After the publishing of my last column ("Keeping Sunday School Separate," April 6), I discussed my argument with several friends and Dartmouth staff members. They each asked me, in various forms: what if public schools taught a comparative approach to religion? Would you object to that on the grounds of separation of religion and school, of church and state?
Unlike my clear-cut view of the Georgia situation, I did not have a ready response to this scenario. I saw how a comparative religion class could go horribly wrong but also the potential for it to turn out beautifully right. After careful consideration, I concluded that a comparative approach to the teaching of religion would be a beneficial course in public schools if and only if certain imperative conditions were met.
Before delving into these conditions, let me briefly present how I see the syllabus of this class. The class would begin by analyzing what religion is and familiarizing students with basic trends coursing through all religions (creation stories, theodicy, religious heroes, etc). It would then look at each of the world's religions in detail, exploring their guiding tenets, histories and cultures surrounding them. The underlying goal would be to achieve an understanding of the inner workings of religious traditions, how these inner workings play out in religious communities and how these communities interact with the world beyond themselves.
Now the conditions: First, teachers who aspire to lead such a class must be specifically trained to do so. This specialized training would ensure that the teacher is fluent in the subject matter. It would also hopefully assure students, parents and the state that the teacher of a comparative religion class would know how not to blur the distinction between what is allowed (teaching about religion) from what is not allowed (teaching of religion).
The second condition would be a mandatory academic, rather than devotional, approach to the class. As these terms are not self-explanatory, let me clarify by example. An academic approach to the New Testament would involve a reading of the text, certainly, but would not be this alone. Instead, the Biblical reading would go hand-in-hand with teaching about the world in which the Bible was written as well as materials pertaining to what these stories might have meant in their original context. Additionally, the teacher would have the option to also discuss themes such as the historical relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament, the function of the New Testament in Christianity and/or competing interpretations of the New Testament by different groups who use it. A devotional approach would be more akin to theology and would feature detailed readings of the Bible alone to extract meanings as they relate to the Christian faith and the Christian understanding of the New Testament.
The third condition would be that the course is neutrally comparative instead of biased comparative. By this I mean that the traditions would be compared to each other through their own lenses as opposed to being viewed through the lens of one specific tradition. If students choose to compare other traditions to their own, as would inevitably occur, this would be fine. There simply must be a safeguard up to ensure academic neutrality.
A potential criticism is: how can religiously devoted students take such a class? Will it not put their faith in question? My response is that a properly created class will allow anyone to take it, for it will not deal with issues of faith, but will rather explore religions as systems which operate historically and within communities. Certainly individuals will be allowed to contribute to the class based on their own life experiences, but the class will be focused on the religions themselves and not on the faith (or lack thereof) of the students studying. I know that classes like this already exist in a few classrooms around the country. Could this type of class, under the conditions I've set forth, be implemented everywhere?
Hopefully -- though clearly there are those on both the religious and secular side who would vociferously oppose its teaching. Some religionists will claim that it seeks to relativize and therefore belittle their traditions. Others who profess no religion will push hard to ensure that the word religion never, ever, ever enters a public school for fear that a mere mention of religion will degenerate into evangelism. What each camp misses is that a properly constructed class benefits them both. It allows religious adherents to gain a broader understanding of religion itself and increase their knowledge of both their own and others' religious viewpoints. This opens the door to cross-religious dialogue and, hopefully, understanding. It also allows those who profess no religion to have a better conception of the role religion plays in their world and how it interacts with culture. This opens a slightly different door -- the door to tolerance of religious viewpoints that opens when one shifts from being 'anti-religious' to being an informed person who is 'non-religious.' I hope we can all at least see these doors as possibilities and at best advocate and even participate in learning situations that help open them.
