Religious Literacy and the Educated Person Today

"You can’t be an educated person today unless you have studied religion. Notice, I didn’t say you had to BELIEVE in religion to be educated"

In contrast, any man can't be considered literate if he doesn't know the true meaning of religion.

The Bible teaches the religion and Jesus himself introduces this to us.

Atheism is illogical and direct insult to Jesus' teachings.

Eloist said:
"What a comfortable Post-Modernist place to be in! I hope you're happy, even if it makes sense only to you: isn't that the meaning of "jibberish"?"

What Bob said makes sense to me. Eloist doesn't argue a logical point against what Bob said, though Post-Modernist certainly does sound authoritative.

Eloist, why not address the point? Each religious group believes its own set of beliefs is the "truth." In each case this view is backed only by the groups own scripture. But, they can't all be true. In the universe of all possible beliefs, all unrooted in evidence, we have no way of knowing which one might even come close to being true. All Bob is saying is that the quicker everyone comes to understand these simple ideas, perhaps through a comparative religion class, the fewer absolutes we'll have to argue about.

What part of that does not make sense to you?

Anne O:

I think I understand what you are saying. Dawkins doesn't have a full grasp of philosophy and theology, so he is not the best commentator on them.

However, I think you must remember that Dawkins is not answering philosophers and theologians, since they already recognise most of the points he makes. Dawkins' comments on Aquinas are based on the way Aquinas' work is appropriated to prove God. Naturally, reading Aquinas properly, it seems more likely that Aquinas is demonstrating why he feels belief in God is rational, not giving a 'proof'. However, Dawkins is much more concerned with the misappropriation of the text which tries to make God a proposal of reason, rather than an object of faith - and he does this quite successfully.

Ann O.

I read what you said carefully. I see reason as the counter to religion, so by your definition he is qualified. You seem to have your own personal gripes about his representation of certain philosophical issues, so perhaps that colors your perception of his ability to handle any topic outside science?

Dear Bob:

What a comfortable Post-Modernist place to be in! I hope you're happy, even if it makes sense only to you: isn't that the meaning of "jibberish"?

I think comparative religious classes should be mandatory for anyone who believes his or her religious belief is somehow more valid or "true" than any other religious belief and pretends to be educated.

The quicker this type of person understands that his or her irrationalism is just as crazy as the next version of religious "truth", the better off all of humanity will be. I also think this particular commentator is a mental lightweight who spews jibberish, issue after issue.

Thank you.

I wrote the anonymous note earlier. I forgot to write my username in. I hate it when that happens.

1) If he views atheism as logical, why does he claim that atheism is only held by people who ignore 'intelligent' ideas?

2) Believers do not have to moral any more than atheists do, and you simply have to look at the statistics for prisoners seving a sentence for murder and other horrible crimes and how many of them hold to religious beliefs to see that believers do not have to be moral.

3) For all the atheists I have met who are very rude, I have also come across many many more theists who are just as rude if not ruder. I have also come across many atheists who are very polite indeed. I am very confused as to how Professor Stevens-Arroyo has failed to come across any polte atheists, but that does not mean that atheists are always impolite (as he seems to conclude).

I get it. I really DO get it. He wants religion treated with respect, but he doesn't want to treat atheism with respect. Atheism and religion have grown up side-by-side and a study of religion is incomplete without an inquiry into the rise of atheism.

Atheism has much to teach religious believers, even those (or perhaps especially those) who do not wish to give up on their religious beliefs. Take Buckley's "At The Origins of Modern Atheism" for example. It is written by a Christian, but it claims that the way Christianity developed into the modern age directly led to the rise in atheism. To study atheism is to understand the difficulties which must be overcome within one's religious tradition. No religious dialogue is as beneficial to religious growth as the dialogue between theists and atheists.

Dear Anonymous:

You don't get it, do you? Here is somebody who views atheism as logical: he said that the atheists he has met don't show believers the same respect. I guess that's because atheists don't have to be moral or forgiving and believers do.

You simply don't get it. It's sad.

Is this the same Professor Stevens-Arroyo who was claiming that atheists are all obnoxious and dogmatic? http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/anthony_m_stevensarroyo/2006/12/atheist_wannabes_vs_agnostic_t.html

Am I to understand that within three months there has been such a drastic change of heart that he is able to understand atheism as a valid position?

Professor Stevens-Arroyo claimed:
"Because they (atheists) are so sure they know everything, they never listen to intelligent people."

How come someone who previously claimed that atheism necessarily involved a complete lack of willingness to engage with information intelligently, is now able to happily accept atheism as the rational conclusion of an education in religion?:
"I can see that AFTER adequate education in religion a person may decide to believe in atheism"

The mind boggles. It really does.

Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315

David,

Legalizing Breeder marriage legitimizes the heterosexual lifestyle. This legitimacy is then used by the heterosexual lobby to then promote their lifestyle in our public schools. If you think I am kidding, all you have to do is check out what has been going on in Massachusetts and the other American states.

David writes: "I am curious about one thing though. How is it that as a heterosexual male [I] have more rights than a homosexual male? It seems that we both have the same right to marry any other person of the opposite gender, save being related to that person."

Answer: David, you are the rich man in the saying "The law in its majesty equally forbids the rich man and the poor man to sleep under the bridges of Paris."

By the way, human beings (gay and straight) do not have lifestyles. They have lives, which are often nasty, brutish and short, and could benefit from some Buddhist and Christian compassion.

ANONYMOUS asks:

Ann O, your thinking baffles me. Why is Dawkins unqualified to talk about reason, as an alternative to superstition? Are those who have trained in religious superstition more qualified to talk about reason?

Hi, Anonymous,

Please read what I said more carefully. I did not say that Dawkins is not qualified to talk about reason. I said he is not qualified to talk about religion. Nor is he qualified to talk about philosophy, since he obviously misrepresents Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God. Since I have no reason to think that Dawkins is dishonest, I assume that he doesn't understand them.

Note carefully: I have NOT said that I think Aquinas' arguments are sound. I simply said that Dawkins has misrepresented them. Since I have no reason to think the man is dishonest and is misrepresenting Aquinas intentionally, I conclude that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

(Here's exactly what I said about him: Sadly, we also find science teachers talking about issues for which they are not qualified, including philosophical and religious issues. Yes, at the moment I'm thinking about Dawkins :-))

Ann O.

First off, I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian marriage" and as such do not know what would be banned or how.

As for how am I affected by two men or two women marrying? This is how, legalizing gay marriage legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle. This legitimacy is then used by the homosexual lobby to then promote their lifestyle in our public schools. If you think I am kidding, all you need to do is check out what has been going on in Massachusets (www.massresitance.org).

As far as Dan Brown Da Vinci's code, he does in fact in the begining of his book that "descriptions of art, documents and rituals are true". So please do not even try to convince me that he does not have an agenda with his book.

I am curious about one thing though. How is it that as a heterosexual male have more rights than a homosexual male? It seems that we both have the same right to marry anyother person of the opposite gender, save being related to that person. Which then asks the question, if two men can marry, can they marry if they are brothers? If not, isn't that discrimination? If they can, then isn't is discrimination if a brother and sister are not allowed to marry?

Jeff wrote: "Tom’s stamp collecting example (or more exactly, non-stamp collecting example) illustrates the ignorant mislabeling of “non-believers” quite eloquently...I wonder if it’s simple logic has sunk in for some."

No. I don't think it has or will for the cultists. The typical cultist has already subjugated their sense and value of logic in order to be a believer. If formal logic was an interest of theirs, they wouldn't be cultists in the first place.

Ann O, your thinking baffles me. Why is Dawkins unqualified to talk about reason, as an alternative to superstition? Are those who have trained in religious superstition more qualified to talk about reason?

PRISCILLA tells us: I do not know how to keep the beliefs or biases of a teacher from overriding the material being presented.

ANN O. replies: I quite agree. And, of course, the less well prepared a teacher is the more likely she/he is to make big mistakes. But it seems to me that even a high school teacher of religion might possibly be taught enough to give students at least a rough idea of the basic tenents of the great traditions -- but they should always make it clear to that students that they are not highly expert in the field.

I also think that one of the things that high school students *ought* to be taught is that their teachers have very limited knowledge of their subjects -- and that would include their teachers ofreligions. The same thing is true to some extent of graduate school teachers who venture into fields which are not their own.

Sadly, we also find science teachers talking about issues for which they are not qualified, including philosophical and religious issues. Yes, at the moment I'm thinking about Dawkins :-)

Ann O.

Hey David:

No one FORECES you to read (or watch) the Da Vinci Code or the Gospel of Judas or anything else for that matter. You have a brain...you are free not to use it. Just don't not use it at my expense (double negative used on purpose just for fun). And no one forces you to marry a man either if you don't CHOOSE to, so why would you care if someone else wanted to? Or do you think it's alright for gays to marry? Surprise me.

David: "I think that the trend today is to try and paint the founding fathers as at best a bunch of agnostics and at worst a bunch of atheists."

To the contrary, I think the trend is for Christians to try to reinvent the founding fathers as a group of dedicated Christian theists just because they make reference to higher powers. Our best evidence from their writings is that many were deists, who would have rejected as folly supernatural aspects of Christianity like "Jesus is the Son of God, and...you are a sinner in need of salvation," and many of whom rejected Chrisianity altogether. Unfortunately for your argument, it is Christians in the past who tried to paint deists as atheists for their tendency to place such strong emphasis on human reason and nature as sources of religious ideals and inspiration.

Hey Christians! Got a question for you!

As long as a lot of issues are being aired here, how about this one?

How would feel about a constitutional amendment banning Christian marriage?

Take a few seconds to actually THINK about it and TRY (if you can) to provide THOUGHTFUL responses only please.

Robert B...

Just because a religion is "major" does not make it valid. Popularity and effective indoctrination are not the same as reflecting reality.

As for any atheist agenda (pro homosexual, etc) there is none. What I and other non-believers see is a system of belief that is at odds with objective reality. It is not necessary that you be pro gay or anything else. All that is required is some courage to actually think.

There are far more atheists out there than you realize - they just don't come out of the closet very often. Teach all the religion you want in churches , temples, and mosques. Compulsory religion classes (I know, just teaching about - as if that's really likely) have no place where there is no real choice.

As long as there is no condition that religions must be respected it is acceptable to study religion. There should be complete freedom of expression when it comes to religion.

To Robert B.-

I understand that you don't believe that Wicca is a major religion in this country; however, there are many Wiccans and other Pagans who are as sincere in their beliefs as any other religious follower (and sad to say, Wicca has within its folds fundamentalists who try to tell other Wiccans how they "should" believe and act) There are also many people who are interested in these earth-based religions for a variety of reasons, and some of these people incorporate some practices into their own. As a Wiccan priestess I encounter these people frequently. I would be quite pleased to see people taught enough about my religion so they would know why I get so upset at being accused of devil worship!

I am sure there are more Wiccans, say, that Taoists, but I would imagine, Robert B., that you might include Taoism in a religious studies curriculum.

I think a valuable component of a religious studies course would include the place of each religion within the greater society, in this country and abroad, including the history or each. The history of Mormonism, for example, shows that a small group of people with seemingly odd beliefs (outside whatever the mainstream believed) perservered as they were driven out of communities, and eventually founded a state and a religion that is today worldwide.

Rastafarianism is a religion not well known outseld cities with West Indian pouplations, yet it is a religion that affects the way its followers conduct their lives, sometimes bringing them into conflict with the mainstream. It would be helpful for American citizensto understand this faith better.

Native Americans in many states have had to seek religious freedom in our court system, yet most of us do not know much about their beliefs - or even, that different tribes and nations have different beliefs.

Perhaps it is more important in some ways to teach about religions other than Christianity, but to teach about the minority faiths and what it says about us as a people in the ways we decide to give these faiths legal protection and social standing. Of course, it would also be instructive to teach about the differences among Christian sects; perhaps we would no longer hear students ask, "Are Catholics Christian?" or "Do Protestants celebrate Christmas?"

Ann O. you make a gret point! I'm taking a college level world civilization course and it would be impossible to understand much of anything that have happened in history without an understnading, not only of the religions of the various players, but of the development of the dogma of each. And I was glad to see your reference to that amazingly enlighted time when Christian (Catholic) and Jewish scholars studied Aristotle with Muslim scholars, setting out the ripples that would profoundly change religious thought incrementally.

It was through learning about Islam and the difference between Sunni and Shiite beliefs, both in history and comparative religion classes, that helped me to understand something of what is happening in the Middle East, and to increase my concern at the course our country is taking there.

I support the teaching ABOUT religion in the school system; I do not know how to keep the beliefs or biases of a teacher from overriding the material being presented. Back in the old days when I was in high school (late 1950s) religion was a component of the World Understandings course (that was history and social studies, combined) for freshmen. One full quarter was spent on the major religions of the world. There was a very careful attempt made not to push one over another, as I recall. I learned enough in that class to have some understanding of other people's beliefs, and gave me a basis from which to develop my own faith.

Many of the people posting in these threads would like to see comparative religion courses in the public schools.

But if the politicians let a religious nose into the tent, what will immediately follow behind will be the big, fat, ugly body of the Christian fundamentalist camel.

Witness the following, which I've been posting all over to alert posters as to what they'll actually get if religious courses are allowed into public schools:

HOT OFF THE WIRE:

"Georgia public schools move towards teaching Bible

"By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 9:16 PM"

ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WAPO TODAY

Notice that no other religion's scriptures are being taught.

Want to bet on whether the classes will have an Episcopal or a Fundamentalist cast to them?

This Georgia law shows exactly why religion should not be taught in the public schools.

ALEX tells us:

I think that learning about religions is a good thing. I'm Jewish (Orthodox), and always passionate about studying up on the Catholic Church, which disturbs many of my friends/family. However, as a history buff, you can't study European History from 300 CE - 1600 CE without a firm understanding of the Catholic Church and it's dogmas. Even more so, Catholics without an understanding of Judaism don't understand where many of their practices come from

Ann O. replies: Hi, Alex. You're so right about ALL of this!! To understand history we must understand dogma. But I think it's also true that to understand dogma we must understand history.

We seem to have the habit of thinking of the major religions as great monolithic things out there like Mount Everest, things that hardly changes at all. But all of the major religions have changed in significant ways, much of the change having been instigated by historical situations. Religions themselves are also historical processes and historical generalizations about them are terribly risky, if even possible.

If religion is to be taught in public schools it seems to me that their *histories* must be emphasized, if only because so many people have so many misconceptions about other people's religions and their effects on the world. For instance, I would imagine that most Christian Westerners think that the Western appreciation of reason/logic/science started with the European Enlightenment, or that at earliest it began in the late middle ages. But in fact Western logic was initially developed thanks to the Muslims and Jews in Spain. They introduced the West to the Greeks, and it was way back in the 11th century that the medieval Europeans started the grand Western march to a rational approach to the world and to science, thanks to the Muslims and Jews.

Complexity, complexity.

Ann O.

David:

I left out one thing: here's my entire agenda.

I want you to keep your religion out of my life and away from my family. And, you need to keep your fingers out of my pockets.

I will do the same.

That's called religious freedom. Frankly, nothing else qualifies.

David:

Please. You're letting the true believer in you tear at your logic.

Dale Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code to make money. He is a professional writer of fiction. He has never climed that his book was anything other then fiction, and,. if you read his earlier books, you can easily see how he got to the Da Vinci Code. Moreover, I'm quite certain that he is a Christian. BTW, he did, in fact, make tens of millions from the book.

We atheists would have no problem if churches were treated the same as non-religious non-profit organizations. Both are currently exempt from income taxes, and most of us would leave that as is. Only churches, however, are exempt from property taxes which requires that secular Americans must subsidize police and fire protection and a host of other public services consumed by churches for free. Moreover, only churches are allowed to build in residential zones even though they are businesses, sometimes large businesses. This special status allows them to purchase land far cheaper than that vailable to any other non-prof which must locate in a commericial zone.

To Jeff -

Are you really so naive as to belive "no "non-believer" I know ever tried make others not believe?" Did you miss "The Da Vinci Code" or last year's "Gospel of Judas"? These are all designed to get people to believe a lie rather than the true Gospel message. If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and if you do not believe that you are a sinner in need of salvation, that is your right. Just don't keep telling me that the atheists don't have an agenda.

Given your opposition to religious groups receiving tax exemptions, I am assuming that you also believe that all non-profit organizations should loose that status? Or is it just the religious groups that you do not want to tolerate?

Tom’s stamp collecting example (or more exactly, non-stamp collecting example) illustrates the ignorant mislabeling of “non-believers” quite eloquently...I wonder if it’s simple logic has sunk in for some.

This god nonsense and the arguments that are used to support it amuse me to no end. Any half-wit can make up all sorts of arguments such as "I believe that pink mice live in the tenth dimension and I need your tax dollars to teach that in schools...and later behead those who don't believe it as well. And prove to me I'm wrong! And since you can't prove I’m wrong, you're a pink mouse agnostic and NOT a pink mouse atheist. So, as such, I’m entitled to special tax treatment, laws that favor my point of view and to persecute you for not believing”. Don’t you “believers” realize this is what you sound like to the rest of us? I guess not.

Really, if people can't understand these simple, simple things and can't reach beyond their programmed simian brains, then this discussion can go nowhere.

And, no "non-believer" I know ever tried make others not believe. Non-believers simply do not want our tax dollars used on behalf of "believers", our schools infested with superstition, our laws written to accommodate proselytizing on behalf of a god that no one can prove exists and, as has happened all to often in the past, to be tortured, persecuted and murdered by believers for not believing. For example, tell me how many doctors have been murdered specifically because they do not perform abortions? Is it really so hard to understand?

To Robert B

As fundamentalist as I am, I would still get a chuckle out of seeing Rev. Falwell's response to the posting of verses from the Qu'ran (now that was not very Christian of me to write). I agree that I do not want to see religion being taught in schools, I do get upset at constinently having the left's anti-God, pro-homosexual, pro-tolerance (that is to say, we need to tolerate their sin but they do not have to tolerate our beliefs) agenda rammed down my son's throat at school everyday.

To David --

OK, I think you and I have been arguing at cross purposes. When you wrote "Christian nation", I interpreted that in the way that we might say that Iran is an "Islamic nation" (that is, a country in which religion determines the laws of the land).

You are correct in saying that the Founders were motivated by Christian principles. However, I tend to think that the "Christian principles" they used are also principles of natural law which can be deduced from reason. So there is really nothing uniquely "Christian" about them.

You are also correct as regards the "wall of separation of church and state" issue (though Jefferson's words really ought to be taken into account as a valid statement of intent). I tend to see the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment as working both ways, though, because I feel it's better for the nation and more in keeping with the Founders' original intent to have Church and state separate, especially nowadays.

In the end, I'm afraid that those people who clamor for religion in the public square really want the "religion of the majority" (that is, Christianity) in the public square. Could you see the collective heart attack that Falwell and company would have if American Muslims wanted some verses of the Qu'ran posted in a courthouse?

To drag this back to education, we need to be honest about how the Founders viewed religion and its place in government. That means, of course, that we can neither paint them as reason-worshipping atheists (we'll save that for the unit on the French Revolution) nor as Bible-thumping theocrats. Instead, we must tell them the truth, that many (if not most) of these men believed in some manner of God, but refused to allow religious fervor to interfere with "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people."

To Robert B

I make no appologies for using Wallbuilders as a reference. Just because they have an agenda does not mean that the information is incorrect. Even you agreed that many of the founding fathers were Christian and that the Bible was a significant reference that they used. I think that the trend today is to try and paint the founding fathers as at best a bunch of agnostics and at worst a bunch of atheists.

I make no claim that the United States IS a Christian country. My point was to show that when this country was founded the guiding principles of our founding fathers where Christian principles. It did not mean to imply that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, however I do see how my comments would lead one to believe that that is what I was saying.

I think that one of the ironies of the First Ammendment is that it was included to keep the government out of the Church rather than keep the Church out of the government. As you are probably aware, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution (or the First Ammendment). Rather it comes from a letter that President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. Here is a quote from their initial letter to Jefferson, followed by his response. As you see, the idea for the wall was to keep the government out of the Church.

"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

Jefferson's respons:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

To David --

And as for your "Wallbuilders" site, might I suggest that you find a less blatantly partisan source for your analysis of American history? Perhaps you should actually look at the source texts themselves...

To David --

OK, so if we are a "Christian nation", why doesn't the oath of office taken by Washington say, "So help me Christ."? For that matter, why does the quote from Washington you cite say "religion" and not "Christianity"? Was Washington, a man of great personal courage, afraid to call a spade a spade in this matter

You also said, "Many of the signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Christian reverends." While this is certainly so, one wonders why the documents they signed are not more overtly Christian, as neither the Declaration nor the Constitution makes any real references to any specific Christian doctrine.

The same goes for the Biblical quotes you claim as evidence. Is it any wonder that the Founders would quote Scripture when it was the one book they were that their audiences would be familiar with? Abraham Lincoln also quoted the Bible in many speeches and yet was not a member of any church.

In the end, David, all you have proven here is that the U.S. was a nation of Christians at the founding, meaning that Christianity was (and remains) the predominant faith. However, your jump from a "nation of Christians" to a "Christian nation" is unfounded.

Yes, the Founders understood (unlike Jim Carr) that religion can be and often is a positive thing. However, they also saw that it could be divisive, which is why the Constitution calls for no religious test of candidates for office. It is instructive to note that in 1797, President John Adams (who was arguably one of the most traditionally Christian of the Founders) signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which has this to say about the infant United States' religious affiliation:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Please note that this is not one man's opinion, but an official statement ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by a chief executive who was one of the architects of the American government.

There is plenty of evidence that shows the United States was originally a Christian country. If you look at the very early school books, most of the primary readers (reading books) contained numerous quotes from the New Testament. Many of the signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Chrstian Reverends. Also, if you analyze the the available writings of the founding fathers you realize that the single most often quoted book is the Bible, quoted more than 3 times as often as any other source. If you are interested I suggest you read George Washington's Farwell Address and you will see just how Christian this country was. One of the more famous quotes from this address is:

"Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=12

The problem is that I do not need to go back to school, rather our schools need to go back and actually teach what about how this country was founded, and stop teaching revisionist history.

It is amazing that the author would be so dismissive of "non-belief" as to drool the following drivel:

"On the flip side, atheistic education seems to easily fall into the trap of using dismissive slogans like “religion is the chief cause of war,.....”

When the fact is that the BEST arguments FOR religion are much lamer than any of the sophomoric examples he lists as week arguments for atheism.
Likewise, there are many more serious and valid arguments against religion than he lists here.

Who is being dismissive?

Jim Carr,

Interesting that you talk about "mind numbing effects of organized religion" and "enslavement", but clearly don't want kids to truly be exposed to religion (except in the vitriolic negative). I guess you're all for being open-minded as long as someone shares your view ...

As far as "insurrection against anyone who tries to ram their arcane beliefs ... with public funding" -- we see inumerable cases of states, districts, and/or teachers ramming their arcane, bizarre beliefs (many of them specifically anti-religious) with LOTS of public funding.

Based on your view that we should abolish tax exempt status for churches based on what they teach, I'd think you'd support removing tax exempt (nay, tax funded) status on many schools that teach all manner of rubbish, pseudo-science, and political clap-trap.

Jim

To Jim Carr --

Unfortunately, Jim, your approach would basically doom whatever truth is left in history curricula across the nation. Perhaps if you used that reason that anti-theists like yourself are so fond of touting, you would actually see that religion has actually accomplished some good in the 5000 years of human history.

Then again, that would be asking you to challenge your own preconceptions...

I agree, we should teach about religion in public schools.
We should teach that religion is the most destructive force known to humanity.
We should also teach our kids independent thought and that the mind numbing effects of organized religion will lead to their enslavement or demise.
We should teach them that they have the right to mount an insurrection against anyone who tries to ram their arcane beliefs up our asses with public funding, violent insurrection if need be.
We should teach them that the neo-cons who are pushing this subject are the same ideologues that we left Europe to escape and subsequently fought at home during the Revolutionary war.
We should teach them that the only encroachment we should allow on the separation of church and state is the abolition of their tax exempt status. After all, why should everyone have to pay taxes on the income they generate through their own hard work, unless of course you generate your income by lying about the nature of the universe, spreading myths about our destiny, and claim a closer connection to divinity than the rest of us enjoy. Yes folks, they are ALL snake oil salesmen selling an arcane fable.

To "A Teacher" --

You wrote, "I have no problem with public schools teaching ABOUT the basic beliefs of the different religions in a comparative religions section of social studies-- as long as each religion is given an equal amount of time and a very basic summary of beliefs, history, etc."

Though I would generally agree with this statement, I don't think that it would be efficient to spend a month on Christianity and then a month on, say, Wicca. No offense to Starhawk or any other Wiccans, mind you, but major religions are just, well, major...

To David --

"the United States of America was originally unashamedly a Christian country founded on Christian principles."

Perhaps you should go back to school, David. Or do you have evidence to back up your claim?

"...The problem in teaching religion is that it is virtually impossible to avoid introducing one’s own judgments into the classroom. I come to this conclusion from my experience, which despite 26 years of professional engagement, is neither complete nor perfect. It requires great personal discipline, a measure of humility, a rigorously logical methodology and an openness to truth just to survive a semester teaching religion in the classroom.

Fortunately, religion is not the only subject encountering such pitfalls. How, for instance, teach about slavery or the Holocaust without introducing personal judgments?..."

How do you dare?!? What, in heaven, kind "of personal judgement" do you need to teach about the Holocaust?!? How do you dare to compare it to a real personal belief in something, that is NOT PROVEN!?! Shame on you. Back to school, Professor. On the right side of the schoolbenches. Disgusting.

I just realized one of the biggest reasons that many people do not want any religion taught, even if it is in the context of Social Studies or History. And that is because we would then be teaching kids that the United States of America was originally unashamedly a Christian country founded on Christian principles.

I have no problem with public schools teaching ABOUT the basic beliefs of the different religions in a comparative religions section of social studies-- as long as each religion is given an equal amount of time and a very basic summary of beliefs, history, etc. I agree that usually people will find they have more in common than different, and that understanding the different religions will help us understand history. As a teacher, after 9/11 I saw so many students refer to Muslims as "towel heads" and say how we should just kill them all (this, at a Christian school that allowed no place for comparative religions whatsoever). This is what happens when we leave the responsibility of teaching about religion simply to parents--the media--which gets more viewers when it is biased, terrifying, and spewing hatred--ends up doing it. I am firmly of the belief that while I may believe something to be the absolute truth and know it in my heart, the person next to me may feel the exact same way about something different. The goal, then, is not to try and change others, but to inform them of the facts, "Some groups believe this...Most believe this...This belief led this country to do this" etc., and let people come to their own conclusions. While I consider myself to be Christian, I have no problem with people believing other things (or not believing anything). As long as we don't push our beliefs onto others, but simply present them as what they are ("beliefs" rather than claiming "Truth"), I think religions could be taught ABOUT in public schools.

John:

It is not true that teaching sex ed has been stopped. In fact in Massachsetts they will not even allow parents to opt their children out of many "diversity" classes. Mindy, the term diversity is being very selectively used. Diversity does not mean that they are interested in differing opinions, especially if the opinion is in anyway Christian based. And tolerance only extends to those who are politically protected. So my question is if it is okay to teach that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality then what is the problem with teaching about the 10 commandments?

I do not believe in any of the organized religions. I was raised in the RC faith, but no longer practice or believe it. Neither do I believe any of the Christian doctrines as taught by the major religions. As such, I do not want my children subjected, taught, instructed, or in any other way brought in contact with the topic of religion, expecially in a public school where I have NO idea of the viewpoint of the teacher and their prejudices. If accommodations can be made so that my children can be removed from this indoctrination, then I'm fine. If not, I would probably bring a lawsuit to stop the school from teaching my kids their brand of mythology. Lawsuits have stopped sex ed, and they will stop this nonsense.

There seems to be some confusion about what atheism and agnosticism actually are. I don't expect the average Joe to know all of the various delineations, but it's amazing that our so-called expert here is so clueless.

Perhaps these links will help to educate.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html
http://www.iwriteiam.nl/GEm_ag.html

I think that learning about religions is a good thing. I'm Jewish (Orthodox), and always passionate about studying up on the Catholic Church, which disturbs many of my friends/family. However, as a history buff, you can't study European History from 300 CE - 1600 CE without a firm understanding of the Catholic Church and it's dogmas. Even more so, Catholics without an understanding of Judaism don't understand where many of their practices come from (many Christians of all stripes have no idea that the Christmas/New Years calendar placement is not a coincidence, but to make New Years the celebration of circumcision of Jesus -- or why Good Friday is important, because Jews commemorate the anniversary of death, not birth)... Most of my Jewish friends dipped our Challah in salt without knowing why other than its a custom, but a Catholic friend of mine joining us on Shabbat pointed out the establishment of "Old Testament" guest rights with the combination of bread and salt.

Believers will enhance their beliefs (and see the massive similarities as you point out) by learning different religions. Since Catholic traditions stem from Judaic or Roman sources, they shed tremendous light on Jewish practices, and Christians will gain tremendous insights into their belief structures by understanding the Judaic thoughts on the source material for their faith. The past two millennium were dominated by Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant schisms and disagreements defining culture, and the current world is showing a split between a Jewish/Protestant Alliance vs a Islamic alliance vs an Orthodox (Russian) split, with semi-neutral Catholics... not understanding the religions of these areas means not understanding the cultural assumptions made by these groups...

You can't understand Israel's actions without understanding Jewish thought that govern's Israel's right-wing and German Protestant-influenced thought that govern's Israel's secular left-wing, so learning these schools of though is important for anyone to be educated.

muddlin thru,

Do you suppose that not collecting stamps is a hobby also?

Actually, treating "all religion as 'superstitious baggage'" DOES help "advance a sound understanding of religion." The niceties of ethical behavior and community that are sometines associated with religion can quite nicely be had via humanism. It is the core superstitious baggage and resulting behaviors that truly make religion dangerous -- and therefore something we need to soundly understand. Calling a spade a spade is a good start.

I like the post and agree that teaching about religion in schools is a good thing...NOT teaching religion. BUT this should not be mandated for the reasons stated earlier. As an Atheist simple I always say, Truth does not require Faith....Truth is self evident, verifable and constant.

Jeff - it seems to me, though I'm not one myself, that atheism IS a belief - strongly enough believing in "no god" to put that forward as truth. Agnosticism, since it literally "doesn't know", is not a belief, and neither is the nonbelief of the many folks who simply don't give a hoot about religion. Atheism, OTOH, believes firmly enough to preach.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo:

There is no such thing as "faith in non-religion". That statement clearly shows your limited capacity for understanding of others who do not "believe". People who do not believe in superstition (e.g. religion) do not have or need "faith". We are our own masters. How can you speak of having an "educated world view" if this simple concept escapes you?

"I can see that AFTER adequate education in religion a person may decide to believe in atheism, but that person should be supplied with the necessary evidence for making this decision rather than having it imposed by elitist faculty or anti-religious school boards."

This is the single most screwed up sentence I've read in a long time.

Belief in lack of belief? Um, ok.

Now, you seem to be saying that atheism is a belief system like no other and is, therefore, essentially a faith-based religion. How then could there ever be an anti-religious school board?

No wonder you don't meet atheists you like. I doubt many of them would put up with your mush-headed nonsense for very long.

Elohist

People may think those things, actually it would be a recognizable caricature of my own thinking, but it is not something that is explicitly taught in public schools. Also, you might be interested to know that the Soviet Union has not existed for some time now.

But more to the point, would you really like to see K-12 education in religion that treats all religions as equally valid or as mere objects for historical and literary study? Based on the kinds of things you have posted up to now, my guess is that you would find that pretty objectionable and I can understand the feeling. It really is a bad idea, and would be very difficult for most teachers assigned the job.

Gee Ba'al,, you can find statements like "science has refuted religion" and "religion is the chief cause of war" on this website. People taking liberties at US schools to ridicule religious beliefs happens everyday -- and in the Soviet Union as well. Seems to me that there are a lot of caricatures going around, including ones on these blogs.

And Brian W.: he also wrote that "there must be some out there." So what's your problem? Lots of the atheists on this blog write nasty things about believers. It's called life: get used to it. I personally like somebody with spunk instead of this liberal, feel good stuff.

Just keep in mind that Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo also wrote in an earlier essay that he's never met an atheist he could like:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/anthony_m_stevensarroyo/2006/12/atheist_wannabes_vs_agnostic_t.html

Eye. Mote. Plank.

By all means teach religion fully at colleges and universities and at private schools that want to.

But no mandated religion courses, and preferably none at all, in public schools, for the reasons stated by many posters in all of these threads.

I agree with much of what is in the first half of Professor Stevens-Arroyo's essay. But then he contends that "atheistic education seems to easily fall into the trap of using dismissive slogans like “religion is the chief cause of war,” or “modern science has completely refuted the basic tenets of religion,” or “the cosmonaut flew into outer space and God wasn’t there.”"

That is a straw man that doesn't exist anywhere I have ever been in my 45 years spent at publicly funded educational institutions in the United States.

If he is referring to what happened in the Soviet Union, it might be true, I was never there, and you might find similar things said about Christianity and Judaism at public schools in Saudi Arabia.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo is at his best when he avoids arguing with caricatures.