Teach Our Children Well

I just finished listening to your conversation on CCTV 9, on Dialogue, I do appreciate all of your discussion regarding religion vs Atheism in US,. I do believe that most of the people that you had clarified that have no religion actually. And all depend on the person.
I do just wonder people who said thathe or she believes in God but does something athat against his or her believe, what would we mark them?
And I also wonder if people have religion who can do evin things and hoe much more with the peole that have none, and what leads them to do good and bad in their lives?
Thanks prof Daniel and I hope that your book can reach in our place here in the phil and for sure I will have it as my best review in my life journey....
more power..
God bless

I endorse Dennett’s plea. I watched my own kids and their friends grow up with compulsory religious education in their English schools. Yes, it was heavily biased towards Christianity. Yes, some of their teachers were obviously believers in one faith. Yes, there were all kinds of problems, but the simple fact was they learned to treat religion like anything else – something you learn about, moan about, and criticise in school. And exposed to the principles, practices and effects of even a few of the major religions, even the dimmest child seemed to enjoy working out that they cannot all be true.
Being made to compare one religion with another is a sure way to weaken the power of all of them.

Professor Dennett;

I am a fan of your work and an atheist, who believes that if the influence of religion diminished this would be a better world. But I have grave concerns about your proposal.

You dismiss the charge of utopianism rather lightly. Politicians are always making promises of processes that will do good, as intended and not harm or though mission creep be turned to bad ends. Given that experience, what models would you point to that the process you describe would work?

You remind us that children are not their parent's slaves, but you seem to imply that children are the government's slaves, from which not even the parents can offer protection.

The parents too, in your scheme are the government's slaves, forced to instruct their children against their will in what the government decides.

I find it insidious that you describe forcing home-schoolers to use your curriculum. It strikes me that homogenous control from afar is exactly what such people are looking to avoid. By pursuing those fleeing the system with compulsion within the home you are only exacerbating the unease over the politics of education.

Do you really think that being shot or imprisoned is a just reprimand for refusing your program? If not, then you had probably better choose an institution other than government for implementing it, political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

You use the word libertarian to describe your proposal, you should look more deeply into what it means. It isn't about compulsion but its opposite. Liberty means being able to live your life as you see fit. It means being able to make your own choices, not having them made for you. Sharing a burden may be equality but it isn't liberty. Being compelled to do what's right may make you better off, but not more free.

While your proposal may not seem outlandish by modern standards it is repugnant to the principles behind limited government. Atheism may be enjoying a surge, if not of numbers then at least a respectability not seen since the 19th century--but there are no guarantees that it will last forever. Your proposal, aside from possibly helping to tame religion also involves expanding the power of government, if not into novel channels, then by widening those inroads against local, family, and non-governmental institutions (yes, including churches) that already exist. When the personal lives and minds of the community are understood as at the disposal of the reigning majority not much remains as a bulwark to preserve freedom of conscience.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want to educate my own children about the world's religions, but as a free human being give me some credit for being able to judge what information is good enough to use. Give me some credit for being able to judge truth. Don't propose to fine me or throw me in jail, or shoot me if I resist imprisonment if I decide that there is an error on the test and teach my kid something the committee doesn't think is true.
In fact, give me some credit for knowing when, and where to teach about religion.

I'm not saying don't talk about this, and I'm not saying not to try to get that kind of information out there to kids, but you need to think more creatively about the right way to do it. You can't just reach for the power to compel and invent new crimes. Its wrong, and some of the consequences could be very bad indeed. You might try working through the university, require it as part of entrance. Create the curriculum and offer it as a choice, speak and write encouraging people to consider a lack of broad understanding of religion a mark of ignorance. But don't use force or you may find some people violently angry for what you have imposed on them.

The greatest difficulty that using other methods really presents for the program is that it isn't really education. Its a social engineering effort.

I'm sure the curriculum would be of great use to many, in sharpening their critical thinking, providing historical and cultural perspective and perhaps spurring creativity. It may facilitate interaction with people from other cultures. It isn't being proposed on that basis though. People who value education for its own sake already find such learning valuable, but it doesn't itself serve the basic functions education is supposed to serve.

It doesn't itself produce literacy or numeracy. It isn't itself a course in critical thinking or rhetoric. It isn't itself history or social science. And it won't itself be needed to properly perform a job or earn a living.
It may be conceived of as a new kind of literacy of the mind, but so might a psychology curriculum.

And of-course, were it really education in any of these common senses it would be easy to recommend for its own sake, or to convince people to require, but since it is not, it functions not as education but social control.

Therefore your proposal that it be required education is itself mission creep--by requiring it as compulsory through the education system that system is taking on the role not of educating children, but engineering society. And your rhetoric about allowing parents to keep their children ignorant is mere propaganda.

I suspect, and seriously hope that you were joking and that you will take my response to heart and retract your proposal.

I think it makes TOTAL sense. We need to get the word out. I LOVED this article and your idea.
I could not agree more. I will teach my children what we believe in or were raised with. BUT I don't have a problem at all with teaching them about others. It would keep them open minded and I truly believe it would be a kinder world.

It just makes sense!

Glad I came by this link by accident. Thanks

A modest proposal indeed. I suggest that as well as teaching our children about religion generically and the history and ideas of specific religions, we should also teach them about all those things that religion claims to be and to deliver, but isn't and doesn't. There is a bigger higher broader framework of meaning and purpose in which all belief systems including religion as well as "science" as well as metaphysics can be amicably encompassed without having to deny each other. Lack of space in this comment box prevents a detailed explanation but anyone who is interested can check out my metaphysical mumbo jumbo blog at http://metaphysics-srs.blogspot.com/. Key concepts include: Everything is relative, Everything That Is is alive and well and living in the gestalt, consciousness is an property emerging from complexity (and what could be more complex than the whole of reality?)

rbmleanf qxwfsgyb jypgcbnk lwztu pihys fuxq aenvbwlj [URL]http://www.jqycoh.ugjvqnc.com[/URL] gxsehr qgzhcjny

iszrompe xuevlaq rcylsmnqi sgbwrip uhetip nigtby xntb [URL=http://www.cwfr.wbtju.com]lqpyixnv cqtwsvmze[/URL]

puoafjq diplhvfa iqcnvzx mpyjhurz kbls frauwc yqscion

I love the ideal idea here. However, I truly cannot imagine anything close ever coming to fruition. An initial thought is that at least in the public schools, a dearth of teachers is already present. This change would scare some potential ones away I'm sure. Teacher shortages are never a good situation for educating. Another thought is that it is difficult for teachers to sift their own beliefs out from their teaching, even with the survey nature of a course in world religions. We are who we are, and teachers are generally encouraged to bring their true selves into their teaching. Some may find it difficult to present objectively on matters they may view quite subjectively. It is regrettable but, I suspect, realistic that this could never be. "Informed choice"... what a concept. I share in your dream.

England already has a religious education requirement. We should learn from their experience when building our own program.

More info here: http://tinyurl.com/2tnllk

I have always enjoyed your work Dr. Dennett. To those of you who are debating just how to exectute such a program of public education and welcome religion in schools . . . I chuckle. In my humble opinion, the good doctor knows full well that implementing such a program would be impossible for all the reasons mentioned in this message thread. Indeed, I thought of his suggestion as being somewhat toungue-in-cheek. He knows full well that when all the conflicting, implausible, grotesque facts of religion are shown and compared, any thinking person will see a supernatural worldview as . . . well . . silly. While there is great value in broad understanding of religion's place in culture and history; this program would create more atheists than anything else. Were it possible, I would be all for it!!

FVThinker.blogspot.com

Dear Professor Dennett

Your thoughts are brilliant and they have been portrayed wonderfully! I look forward to the day the curriculum you suggest, in a realistic format, will become a reality in the US. Any positive change in the US after all has a direct bearing on the rest of the world. Peace loving Muslims around the world need to be treated with the respect they deserve, and religious education will go a long way in making that possible. People of all religious faiths should become more aware of what they have in common rather than what divides them. Teaching religion is a concrete step towards creating peace in the world. And of course it would help reduce the fear believers have of atheists. Faith in God after all cannot be forced on anyone, and atheists will always be around.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

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

Teaching about religion in a course on comparative religion would be a real benefit. The problem, of course, is doing it in a way that is truly open and objective without provoking a reaction from believers who will fear that objective criticism is an attack on them.

Like Mr. Mark says above, the problem is getting to the point where we can do that.

The Catholic Church, as well as any other religious institution for that matter, does not actively encourage the spread of AIDS, but their policy opposing condoms, achieves the same result. If the church really wanted to stop the spread of AIDS, they would advocate any method that actually works, whether it conflicts with their orthodoxy or not. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The same thinking results in abstinence-only sex education in the United States, on the assumption of the religious that talking about condoms encourages sex. For this reason, places like Midland, Texas - where high school students take vows of celibacy - has one of the highest rates of STD’s and out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the country, compared to places where sex education encompasses all options (including abstinence) If the residents of Midland really cared about their kids, they would use any method to address this problem, but ideology prevents them.

Kornelia - Mr Mark: Thanks again. But spellcheck..I am oldfashioned. I rather learn to spell and keep thinking for myself. Or learn to be patient enough to check...

Do yourself a favor and spell-check, otherwise it really does make you look uneducated. You can just use spell-check to find the misspellings, and then look up the correct spelling. Also, we often misspell because of typing mistakes.

Sincerely wrote:
@Mr. Mark,

"Just because "Thou shalt not commit adultery" doesn't make it to the news (e.g., "The Pope reaffirms that fornication still falls under the deadly sin of lust") as much as contraception does NOT mean that the Church's position on the matter has changed in the last two centuries.

"Get real. To say that the Church us actively encouraging the spread of AIDS in Africa is no more legitimate that to say that the Democrats are actively encouraging the spread of terrorism. Both are false. But the argument is equivalent. Your ideology is blinding you to basic logic."

Here's an article I just found of the website Catholic News:

Church in Africa continues AIDS fight without condoms

Catholic leaders in Africa have pledged to step up their involvement in the fight against the AIDS pandemic, while continuing to reject the use of condoms to fight the disease.

"The church says one must be faithful in marriage and save oneself for marriage," said Senegal Bishop Alexandre Mbengue. "We cannot cave in to the current trend."

According to the UN agency UNAIDS sub-Saharan Africa is hardest hit by AIDS, being home to more than two-thirds of those infected with HIV worldwide - 29.4 million out of 42 million.

Congo's Kinshasa Archbishop Dominique Bulamatari said: "Using condoms as a means of preventing AIDS can only lead to sexual promiscuity."

However Nigeria's AIDS Alliance head Farouk Mohammed claims he has observed a softening of the church's position in the fight against AIDS.

"Excluding condom use, to which the church is still opposed, it is involved now in building awareness in and mobilising its members," he said.

A few minority voices among African church leaders condone condom use and urge Africa's Catholics to change their way of thinking to bring it more into line with the times.

"The condom is a stopgap, a lesser evil, but not the solution," said the bishop of Port Louis, Mauritius, Maurice Piat.

"The church's preachings are not about condoms, but about the urgency of fighting AIDS," he added, urging that the battle against the killer disease be waged "not with rubber, but with human resources."

http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/53.php

So let me get this straight: condoms are the best method we currently have to stop the spread of aids. The catholic church doesn't allow its representatives to consider this an option in Africa, so they're not helping to spread aids by witholding the most-effective deterent we have?? And as I pointed out before, the Catholic Church is against condom use among married couples as well. Married couples contract aids as well, and not always through extra-marital sex. What don't you understand about Dennett's point?

BTW - I'm a lifelong Democrat myself. I never voted for Bush, so how could anyone accuse me of supporting a terorist? In fact, I actively tried to suppress the activities of that particular terrorist by voting against him.

@Mr. Mark,

Thanks for demonstrating that it is impossible to present facts in an impartial manner.

Just because "Thou shalt not commit adultery" doesn't make it to the news (e.g., "The Pope reaffirms that fornication still falls under the deadly sin of lust") as much as contraception does NOT mean that the Church's position on the matter has changed in the last two centuries.

Get real. To say that the Church us actively encouraging the spread of AIDS in Africa is no more legitimate that to say that the Democrats are actively encouraging the spread of terrorism. Both are false. But the argument is equivalent. Your ideology is blinding you to basic logic.

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!

Sincerely wrote:
"@Mr. Mark,

"The relative stringency of the Catholic position on the two subjects (however immaterial to the point I was making) can be verified as follows (snip - "ask a priest")"

My question was directed at finding out the doctrine of the Church. They do take positions on such things. I really don't care if an individual priest chooses to bend the rules in defiance of offical Church doctrine.

Dennet made the statement: "the role of the Catholic Church in spreading AIDS in Africa through its opposition to condoms". Your reaction was, "Say what?" Well, if the Catholic Church has a doctrine against condom use across the board and makes no exception to that doctrine, even if doing so would mean stemming the spread of HIV through any and all sexual contact, then there is no "say what" about it. Dennet is correct - the Church is actively encouraging the spread of AIDS in Africa by refusing to sanction the use of condoms - a proven agent for halting the spread of AIDS - during sex, mongamous, married-couple sex or not.

That is why I asked the questions of you above. Anecdotal evidence from a few parish priests is hardly a counter to an official Church position.

@Mr. Mark,

The relative stringency of the Catholic position on the two subjects (however immaterial to the point I was making) can be verified as follows:

Visit your local Catholic Church, and make an appointment to see the priest. Take him out for a coffee/beer, and in the course of the conversation ask the following question: "in the opinion of the church, which is worse: having contraceptive sex with my wife, or unprotected sex with my married neighbor?" In case you are unconvinced, repeat the experiment at the next parish. Continue as necessary. By the end of the exercise, every priest you've met will agree with Dr. Dennett that more religious education is necessary in the schools. ;-)

No, Eric, sorry: The constitution you put your trust in is under attack: You have got in your supreme court a bench full of more or little less true believers - in the benefit of "religious foundations" of your country!

Mr Mark: Thanks again. But spellcheck..I am oldfashioned. I rather learn to spell and keep thinking for myself. Or learn to be patient enough to check...

Kornelia wrote:
"Sorry for all the embarrassing spelling-mistakes"

A common problem here. Would that On Faith would invest in a spellcheck for this blog!

At times, I have composed my screeds in a Word doc specifically to run a spell check before posting on the web. That allows my opponents to say, "he's an idiot...but at least he knows how to spell."

Sometimes a small victory is the best we can hope for...

This is the perfect response to the idea of teaching religion in school. It deliciously turns around the argument by the intelligent design folks of, “ teach all the ideas and let the kids figure it out for themselves.” This approach would reveal religions for what they are; intellectually bankrupt superstitions. Dr Dennett’s approach is the only reasonable response to teaching religion in schools for a democracy that constitutionally guarantees the freedom of religion (or non-religion). It should scare the pants off any religious zealot that wants to wedge their particular view into an already packed curriculum.

I hope the folks in Georgia vote to bring religion into public schools. However, opening a real inquiry into the nature of religious belief is probably the last thing that they want.

Sorry for all the embarrassing spelling-mistakes: it sure should be prevent, stop, not pretent...
Where is the civil society to prevend that introducing (desireable) knowledge about religion into the sphere of public schools opens the door to majority-relgion believes beeing taught as fact in science-classes?

Re: Sincerely wrote:
" last check, The Catholic church condemned extra-marital sex in more stringent terms that it condemns the use of condoms."

Sorry, I got distracted and didn't include the following thought in my last post:

I am under the impression that the Catholic Church has a stricture against condom use that effects married couples just as much as those using condoms in the act of extra-marital sex. There are many ways a person can contract HIV that have nothing to do directly with having sex. If you're married and monogamous, you can still get HIV from your life partner. A condom could prevent the spread of the disease...unless your church has an anti-condom policy.

--Thank you, Mr Mark. So I took the urls out. As it is all about faith, you simply have to believe me. But why proof is reason to hold things back is another blog...--

Once again: a society, a country beeing build on that set of minds, laws?, would be worth to fight for.
But where do you start?

Reading newspapers, only from today, does not make me feel very optimistic about Prof. Dennet´s suggestions:

- In California someone complains about the „proliferation“ of the Evolution-Theory in schoolbooks and he does mean to compare it to a weapon of Mass destruction. (url taken out)
Someone else calles it „promulgated by junk-science“ and re-defines Jefferson(url ..) A PR-newswire announces a 2 day conference about „scientific evidence“ for Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Darwin at a university campus in Dallas/Texas(url..) A small town in Arizona gets to read that meanwhile even a lot of scientists admitt evolution „requires a lot of faith“. (...)

- One of the biggest (if not the biggest) distributors of newpapaer-articles/opinions still sees no reason to drop Ann Coulter (Universal Press Syndicate, reported by ...), who makes a living out of preaching pure hate of others, including other religions.

- In Kansas a lawmakers, the republican Senator Rob Mayer, tries to bent/spoil the separation of church and state one futher twist (...) and obviously the Senate has it first-step-approved.

- The Seattle Times reports: „The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has been denying surviving family members the right to have a Wiccan pentacle, and possibly other religious symbols, placed on the grave markers of deceased soldiers who were their husbands or wives, sons or daughters....“(...)

- Kentucky. The invocation of the House of Representatives is reported about in (..). There it says, I quote the newspaper: „ "We confess that we must rely upon You -- your sovereignty, your providence and your wisdom," he prayed. "Lord help us to once again look to You for wisdom in every circumstance, for your Word. Forgive us as we have turned from You and rebelled against your ways. I pray that every decision that is considered and made by this body be submitted to You as the sovereign creator." The Capitol is not God's house. He is not sovereign there. The people are. ...What's needed, I think, is some measure of restraint, some reasonable concession to the fact that state government is not a theocracy -- a decent respect for those who have been elected to help run government but do not share the basic religious faith that most members of the General Assembly profess. „

- Bangor. Native americans obviously have to sue if they want to have their religious freedom while they are in prison.(...) „Indians are the only group of people in this country whose religious ceremonies were outlawed by the federal government, she said.“ So the articles says.

-Associated Press, just in: „ ATLANTA: Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the southern state the first in the U.S. to take an explicit stance endorsing — and funding — biblical teachings. ...“ (...) The reason for doing so is cited: „Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams, the Republican who sponsored the plan, said the Bible plays a major role in history and is important in understanding many classic literary works.“

- Jerry B. Jenkins, the co-writer of the bloodspreading-and-enjoying-it novels of the LeftBehind-series is invited to hold speeches about the art of writing in colleges! (...)
Left Behind/the books has sold more than 63 millions of copies.
Left Behind/the law calls for educational standarts that every student shall be proficient in by 2014.
I wonder what those standarts are going to be, if there will not be a chance of leadership first.

So, to make my point al last:
Like I said befoe: i would love to live in a county where every religion is treated equally, and also the absent of relgion, atheists.
But like with democracy in toto, the democratic, rightfull, equal handling of this matter in a system is only so trustworthy and working as the people are to handle it.
The schoolsystem, as far as I understood it, is already under attack: schoolboards cancel evolution and not only churches, also lawmakers support it; judges, who come to conclusions about „religious matters“ are under fierce attack (Judge Jones is, as I read, ridicueled as a -sorry - furting monkey for his ID trial findings) and needed, though briefly, bodyguards; the Texas GOP has written into it´s statutes that creationism should be taught in public schools - and so for years - and still gets voted for..

Where is the civil society to pretend that introducing (desireable) knowledge about religion into the sphere of public schools opens the door to majority-relgion believes beeing taught as fact in science-classes?
As long as a moral-majority and not a ethical-majority is the one to go to elections/to be elected, can you dare to open the gate and risk to pave the way for bad intentions?

For me, as a like you will have guessed: an outsider, an european, it is the unbeatable top of cynism to have activists from the Storm-Thurnbold-charishing Christian-Rhight to „defend“ the term „Civil-Rights-Movement“from beeing used in the context of gay-rights-activism. How much lower can it go? As long as people have, unpunished, this kind of tactical relationship to a civil society - can you dare NOT to defend Jefferson with every fiber of your soul... if need be even, dear Daniel C. Dennet, with naming every child like him, just to set a sign???
Aren´t you afraid of the lions? Not for yourself, for the kids who will be the first beeing exposed!
(P.S. Still, I do hope, the „C“ stands for Ceasar...)

Sincerely wrote:
"last check, The Catholic church condemned extra-marital sex in more stringent terms that it condemns the use of condoms."

Can you provide proof that the above statement is a fact? What, exactly, is the measure used to determine "more stringent?" A link to a Catholic-informed website will do nicely.

Thanks.

Kornelia wrote:
"What a pity - I tried to post a second-thought comment, but get the message "is hold for approval of the owner". Can anybody explain to me, why? I did not insult anybody nor did I use any lies!"

That's happened to me as well. Did your post contain links to more than one url? I've had posts sequestered for this reason and they never make it to the board. On other occasions, I've had posts derailed for no apparent reason.

It may be a random event. On Faith isn't exactly the most tech-savvy blog out there.

E favorite wrote:
"Mr. Mark - you say" I prefer that religious instruction be kept in the churches and out of our schools.'

"I ask you to please consider that the religious "instruction" currently in churches is only about one religion, taught be active proponents of that religion and is the only way church members receive any formal information about religion.

"Religion "courses" in schools would be of comparative religions - teaching people ABOUT RELIGION, not how to BE RELIGIOUS.

"It's a can of worms, I agree, but one I think needs to be opened at some point, lest so many of us continue living with misinformation and ignorance about such an enduring and important topic."

Indeed, it is a can of worms.

Obstacle #1 is deciding at what age such religious studies would be introduced. Currently, religion takes a hold of people's lives through early indoctrination. It's easy to get kids excited about Xianity when they're focussed on the little baby Jesus...and his connection to all those toys the receive at Xmas. In the early years, religion is presented as a wonderful extension of a parent's love - god loves you and watches over you like a big baby sitter/parent in the sky; when you die, you'll be with him forever, and you'll also be reunited with all your family members and even your dog Barkey who was run over by that truck that Satan was driving that awful day.

I'm quite certain that parents and clergy would fight tooth and nail to keep such comparative religious studies out of the elementary schools, and they would have a point: kids at that age don't have the capacity to effectively navigate the nuances and philosophical hurdles of religion. If such teaching is left until middle or high school, the fight is against the indoctrination they've received in those early years. At this point, most religious types would fight a comparative course as being "an attack on our beliefs."

On the other hand, if religious parents knew that comparative religious courses were a reality of a kid's coursework at their school, it might lead parents and churches to start laying the groundwork in their teachings. Instead of the Lutherans learning only about Lutherans, they might receive some instruction on how Lutherans differ from Catholics and Methodists. As the child ages, maybe some instruction is given in the differences between Islam and Xianity, so that when the kid finally reaches middle or high school and the religious studies move from the safety of the religious school to the public forum, the comparitive studies aren't such a shock to the belief system.

I guess the problem is getting there. You're right, we need to start somewhere. Let's just not delude ourselves - the "starting somewhere" phase could last 50 years, at least if we look to the civil rights struggle as an indicator of what it takes to change people's entrenched views in this country.

What a pity - I tried to post a second-thought comment, but get the message "is hold for approval of the owner". Can anybody explain to me, why? I did not insult anybody nor did I use any lies!

As a Christian, I welcome Dr. Dennett's clarion for "informed choice". I even applaud it. The trick is that the politicization of truth and facts is the rule rather than the exception.

Take, for example, one mentioned above: "the role of the Catholic Church in spreading AIDS in Africa through its opposition to condoms". Say what? (fair disclosure: I am not a catholic, and use birth control) -- last check, The Catholic church condemned extra-marital sex in more stringent terms that it condemns the use of condoms. But I've *never* seen anyone willing to give them any credit for limiting the spread of AIDS on that basis.

If you see the irony, my point is made. If you don't, my point is even stronger!

Dear Daniel C. Dennett,

how much would I love to live in a country where your suggestions would be possible!! Only...
But on the other side: You have a dream...
That IS worth fighting for!
Thank you.

Daniel Dennett wrote:
"If you have to hoodwink–or blindfold–your children to insure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct."

Yes, Thank you! If people feel the need to home school their children or subvert the national education system to prevent them from learning about the real world, there is an obvious problem.

Yes, lets teach children as much as we can about religion as objectively as possible.

Mr. Mark - you say" I prefer that religious instruction be kept in the churches and out of our schools.'

I ask you to please consider that the religious "instruction" currently in churches is only about one religion, taught be active proponents of that religion and is the only way church members receive any formal information about religion.

Religion "courses" in schools would be of comparative religions - teaching people ABOUT RELIGION, not how to BE RELIGIOUS.

It's a can of worms, I agree, but one I think needs to be opened at some point, lest so many of us continue living with misinformation and ignorance about such an enduring and important topic.

Idealized and most likely impossible to achieve.

By default, the major religions would suck up most of the time alloted for such an exploration. I doubt that anyone would propose that Wicca be given the same weight and class time in such a course as would be alloted to Islam, for the same reasons that our kids learn a lot about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in their history classes and not so much about Millard Fillmore and James Knox Polk.

Once the decision has been made to alot time on such a basis, it's a short path for Xians to demand that their religion be alloted 80% of the time when discussing the major religions. At that point, we have devolved to state-sponsored religious indoctrination.

I prefer that religious instruction be kept in the churches and out of our schools. Funding is limited as it is, and there are already fights to be fought and battles to be won without religion entering the picture.

Maybe a better place to start would be to examine the political activities of churches and to begin to deny tax-exempt status to those churches who are acting as partisan political organizations, rather than as objective religious institutions. The taxes gathered from such enterprises could be ear-marked for education purposes, with a portion of that money going back to these now tax-paying churches themselves. Accepting such funds would allow the government to set some standards for what is being taught in those schools...or not.

I think this a wonderful idea...but politically dead in the water [at least in the United States]. The myriad implementation problems are already apparent from the posts above.

That said, it would probably behoove our universities to include such a thing in their core curriculums [for those that have one]. Such a solution would not reach all students, but it would be a good beginning. Perhaps Harvard, as it is in the process of revising its core curriculum, could set an example.

Carl S.: "Actually, I'd like to see atheists start up their own schools which could legally address the lunacy of religion, and stress reason, science, and the truth."

I can't say I share that sentiment.
I don't think it benefits any group to be insulated against the rest of society and left to cultivate their feelings of superiority, no matter how right they may be about religion.
I think the best route for atheists with a passion for reason, science and truth is to attempt to spread that passion for all the very good reasons that there are to spread it - rather than to dig themselves a little hole and stick their tonges out at the ignorant masses. This is why a carefully reasoned, non-elitist, non-combative approach like Dr. Dennett's is so impressive and should be so effective.

Daniel, you are one of my favorite writers (even if you sometimes take your time getting to the point) but this post is idealism run amok with all of its good intentions. Your proposal would be beautiful if it would work, but the toxic exposures start young, and as soon as any teacher was effective at combating their insidious effects they would be fired. Trust me on this one, I have spent my entire academic career close to the Gulf of Mexico. This is not Boston.

Fortunately, there are universities.

Professor Dennett's idea would be good if the minimum religious curriculum was set on a national basis, but the reality is, every state has different standards, and every school district in each state has a different political/religious makeup. In Pennsylvania alone there are...count them...501 school districts (because each little community thinks THEY do a better job of educating than the guys next door...ha!).

As for dropping other subjects to make room for religious education, they could start with: cursive writing, sports training (within the regular P.E. class), pep rallies, and "study halls".....or GASP!...they could actually lengthen the school day or school year. (oops...then teachers would be demanding more pay, even though they would still get the most vacation of anyone)

Our public schools are, by and large, living in the 1950s because they have no vigorous competition. (And I'm a social liberal atheist who used to oppose vouchers, but now realize that the lack of competition is KILLING the quality of public education---and the system does NOT want to change.)

Actually, I'd like to see atheists start up their own schools which could legally address the lunacy of religion, and stress reason, science, and the truth.

As for whether atheism is a religion, well, it's a perspective on religion, and most courts have determined it to be the equivalent of a religion, in most cases, for religious liberty purposes. So it would deserve equal treatment with "religions", but you can bet the Christians--many of whom can't handle REAL competition--will fight THAT to the Supreme Court.

I tink this is exactly what should not be done in approaching education-

Its easily possible to teach religion from a practical and factual basis without presenting many subjective opinions into it.

I know- ive done it.
Just a synopsis of beliefs- just the facts ma'am.

Its not neceesary to make a long confused history of who did what to whom and when-

Teach children how to think critically-
present the information -

let them use their own brains-

i would say the point is to teach children to be inclusive of others-

dont make it more than it is and the children wont either-

when did athiesm become a religion?

Professor Dennett,

I'm afraid you don't have much real-world experience of school boards, religious lobbyists, religious fanatics, and the explosive religio-cultural atmosphere in the U.S. today.

Your prescription is a recipe for a political-cultural explosion and disaster.

A few points:

You can't teach about all religions - there are too many. Those that are in the syllabus get free P.R. at government expense. Those left out have an equal protection constitutional law claim. Litigation awaits.

Try getting your local school board to sanction teaching about Wicca. Many fundamentalist parents object to Halloween's being mentioned in school - let alone Harry Potter.

Want an explosion? Put atheism in the teaching manual. Make one mistake about one sect's beliefs and watch all political hell break loose.

You say a transparent political process should be able to agree on a curriculum. Do you think a city or town which is 50% Catholic and 49% fundamentalist Protestant is going to let Wicca, Atheism, Buddhism (also atheistic), Pantheism, etc. be taught. Where are those folks' religious rights?

Kids fight all the time about all sorts of things - why throw religion into the mix?

Bravo Dr. Dennett – I couldn’t agree more.

However, I see a very bumpy road ahead and don’t envy the teachers or parents who will be on the front lines.

Think of the doctors and pharmacists who currently deny treatments and medications based on their religious beliefs. Imagine when teachers and whole school districts get into the act!

I do envy the children, though, as they will be the first generation of students to be exposed the teachings of the world’s religions.