I have always been very in favor of this from my studies and interest in cultural anthropology. Religion is a vital part of who humans are; there is not one culture in the history of our world that lacks religion. All people want to know why they are here, where they came from and will they go someplace after they die.

Daniel C. Dennett, a cognitive scientist and writer, states, and I agree, that such teaching of facts about world religions in the schools would assist children in learning reasoning and truth skills as they progress through their school years while not being aimed at all to interfere with parents who are teaching religious values to the child at home.

This subject leads itself to include a wide array of information about the culture of the people, their stories, their land - the possibilities are wide, colorful and endless, plus I believe it is information that would grab a child's interest and curiosity. And, when the child reaches eighteen, he would then have much more of a basis to understand his home religion, if he has been so taught or indoctrinated. I will venture to say, speaking of my tribe, to have this basis as a Mormon child would be invaluable.

Protest and controversy over this idea is bound to come from religious leaders and some parents. However, I think the idea is extremely needed in our present year of 2019 and could immensely lead to more tolerance, understanding and appreciation which is sorely needed to solve the problems we face in America and in the world.

Do you have any comments on such an idea?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2019 09:36AM by presleynfactsrock.

I feel that I benefited greatly from studying world religions. My high school offered a semester long course in World Religions that gave me a background and sparked my interest. I continued my studies in college in various disciplines -- Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Art History.

I know that there are people who undertake such studies who remain hard line, doctrinaire believers in their own particular faith. I am at a loss as to how this happens once you understand the breadth and variety of faiths and philosophies.

In theory, I am very much in favor of comparative religion classes being taught in schools in history classes, etc.

When I was growing up, I was exposed to a form of this as a result of growing up where I did--our shared local environment, both in and out of school, was religiously varied to a substantial degree, far above the American norm.

What I see as the main problem is both the textbooks used, and the teachers who would be teaching this material. My eighth grade English teacher was a deeply committed born again Christian, and her teaching of English grammar, and beginning English literature, was suffused with her sincerely-held born again Christian beliefs (which to her were unquestionable, factual, historical, and scientific truth), so I know from personal experience how this can happen.

I also know, from what is happening now in the larger Hindutva movement worldwide (which is dramatically affecting how history, for example, is taught in public schools--and in colleges and universities, re: not only Hinduism, but Islam and Christianity as well), that comparative religion texts written for school kids and college students, and the teaching which is done from them, can spillover into rigidly doctrinaire stances which promote not only one particular religion, but one particular segment of that religion.

My lifetime observation is that textbook writing and approving (by the relevant state or local authorities) is the first hurdle to teaching this material successfully in the public schools....followed by the problem of teachers who assume their personal religious beliefs are factual and unquestionable.

What I think could work as a possible approach would be to take advantage of whatever local "world religions" are practiced in any given area. If there are local Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Native Americans (etc.), then field trips to those local resources, listening to presentations from those religious authorities about the history, approach, and practices of those religions, could be a base on which to begin.

Even in Utah, I know there is a Hindu temple and a number of synagogues, and very likely local access to Native Americans who are authorities in their tribal religions.

In other parts of the country, the possibilities could encompass Buddhists, Chinese historical/religious sites (I am thinking of northern California's Mother Lode and beyond here), Sikh gurdwaras, etc. (When I was in the higher grades of elementary school, the field trips we took to San Fernando Mission were life-changing for me. Yes, I learned California history there, but I also acquired an increased ability to respect not only Catholicism and the Spanish colonialists who are our California forebears, but our local Native American tribes as well. These trips, two or three of them in all, I think, were immensely important parts of my growing up.)

If the significant problems of textbook approach, content, and approval were successfully dealt with (I am not holding my breath on this one, given the politics involved in, and with, school boards of all kinds), and local, particularly non-Christian (since our joint, American, historical base is Christianity), resources were fully utilized in any given geographical area, I think this kind of comparative religious study could be life-changing for many kids, as they experience real parts of these other religions themselves, and as their thinking skills are challenged by different-to-them religious perspectives and religious practices.

This would also be good citizenship training as well: when you have spoken and interacted personally with someone from another culture or religion, you learn how to respect those who have different beliefs, and whose customs may be far different from your own.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2019 12:03PM by Tevai.

A college class that I took in comparative religions did encompass such field trips and guest speakers. For instance we visited a Buddhist temple and the Hare Krishnas. A Sufi visited the class and our instructor was a Sikh. I have to admit that my visit to the Hare Krishnas changed my opinion of them for the better (not that I would ever join or urge others to join, but I grew more tolerant of them.)

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A college class that I took in comparative
> religions did encompass such field trips and guest
> speakers. For instance we visited a Buddhist
> temple and the Hare Krishnas. A Sufi visited the
> class and our instructor was a Sikh. I have to
> admit that my visit to the Hare Krishnas changed
> my opinion of them for the better (not that I
> would ever join or urge others to join, but I grew
> more tolerant of them.)

Yes!

Exactly!

:D

presleynfactsrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you have any comments on such an idea?

If they could be studied in the context of being a meme. Humans in my opinion benefit in "us"ing people instead of "them"ing them. But I don't know how religion and the cross-cultural study of religion helps "us" do this?

I feel it is much like learning another language and in that regard the language is more useful.

I personally love learning about different religions and cultures. I don't know that it is something people wouldn't resent as youth having to study. What I find is how many people who don't have the appreciation for education (liberal of course) that I have seem to tie skills with it. It is their only worthy "course."

Vital? Kids These Days aren't even much interested in their own religion, much less others. "None" is now (barely) the largest religion categorization in the US, and clearly the fastest growing. We're half a century behind Europe, but finally catching up. I predict that the rest of the world will be about 50 years behind the US, give or take.

We are becoming a post-religion world culture. Check back in a hundred years and see if that isn't the case.

It defines how you define "religion." People are surely moving away from organized God-based faiths but irrational, impulsive, exclusive movements are strong and arguably growing stronger. A good example is nationalism, which has reached levels not seen for many decades.

Make America berate again?

Or Make China or Make Russia or Make Turkey or Make Britain. . .

Everyone wants to berate again.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone wants to berate again.

The French invented it.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/berate

Amusingly, the French also "invented" modern nationalism.

They also invented American obesity with their "French Fries."

I don't eat French Fries. I eat Freedom Fries.

No comment on the health implications!

I don't think that the growth of Nationalism has any relationship to the change of the status of religion in our society. People are leaving organized religions because with the rise of the internet, they no longer need to tolerate religious dogma to gain access to their community, or membership in a social group. The rise in Nationalism seems more a result of a backlash against globalism, which tends to threaten national sovereignty. Underneath, it's not about race or about any political party. Whether you live in the US, the UK, or in Africa, you don't want to end up being the subject of some world government that puts the interests of others before you. You want your own laws, your own culture, and your own boundaries as you see necessary to protect your interests. At the same time, you need community and don't want a dogma-based religion getting in your way when you can go directly to the source without needing them.

These issues quickly become clouded when there are three competing interests that are economic and which become political as a secondary result of the unequal distribution of wealth. These interests are 1.) Those who lack wealth and who feel entitled to gain their fair share of the wealth at almost any cost. 2.) Those who have wealth and who don't want others to take away what they already have. 3.) Those who have wealth and who feel guilty about the fact that they have abundance while others are not as fortunate. These three groups take sides in identity politics, using words like Nationalist, racist, communist, naive, to protect and advance their team's position. But underneath these interests, we all want to protect our national sovereignty if we live in a sovereign nation, and our sense of belonging to a local community if we have a local community to belong to. The strong political differences of opinion involve how to resolve the dilemma that exists when others do not have sovereignty nor community because they live in poverty and in such conditions, can not protect their own interests. Some people say 'give them a fish to eat'. Others say 'no, teach them how to fish'. Nobody agrees on what to do and the name calling starts.

People also switch sides as their own fortunes change. Bernie Sanders spends his life disparaging millionaires. Then the popularity of his message makes him a millionaire himself. He says with some indignance "so I wrote a book and it happened to sell", as though it is not his fault that he got wealthy. Most of the millionaires that he has disparaged could say thimilar things about their fortunes. But they all have an easy problem to solve. Why not just stay true to their principles and give that excess wealth away to the poor? That is where churches and taxation comes in. There is always a taxing authority or a church that will help you to relieve your guilt. Just give your money to them.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2019 06:48AM by azsteve.

Good analysis.

I'll touch upon five points.

First, the relationship between religion and nationalism. If you assume that humans are emotional beings and take identity and happiness from group membership (witness the fans at major sports events), then leaving one form of emotional association leads to an impulsive desire to join another. That is manifestly the case. The major totalitarian phenomena of the 20th century usually came with the rejection of religion, or its attenuation, and resulted in new ideologies with rituals and mass enthusiasm. So what I am saying is that political or national commitment functions psychologically much the same way that religion does.

Second, you write that nationalism "is not about race." It usually is. The first definition of "nation" is basically a group of people who feel that they belong together for ethnic, historical, linguistic, cultural, and religious reasons. A nation, in short, is a large tribe. Even today, race or ethnicity is implicit in terms like Chinese nationalism, Russian nationalism, Arab nationalism, etc. There are exceptions to that rule, especially in "melting pot" countries, but even there racism is just below the surface and tends to erupt from time to time.

Third, you describe nationalism as a revolt against globalism. That is largely true. The birth of modern nationalism was the rebellion of different subject peoples against French dominance two centuries ago. That led to the notion of a "nation state," meaning a nation that deserved its own state. But historically nationalism has become a force when a people think they are being oppressed by another people. Loss of sovereignty happened long ago, but the perception of loss therefrom came--as it does--suddenly and not entirely rationally.

Fourth, economic trouble does indeed stimulate nationalism. My view is that the stagnation in wages from 1980 onward and the financial crises of the last 20 years contributed greatly to the surge in nationalism, or anti-globalism, of the last ten years. Historically people often used nationalism to deflect responsibility for suffering onto other groups: Hitler blamed the Jews, China blamed the Americans and the Japanese, France blamed the Moslems, Egypt blamed the British, etc. But yes, economic grievance is very important.

Fifth, Sanders. He is indeed caught in an embarrassing situation. I tend to believe that he would support higher taxes on himself as well as on others like him, so I don't think he is a hypocrite: just an embarrassed rich guy. But this isn't important to the broader discussion.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vital? Kids These Days aren't even much interested
> in their own religion, much less others. "None" is
> now (barely) the largest religion categorization
> in the US, and clearly the fastest growing. We're
> half a century behind Europe, but finally catching
> up. I predict that the rest of the world will be
> about 50 years behind the US, give or take.

I agree that there are parts of the world (North America and Europe, in particular) which are rapidly becoming more secular.

I disagree that, in fifty years (give or take), that this will likely be true throughout the world.


> We are becoming a post-religion world culture.
> Check back in a hundred years and see if that
> isn't the case.

The problem is that much of world history, and certainly Western civilization (from ancient times on) is built on a structure of religious thought and sensibility. You can't understand the logic of your local laws re: marriage and property if you don't understand the historical (which means, in large part, "religious") base of those laws.

Most of world and national history has been based on religious thought and religious perceptions (even if the people doing the thinking were, themselves, not particularly religious, or were a-religious). (I am thinking about the 400-year Inquisition here, and World War II (in Asia and in Europe), and the "fight with communism" which was red hot during the years I was growing up.)

Comparative religion is not only important in understanding human culture and actual world history, but in understanding the development (both positive and negative) of our species.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2019 12:43PM by Tevai.

Dennett is the Bertrand Russell of our day.

Also included should be a course about tolerance, civility, and communication. Those skills aren't being taught in every home and are sorely needed when learning about/discussing world religions.

I think teaching school children about brainwashing and critical thinking would also be useful.

Do you have a link? I would be interested in reading it or seeing it.

I've always liked Dennett. He has compared religious belief to a mind virus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s

Hi. I just saw your request concerning a link. I also like Dan Dennitt. Right now, I can hardly keep my eyes open and haven't done a live link for a while so I will just give you the typed info. If you have any trouble, let me know and tomorrow I can better (hopefully) send a link.

It is found on You tube. Dan Dennett: Responding to Pastor Rick Warren.

Thank you! I will check it out.

...a tone deaf person teaching the history of music.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...a tone deaf person teaching the history of
> music.

While your argument sounds logical, I'm sure you must realize that many atheists and agnostics grew up in religious households and know the religious works of their former religions backwards and forwards, making them ideal candidates to teach such a course.

In that case, it might be more like divorcees who have lost faith in relationships becoming marriage counselors.

Why can a tone deaf person not teach the history of music?
Of course they can, that is not even remotely unreasonable.

And an atheist can teach “facts” about religion. Why not? Unless you believe that “facts” about religion are only ascertainable by some special way of knowing available only to believers.

And a blind person makes an adequate teacher of the history of art? I take it you are not a musician.

Musicians, as attested to by many of the great composers, *think* in music--it is a language with its own referents of intangibles and its own logic which cannot be 'translated' into words or even other terms. (I believe it was Rabindranath Tagore, Nobel Prize-winning poet but also a composer, who said something to the effect that the essence of any art--which makes it truly an "art"--is precisely that which cannot be translated into another art.)

Yeah, with enough textbook information I could probably teach the history of anything without having ever done it, practiced it, or lived it. I could give a Cliff Notes account, but what would that actually convey?

There is much in religion that can be reduced to sociology or culture, but that ignores the whole numinous and mystical dimension. "Teaching about" reduces something into otherwise understandable terms, with our present sum of knowledge as the ceiling put on it.

There are a lot of important things missing from education. A proper history class should be the venue where a kid learns religious history. As of 2019 the politicians say America is getting behind the national IQ has declined a point or two in the last century, and that the stem fields are in shortage of women and minorities. We are currently paying in taxes more than $9000 a year for each kids education experience and getting questionable results back.

Politicians think that women and minorities want the higher paying white collar jobs (since they aren't currently in those positions) they say our education is failing a good portion of our population, and are trying to raise the bar on everyone. So the legislatures force everyone to study abstract esoteric formulas and fields (like math) that have nothing to do with improving brain functioning or making people civilized.

But with how hard the sciences are to learn for kids with no interest in learning them, there's no time for extra classes in religion.

Consider this... To be an engineer a person is suppose to have an IQ of at least 115. That mean that 80% of the population isn't quite up to snuff. They would have to study at least 2-3 hours every day for every math or science course they are currently enrolled in to actually understand or appreciate what they are studying. Now add on top of that these kids are surrounded by a bunch of hooligans who come from questionable family lives and who's parents are below average, and daycare with head-start mixed in. These kids don't have a chance. It's a joke.

The whole education system is a disaster, in my view. Lot's of dumb people who aren't getting any smarter.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are a lot of important things missing from
> education. A proper history class should be the
> venue where a kid learns religious history. As of
> 2019 the politicians say America is getting behind
> the national IQ has declined a point or two in the
> last century, and that the stem fields are in
> shortage of women and minorities. We are currently
> paying in taxes more than $9000 a year for each
> kids education experience and getting questionable
> results back.

It is not just politicians but women and minorities themselves who say they are not fully represented in the sciences.
>
> Politicians think that women and minorities want
> the higher paying white collar jobs (since they
> aren't currently in those positions) they say our
> education is failing a good portion of our
> population, and are trying to raise the bar on
> everyone. So the legislatures force everyone to
> study abstract esoteric formulas and fields (like
> math) that have nothing to do with improving brain
> functioning or making people civilized.

Actually, studying these fields, especially math and the sciences, very much improves our brain's functioning power and assists us in the long run living day-to-day. Having mathematical skills will, for example, help you greatly in determining household budgets and how much money you have available for what.

A much bigger problem (and you hint at this) is that the focus of education has changed from gaining knowledge for the purpose of becoming enlightened to gaining access to higher-paying jobs. This is the fault of both colleges (who need donation money) and parents (who want their offspring to succeed better than they did).
>
> But with how hard the sciences are to learn for
> kids with no interest in learning them, there's no
> time for extra classes in religion.
>
> Consider this... To be an engineer a person is
> suppose to have an IQ of at least 115. That mean
> that 80% of the population isn't quite up to
> snuff. They would have to study at least 2-3 hours
> every day for every math or science course they
> are currently enrolled in to actually understand
> or appreciate what they are studying. Now add on
> top of that these kids are surrounded by a bunch
> of hooligans who come from questionable family
> lives and who's parents are below average, and
> daycare with head-start mixed in. These kids don't
> have a chance. It's a joke.
>
> The whole education system is a disaster, in my
> view. Lot's of dumb people who aren't getting any
> smarter.

The funny part is that while parents may want their kids to become more educated to get higher-paying jobs, they don't necessarily want their offspring to learn factual information that questions the religious values in which they were raised, bringing us back to the topic of the OP.

While I think the idea is good, I have some mixed feelings about teaching comparative religions to young children. I agree with Tevai and others that the textbooks and teachers used to teach such courses should have little, if any, skin in the game. I also agree that learning about other religions and cultures helps prepare us to better deal with those who think differently from us.

The big problem, as I see it, is that religion, no matter which church is involved, is based wholly on emotions and personal beliefs. Unlike mathematics or the sciences, you really can't fact check religious claims because they were never based on facts in the first place--they were based on emotional claims made by those who founded the religions and those who succeeded them as religious leaders.

The other point I would bring up is something that the OP said about religion being a way to explain why we are here and what happens after death, etc. These are motives for those who follow religions, but not necessarily for those who founded religions. Mormonism is a good case in point. While Joseph Smith claimed to have visions of Maroni and the like, it is historically clear that Mormonism was really founded so that 1) he, as leader, could obtain more sexual favors than his marriage was able to provide; 2) he could earn more money without doing as much physical labor as most members of his class were doing; and 3) he could control the lives and wills of his followers.

Yup. Teach kids religion under the guise of teaching "about" religion. Works every time.

It could be included in a world mythology class, or anthropology class designed for younger students. How religions arise and shape cultures could also be in history classes (I thought it already was). Religion should be presented exactly for what it is: what humans design as part of their culture. Each culture thinks theirs is the right way and they are chosen.

When I was taught about Greek and Roman mythology, they were presented as cute stories. There was nothing pointed out to us as children that would tip us off that our own culture does the same thing with religion and is not unique or more right than others when it comes to religious mythology.

The problem, as noted above, is that the teachers cannot be trusted to detach the emotion and belief because the parents get all upset if their religion is treated like any other topic.

I agree with this. I wonder if this sort of religious teaching cannot be incorporated in history and literature classes, but that is a secondary question.

Yes, definitely literature. I meant to include that. The holy books should be treated as other great or influential literature without the "divine" BS.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, definitely literature. I meant to include
> that. The holy books should be treated as other
> great or influential literature without the
> "divine" BS.


But ignoring the “‘divine’ BS” element of the Bible or Koran etc is ignoring the very element that makes a “holy book” different from all other books. We must distinguish between a “holy book” like the KJV Bible from a Bible-soaked secular work like DH Lawrence’s “The Rainbow”, for example. Failing this, we end up rendering Bible stories into the kinds of cute cartoons you were taught about Antique mythology, which is a gross distortion.

If “holy books” are to be taught in school at all, it must also be taught that people believed (and still believe) that these books were above all other books, that they were thought to be “divine”, holy.

There is a vast gulf between Tanakh and Kafka, which can only be seen by understanding Tanakh as holy and The Trial as secular.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> We must distinguish between
> a “holy book” like the KJV Bible from a
> Bible-soaked secular work like DH Lawrence’s
> “The Rainbow”, for example. Failing this, we
> end up rendering Bible stories into the kinds of
> cute cartoons you were taught about Antique
> mythology, which is a gross distortion.

Are you suggesting that "antique mythology" was not a serious religion to the people who believed it? Since the believers took it seriously, isn't it in the same category as the KJV Bible?

And is not the Bible also filled with "cute cartoons" like the Biblical story of the creation, the global flood, and talking donkeys?



> If “holy books” are to be taught in school at
> all, it must also be taught that people believed
> (and still believe) that these books were above
> all other books, that they were thought to be
> “divine”, holy.

I agree with that. Religious books should be taught as something taken as "divine" to their followers. But that includes "ancient mythologies like Greek religion and the Bible today. Surely the same standard should be applied when teaching both.



> There is a vast gulf between Tanakh and Kafka,
> which can only be seen by understanding Tanakh as
> holy and The Trial as secular.

Is the Tanakh "holy" or is it taken as such by its believers? Surely the answer is the latter, which again is a reasonable conclusion but one that applies to all religions that have ever existed.



The point you raise about the importance of teaching the reverence believers attach/ed to their faiths is a good one. But the standard must be employed uniformly and without value judgments about the veracity of different religious traditions.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> The point you raise about the importance of
> teaching the reverence believers attach/ed to
> their faiths is a good one. But the standard
> must be employed uniformly and without value
> judgments about the veracity of different
> religious traditions.

Yes, of course. You missed that I called the practice of turning Antique mythology
into cute cartoons a distortion, a distortion which
should be avoided if/when teaching other "sacred" texts.

My sentence construction might have been unclear.

We are on the same page, then.

"But ignoring the “‘divine’ BS” element of the Bible or Koran etc is ignoring the very element that makes a “holy book” different from all other books. We must distinguish between a “holy book” like the KJV Bible from a Bible-soaked secular work like DH Lawrence’s “The Rainbow”, for example. Failing this, we end up rendering Bible stories into the kinds of cute cartoons you were taught about Antique mythology, which is a gross distortion."

"If “holy books” are to be taught in school at all, it must also be taught that people believed (and still believe) that these books were above all other books, that they were thought to be “divine”, holy."

COMMENT: Let me press your point further. Not only does ignoring the divine element in a "holy book" (i.e. viewing it strictly critically) create a gross distortion *of the book,* it also creates a gross distortion of the mindset and worldview of those who view the book as divine. That is precisely why such people are sometimes pejoratively characterized as irrational at best and just stupid at worst. (And why they are right in responding by telling such critics that they just don't get it.) There may be something "spiritual" about reality that can be gleaned from such books beyond literalism. To ignore that is to completely miss the point!

Some years after leaving Mormonism, I tried to read some of the more "spiritual" parts of the Book of Mormon and New Testament as sacred texts--uncritically; for example, the so-called Song of Nephi in the BoM, and the Gospel of John. I wanted to first see if I could do that; and second, if I could, to see if I could penetrate the psychology and thus better understand a believer who approaches these books in this way. It helped that I once was such a believer, so was also exploring my past mindset. This experiment was only partially successful, but I did come to appreciate that how one approaches such "sacred texts" is a huge determinate to how one views that text--and therefore its value. In fact, to some extent, even as an atheist, I was able to feel a sense of appreciation of the mental state such texts can evoke; i.e. a glimpse (perhaps) into an unseen reality.

Now about education. What scares the hell out of me when considering *any* religion in the classroom on a "sacred" level is that some will "feel the spirit" and then literalize the more "offensive" content as somehow also indicating a spiritual dimension. After all, one might be able to extract some spiritual significance of the plight of Lehi in the desert. But cutting off the head of someone who has a book you want, is unacceptable on any level of evaluation, spiritual or otherwise!" That is an extreme example, but more subtle examples of religious literalism abound.

In short, I do not want the Bible, or any other sacred text, being taught in the high school (or lower level) classroom as "sacred" and thus inviting an explanation as to why it is deemed by some to be so; or to even invite the reader to read it in that way. Getting into the details of such "instruction" creates more problems in drawing the line between the sacred and the profane; a dangerous game in my view.

(Yay, you're back! Missed you.)

Hi Henry. Welcome home.

Hey Henry

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In short, I do not want the Bible, or any other
> sacred text, being taught in the high school (or
> lower level) classroom as "sacred" and thus
> inviting an explanation as to why it is deemed by
> some to be so; or to even invite the reader to
> read it in that way.

Is teaching the bible "as" sacred different from teaching the bible as a book once thought to contain sacred things? Yes, but it doesn't matter in the end. The problem you worry about doesn't go away.



The secular, public education I received in Canada ('74-'86) did not teach the bible, nor any other religion for that matter. I didn't know what "sacred & profane" meant until I was in my 20s. We were taught the renaissance, but nothing of what a renaissance man or woman might have believed about God. God, sacred, divine, holy, etc., did not enter the education at any point of my 12 years of public education, with a few very small exceptions. We were taught about the The Industrial Revolution and then about The Russian Revolution, where we learned that the Soviets outlawed religion. And we had a vague sense that there was something controversial in grade 10 biology when we were taught evolution. Other than that, nothing else that I can remember.

Education, as it was imparted to me, had nothing to do with religion, belief, divinity, etc. It was 100% secular. What you did on Sundays or Saturdays was the business of you and your family and didn't belong in the school. If you were Catholic, there was a separate school system specially made for you.

Yet I'd bet most every one of us knew, at the least, our fair share of bible stories, whether our family did special things on Sundays or not. Our calendar was still predicated on Christianity, with Christ as the still point between bc and ad and his birth, death and resurrection timely marked out during the year. It didn't matter if Santa Claus and chocolate bunnies were celebrated, the order of things was still there. And don't forget Charlton Heston movies and similar movies like The Robe. We had 13 channels on the TV, my cousins on the farm had two. And etc.

So, even if totally non-religious, christianity and the bible were part and parcel with the culture, impossible to miss. And at that time, I don't think many were trying to miss. Heck, before Lester Pearson took Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather's Universal Health Care idea nation wide, we were all more than likely born in Catholic hospitals, as I was in '68.

The point is, christianity was everywhere whether or not one was a christian. It didn't need to be in our schools.

Consequently: a totally non-religious person of my cohort from a non-religious family still has a fairly good chance of properly reading DH Lawrence's bible-soaked The Rainbow, the novel I mentioned above, for example.

BUT, in an increasingly post-christian culture, this may no longer be true. So, what now?


Christianity and the KJV Bible are so intricately weaved into our English literature, no matter the genre (often especially thick in the secular novel), at every level imaginable, that I scarcely know how it can be read properly sans a living, breathing understanding of this now-passing culture. Christianity, and the KJV specifically, is the background to all our literary culture (that and Shakespeare). Sometimes this background is most pronounced *precisely* in the works that are the most absent of the background. And this is doubly true for American literature specifically, for no other English culture is as soaked in the KJV as it is in America. So much literary writing in English, whether in essays or poetry or plays or novels or history or what you will, is writing *against* the KJV, and this can be most pronounced with scarce a hint of its presence.


Teaching the bible in schools, sure, is problematic. But we are quickly coming upon a time, if we aren't there already, where NOT teaching the bible in schools is to render students completely cut-off from the literature of their mother tongue. The KJV (along with Shakespeare) is the prime key-stone to the cathedral of literature in English. And it really is a magnificent cathedral!

Sans the bible, DH Lawrence's The Rainbow is pure gobbledygook, *especially* the rather prosaic, straightforward-seeming title. Maybe it doesn't matter; but if it does matter, teaching the bible also matters.

(Hope all is sunshine and sea breezes for you down in SouCal, Henry. Spring might actually make it up here on the tundra, even though snow threatens at least one more time. Cheers.)

Human

Human Wrote:


-----------
> Teaching the bible in schools, sure, is
> problematic.

I couldn't agree more.


------------
> But we are quickly coming upon a
> time, if we aren't there already, where NOT
> teaching the bible in schools is to render
> students completely cut-off from the literature of
> their mother tongue. The KJV (along with
> Shakespeare) is the prime key-stone to the
> cathedral of literature in English. And it really
> is a magnificent cathedral!

I couldn't agree more. The Bible is critical to understanding Western history, Western values (Max Weber's analysis), the motivations behind political movements, and the literature that lies at the heart of Western culture.


---------
So we have a paradox. The Bible should not be taught in school as truth, but it must be taught as what many people thought, and still think, is truth. Without that understanding, it is impossible to comprehend the world in which we live.

So teaching religion in schools requires delicacy and balance. It is a difficult needle to thread, and yet we must do so.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a difficult needle to thread,
> and yet we must do so.

Like the rich man getting into heaven. I don't think we need to understand some things from the past...

As you know, I am not a fan of organized religion--and come close to feeling the same way about religion in general. But I don't think a person can understand the modern world without understanding the Bible, the Koran, and, for instance, Confucius and their role in history.

I also think one can't understand mass movements, which as you know are very important right now, without understanding the emotional processes of religion and similar ideological movements. There need to be (a lot of) people in society who recognize incipient totalitarianism when it raises its ugly head.

Their devil is in their details. Can we not understand God is dead and move on without analyzing each of God's thousands and thousands of deaths?

God is never dead in a sociological sense. Humans keep reinventing him, and if we forget that we'll regret it.

I don't propose studying every manifestation of God, just the ones necessary to understand history. For modern Americans, that requires Christianity. For modern Chinese, it means Confucianism. If one wants to understand Persian culture and influence over the geopolitics of the ancient world--and in fact on the modern world--it's Zoroastrianism.

I just don't think we should excise important elements of history or contemporary affairs. Teaching the Renaissance; the Reformation; the construction, destruction, and reconstruction of Europe; the rise of Communism in Russia is impossible without teaching religion. The same is true of teaching modern fundamentalism in its Christian, Islamic, and even nationalistic Hindi forms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2019 04:02PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God is never dead in a sociological sense. Humans
> keep reinventing him, and if we forget that we'll
> regret it.

It is impossible to forget.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/notre-dame-may-have-too-much-money-after-billionaires-and-others-rushed-to-pledge/ar-BBWhieC?ocid=spartandhp

A building trumps people.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So teaching religion in schools requires delicacy
> and balance. It is a difficult needle to thread,
> and yet we must do so.

Imagine a world where "difficult needle to thread" can only mean and will ever mean only what it means literally? I fear that, and the countless other examples of it, far more than I fear what Bemis fears. That would be the rankest illiteracy possible, for it would be better in that case to not have reading at all.

I take Bemis's point, but only to a point. I also fear what Bemis fears. But there is more danger in teaching a biology class to dissect a dead frog, which could lead to actual, after-school vivisection on a living frog, rat, cat or your worst enemy's dog, than there is in a class on Nephi leading to a librarian's head being cut off to get to a certain coveted book.

Yes, teaching *anything* in school requires delicacy and balance.

(Home Economics, in my high school, meant baking cakes, cookies and, eventually, a four course meal for the teaching staff. Only girls took the class. --Why wouldn't I also take the class?! Of course I took the class! Automotives? Woodshop? Are you kidding me? I took Home Ec. for the same reason I took typing class, because that is where the girls were. Alas, though, no needles were thread in either class.)

"Imagine a world where "difficult needle to thread" can only mean and will ever mean only what it means literally? I fear that, and the countless other examples of it, far more than I fear what Bemis fears. That would be the rankest illiteracy possible, for it would be better in that case to not have reading at all."

COMMENT: I agree with you. And note further that a teaching of the Bible (or other sacred text) as cold, hard history, or the cold, hard background of culture, also represents the distortion that you pointed out, which entirely misses the point of scripture as a dynamic ("living") sacred text. My point was that it is the underlying genuine spiritual stimulus of sacred texts that ultimately matters to its adherents, and that if you teach such texts without that element, you engage in a distortion such that, as you say, arguably one would be better off not reading it at all--or not teaching it at all. THAT, it seems to me is the dilemma. Once you engage such sacred texts on this personal, spiritual level, you have to take it seriously, and it is very difficult to decide when that seriousness should stop, and the world of critical evaluation should step in.

_________________________________________________

"I take Bemis's point, but only to a point. I also fear what Bemis fears. But there is more danger in teaching a biology class to dissect a dead frog, which could lead to actual, after-school vivisection on a living frog, rat, cat or your worst enemy's dog, than there is in a class on Nephi leading to a librarian's head being cut off to get to a certain coveted book."

COMMENT: O.K. I am not much in favor of teaching dissection of frogs, either. I am not sure just what principle is being taught here. But, if it is just biology, aren't are computer graphics sufficiently sophisticated at this point to render such hands-on demonstrations unnecessary, not to mention psychologically harmful?)

But to your point, and setting aside extremes; and admitting outright that teaching in many contexts involves inherent behavioral risks of one kind or another, let me suggest a scenario: Suppose you have a teacher--not a fundamentalist, but an atheist, let's say--who sincerely wants to teach the Bible as a sacred text; i.e. she wants her students to understand its motivational power within human psychology. To do justice to that goal, she must--I argue--focus on its spiritual power to invoke and sustain a "spiritual" experience; i.e. the feeling of a metaphysical, theistic oriented reality. (After all, that is why it is usually accepted as a sacred text) Maybe she thinks that a little meditation would help. Or perhaps even giving prayer a try. If she chooses not to go down this rabbit hole, arguably your point sets in; why bother? She won't be able to capture just what the "sacred" of a sacred text really means to believers.

Moreover, sooner or later she must play her cards by either saying, or implying, one of the following: (1) look even though you may have felt something, its all psychology; i.e. the brain; or alternatively, (2) see there really is, or may be, a God or metaphysical spiritual reality after all. There appears to be middle ground here; no space for neutrality. And what worries me, again, is that once sacred texts are taken seriously in this ultimate way, a way that really is necessary to capture the nature of their sacredness, you are inviting students to seek out religious affiliations and associated dogma. And clearly we do not need any more of that sort of thing.

Love the discussion....the new insights, the pros and cons seen of such a proposal, and the multiple suggestions of ways, such as field trips and guest speakers, to possibly enhance such a program.

My university cultural anthropology major did include guest speakers speakers, field trips, and professors who had traveled and been a part of research and studies. One afternoon's lecture by a professor who hailed from USA Hillbilly country particularly made an impression on me.

Her lecture was to include a video of Bible-thumping-rattlesnake-handling (as in they shall take up serpents....) members of an evangelical denomination at their church meeting. She shared that some of her family members and neighbors were involved in this type of worship, which she realized us students (she knew most were LDS) would find new and hard to comprehend --- but she was going to give us lots of info and expected when we watched the video, which she very much wanted us to watch and experience, to have respect.

What was respect in this setting? This was the fascinating and valuable discussion and debate which followed. One of the strongest lessons I gained from this discussion was to hear in the professor's words and tone how much her "tribe" meant to her and what she had gained from the people in this tribe. She shared that thought they were different, even strange in how they worshipped, though they were poor and wore weird clothing and had reallyl disgusting bad teeth, they were some of the kindest and most giving people of her life.

The class ages were a mixed bag, mostly students in their early twenties, and some older students of which I was one. The professor went on to strongly state that if you felt you could not watch the video, you, of course, could leave and, along with that, as you always had the ability to do, you could decide to check out of the course.

Some students did not watch the video, and the class lost eight or so members. I myself found the movie challenging to watch because me and snakes are not friends, but I made it through and, with all the preparation she had given us, I felt I had truly gained valuable insights and tolerance into a group of human's how AND why they worshipped the way they did, which we learned was influenced by environment, upbringing, community pressure and experience as well as probably other influences.

No, she did not try to convert us to this religion just in case you're wondering. Ha, ha.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2019 04:14PM by presleynfactsrock.

This is an absolutely, positively, extraordinarily superb post on all levels, presleynfactsrock!!

Your post encapsulates the spectrum that your thread had/has the potential to be.

Most extremely well done.

Kudos!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2019 07:23PM by Tevai.

I thank you very much for your kind words and praise (once in a while we all need this right?).

Your insights on this thread and the manner you presented them were amazing, just as I have found they always are.

I very much enjoy your posts, feeling that when you share, you give 100% of your time, your care, your energy, and your expertise.

Kudos back your way!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2019 03:32AM by presleynfactsrock.

Thank you!

:)

Yes, awareness of other cultures and religions help to give you perspective on your own. Through such a study, you realize that your home religion is not "unique," and that the need any religion fills is a universal need. You realize that religion and myth are a window into human psychology but not necessarily into "truth." I had some of that growing up, more than many Mormon children, I think, and it has been very valuable.

Yes, awareness of other cultures and religions help to give you perspective on your own. You realize that religion and myth are a window into human psychology but not necessarily into "truth." I had some of that growing up, more than many Mormon children, I think, and it has been very valuable".

I enjoyed the way you phrased these thoughts. I agree wholeheartedly that some children have more exposure to various people and places --- mine was extremely limited and it was at the university that the world became much, much "bigger" and definitely more complex and interesting.

An example of this is the course of geography which introduced me to new countries and their inhabitants, along with facts about the topography and climate, two factors that helped dictate how the people could exist on the land and make a livlehood for themselves. This course helped me piece the paradigm of how these facts then influenced the gods or god the people created and worshipped.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 11:27AM by presleynfactsrock.

presleynfactsrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An example of this is the course of geography
> which introduced me to new countries and their
> inhabitants, along with facts about the topography
> and climate, two factors that helped dictate how
> the people could exist on the land and make a
> livlehood for themselves. This course helped me
> piece the paradigm of how these facts then
> influenced the gods or god the people created and
> worshipped.

My degree is cultural geography. The idea that pieces of the earth can heavily influence people's culture is fascinating. The problem I see with gods are they being the enforcers of taboos.

It is vital to teach people where people went wrong.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashaumer/science-facts-you-might-have-believed-in-the-90s

Religion is where people went wrong.