, and only one was supportive of the teacher. The father of the girl who complained wrote one of them, actually complaining that the article was biased against his daughter, and that they should have focused more on the fact that the teacher would be grading students' papers with an atheistic bias. Which of course is a problem that would come up no matter the religion of the teacher. I need to stop reading about people like this...
Posted by: nicole | March 3, 2007 12:29 PM
Well, quite. For somebody to refuse to go along with being coerced into expressing belief in somebody else's religion they must be, like, a total extremist. I'm sure you wouldn't have any sort of problem if the situation were reversed, because, you know, you're so moderate and all.
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | March 3, 2007 12:43 PM
A typo causes FTK to make a true statement. Go figure.
Posted by: John Marley | March 3, 2007 1:09 PM
I am curious why the teacher felt the need to tell the class he was an atheist?
From the article:
An honest answer to a student's question seems like a good enough reason to me.
Posted by: Sister Novena | March 3, 2007 1:12 PM
"Well, quite. For somebody to refuse to go along with being coerced into expressing belief in somebody else's religion they must be, like, a total extremist. I'm sure you wouldn't have any sort of problem if the situation were reversed, because, you know, you're so moderate and all."
I've thought about that at length in the past, and here is how I look at it.
If I lived in an Islam nation and there was a pledge with reference to Allah in it, I wouldn't gripe about it because the majority of people probably have Islamic beliefs and are not offended by it in the least.
But, it would be a little different for me than an atheist, because if I made that pledge I would be breaking the first commandment by acknowledging another god. So, I would probably politely stand and recite the parts that don't pay homage to that particular god. But, I wouldn't bitch about it.
Now, for an atheist, it seems to me that it's a little different situation because it would be like pledging to Santa or the Easter Bunny. Most militant atheists I've talked with on line claim they have no hatred toward the Christian God because they simply don't believe in him and think of him as simliar to Santa. So, there would be no harm in politely saying the pledge. But, on the other hand for those of you who are adamantly opposed to religion, I can kind of understand your position as well.
There was a time when I thought the "under God" part should stay in the pledge, but after seeing all the bellyaching about it, I don't even think it's worth it to push the issue. Take it out for all I care.
Sometimes pushing something like this does much more harm to Christianity and what God wants us to accomplish than good.
BTW, I don't claim to be a moderate. I'm quite definently a conservative. But, I try to consider all aspects of various issues and remain open minded to what is the best situation for all concerned.
Posted by: Forthekids | March 3, 2007 1:15 PM
This isn't a Christian nation.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 3, 2007 1:16 PM
While I think the whole Iroquois/Genesis comparison is clever and appropriate for a high school literature class, I am worried by this teacher's handout on the problem of evil. The news article doesn't explain how this handout connects to the lesson, but on its face this looks problematic: argumentatively worded, easily perceived as an attack on student's beliefs from a representative of the state, and fairly one-sided.
Surely most of us would agree that a similarly worded handout on logical fallacies in the concept of the trinity, or in the divine provenance of the Quran is inappropriate for public schools. The problem of evil is a more general philosophical and theological problem, but still something a public school should be very careful with. Jamming it into a literature class on myths gives the rest of the lesson the tinge of a concerted attack on religion, handing ammunition to those who want schools to protect faith.
I love the Establishment Clause, but we should accept that it is a bargain among believers and non-believers that carries a price: we can't always force schoolchildren to critically think about their religious beliefs, even at the occasional expense of education. We have a nice compromise going. Demarcation by subjects let's us teach science, in principle, on its own merits, without engaging directly in religious debate. Literature classes can investigate comparative religion through literature, without forcing teachers or students to reveal or defend their own.
And if we want to teach the problem of evil, let's think hard about how to do so constitutionally, and try to put it in a philosophy class where students are prepared to engage in abstract, hopefully impersonal, reasoning about it.
Finally, if a literature teacher really wants people to think along these lines, why not assign Candide and let students reach their own conclusions?
Posted by: mss | March 3, 2007 1:29 PM
I spent some time in high school in semi-rural Arkansas back in the early 90s. (I mean, I spent four years in high school like most people, but maybe a year of that total was split between three Hot Springs-area schools. Anyhoo...)
During my time there, I had three very memorable experiences with fundy Christian teachers and students:
- There was the fundy Christian teacher whose classroom was plastered floor-to-ceiling with posters of fetuses, bible verses, and anti-abortion propaganda.
- There was the well-meaning world history teacher -- probably the most competent teacher I ever had in Arkansas -- who spent two weeks trying to get through the first chapter in our textbooks dealing with pre-history, because the fundie students wouldn't let her finish a sentence without protest. And she, trying to do what she thought was her job, took the time to address every single one of their points. Before it was done, one boy in my class spent an entire period standing behind her desk, holding a Bible over her head, speaking in tongues. I'm not even exaggerating.
- And my favorite, the anatomy and physiology teacher who spent as much time trying to "debunk" evolution as he did teaching his damn subject. We got the whole tornado-in-a-junkyard spiel; he totally would've gone for the banana-as-evolutionists'-nightmare bit if it had been in circulation at the time. The sad thing was, while I instinctively knew he was talking bollocks, nobody had ever taught me enough solid science by the 11th grade for me to challenge him effectively. (The best part: he and his wife were f-ing identical. This was in Arkansas, after all.)
My point is, I don't really care why this teacher told his class he was an atheist -- he could've been prostelytizing for atheism for all I care. After the bullshit I got to put up with from some of my teachers, I think the educational establishment owes us a few rounds.
Posted by: Sister Novena | March 3, 2007 1:31 PM
Amen, brother.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 3, 2007 1:35 PM
All the more reason for a comparative religions course to proceed in a completely fact-based, historical manner. It is the business of the public schools to teach the facts, after all, and not practice apologetics for any religion. That way, even if the person teaching your child is an atheist, what they're teaching won't be influenced by their faith or lack thereof.
If you mean that it's unfortunate that kids might only ever discuss it in school, I agree.
It's also unfortunate to the extent that parents ought to stimulate intellectual curiosity in their children--that's a way to raise people curious about the natural world, and interested in science. This applies even if the parent has no opinion on what their child is asking.
If you mean it's unfortunate that children don't go to church, you're going to have to justify that one. Church attendance does not guarantee intellectual curiosity or a desire to explore the natural world, and may in fact hinder it considerably.
Posted by: ThomasHobbes | March 3, 2007 1:35 PM
(From the article)
See, I've always felt that a teacher should explain his own views when he's teaching a controversial subject, simply in the interest of full disclosure. It seems to me that a comparative religions teacher telling the class he was an atheist is no different than, say, a psychology teacher admitting that he's a Freudian.
It's something you should learn on the first day. In a high school course, the teacher should take the time to make it clear that you won't be down-graded if you disagree with him, of course. Since high school is meant to be a preparation for, you know, LIFE, that might be a good time to say a few words about biases, and about the fact that it's possible to make objective decisions (such as evaluating the quality of a student's argument) without letting one's personal opinions get in the way; but students should know where their teacher is "coming from" so that they can take his assertions with the grain of salt they deserve.
Unfortunately, I can see the argument the other way. High school students have a fairly weak sense of self, as far as academic standards go; so they'll likely be inclined to write whatever they think the teacher wants to hear, rather than what they think is a plausible argument. This is a problem, though. It's something that needs to be fixed, not something that needs to be worked around. Saying a teacher should hide his own viewpoint because students are inclined to pander to it is like saying that a teacher shouldn't assign reading because students are inclined to skim.
As an aside: I've faced grading arguments with college students who felt that they should have gotten a better grade because they'd pandered to my viewpoint, and with students who thought their grade had been poor because they disagreed with me. In both cases, they had a bad grade because they had a crap argument with bad math backing it up. If more high school teachers had disclosed biases, this problem wouldn't survive to the university level.
Posted by: lytefoot | March 3, 2007 1:37 PM
That's close to the classic problem of evil statement, going way back to Epicurus. It's simple, yes. Simplistic? I don't think so. It's a simple question.
"It's an issue for students to consider at a higher grade level"
The course was full of juniors and seniors; you don't get a higher grade level than that in high school. You think people have to be in college before they can think about God and evil? Funny, lots of teens or even pre-teens manage it on their own.
Posted by: Damien | March 3, 2007 1:39 PM
Posted by: mtraven | March 3, 2007 1:42 PM
Oh, the Christianity in the rural public schools! I had a Christmas concert one year with readings from Luke! I came home from school in tears, said, "Everyone else seems to know who this Jesus guy is, but I haven't got a clue!" (Knowing things was very important to me as a child. They wouldn't explain it to me at school, though, because they thought that kept them from getting in trouble with the Establishment of Religion clause.) I got an explanation from one of the new-age pagans that began "2000 years ago in Jerusalem you couldn't swing a dead rat without hitting a messiah..." which didn't really help much with fitting in...
I also remember asking, upon learning the "under god" part of the pledge, why everyone else seemed to think god was up in the sky somewhere...
And the kids who knew I wasn't Christian, so figured I must be Jewish because that was the only other thing they'd ever heard of...
All of these things make it impossible to teach comparative religions to the kids who need it the most, the ones whose parents start this kind of trouble.
Oh, and for all the people who think that this is something for an intro-level college course? Intro-level college courses get the same thing--this is material for an advanced college course--and so on. At what point are we allowed to actually start teaching things? Is it okay for kids to start learning things that might make them uncomfortable in grad school? Or should we wait for post-docs? What exactly is valid work for high schools to do? There's only so many facts that can be memorized--certainly by sixteen, children are ready to start thinking!
"Oh no! I might be expected to think in a junior/senior level comparative religions class!" (Not a literature class, BTW.) "Oh no! I might be expected to do algebra in a junior/senior level chemistry class!" Compare.
Posted by: lytefoot | March 3, 2007 1:55 PM
What? The teacher shouldn't have expressed his own beliefs? That's absurd! I do it all the time in my classes. I don't require my students to believe it, but I do want them to think critically. And, as a thinking person myself, I'm OK with being challenged on my beliefs.
The question is not indoctrination--something theists and all other absolutists do--but what is considered a valid point, a reasoned theory. Can you imagine the physicist saying, "I can't tell you what I think about the laws of nature"....
Based on my understanding, readings, inquiries, I think there's no god. There's nothing wrong with this statement as far I'm concerned. But, then again, some people are offended when their ignorance and stone-age superstitions are challenged....
School is about learning and critically thinking.... only if that's what you (or your kids) want to do there. Otherwise, it's a dumbing down factory and a babysitter.
Posted by: George | March 3, 2007 2:00 PM
McDonald said he only shared his beliefs after a student asked him about his faith. The boy had noticed that McDonald skips "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance.
And there's the source of the fucking problem, isn't it?
No fucking un-Constitutional pledge, then no sharing of beliefs.
Funny how that works.
Posted by: Great White Larry | March 3, 2007 2:16 PM
Yeah, George, but the athiest among us sacrifice aborted babies to satan. Or something. Atheists are evil, and the athiest of the atheists are like priests of Satan. The mere mention of the people who are the athiest of all causes kids to abandon their silly sunday superstition.
At least that's what I heard.
Posted by: Stogoe | March 3, 2007 2:17 PM
There was a time when I thought the "under God" part should stay in the pledge
Who among us was not addicted to crack at one point or another?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 3, 2007 2:18 PM
Damien:
That's close to the classic problem of evil statement, going way back to Epicurus...The course was full of juniors and seniors; you don't get a higher grade level than that in high school. You think people have to be in college before they can think about God and evil?
But that's not what the problem is. It's not that the kids weren't "old enough" to start thinking about it, it's that this was not the appropriate venue for the discussion. It is a comparative religions course--not a philosophy course. It is meant to show a necessarily (because of time constraints) superficial survey of the different religions of the world. The "Problem of Evil" worksheet brought up philosophical problems with one particular brand of religion, which went beyond discussion of what that religion consists of. It singled out the Judeo-Christian brand of religion for criticism, which is wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that kids should be thinking of these issues, and well before high school. I don't think you're ever "too young" to reason critically. But the teacher was stretching it--perhaps if he wants to delve into those issues, he should try to start a "Philosophy of Religion" class or something similar (good luck with that at the high school level, but it would depend on the funding and the cultural climate of the school/town). In that sort of class the discussion would have been absolutely appropriate. But not in a comparative religion class.
Posted by: Jen | March 3, 2007 2:21 PM
The argument itself is 300 years older than Christianity, though his sheet did pick out modern monotheism. But there's a key question: what do we want to compare? Superficial beliefs and practices? What about the reasons put forth by each religion for believing in itself? Does 'religion' include low-supernatural philosophies of life like Confucianism, original Buddhism, Stoicism, or Epicureanism? Conversely, do we include covering beliefs that people who don't believe X will go to Hell?
Or more fundamentally: while we're comparing the various religions, do we get to include people who don't believe in any religion in the comparison? One way to naturally include the problem of evil would be in the atheism section of the course, as something many atheists will say.
Posted by: Damien | March 3, 2007 2:31 PM
AV asked,
I was raised by nonreligious (or at least non-observant) parents with lots of good books lying around and an endless supply of documentaries on the TV. While I don't recall hearing many specific remarks about religion, I was definitely brought up to believe that Sunday mornings are for sleeping in.
When I was about five years old, I saw the Timothy Ferris documentary Creation of the Universe. I loved it and soaked up the words and the visuals. Not that I understood it all, of course, but looking back now, I see it was a wonderful starting point for that physics degree I got a while later! So, I've grown up with the Big Bang and the cosmic microwave background, with quarks making protons making nuclei inside atoms making DNA inside cells making a tree leaf. (For several years, I drew my spacetime light cones in the wrong direction, because I thought the diagram represented the size of the universe as a function of time, not the size of the observable universe, but never mind, I got it right later.)
It couldn't have been much later than that when my father and I got started talking about the Big Bang. "What do you think happened before the Bang?" he asked. "I mean, what made the Big Bang happen?"
"Maybe," I said, "God made some super-asteroids and smashed them together—"
(I had heard of this "God" fellow and knew that at least a few of my classmates thought he was keen, but I didn't believe in him any more than I believed in Lando Calrissian.)
My father replied, "So then, what made God happen?"
Everything else kind of logically followed from that.
I knew a little bit of everything before they brought it up in school, thanks to books, my parents and James Burke. Since I knew there were plenty of people smarter than me (it's hard to read about Richard Feynman and not get that impression) I was a lot less stuck-up about knowing stuff than I could have been. In turn, this meant I made friends, instead of withdrawing into some Ayn Rand-fueled regime of arrogant wankery.
I was one of the only two kids in my high school to have a Darwin Fish on my car. It got ripped off more than once. (And then there was that boy in my tenth-grade Art History class, who found out all the stuff I didn't believe in and tried to punch me in the hall every time we passed. Scrawny little fellow.) Ah, the memories!
I suppose I got educated in spite of the school system, more than because of it. The thing is, I think the same process happens to a lot of people. The number of inadvertent successes is surprisingly high, which makes me happy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 3, 2007 2:31 PM
The disclosure/non-disclosure problem might have been dealt with as a question for discussion before any decision was made. The teacher might have asked the class "What if I were a Catholic? ...Baptist? ...Jewish? ...Buddhist? ...atheist? ... Wiccan? etc. and How would it make a difference? in order to get both a feel for the classes' feelings and some empathy for the teacher's position. The arguments for and against disclosure are both persuasive, but any decision about this should be done after full discussion of the repercussions about the conundrum. Either way still probably leave some students dissatisfied, so the difficulties of a teacher's position should be addressed first.
Another issue where I would put the blame on the paents who complained is about their lack of faith. One of the things that should have been covered in any sunday school/confirmation/catechism class taught well before the high school level would be the apologetics that a believer should have when questioned about his/her faith. Why did the parents have such a lack of faith in their religion and a lack of faith in the religious training of their daughter that any question about thier particular religion could be feared so much?
Posted by: natural cynic | March 3, 2007 2:32 PM
If I lived in an Islam nation and there was a pledge with reference to Allah in it, I wouldn't gripe about it because the majority of people probably have Islamic beliefs and are not offended by it in the least.
No, you'd refrain from doing that because you would with no uncertainty be killed for sacrilege. A testament to the inherent goodness and humanity of religion, indeed.
And seeing as though our own little set of bylaws here in the U.S. (read: the Constitution), prohibits official religious establishments, we're not a "Christian nation" either.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 3, 2007 2:34 PM
Most people think responses of this sort are evidence of guilt. Probably 3/4 of her class has ever since thought she effectively admitted to being an atheist.
It's not possible to prevent students from introducing non-sequiters like that, and if one is an atheist, it's difficult to think of a reply (remember, the teacher would usually have their attention on the lecture, not on random distractions) that doesn't leave much of the class thinking the teacher is surely an atheist. For myself, the simplest, most natural reply, especially when otherwise distracted, would be 'I am atheist'.
Posted by: llewelly | March 3, 2007 2:36 PM
Demarcation by subjects let's us teach science, in principle, on its own merits, without engaging directly in religious debate. Literature classes can investigate comparative religion through literature, without forcing teachers or students to reveal or defend their own.
That's nice. Let's just ignore the elephant in the room. It's time to end the farce called religion. The classroom is the obvious place to do that. The science classroom should not avoid discussion of the wingnut faux-science of the Discovery Institute. Science is not practiced in a vacuum.
Open debate, and lots of it, in the schools, will cause more and more people to fall away from the idiocy of belief in god. Let's offend all the delicate sensibilities out there. Let's make them defend what they believe.
Come on!
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 3, 2007 2:42 PM
I think these comparative religion classes could definitely work. While I never had one myself, there were elements of a comparative religion course in my "American Studies" class in high school; this was a team-taught history/literature offering.
Towards the end of the year, we did a week's worth of examination of religion, mostly in an open discussion format. For me, the most memorable day was when we were asked to break off into groups, organized by religion. In my class, this consisted of all the varieties of Christianity, the notable exception being the "other" group-- myself and a friend, on the floor in the center of the room. I was the only atheist, and he was something of a home-made pagan, preferring to find his god in some sort of "Emersonian" way amongst nature. Since we were the only people with any sort of interesting thing to say, we got the majority of the time to (hopefully) get the other kids THINKING.
Posted by: DaveX | March 3, 2007 2:43 PM
Yeah, so this entire problem started because the pledge introduced the topic of religion to the classroom. Go fricking figure.
Posted by: Tatarize | March 3, 2007 2:48 PM
As far as reciting the Pledge Allegiance goes, I think it is proper for a non-believer to skip the "under god" part. Certainly I do as an atheist. I guess some people here don't understand why someone would have a problem *lying* in front of a whole bunch of people. Well, I do have a problem lying, and I think telling the truth is very important. If I did say the "under god" part of the Pledge, then I would be publicly saying that I thought the USA was "under god" and be giving my allegiance to that kind of a country.
Sorry, but that's not something that's honest in any sense. I don't think it takes a "militant" atheist to value truth and honesty, and in fact I think most do. At least most of the ones I have met.
-Drachasor
PS. I object to the term "militant atheist," since there are basically no atheists that try to spread atheism in a violent fashion. Certainly people labeled as "militant" atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, only promote reason and thought, and never violence against the religious. It is true that technically "militant atheist" can not imply any sort of violence, but in practice it is going to be immediately equated with religious extremists (who often are very violent). Equating the two is unjust.
Posted by: Drachasor | March 3, 2007 2:49 PM
But there's a key question: what do we want to compare? Superficial beliefs and practices?...Does 'religion' include low-supernatural philosophies of life like Confucianism, original Buddhism, Stoicism, or Epicureanism? Conversely, do we include covering beliefs that people who don't believe X will go to Hell?
I had friends who took a comparative religion course in high school (I wanted to, but could not due to a schedule conflict--but I followed along with what they were learning). And that was exactly what was taught--"superficial beliefs and practices." Believe it or not, a semester-long class really is not long enough to cover any more than that, if you really are including a good number of world religions.
Thus, the section on Abrahamic religions would have included discussion of their development in history, their religious texts, holidays, and a very superficial treatment of their beliefs--for example, a big topic would have been the different ways that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism view the role of Christ in their religion.
I will concede that the problem of evil is an old one. And in that case, I think it is even more important that Christianity not be singled out. If the role of evil is going to be brought up at all in a comparative religion course, it sould be in the context of all the religions being discuss