Let us pray - for better exam results and pupils who know what day it is The Times (London) The Church of England has published a series of prayers online to help students and teachers to cope with exam stress.
Kent students seeking to form Bible group win partial victory Seattle Post-Intelligencer An effort by students in the Kent School District to form a sanctioned Bible group with a Christian-based membership won a partial victory.
Speaking up about prayer Othello (Wash.) Outlook The ongoing argument over prayer in schools.
State orders charter school to correct 2 areas tied to Islam (Minneapolis) Star-Tribune A Minnesota charter school accused of promoting Islam is doing most things right, but it must change how it handles issues related to prayer and busing.
Former world champion Damon Hill said yesterday that Silverstone's chances of securing the race when its contract expires next year are no better than 50-50.
June 30, 2008
In a poll a few years ago meant to measure Americans' religious values, respondents were asked about their favorite Bible verse. The solid winner was the familiar "God helps those who help themselves."
One small problem: It's not in the Bible. (Unless Ben Franklin suddenly became part of the apocrypha.)
And there, in a nutshell, is one of the more hidden and potentially significant problems facing America: For a nation of avowed believers, we don't know much about religion, including the one we profess to believe in. (In a 2007 Pew poll, 59 percent of Americans said religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, about double the rate for most other industrialized nations. Some 80 percent identified themselves as Christian.)
Some other highlights from recent polls meant to test our religious IQ:
Author and professor Steven Prothero lays all this out in his provocative book Religious Literacy, making a compelling case that such ignorance has profound consequences in a world where religion is an increasingly important and complex motivator of human behavior.
Internally, ignorance of the religion one professes to adhere to leads to a shallow kind of faith, at best. Failure to study the Bible, a fabulously complex document, leaves American "Christians" prone to leap on scripturally questionable developments such as the "prosperity gospel" movement and assorted fundamentalist strains that ignore the overarching message of the New Testament -- compassion, faith, gentleness -- to focus on excerpts that seem to condone particular obsessions.
Externally -- well, isn't it pretty clear by now that Islam is going to continue to be one of the primary forces in world affairs for the foreseeable future? And wouldn't it be helpful if we knew a little something about it? Like the fact that Muslims worship the same God revealed to Abraham and beloved by Moses? Or that the term "jihad" typically refers to an internal struggle to adhere to the will of God and has been commandeered by clergy exploiting the same kind of doctrinal ignorance?
The sticky wicket is what to do about it. Prothero prescribes putting comparative religion back in the public school curriculum -- a semester on Christianity and another on the other major religions -- a solution sure to rattle the nerves of those who value separation of church and state. Certainly it's possible to teach about religion without advocating for any particular faith, presenting each belief and viewpoint with equal respect.
But in an age where schools are having trouble presenting something as scientifically grounded as evolution, is it reasonable to expect that every teacher is going to be able to give the same dispassionate weight to the crucifixion, nirvana and zakat? And which overworked school administrator is going to ensure that instruction stays on the middle line between educating and proselytizing? And now that music and art have largely disappeared from schools, whose budget are we going to cut to add another "R" to the curriculum?
So let's hear it from you. Is it important for Americans to have a basic knowledge of their own religion and those of others? Should it be up to public schools to supply that knowledge? Or should we just let a majority of high schoolers go on thinking that Sodom and Gomorrah were an Old Testament husband and wife?
Share the Eye:
Teaching Religion and Teaching About Religion Learning Today Many say combining the two in a public school goes against “separation of church and stateâ€, while others say separating the two limits a child’s education, or goes against local culture.
A QUARTER OF SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS PUSH CREATIONISM ON STUDENTS Undernews Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science.
Book Review: Religious Literacy Kingdom People The problem of religious illiteracy does not simply affect our view of ourselves; religion matters because it stands at the center of the world’s great debates, wars, and life-perspectives.
UK: Compulsory Religious Ed on Chopping Block Ethics Forum UK The Human Rights Commission of Parliament wants to make religious education optional for "mature" 16 year olds.
still thinking about today...
Who should take primary reponsibility for teaching children about religion?
0% 0% 20% 80%
Tough topic!
What a great topic. Funny story (short version). I had a used car salesman quote that above "scripture", God helps those who help themselves to me when my wife and I were buying a car years ago. I told him that's not a verse in the bible and he was so sure it was, that he called his friend, a priest to find out. Of course I was right and NO I did not buy a car from him. :)
I'm not sure any amount of education will help.
The local Episcopal diocese has a variety of "reach-outs" and "we're all the same" programs. This is wonderful if you're a Unitarian, but this is a main stream Christian church. My point? The Episcopal priests should know the New Testament presents Jesus as "the Way", no one gets to the Father except through Jesus, etc, etc. Saint Paul makes a point of it. The Disciples lost their lives preaching it.
But, the modern priests have decided that Chritianity isn't the only Way, there are others, all equal to Christianity. So either all are wrong and false or only one can be right and true. When the Episcopal church decides it's not "right" that others can be right also, then the Church is saying it's not true. Jesus lied, Paul lied, the Disciples were fools. Become a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Scientologist.....it's okay.
Now, I'm not going to tell you whether I'm a former Jew or Christian, just know I'm a "former" something. Actually, lets just say I don't participate anymore because I won't be a hypocrite. Faith is a wonderful thing, but reason should decide your choice. If you don't know, then learn. If you join, then know why you're joining. If you leave, then know why you're leaving.
Incidentally, when are we going to discuss "gluttony", a sin that can really lead to death?
ExPat,
After last week's discussion on barbecue, the "Holy Grail" of food, I need at least another week before I can weigh in on the subject of "gluttony".
All others, I'll inflict my thoughts on this subject a bit later. I thought I'd actually try to think it out before speaking. It probably won't help though.
Keep religion out of school. Heck, for my money, keep the damn thing out of society as well. But I digress. Churches and parents are responsible for teaching children about a particular religion. And while they're at it, it would be nice if they taught that anybody believing differently than them, or not at all, are not going to burn in some lake of fire.
When I practiced christianity, I fell into the trap of simply believing what I was told. Even when studying the bible, it was till with certain "restraints." Meaning, no real critical thinking allowed. As an atheist, it amuses me that I know much more about the christian god and the teachings of the bible than most of the people who are lining up to condemn me for not believing in their god.
A tough topic indeed. And one that brings with it passionate responses. Very thought provoking entry, Mr. Peterman. Bravo.
It would be easier for religious apologetics to succeed if they could just agree on what, exactly, a religion teaches. There are wildly divergent camps within each religion that determine what they believe the core teachings of their sect to be. There are some Muslims that are doctrinally indistinguishable from Baptists, and Evangelicals that sound like the Taliban. A thousand years ago there was a Pope who said there was no sin - murder, for instance - with Christ, so go lop off the heads of the Saracen hordes and come home wealthy, established, and forgiven. Are things really so much different now? The only thing that has never changed through the storms of religious doctrine from one century to another is human nature, and it is to that bedrock that I turn my gaze when the matter of moral behavior comes up. The Gods are made in our own images, to be blunt. Any religion that teaches otherwise needs a future involving ash heaps and history.
The thing that I'm a little irked with these days is the rigidity of faith. Doesn't belief require some level of choice? That is, to choose what to believe? But nowadays we're presented with a slew of religions that let us choose only what God to believe in, and then drop a load of rules on our heads.
Spinner said...
Wow! Another trait in which we are in agreement. Agent 666, I stood up and cheered. The fact that I, too, feel that I am more educated in Christian History and what the Bible is really saying than so many that try to get into a discussion on the topic and try to "save" me, truly gaols me. I raised my son in the Methodist church so that when he studied art history, he would understand what Italian Renaissance paintings and what the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were all about. But I found that the services raised so many questions in his mind that I encouraged him to think about that I gave up. This I realized when one Sunday, on the way home, we got into a deep discussion about Christian Existentialism and the philosophy of Camus vs Sartre vs Tillich. He was 9 years old. And don't get me started on Paul! If anyone didn't understand the basic teachings of Jesus, it was Paul... But I won't go there.
Of course we don't understand other religions. We don't understand those variations of Christianity around us. I heard a discussion today on Fresh Air (NPR) about how the Mormans are starting an ad campaign to try to educate us about what they believe because the vast majority of us think the TX communal sect that has been in the news are Mormans. The main line Salt Lake City church is appalled at this. They want us to know that this group is definitely NOT a part of their church. But would hard-core "Christians" even care?
I am also sure that we could all give examples of how Shakespeare has been quoted as Biblical passages.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Is there a benefit to be derived from being exposed to an “objective and neutral†comparative study of religions, their creation myths and the positive and negative impacts that they have had on shaping and being shaped by societies, laws, governments and history. I would probably say yes, that there is.
Can such a study be conducted in a truly objective and neutral manner? Very doubtful. Should it be done in public schools? “Nope, no how, no wayâ€. . . I wouldn’t/couldn’t trust anyone to truly put their belief systems and biases in neutral, and be able to be totally objective as teachers.
It’s the role of the parent to introduce their children to their religious concepts. It’s the role of private schools to teach you about your particular faith. I guess I just don’t believe that matters of faith should be taught, nor challenged in a public high school.
I would bet that the same students who don’t know of Joan of Arc could also not tell you the names of the elected leaders of their city, state or nation or for that matter, what their jobs entail. Let’s start there.
drdgscott said...
I've been an Episcopal priest for 35 years. There's only one rule -- Love God, love people. What's so tough about that?
How about Shakespearean verses misattributed as Biblical prose? I was behind a fellow at Starbucks one day, and I noticed his shirt with the line "For he today that sheds his blood with me, Shall be my brother" and I complimented him on being a Henry V fan. "What?" he said. "My shirt's about Jesus". "Ahh," said I in response.
Could you really objectively teach about "leaps of faith? I think it is already covered by Philosophy and Mythology.
drdgscott,
I think you've got it covered rather nicely. Leave it to us to complicate simple but pure doctrines.
But since the day's not over yet, let's not forget the wide world of religions that are still out there that DON'T teach the depravity of the human species, and DON'T require submission to a foreign, inscrutable doctrine in order to Pass Go and Collect Eternity. Being religiously literate, I think, should include a reasonable study of the religions past and present, and their uniquely Heathen views on the human animal. Take the original religions of Europe and Scandinavia, for instance. It's no secret that we still celebrate all of those original holidays, and the biggest one is still called by its ancient, pre-Christian name of Yule. Yuletide blessings, anyone? Almost more interesting than the truly European Gods themselves are the histories of the people who revered them before the forced conversions, and their traditions which except for a little window dressing have been handed down to us uninterrupted. Only a little scratching at the library catalog is necessary to dig out the original truths by which our ancestors traveled the continents, sailed the oceans, and crossed the millennia.
I have let much of the day go by without commenting because I have wanted to avoid offending the many friends I have here with whom I most probably disagree, and quite deeply at that. Moreover, one of the nice things about not being religious is that I have no particular desire to convert anyone since, after all, I have nothing to convert them to.
On the subject of conversion and the deep desire that so many have to accomplish it with their neighbor, perhaps I should say this: I will agree to live my life according to your religious beliefs if (and ONLY if) you agree to live your life according to mine. Do we have a deal? Didn't think so.
I should say (because it needs to be said) that I disagree with our esteemed host in his comment that the Bible is "a fabulously complex document". When I read it, I found it distressingly and disturbingly straightforward. Indeed, most of the decisions I have made on the subject of dropping the religion that I had once practiced so fervantly (and without any parental guidance whatsoever) that I had considered joining the clergy, were based on reading the Bible. I found it explicit, literal, and comprehensive. Not remotely figurative and open to many potential interpretations as I had always previously been led to believe. Indeed, the second book of Peter explicitly STATES that "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation".
At any rate, this is a very heated topic among friends. I shall now stop before I type something that I later regret.
DPR,
If this group can tolerate my thoughts and outbursts then you surely are on safe ground. Besides, you always bring something interesting and informative to the party.
With the long history of pain, suffering and intolerance that has been wrought in the name of religion or against the religious, our skins should be thick enough for a good discussion such as this.
That said, l think its time to talk clam chowder! Manhattan or New England style?
Be well
To: drdgscott,
Your point is well taken.....it's unfortunate that the Episcopal church and the Anglican Communion have lost sight of that. The current debates in the church and the schism (multiple schisms) within the Church have caused much heartache. So many leave the Church for Roman Catholicism (if you're a High Church, Anglo-Catholic) or other charismatic protestant churches, or at least find comfort in churches that have seperated themselves from the various dioceses.
I