In an article in the Saturday September 15 edition of the Toronto Star, columnist Stuart Laidlaw presents the case for teaching religion in publicly funded schools. The author suggests that, in order for students to properly understand art, history and literature, they need an understanding of religion. To lend support for this notion, Mr. Laidlaw looks to religious literacy advocate Stephen Prothero.

Now, I don’t think that religious literacy is necessarily a bad thing. I could support the teaching of religion in public schools depending on what is meant by religious literacy. If religious literacy just means the study of Christianity and the bible, then I’m afraid that I can be counted out. If it means the study of the world’s major religions from a factual and historical perspective, I’m in.

Here’s what I propose: a senior academic level course called Religions of the World, taught under the auspices of the Social Sciences curriculum. The course would be based on a survey of the major religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Course content would include the basic ideology of each religion, its major figures, historical events and societal influences throughout the ages. A proper education in religion would be incomplete without the study of the many pagan origins of our “modern” western religions. Students would learn how our now established religions gained prominence by co-opting many features of pagan religions. And let’s not forget the native North American religions - they should be included too.

In this course it would be emphasized that the ideologies of all religions are based on belief rather than fact. Students would learn that there is no empirical evidence that supports the beliefs of any religion. It would be important to illustrate how religion in general influences human behaviors. And, while there have been many positive aspects of religion throughout the ages, there are negative ones as well. Thus, it would be necessary to contrast the positive and negative influences of religions.

If presented through the lens of a strictly social science perspective, I would support the teaching of religion in the public school system in Ontario. If it can be done without emphasizing any one religion, I would support it. If it can be done without proselytizing, I would support it. If it can be done without the involvement of the church, I would support it. If the agenda of any one religious group were to provide the basis of religious study, I’d have to withdraw my support. The intended purpose of such a course is to foster a literacy that provides students with the ability to appreciate the religious references in art, literature and history and to show how religion influences current world and societal issues, not to create converts.

Evangelical Christians would probably complain that, since Christianity predominates in the western world, it should be the basis of religious education. What they forget though is that our public school system is a secular school system. Thus a secular, non-theological approach is the default position for any teaching of religion.

As an aside, the author uses the following quote from Stephen Prothero to justify teaching religion in public schools:

Prothero says public schools need to teach religion because churches have done such a poor job.

Anyone see a problem here? I always thought the church was the ultimate source of religious teaching. Considering the huge amount of money tithed weekly to churches throughout the world, one would expect that they would be doing the best job imaginable in teaching religion. After all, is that not what churches are for? It appears that Mr. Prothero’s answer is to give the churches a pass by dumping the responsibility for religious education onto an already cash starved education system. Meanwhile the churches are free to continue to squander their congregants hard earned cash doing a piss-poor job ... in Jesus’ name, of course.