Americans get an 'F' in religion

[redav]

I noticed this article at USAToday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm?csp=34

I'm curious to know what other people's thoughts are on the topics/opinions presented in the article.

[wordsmith]

I think that most people, American or no, are ignorant of world religions.

I think that people say that America is a fundamentally religious country because a lot of people who don't actually know very much about religion identify themselves being very religious. Considering yourself a churchgoer/spritual person/believer in a higher being doesn't necessarily equate being very well versed on knowledge of religions, so there's a disconnect in people who consider themselves to be spiritual or religious, and those who are actually knowledgeable on matters of religion. I don't think that religious literacy is common, at all.

But it will be a cold day in hell before it's ever addressed in public school, as the article suggests it should be. That's really barking up the wrong tree. Not happening.

[Kitty]

I studied religion in college. I do think it's very important to read/study religions and know at least the basics for the main religions.

I think it's too touchy of a subject to study earlier than at the college level. I see a whole shitload of problems arising.

[HollyM]

Knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia makes it easier to understand what is going on with Iraq and it's neighbours right now. I'm not American but I wish we could place less emphasis on religion. None of it is proved, you're supposed to just have faith and it's causing and has caused a lot of problems around the world. Also the whole 'my religion is better than yours' philosophy is horrid and isn't any good for social integration.

[wordsmith]

Religion is integral to most cultures. You're not going to get rid of it.

[Kitty]

Knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia makes it easier to understand what is going on with Iraq and it's neighbours right now. I'm not American but I wish we could place less emphasis on religion. None of it is proved, you're supposed to just have faith and it's causing and has caused a lot of problems around the world. Also the whole 'my religion is better than yours' philosophy is horrid and isn't any good for social integration.

The whole "My religion is better than your religion" probably arises from a lack of understanding and knowledge ABOUT other religions. It's easier to see someone as the enemy if you don't know anything about them.

[Deni81]

One of my favorite courses i took in my undergraduate days was my world religions class. We learned the basics of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity. I found something to respect in all of the major religions, personally.

[ebruening]

I truly enjoyed my college religion class. Interestingly enough, the most "religiously aware" people I've ever known have been staunch atheists.

[ebruening]

But it will be a cold day in hell before it's ever addressed in public school, as the article suggests it should be. That's really barking up the wrong tree. Not happening.

I'll try to keep my thread-jack short, but I personally support total separation of church and state. I work in a public school, albeit in an extremely religious, socially conservative, rural community. This past fall, the students had a required "reproductive education" presentation that definitely had a Christian religious bent to it, and was organized by a group of Christian mothers. I was extremely upset by the fact that not only was this event held in a public school, but it was also required for all students to attend. The information was totally biased, and used "scare tactics" reminiscent of my Catholic education. In other words, it didn't present honest, factual information to the students, but tried to "scare" them into following a particular faith's view of sexual relationships. It's well and good for parents to teach that to their kids inside the home, or church. However, I'll strongly disagree with ANYONE who believes that it's appropriate to push religious agendas in PUBLIC schools.

[redav]

Knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia makes it easier to understand what is going on with Iraq and it's neighbours right now. I'm not American but I wish we could place less emphasis on religion. None of it is proved, you're supposed to just have faith and it's causing and has caused a lot of problems around the world. Also the whole 'my religion is better than yours' philosophy is horrid and isn't any good for social integration.
A couple notes about things I find interesting:
- 'my religion is better than yours' -- What is the purpose of faith? Isn't the whole point to have a conviction that what you believe is true? If you believe your religion teaches true principles and there is someone who disagrees, what then? I do not see a logical resolution that allows for holding your own beliefs as true while valuing another's contradictory beliefs in equal valuation. To implement an attitude of 'no religion is better than another' requires no convictions and/or no confidence that any one is correct or its teachings true.
This condition gives rise to the problem of how to educate about religions without being biased, which was noted in the article. However, I do not think it is impossible. Like Kitty's comments, I think much of the inability to be fair likely comes from the lack of knowledge about other religions in the first place.
- "None of it is proved, you're supposed to just have faith" -- This is directly related to the first point. If there is no proof, then there can be no claim to truth, and then there can be no claim to any set of beliefs being better than any other. And the result is that any faith is exactly identical to blind faith.
One of the implied points of the article is a lot that people don't know about their own religions, much less others'. Sadly, that matches my experience. A case that was recounted to me from one class. The subject was the mid-east and that the area gave rise to Judaism, Christianity, & Islam. The teacher asked who was each, and some kids didn't raise their hands. When asked what religion they were, one answered, "I'm Catholic." When told that was Christian, he replied by giving a definition that described Protestantism. :eek: (Sidenote: How does this happen? My guess would be that he was talking about religion with his friends who told him that definition of Christianity, and he didn't know enough to know they were wrong.)
In fact, there is no scriptural basis (that I have found) for the statement "none of it is proved, you're supposed to just have faith," but it is the general assessment of what faith is. (But it is understandable--if there is no proof available, then there is no need/motivation to search it out, so why would anyone feel differently?) In short, not only if we don't know what others believe, but if we don't even know the doctrines of which we claim to believe (words' post caught this point), we cannot adequately relate to people who are different because they have certain preconceived ideas about us.

[pisces2473]

I truly enjoyed my college religion class. Interestingly enough, the most "religiously aware" people I've ever known have been staunch atheists.
I think that's because they are detached from any one religion, and don't have any biases towards them. They are able to study them equally, with an open mind.

What do you think?

[weary]

the major problems i have with [organized] religion are:

-the majority of wars, the world over, have been started/fought because or, in the name, of religion
-they are so dogmatic, the original intent of the beliefs/teachers/founders are lost in the 'practices'
-they [usually] preach forgiveness, but infrequently practice it, and in fact, are very unforgiving/unaccepting of anyone with different beliefs

[redav]

I think that's because they are detached from any one religion, and don't have any biases towards them. They are able to study them equally, with an open mind.

What do you think?
Remember that atheism is a religion, too.

[veniqe]

Athiesm is not a religion. It's a lack of any religious beliefs.

Most athiests are extremely biased towards religions, especially the one they grew up in. Note that I said most. Not all. I've found that some younger athiests(on message boards I frequent) don't know much about other religions cause their parents didn't teach them any of it. That's a pity, I think.

Yes, there are athiests who are more open minded and I can't give numbers cause I'll be wrong. I've been a member of Athiest websites for almost 2 years now and it's a fabulous place to discuss religion. Or, if you've had to deal with too much religion in your normal life, it's a welcome place to seek refuge.

I also doubt people will (want to) become more aware of other religions. Here in good old SA, we have a massive Somalian influx. They're all of the Muslim faith. We have other immigrants who have different beliefs. Luckily, their right to believe what they want, is enshrined in our constitution.

I'm probably a bit off topic now. So, just to get back on board, I know I don't know much about other religions, much less about my old beliefs. I struggled to grasp some basic facets such as The Holy Trinity etc when I was still semi religious. I was trying to understand it from a intellectual point of view and of course it didn't work!

I'd like to reread the Bible and start on the Q'uran as well as other religious books. Just to get a better understanding.

My future kids will get a thorough schooling in religions. And I'll leave it to them to decide if they want to be religious or not. Hopefully, they'll choose the latter. :)

[chicagogirl]

the major problems i have with [organized] religion are:

-the majority of wars, the world over, have been started/fought because or, in the name, of religion
-they are so dogmatic, the original intent of the beliefs/teachers/founders are lost in the 'practices'
-they [usually] preach forgiveness, but infrequently practice it, and in fact, are very unforgiving/unaccepting of anyone with different beliefs

Interestingly, weary, that's what this article is is trying to convey. You might think Religion A dogmatic in it's practices. Someone who follows Religion A might be rather upset that you've just described a belief of their's in a negative tone.
:frustrate

[wordsmith]

-they [usually] preach forgiveness, but infrequently practice it, and in fact, are very unforgiving/unaccepting of anyone with different beliefs

I remember being super happy to find and work for a church that completely turned this notion on its ear. It was what a faith community SHOULD be, but many just are not. They're hard to come by, I've never found its equal, sadly.

[chicagogirl]

Considering the topic of the piece, I think it's ironic that the question "What is the Golden Rule" also has a Jewish answer, which they left off, haha.

Though I do agree that it's important to know about other religious beliefs. It affects so many things in our world.

[wordsmith]

What's the Jewish version of the Golden Rule? Is it markedly different from the Christian concept? The Golden Rule to me has always seemed fairly ecumenical. Even movements like Wiccanism have their version of it that's basically the same.

[chicagogirl]

What's the Jewish version of the Golden Rule? Is it markedly different from the Christian concept? The Golden Rule to me has always seemed fairly ecumenical. Even movements like Wiccanism have their version of it that's basically the same.

Hey what do you know? I googled it and found a page comparing the different versions of this (http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm) . We once had a debate in Torah study on if there's a difference between "Do unto others what you would have done to you," and "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." (I say yes - Jewish study is strongly based on exegesis)
The full line is: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn."

[bridgetjones]

Athiesm is not a religion. It's a lack of any religious beliefs.

Most athiests are extremely biased towards religions, especially the one they grew up in. Note that I said most. Not all. I've found that some younger athiests(on message boards I frequent) don't know much about other religions cause their parents didn't teach them any of it. That's a pity, I think.

Yes, there are athiests who are more open minded and I can't give numbers cause I'll be wrong. I've been a member of Athiest websites for almost 2 years now and it's a fabulous place to discuss religion. Or, if you've had to deal with too much religion in your normal life, it's a welcome place to seek refuge.

I also doubt people will (want to) become more aware of other religions. Here in good old SA, we have a massive Somalian influx. They're all of the Muslim faith. We have other immigrants who have different beliefs. Luckily, their right to believe what they want, is enshrined in our constitution.

I'm probably a bit off topic now. So, just to get back on board, I know I don't know much about other religions, much less about my old beliefs. I struggled to grasp some basic facets such as The Holy Trinity etc when I was still semi religious. I was trying to understand it from a intellectual point of view and of course it didn't work!

I'd like to reread the Bible and start on the Q'uran as well as other religious books. Just to get a better understanding.

My future kids will get a thorough schooling in religions. And I'll leave it to them to decide if they want to be religious or not. Hopefully, they'll choose the latter. :)

I learned about different world religions in my final year of high school but it was required since it was a catholic school. In addition, the course covered cults and how to recognize when you are being recruited. I found it fascinating. Even the differences between Christian sects.

This stuff should be covered if only to understand other cultures since even in my city where there is much diversity, people do not always mix outside "their group" so misunderstandings still happen. Funnily enough just the other day I saw a large group of Somalian Muslims on the subway :D

[redav]

Athiesm is not a religion. It's a lack of any religious beliefs.
Merriam Websters defines "religion" as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices." A set can be empty, but it is still a set. If you don't believe in God, that is still a belief, and I'm sure pretty much every atheist has some attitudes about the matter. So, I consider it a religion. (It's like the Rush song--"if you decide not to chose, you still have made a choice") Also, if an understanding of world religions is being taught, including atheism would make perfect sense.

Most athiests are extremely biased towards religions, especially the one they grew up in. Note that I said most. Not all. I've found that some younger athiests(on message boards I frequent) don't know much about other religions cause their parents didn't teach them any of it. That's a pity, I think.
I used to work with one who had absolutely no knowledge about any religious topics. It was like talking in Swahili to him. It really was sad, because if you don't know about a thing, how is rejecting that thing an educated decision?

I also doubt people will (want to) become more aware of other religions.
Interesting. I wouldn't agree as a rule, though. There are several people with whom I have conversed whose view of the world is set in stone and even told me what I believed (they were completely wrong, of course). When I tried to tell them what I actually believed they essentially plugged their ears and went "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la..." So for those people, I do agree. But in my experience, they are the minority (that could be a difference to the countries we live in). I have found most are curious, at least on an intellectual level. I also think that the more people learn about other religions, the more curious they become.

I struggled to grasp some basic facets such as The Holy Trinity etc when I was still semi religious. I was trying to understand it from a intellectual point of view and of course it didn't work!
My experience is completely different. As you might guess from my posts, I am a very analytical and logical person, AND I hold to religious doctrine. I could not do that if I could not understand it on an intellectual level. But, there are many religions out there that don't hold up to intellectual/logical scrutiny. It is like another coworker I had who rejected organized religion because he concluded his church was a load of bunk. IMO, it invalidates THAT church, not all churches. But since he had a myopic view, that was that.

I'd like to reread the Bible and start on the Q'uran as well as other religious books. Just to get a better understanding.
I agree. I think we all would benefit from that.

[lostindc]

Anyone see the Steven Colbert interview with a congressman who wanted to post the 10 commandment in public schools? The congressman could barely name 3 of them.

I think it is at least important to have an understanding of other religions and cultures (especially before invading them) Otherwise we wind up trying to convince our Sunni 'allies' (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) to help prop up a Shia government in Iraq in an attempt to weaken the Shia 'enemy' governments of Iran and Syria. And then we wonder why our Middle East foreign policy is not working.

[Taza Tikha]

I remember my seventh grade history textbook had specific chapters about the major religions, and every other chapter had at least some reference to religion. I mean, it is impossible to explain the history of Europe without discussing the Holy Roman Empire and WHY it took the path it did, or to explain the history of the Middle East without knowing the tenants of Islam, and so on. I've seen texts that try, and it ain't pretty.

I fully support teaching religious literacy. It is as much a part of social studies as history, geography, economics, and civics, and deserves a place in the classroom.

Separation of church and state means that the government cannot mandate or ban any particular religion. It does NOT (or should not) mean that any religious reference is banned from public space.

[pisces2473]

Separation of church and state means that the government cannot mandate or ban any particular religion. It does NOT (or should not) mean that any religious reference is banned from public space.
When I was a senior in public HS, I took a non-Western philosophy class, which of course touched on Buddhism and Islam (among other beliefs). That was fine, because we were just learning about it. No one was telling us that one was better than another or that we couldn't discuss things. It was one of the more interesting classes that I took.

[wordsmith]

Hey what do you know? I googled it and found a page comparing the different versions of this (http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm) . We once had a debate in Torah study on if there's a difference between "Do unto others what you would have done to you," and "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." (I say yes - Jewish study is strongly based on exegesis)
The full line is: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn."

Cool, it's really not different, just one is "be good to others," the other is "don't be shitty to others." I guess the Wiccan rede of "Harm none" is closest to the "don't be shitty to others."

[cheshrcarol]

I'm pretty much an atheist and I wouldn't consider my beliefs/non-beliefs to be a religion. My view is that I'm just not able to completely believe there's a higher power, but I don't strongly believe against it. I could see how you would think people who are vehemently anti- a god are kind of a religion of their own.

But even though I don't believe in any specific religion, I find them pretty interesting. I went to a catholic university and we had to take required theology courses and I liked them a lot. One was a comparative religion course, taught by an Indian professor(can't remember if he was Hindu or what religion, but definitely wasn't christian/catholic). Another was a historical type class on the life of Jesus - it concentrated on the historical Jesus of Nazareth and included some discussion about accounts of his death in the Gospels.

I'd enjoy taking a bible study class, if it were treated as any book, not with a religious slant. But I doubt I'd find anything like that.

I don't have any problem with kids learning about religion, in fact it's probably a good idea. But I think that if you're going to teach them about religion, they need to be taught all the major world religions, and not from a secular point of view.

[HollyM]

I've just been having a read of this thread. In my first comment I wasn't saying we should get rid of religion just that I wish we could place less emphasis on it in society. The amount of different religions on this planet seem to show to me (but not to many others) that as humans we seem to be very good at inventing religions and using them as a method of social control. I don't think we should stop educating people about them because if nothing else they are part of our history and culture but we should be educating kids about all major world religions instead of labelling them at a young age as a 'muslim child' or a 'christian child' and only teaching them about their parents religion. I don't know whether you have them in the US but here in the UK Tony Blair is encouraging more funding for faith schools which I think is a really bad move, especially in areas where people are not integrating and there is a lot of ethnic tension. From my experience I've met both atheists and relgious people who have lots/no interest in other religions so I don't think you can label one group as having less interest than the other.

[Jedi of Zen]

I saw that article, and thought it was fairly telling. I think it would be interesting if comparative religion was given more focus in academia, but honestly I doubt it would have a huge impact in the way of creating more widespread personal interest in the subject, any more than would happen with any other field, such as history or philosophy. Plus, I think that anytime you talk about religion in a North American classroom setting - the mere mention of the subject is enough to cause personal tensions flare up like a nuclear war.

[Winter Storm]

Well, I'm agnostic and I pretty much agree with the article. I do think world religions should be taught in school as a brief intro on nearly all of them. I say this because whether you are religious or not, its still important within millions of people's live and the more we understand where the other is coming from, the better tolerated we should be.

I remember being in middle school when a good friend found out I didn't know some of the basic stories from the bible. Understandably, I wouldn't have known because I wasn't raised Christian, but part of me felt I should have been taught at some point. I mean why stay in the dark. It didn't "turn" me.

However, I think the downside of this may be that the more people learn about other religions, especially while young and impressionable, they may begin to question their own and which one is really right for them, something I'm sure religious leaders won't like.

[wordsmith]

I think there are definitely religious movements that encourage the understanding of other religions. I belong to one. I probably learned more about world cultures and world religions when I was attending a church-affiliated liberal arts college than at any other stage of life.

[redav]

I think there are definitely religious movements that encourage the understanding of other religions. I belong to one.
As do I. In fact, it is essential to actively find the truth for yourself. Learning, not just a Sunday school lesson, but the best of everything out there--science, philosophy, etc--is of very great importance.

This brings up an offshoot to the premise of the article: What are the reasons one would NOT encourage/support continued/expanded learning? I've thought about this before, and I have a few opinions on it, but none are very flattering.

[pisces2473]

I probably learned more about world cultures and world religions when I was attending a church-affiliated liberal arts college than at any other stage of life.
Me too. I loved my American Religion course--where we studied every religion to come into America since the Pilgrims.

[wordsmith]

I feel like knowledge/learning is never as dangerous as the lack of knowledge/learning.

[weary]

I feel like knowledge/learning is never as dangerous as the lack of knowledge/learning.
hallelujah. amen. :p ;)

DITTO.

[redav]

Now I'm thinking about this aspect--

It seems many here have had some sort of comparative religion/world religion class. It also seems that of those who have not, many are interested in/enjoy the subject, and feel that it is a benefit to learn about these things.

Therefore, if this is the case, despite the posts on this thread, do you agree with the conclusion of the article that by-and-large, people are ignorant of religions (often even their own :eek: )? If so, why would this be the case if there is interest in it?

From my experiences, I would say that yes, most are pretty ignorant about religion, despite having interest. I think part of the problem is the availability of accurate information. (The cycle goes: people are not knowledgeable → they don't know accurate facts → they teach/share inaccurate facts → leads to more people who are not knowledgeable). Sometimes when incorrect information is shared, it is an honest mistake, but other times it is a deliberate attempt to belittle another religion. Which leads to a second problem …

I also think bias/stereotypes plays a big role. If you have a bias, you are less likely to believe/retain/share (possibly) accurate facts that contradict the bias and more likely to believe/retain/share (possibly) incorrect facts that agree with the bias. The combination of ignorant + biased is an especially bad combination.

It has also been my experience that these two problems can show up in religion classes, causing students walk out with much less real info than they think. The effects of these problems ought to diminish if multiple classes are taken & experiences had from a multiple of sources. But if one has had only one class or learned from only one source, how are they to know if the info that was taught was correct?

[wordsmith]

Now I'm thinking about this aspect--

It seems many here have had some sort of comparative religion/world religion class. It also seems that of those who have not, many are interested in/enjoy the subject, and feel that it is a benefit to learn about these things.

Therefore, if this is the case, despite the posts on this thread, do you agree with the conclusion of the article that by-and-large, people are ignorant of religions (often even their own :eek: )? If so, why would this be the case if there is interest in it?



People who participate on these boards regularly generally fall on the more highly educated end of the spectrum, and increased education usually equals increased exposure to a variety of viewpoints. Increased exposure often allows for a greater openness, curiosity, and sense of understanding. I don't think that posters here are really a super indicative cross section of the attitudes/interests of the country as a whole, for that reason.

[veniqe]

I think you're overlooking an important fact. most of us on here are pretty educated. It's a given that when your intelligence quotient is quite high, you're likely to see things in a different light.

So it just follows that if you're intelligent, you'll be less averse to checking out differing points of view. Well, mostly, anyway.

[redav]

People who participate on these boards regularly generally fall on the more highly educated end of the spectrum, and increased education usually equals increased exposure to a variety of viewpoints. Increased exposure often allows for a greater openness, curiosity, and sense of understanding. I don't think that posters here are really a super indicative cross section of the attitudes/interests of the country as a whole, for that reason.

However, that doesn't answer the question. Despite the posts here--implying that this board may not represent the overall population--is the conclusion that Americans don't know much about this topic accurate? (By extension, does this conclusion also apply to non-Americans as well as the "highly educated" posters on this site?) Likewise, the concerns I expressed regarding the cause would be every bit applicable to the educated as well as the uneducated.

I have found the interest/enjoyment part of the issue of the public in general to pretty much match the sentiments expressed here. I have seen a difference of a more detached/conceptualized view here than IRL, as well as less overall religious inclination. There certainly seems to be fewer 'fanatics' here than IRL. A possible difference is the extent the filter of "how does this apply to me" affects people of various education/economic conditions.

[ebruening]

I think that's because they are detached from any one religion, and don't have any biases towards them. They are able to study them equally, with an open mind.

What do you think?

This is just my personal experience, but I did a lot of research to arrive at my current spiritual comfort level. The atheists (and agnostics) I personally know have done extensive research into the backgrounds and belief structures of all major world religions.