It has been often proposed, on this forum and elsewhere, that since creationism and Intelligent Design are unscientific and religious in nature and thus have no place in publicly funded science classes, a good alternative might be some sort of religious studies or philosophy class. In such a class, it is often proposed, attention could be payed to a variety of beliefs, including creationism. By using an academic approach, advocates of this idea claim, such studies can be undertaken with no threat to the vital separations guaranteed by the first amendment.
I disagree. It is my position that attempts at teaching religious studies in primary and secondary education is impossible without violating separation. My reasons are listed in no particular order.
1. In setting the curriculum for such a class, educational agencies would be telling a teacher what should be taught about a religion, including beliefs possibly held by the teacher and some number of students. I think that constitutes a "law regarding an institution of religion". I realize that a very carefully constructed set of guidelines might to some extent mitigate this but still see it as a difficulty.
2. It would be essential that the teacher of such a class be absolutely neutral in the treatment of all belief systems. A zealot or crusader in disguise, trying to engage in "stealth preaching" through such a class would have to be weeded out. To do this effectively, it would have to be done before exposing students to the teacher. In other words, in the selection process. Attention would have to be given to and questions asked about the applicants religious convictions. That is simply and rightly not legal.
3. In such a class, it would be essential that all belief systems be taught with no statement made as to the truth or falseness of them. In modern America, does anyone think that religious, right wing forces would allow their myths to be treated like all others?
So, in conclusion, any form of religious studies in American primary and secondary education is simply unworkable. I ask that those who advocate such a class explain to me why my objections are invalid.
Yes, Jar, I'm calling you out.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 05-24-2005 12:41 PM
™ Version 4.2