Why comparative religion classes will never work in American public schools

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?

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.)

Blind faith does not include thinking.

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!

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.

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.

and came one day after McDonald told the class he was atheist.

Bad diplomat.

(Why did he tell them at all whatever beliefs he had or lacked? Had someone asked him?)

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.

Teaching comparative religion would be a good idea IF the parents let it happen, but I can't see them letting it happen.)

Therein lies the rub. When a sect requires you to avoid any exposure (or ridicules) what others believe, it is a cult. They are afraid a member will see that all the cults claim to be the only true cult, claiming that all the others are false. This leads to the sensible conclusion that all the cults are false. Controlling education is key to keeping your cult intact.

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.

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.

I guess they must be royally pissed at David Paskiewicz, no?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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?

--- 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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

the unlying assumption that religion is merely an ancient mythical belief that is of comfort to society but without any real merit.

A typo causes FTK to make a true statement. Go figure.

I am curious why the teacher felt the need to tell the class he was an atheist?

From the article:

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.

An honest answer to a student's question seems like a good enough reason to me.

"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.

If I lived in an Islam nation

This isn't a Christian nation.

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?

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.

This isn't a Christian nation.

Amen, brother.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(From the article)

However, it was inappropriate for the teacher to share his personal beliefs, as it had a direct influence on the interpretation of the lesson.

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.

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.

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?

As someone who regularly says the above sentiment -- how does this story contradict it? The fact that it makes some people unhappy is not an argument against it, any more than the fact that teaching evolution makes some people unhappy means we should stop teaching that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

AV asked,

You all seem like intelligent fellows: how is it that you managed to survive an education system this bad?

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.

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?

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.

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.

My younger sister is a middle school science teacher. She carefully avoids discussing religion in her class. Despite this, one of her students said to her: 'You dress like an atheist.' Because this was a complete non-sequiter, she replied (paraphrased) 'Why do you say that? Because I wear black? I'm sorry but individual religious beliefs are not relevant in this class.' and returned to the lecture without waiting for the student to reply.

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'.

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!

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.

Yeah, so this entire problem started because the pledge introduced the topic of religion to the classroom. Go fricking figure.

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.

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 discussed, not just the Judeo-Christian one. For example, if the teacher had presented that subject in the way he presented the creation myth assignment--in other words, "read and respond to these different accounts of how the different religions explain evil in the world," even that may have been acceptable. However, by discussing the subject purely from a Judeo-Christian point of view (and thus implying that other religions are somehow more correct, or more reasonable, in their explanation of evil), he was exhibiting bias.

I think it was an honest mistake--I don't think he was necessarily trying to be biased, or "convert" his students, but it was still a mistake.

My view is that the Constitution permits state actors to teach the inherent contradictions and baloney in religions for the simple reason that religions are filled with inherent contradictions and baloney.

Religious practices are not immune from direct government assault. Religious practices have been assaulted by the government repeatedly and will continue to be assaulted whenever they conflict with some "rational" law that has been passed.

Let's say some Catholics kids start having ceremonies where they drink some wine at school on their lunch hour. Think that's going to fly? "It's not wine, teacher, it's the blood of Jesus." Yeah, right.

A good education for kids in a class about religion would be an "exercise" where the Christians and their beliefs are treated like ridiculous bullshit and scorned for the EXPRESS purpose of demonstrating to them why we have a separation cause. In that scenario, the little Christian motherfuckers could be asked to recite the dipshit Pledge and say "under Allah" or "under the teachings of the Torah" or "under Lucifer" and describe how it feels to say those words, or describe why they refuse to do so.

If I lived in an Islam nation

This isn't a Christian nation.

And even sillier, Allah isn't a *different god* either, neither, if you read anything about how the two where derived historically is the much older one from the same basic region "El", which more or less gave rise to the Jewish, Christian and Islamic God (or got stolen to make the new version, kind of like most saints did in Catholocism), but just try to tell any "believer" that...

Oh, and on the pledge itself, are you people honestly telling me you didn't read this at PZ's Daughter's site:

http://skatje.com/?p=234

Why the hell should I recite a flag salesman's jingle anyway in the first place? Just because some idiot president thought they should pass a law about it, which included, prior to WWII, an ending that looked like the class was doing what later become ironically associated with Nazism? Not that you can possibly compare being "forced" to make a pledge every day because the government doesn't trust you to not break it if you don't, or remember it if its not drummed into you, with *that* ideology... lol

My comparative religion experience (in Junior High ... Robert Neiderberger) was a trip.

Mr. N was a Maoist. Or at least that is what i think the big giant poster of Chairman Mao behind his desk was meant to indicate.

Over a period of several weeks, two or three times a week, he had invited speakers from different religions come in to class. We were given readings in advance, a combination of what the visitors had sent on ahead (usually pamphlets) and material Mr. N gave us that was more substantive.

The visitors were asked to come in and give their best pitch for their religion ... essentially, why their religion was the One True Faith.

"If you have too much sex you will be reincarnated as a pigeon" ... that's what one of the visitors said, the think I remember most. I think he was a Hindu.

"If you base your religion on this book, why don't you let anyone ever see it .... I think you're lying, it doesn't exist" ... that's the one comment I remember making, to the Mormon.

Mr. N. did almost nothing to guide, contextualize, agree with, disagree with. He simply let this parade of proselytizers come and go and make their own points in their own way, and he simply allowed the students in the class to ask questions as they saw fit.

I don't see why we would need a "comparative religion" class in the first place. I doubt it would do much to change a kid's tolerance of other religions, and it's just opening a door for these kind of complaints. A religious history class would be much more effective; it would give some useful knowlege of other religions, and only in very extreme cases will someone complain about historical facts.

All this brings to mind a story a teacher friend of mine tells about asking a class of high school seniors, more than half of whom were Latino/a, what their various religions were. When he asked how many were Christian only one or two Latino/as raised their hands. Puzzled he asked them directly to what church did they go. The answer was "Catholic." Any Catholics who can shed light on the significance of that distinction?

As for the teacher in Lake Stevens, his biggest mistake was in identifying himself as an atheist (which revelation per the article he had shared "...after a student asked him about his faith." That's should be taboo for any teacher, including as PZ points out those teachers who want to promote their brand of Christianity.

Of course once he was outed as an atheist, that revealed him as the biggest threat of all to the fundamentalist Christians. The very existence of an atheist is a tangible threat to the fundies with the promise of pornography, witchcraft, and Christian persecution just around the corner.

Greg: That guy sounds like an incredible teacher. What was he like? And what was the circumstance, that religious leaders were actually encouraged to proselytize in a junior high class? I've always wanted to have a survey course for seniors that would do a survey of philosophy, logic and comparative religion but (as you might imagine) it's hard to sell.....SH

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.

What a mixture of misunderstandings and non-sequitur...

Maybe I should mention that, according to the Bible, God's name isn't "God". For that matter, "Allah" isn't a name either, it's the word of the Arabic language for "god". Arabic-speaking Christians use that word, and so do the Maltese. You could say your hypothetical example without touching the 1st Commandment in the least.

Now for the problems I have with the Pledge of Allegiance:

1. Eisenhower's addition of "under God" is unconstitutional. Caledonian is right. He's wrong about a fair number of things, but not about this one.
2. As far as I know, the USA are the only democratic country where such a pledge exists. Elsewhere it's either restricted to soldiers at their initiation ceremony, or it's used by dictatorships to make sure everyone constantly pledges allegiance to whatever the ruling ideology is. I always remember those little Yemeni schoolgirls on TV who, under a flag, shouted in choir things like "Al-Thawra!" (The Revolution) with smiling faces and joy in their eyes. It wasn't creepy -- it was sad.
3. It'd be one thing if it were allegiance to the Constitution (like the oath required of politicians), but no, it's allegiance to the flag. To a symbol. To a piece of cloth. Isn't that a shame?

I've always thought that it was far more important to have classes in critical thinking added to the K - 12 curriculum than one about comparative religion. But as this example and many others show such a class would eventually offend not only believing Christians but adherents of every other crackpot belief system from Astrology to Zermatism (http://skepdic.com/zermatism.html) and lead to massive parental revolts.
Nothing challenging the popular delusions of the majority will ever be addressed in public education.
BTW, has it ever occurred to atheists who leave out the "under God" part in the Pledge that a declaration of loyalty to so abstract an idea as that of the nation state is equally loopy?

Forgive me for being such an ignoramus but I don't understand this talk about the Pledge of Alligiance. I have looked up the phrase in several encyclopedias and I found the content of the Pledge. I also learned that the Pledge was officially recognized by the U.S. government in 1942 and that the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that no person can be required to recite the Pledge and that the phrase "under God" was added in 1954 at the request of President Eisenhower. But I don't understand what it means to say that the Pledge is officially recognized. On what occasions is one requested to pledge? This is obviously so obvious to you that encyclopedia writers don't see the need to explain this but for me as a foreigner it is unclear. And what has this to do with teaching? Is there a kind of public ceremony when a teacher is appointed where he or she has to pledge (just as members of the parliament in my country have to swear or promise alligiance to the constitution at the beginning of the parlimentary year)? And, as nobody can be required to recite the Pledge, what happens if a teacher doesn't want to pledge? Is there a kind of promise that he/she has to make instead? If so why do non-believers smooth over the phrase 'under God' rather than making the alternative promise? And why are teachers on a public school of a non-Christian nation requested to appeal to God?

Stupid me. Yesterday I read that post by Skatje and commented on it. And today I forgot what it says... All hail to the flag salesman.

He's wrong about a fair number of things, but not about this one.

Please feel free to point one or two of them out, if you have the courage.

I always remember those little Yemeni schoolgirls on TV who, under a flag, shouted in choir things like "Al-Thawra!" (The Revolution) with smiling faces and joy in their eyes. It wasn't creepy -- it was sad.

Rather like the young children waving flags at parades here, in this country.

Comment #61 with the reference to Skatje's excellent article appeared on my screen only after I had submitted my comment #68. If I understand her rightly the official recognition of the Pledge means that all students of all ages are required to recite the Pledge daily!!??? If I had been told me this on a party I would think it was a joke. And you think you live in a democratic country? As Skatje rightly hints it seems more like 1984!

Please feel free to point one or two of them out, if you have the courage.

Remember our last discussion? I think it's near the bottom of the "No church-going doctors for me, thanks" thread.

The only thing that amazes me more about foreigners' ignorance about the US is their own ignorance about the assaults on freedom in their own countries.

Just the other day, I was trying to convince a Canadian acquaintance that Canada imposes a set of speech codes, and he wouldn't believe it. Most remarkable.

Remember our last discussion? I think it's near the bottom of the "No church-going doctors for me, thanks" thread.

Quite well. You demonstrated that you didn't bother to perceive the difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to happiness, which to my mind is like confusing lightning and a lightning bug. With that error as your foundation, you preceded to castigate me for arrogance and ignorance.

Permit me to restate myself: if you have an intelligent point to make, please do so.

Arno: no, with our locally controled school systems there's not much generalizing you can do about US schools, apart from massive testing under Bush. My public grammar school had a Pledge at the beginning of the day, at least in the early grades; my public junior high and high school didn't. Grammar school also had singing of the school song in assemblies, and maybe an anthem.

We are an advanced nation. We pledge allegiance to a "flag" in our schools. And to the republic for which it stands.

Really, really bright.

Quite well. You demonstrated that you didn't bother to perceive the difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to happiness, which to my mind is like confusing lightning and a lightning bug.

Well, I just continued that discussion by stating a very simple point. You have misunderstood me -- and if you had explained what you thought my misunderstanding was, instead of just repeating like a broken record that we all didn't understand you, we might all have found that out much earlier.

It's fine with me if you use words like "The only thing that amazes me more about foreigners' ignorance about the US [...]". But you generally leave it at that instead of doing something against that ignorance. This soon makes everyone as angry as you already are.

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 Indians knew it long before anyone else:

It's turtles, all the way down.

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.

uh, yeah, you've made it quite plain over the years EXACTLY what you are, and open minded is NOT one of them. Stop lying.

BTW, are you a contributing editor to conservapedia yet?

"Reasonable Kansas"

BWAAAHAHAHAAAHA. oh the delicious irony.

My understanding is that part of the NCLB bullshit requires the pledge to be said at the start of each day. I have been at war the first part of the school year ove this with the principle of my sons kindergarten - I would so so so like to be the test case for this one (since I am the custodial parent) but it was making my son so upset at being singled out, I quit fighting.

Claudio: Want to bet? There was some religious history in my high school in Quebec (1990s here). The level of historical scholarship was absymal and I suspect somehow that was deliberate to avoid stepping on toes. Why else was Acts basically taken as history by someone who was almost certainly not a fundy?

Earlier in elementary school there was some (I imagine illegal) religious endorsement - The lord's prayer every day in grade 1 and some days (I never found a pattern) in 4.

Maybe I should mention that, according to the Bible, God's name isn't "God".

Oh yeah, I forgot. That's just his nickname. His real name is Lord Almighty.

Got it.

Sadly, the most ignorant and arrogant are the least likely to acknowledge that they're either.

This is one of the principles we must move forward on. Our adversaries will never admit that they're wrong, will never acknowledge reason, and will be swayed only by force, whether social or physical.

The Indians knew it long before anyone else:

It's turtles, all the way down.

[takes big hit off peace pipe]

'ere, bro'. Hold it in!

Neither 'God' nor 'Lord' is the name of that deity, which makes it interesting to see how many Jews purposely fail to spell either title (usually by leaving out the vowel).

It's not compliance with the principle that the god's name should not be spoken, because that's not the name of the god in question. It's like the flag - a clear symbol and signal of sociopolitical allegiance.

Similar patterns can easily be found in Islamic dress, Christian wearable crosses, and so on.

I love heathens! You guys rule. I'd like a bit more of teh gay, however.

'ere, bro'. Hold it in!

thanks, that takes the edge off.

Caledonian said:

"The only thing that amazes me more about foreigners' ignorance about the US is their own ignorance about the assaults on freedom in their own countries."

Why should foreigners be expected to be knowledgeable about the US as opposed to knowledge about any other (nearer) country? Why exactly would this surprise you?

"Just the other day, I was trying to convince a Canadian acquaintance that Canada imposes a set of speech codes, and he wouldn't believe it. Most remarkable."

These laws do exist as they do in other countries such as France. I'm not sure that specific articles against things like 'anti-minority hate-speech' would be considered 'speech-codes' but I suppose that's a subjective argument.

The US has several States that legally prohibit atheists from holding public office. Isn't that not also not only a 'speech-code' but also a 'belief-code' as well? Speech isn't exactly 'free' if it prevents you from holding government positions.

I'm not justifying Canada's laws, but I've seen you post about them before. Not sure what you're getting at.

Argh, sorry. That should read:

Isn't that not only a 'speech-code' but also...

All this brings to mind a story a teacher friend of mine tells about asking a class of high school seniors, more than half of whom were Latino/a, what their various religions were. When he asked how many were Christian only one or two Latino/as raised their hands. Puzzled he asked them directly to what church did they go. The answer was "Catholic." Any Catholics who can shed light on the significance of that distinction?

Keanus,

I was raised Catholic. I've heard some people over the years express confusion over whether or not catholics are christians. I've never known any catholics who were confused about that, as your catholic classmates were, but here's how the confusion may arise:

Many, (actually most around my town) protestants are very bible oriented, very jesus oriented, and they identify themselves as christians FIRST, then by their denomination second. Being identified as a christian is more important to their identity than being identified as baptist or episcopal or whatever. Catholics are usually different than that. (But of course there are exceptions to the rule). One thing is, if you ask a catholic what religion he is, he almost always answers "catholic", rather than "christian". But they are christians, and the vast majority of them know that. After all, they view jesus as the son of god--they know they're christian! But in itself, the word "christian" isn't used to describe them first and foremost. So, when a baptist asks an episcopal what religion he is, the episcopal says, "Christian." And the baptist says, "So am I". Then he asks a catholic what religion he is, and the catholic says, "Catholic". Growing up in a catholic family, I thought everyone knew that catholics viewed jesus as the son of god, and that therefore everyone knew that catholics were christian, but I've since found out from several protestants I know that they didn't know catholics were christian because catholics don't usually use the word "christian" to identify themselves. That simple difference in word usage was enough to confuse many people, apparently.

This is all based on my personal experiences, so of course not all people will have the same explanation, but I've observed this to be almost universally true among the people I've discussed this issue with. There's also many other differences between catholics and protestants, and a lot of misunderstandings and outright hatred between them, and some of the protestants I know refuse to even acknowledge that catholics are christian (even when they know that catholics view jesus as the son of god).

I don't know why your catholic classmates didn't know they were christian--it's possibly because catholics don't use the word very much, compared to protestants, and they just didn't really know what the definition of christian is.

By the way, I forgot to say this in my comment--I'm no longer catholic. I'm an atheist. I'm just making it clear because someone got the wrong idea in another thread that I'm a christian, and asked me questions on how I can believe in that stuff. So I don't want that confusion to arise again!

"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."

I have forgotten exactly where .. perhaps in II Kings with the other bizzare stories of Elisha, and she-bears, and floating iron axes ... but an ass does speak.

Our own history will record much the same happening.

It wasn't a comparative religion class!

The class was American Literature. It says that in the very first sentence of the article: "The nature of God will no longer be part of an atheist teacher's American literature class at Lake Stevens High School."

Genesis isn't even American Literature. I would have thought that you brainy supremely-rational atheists would have caught on to that.

Did anyone here think to ask how "the problem of evil" and Iroquois myths are related to The Crucible?

Did any of the 92 commenters pause to think at all before blindly voicing agreement with PZ?

It wasn't a comparative religion class!

actually, herb, PZ never said it was. He said the whole affair was evidence that a comparative religion class likely would meet with similar difficulties, for similar reasons, and that was unfortunate, but not unexpected.

and this:

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.

has nothing to do with whether the bible is american literature or not, though you could argue that comparing mythological stories does relate to understanding how to write within that genre.

so, what's your real point, there, herb?

PZ, I'd ordinarily be on your side, but I'm troubled by the fact that you omitted this (right after your first quote):

"After they completed that assignment, he gave them another handout, titled "The Problem With Evil."

That handout, which was not part of the textbook's materials, asked questions such as how evil could exist if God is good and all-powerful."

This wasn't a philosophy class, it was American Lit for high school juniors - I have nothing against encouraging kids to think, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the teacher was handing out CS Lewis essays in history class (grasping for a comparably mild example here), I'd have a problem with it and I bet you would too. His actions say to me that he was doing advocacy in the classroom, whatever he may claim his intentions were.

The school's response seems appropriate so far - they made him knock off the pamphleteering and stick to his subject. I don't think he should be forced to hide his beliefs. I would certainly object if he were to lose his job over this. And I would heartily defend his right to discuss his atheism with curious students outside the classroom. But I think the teacher definitely had a toe over the line on this one.

It wasn't a comparative religion class! The class was American Literature.!

Oh yeah. That's the class where American kids learn that, once upon a time, Christians in the South used to keep slaves and call them "niggers."

Oops, forget that part about "Christians". I just made that up. Kids aren't allowed to learn that part.

But I think the teacher definitely had a toe over the line on this one.

Does it matter that he was pushed over the line by the Pledge of Allegiance?

In an honest and just society, it would matter.

Genesis isn't even American Literature. I would have thought that you brainy supremely-rational atheists would have caught on to that.

Did anyone here think to ask how "the problem of evil" and Iroquois myths are related to The Crucible?

Have you ever read The Crucible? I am trying to contain my astonishment that you wouldn't recognize how the concept of evil in Christian mythology is sort of IMPORTANT to understanding The Crucible.

This wasn't a philosophy class, it was American Lit for high school juniors

I'm an English teacher in Australia (one of those eeeeeeeeevil English teachers who believes the subject ought to canvass more than K-12 "Fun With Phonics"). I can't speak for how the subject is taught in the US, but it seems to me that a Lit course would be woefully inadequate if it didn't bring philosophical (and historical, and psychological, and sociological) questions to bear on the analysis of texts.

To do any less, to hamper the ability of students to explore the richness of literary works because there are lines that must be toed, is to dumb down the subject.

On what occasions is one requested to pledge?

Well, here in Kentucky, from elementary school through the end of eighth grade we had to do it every day, and they still read it off every morning, but not many people recite it.

My problem with the pledge isn't even the under God part, so much. It's the entire notion of taking some five-year-olds and teaching them to swear allegiance to their country, without even telling them what they're saying. I have no allegiance to this country beyond the people I know personally---yeah, there are plenty of good things about it, but if it keeps going the way it's been lately I'm hopping the first plane to Europe.

Isn't it funny? The most dangerous thing to a Christian is an open mind and a bit of critical thinking.

The thing that upsets me the most about this article is just how quickly the pricipal and teacher were to apologize. Bullshit.

OEJ

Carlie, remember that the Crucible is allegory for McCarthyism. That's the historical and cultural context. Obviously Genesis and Iroquois myths are unrelated. We have here a clear example of an atheist that was unable to teach a well-known classic without interjecting his own unrelated opinions on Christian myth.

Maybe this lit teacher thinks The Crucible really is a merely dramatiziation of the Salem witch trials. This is why public school teachers (and atheists) get stereotyped.

@GWW

"Pushed over the line by the Pledge of Allegience"? Was he? The article states he omitted the "Under God" part, I presume he's been doing so for a while, and he's had his job up 'til now. As for your previous non sequitur, I'll defend to the death the right of Flannery O'Connor and Mark Twain to use whatever words they like.

@AV

I'm sympathetic, believe me, but my take is this - a teacher has a duty to encourage discussion without coming down hard on one side or another. If I saw a clearer line between a comparative study of creation myths and The Problem of Evil maybe I'd have no problem here, but this strikes me as advocacy, which I have to oppose... My feeling is just that any reasonably well-spoken teacher can, by default, bully a class of teenagers into conceding any point of view he likes, or at least make them feel like certain philosophies may score higher than others come exam time. Therefore, a supplemental handout that clearly stakes out his avowed point of view on religion is out of line, just as it would be coming from the other side.

I know it was a stand-in for McCarthyism, but you have to know what the straight text says before you can start in on how it's allegorical for something else. I agree that without knowing anything else I don't know how Iroquois myth fits in (unless it has something to do with that pesky bit about Puritans usurping who was there before). I don't think you can talk about The Crucible without bringing in the concept of evil from a Christian standpoint, and we're long past the age in which a high school teacher could assume that all of his/her students are already well versed in the Christian mythos.

Perhaps only Omniquantists should be allowed to teach comparative religion. They definitely don't have any particular favoritism at play.

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm

- Kurt

This has already been touched upon (poorly) in #93 and (well) in #95, but I believe it bears repeating.

Despite the title of the blog entry, this did not take place in a comparative religion class. Yes, PZ never explicitly makes that claim, but it appears that many of the previous posts are being made from that perspective. This was an American literature class.

There was no suing. There was no threat of suing, at least none is referenced in the article. A complaint appears to have been made by the parents directly to the administration who in turn talked directly to the teacher. No courts, judges or lawyers involved. Although a pair of outraged Christian parents quite possibly would have elevated the incident to that level had the school not immediately handled the situation to their satisfaction.

The most and only (in my opinion, but not to the offended student) problematic class assignment was not mentioned in PZ's blog entry...

After they completed that assignment, he gave them another handout, titled "The Problem With Evil."

That handout, which was not part of the textbook's materials, asked questions such as how evil could exist if God is good and all-powerful.

Read the actual handout on evil...

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/02/22/handout2.pdf

Skim the text. Read the logical conclusions at the bottom. Four out of the five are: God is not perfectly good, God is not all knowing, God is not all powerful, Goes does not exist.

That, I believe, is the part that seems to have pushed the student and her parents into complaining mode. While I may agree with the gist of the handout, it seems to cross the line into proselytizing against Christian and Jewish monotheism. Were the handout to promote religion to a similar degree, it seems a clear First Amendment violation. I just can not work up much indignation when someone calls a violation from the other side.

Actually, I do mention that handout and even include a link directly to it.

There are 5 answers offered in it, and one is clearly an out for any religious student.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "militant" atheist, but of course atheists don't have "hatred" to something they don't think exists. That simply doesn't make any sense.

But as for "no harm", can you not see that atheists might choose to decline to publicly pledge fealty to such a deity when it is demanded of them? Or do you also think that atheists are supposed to be perfectly happy with lying when called upon to keep the peace? I must say I'm somewhat offended by your inference that it isn't "polite" to decline such a request.

Oh, and by the way, if such a pledge of fealty isn't important, why did Joe McCarthy decide to demand it in the first place?

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.

Who's bellyaching? You're the one that complaned about atheists who simply remain silent and allow others to say what they wish.

"Now for the problems I have with the Pledge of Allegiance:"

The problem I have with the Pledge of Allegiance is that it's a pledge of allegiance.

I wonder if, in a comparative religion class, it might be a bit more important to keep one's own religious views to themselves.

I would consider it bad teaching if a teacher refused to explain how they might be biased in a subject. A creationist should admit it before teaching about evolution, a neo-nazi should admit it before discussing the Holocaust, a neo-conservative should admit it before discussing George Bush, a Stalinist should admit it before teaching about the Soviet Union, etc. In a class on religion, I would like it if the teacher said what religion they would probably be holding above the others.

I think you should distinguish between teachers who make their students think and teachers who try to inculcate a particular point of view. For instance, it would be right to censure a history or social studies teacher teaching a unit on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict if he only assigned Noam Chomsky or Jimmy Carter. Similarly, an English teacher who teaches a unit on the problem of evil should be censured if he does not assign a theodicy as well as an argument from evil for the nonexistence of God. The complaints against McDonald are justified.

The complaints against McDonald are justified.

That's nice. Let's just keep kids ignorant, for fear of offending the parents.

What are our educational goals? Educating people out of their superstitions, or fostering them?

There aren't enough McDonalds in the world. That's the real problem.

He was honest, he was trying to teach them to think critically. He gets sued. Welcome to wingnut America.

I just saw "Jesus Camp" on television last night,
high school is too EARLY to engage children in an open discussion of evil?

There are 5 answers offered in it, and one is clearly an out for any religious student.

Sure, but telling religious students they're permitted to use a particular, overtly irrational excuse to defend themselves doesn't exactly preserve their religious freedom. I mean, imagine a teacher handing out a sheet that says,

"If there is no God, why do humans know right from wrong? The only logical answers are:

a) God does exist after all
b) It's a mystery, so don't ask the question."

That would be quite plainly favoring theism, even though it ostensibly gives atheists an "out."

If the point is to inform the kids about religion. the handout should mention the excuses for evil that many believers think are reasonable. For instance, McDonald dismisses the free will excuse by saying that God is morally responsible for the choices of his creations, but of course most believers disagree with that. Even if he was teaching a comparative religion class, it's not McDonald's place to tell his students the answers to ethical questions like that.

Why not ask them questions instead? "Do you believe that certain life lessons could only be taught by God through suffering? Why or why not? Do you believe that a creator is responsible for their creations' choices, as a parent is for the choices of their children? Why or why not?" Then at least the religious kids would have a fair chance to argue their case--and yeah, their arguments probably wouldn't be very good, but they have a better chance of realizing that if they're allowed to try.

"Did anyone here think to ask how "the problem of evil" and Iroquois myths are related to The Crucible?

Did any of the 92 commenters pause to think at all before blindly voicing agreement with PZ?"

I think you just qualified as a cadidate for Ed's Robert O'Brian Trophy

That should of course read "candidate"

I've thought that one obstacle, though, would be finding teachers who wouldn't warp it to proselytize for their favorite cult.

Kinda/sorta, but not exactly. It is highly unlikely that any publiic school system would hire a teacher to teach comparative religion unless that teacher were to at least subtly proselytize on behalf of the religion of the majority of the district.

Rest of the post is spot on.

In the public schools in Germany, there are periods set aside for religious instruction. The instructors are selected and paid by the various establishments of religion that wish to offer religious instruction, nobody is required to take the instruction (it's up to the parents) and the "grades" (if there are any) are not figured into the students' academic standing. I'm an agnostic, but, if I were a student there, I'd take courses offered by the various establishments of religion, if only out of curiousity.

The problem I have with the Pledge of Allegiance is that it's a pledge of allegiance.

Well said.

I remember doing the same assignment in my high school English class. Only my teacher accidentally let slip that Genesis served the same purpose, then immediately backpedaled by saying "Not saying that it's a myth..."
In our mythology class, our teacher made a similar gaff and I corrected her, resulting in many glares from my classmates.

I've started a series of articles on my blog marked "various religions," for the sake of speed cribbed from Wikipedia's introductions to those religions.

@n3rdchik

"My understanding is that part of the NCLB bullshit requires the pledge to be said at the start of each day."

NO. NO. A thousand times NO. Your kid's principle is LYING to you.

The Gospel of Prothero
A Boston University professor argues that Americans, though 'spiritual,' are woefully ignorant about religion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17439043/site/newsweek/

March 12, 2007 issue - Steve Prothero is the kind of professor who makes you want to go back to college. During an hour lecture of his Boston University course "Death and Immortality," 200 students sat rapt last week as his train of thought led him from the Docetics (early Christians who believed that Jesus was all-God, not flesh), to reincarnation, to Disney World, to Hindu cremation rituals, to Plato's account of Socrates' trial (the day's assigned reading), to "Beauty and the Beast," to a hypothetical suicidal bunny, to a discussion of the merits of exile versus death for a man such as Socrates. To describe Prothero as "quick-witted" or his interests as "interdisciplinary" wouldn't quite do him justice. Prothero is a world-religions scholar with the soul of a late-night television comic.

Thought it was relevant. Although he doesn't seem to give atheism enough credit.

The Prothero book is about religious ignorance. American's may like to talk about religion, but they don't do anything about it, no talk is walked, and they are ignorant of the tenets of their own faith.

We are all functional atheists.

When I was a dean of a college campus in Japan I had to hire a professor for a Comparative Religions course. One interview I had was with a Southern Baptist minister. You can guess how that went. I asked him which religions he would include, and he left out Judaism; when I asked why, he said that it was a culture, not a religion. How about Mormonism? "A cult," he responded.

Then I asked what kind of extra-curricular activities he might suggest for students. Our prior teacher had been fantastic--he had arranged for all kinds of trips to all kinds of destinations, including a Zen Buddhist retreat in the mountains, one of those Shinto places where you sit under a waterfall, etc.--he was a Christian, by the way. The Baptist said he'd insist they attend Christian services only. Why, I asked? Because, he replied, if the students were going to convert to another religion, Christianity would be it.

I don't think that he got the point of the course.

Funny how the Iroquois creation story is referred to as a "myth" while, in the article, the word "account" is used for the Biblical version... at least the Iroquois story gives us the opportunity to make references to "turtles all the way down".

An old but entertaining essay about the pledge...

http://electronrunes.blogspot.com/2005/09/one-nation-under-whatever.html

and came one day after McDonald told the class he was atheist.

Bad diplomat.

(Why did he tell them at all whatever beliefs he had or lacked? Had someone asked him?)

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.

What a mixture of misunderstandings and non-sequitur...

Maybe I should mention that, according to the Bible, God's name isn't "God". For that matter, "Allah" isn't a name either, it's the word of the Arabic language for "god". Arabic-speaking Christians use that word, and so do the Maltese. You could say your hypothetical example without touching the 1st Commandment in the least.

Now for the problems I have with the Pledge of Allegiance:

1. Eisenhower's addition of "under God" is unconstitutional. Caledonian is right. He's wrong about a fair number of things, but not about this one.
2. As far as I know, the USA are the only democratic country where such a pledge exists. Elsewhere it's either restricted to soldiers at their initiation ceremony, or it's used by dictatorships to make sure everyone constantly pledges allegiance to whatever the ruling ideology is. I always remember those little Yemeni schoolgirls on TV who, under a flag, shouted in choir things like "Al-Thawra!" (The Revolution) with smiling faces and joy in their eyes. It wasn't creepy -- it was sad.
3. It'd be one thing if it were allegiance to the Constitution (like the oath required of politicians), but no, it's allegiance to the flag. To a symbol. To a piece of cloth. Isn't that a shame?

Stupid me. Yesterday I read that post by Skatje and commented on it. And today I forgot what it says... All hail to the flag salesman.

Please feel free to point one or two of them out, if you have the courage.

Remember our last discussion? I think it's near the bottom of the "No church-going doctors for me, thanks" thread.

Quite well. You demonstrated that you didn't bother to perceive the difference between the right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to happiness, which to my mind is like confusing lightning and a lightning bug.

Well, I just continued that discussion by stating a very simple point. You have misunderstood me -- and if you had explained what you thought my misunderstanding was, instead of just repeating like a broken record that we all didn't understand you, we might all have found that out much earlier.

It's fine with me if you use words like "The only thing that amazes me more about foreigners' ignorance about the US [...]". But you generally leave it at that instead of doing something against that ignorance. This soon makes everyone as angry as you already are.

The problem I have with the Pledge of Allegiance is that it's a pledge of allegiance.

Well said.