Are public schools the proper place to consider religion? Although we might agree that religion needs further discussion, a reader and former teacher rightly questioned how this might happen.
How can we engage in religious studies when so many students struggle with basics like simply reading? she asked. What religions would we choose to teach? These are utterly valid and common questions from teachers, parents, and pedagogues, including myself.
It takes me back to the memory of sitting in a classroom on September 11th of 2001. It was the first time that my predominantly white, suburban, privileged class had ever engaged in such riveting dialogue. Because we were forced to wake up. Those atrocious acts of religious fundamentalism 'changed the geopolitical-religious landscape forever (Robert J. Nash).' Suddenly, youth and adults alike were compelled to further question 'Why? why had this happened? And 'what do Muslims really believe?' and 'What is the difference between Shiite and Sunni? These events and the continuing war on terrorism around the world makes it clear that we are now forced to reexamine the core of what we teach in schools in order to make students more globally aware.
I return to Professor Robert J. Nash, who teaches religious pluralism at the University level, who writes, "...Much of what we in the United States believe to be moral - or immoral - is largely a legacy of the Judeo-Christian heritage, as well as of the European Enlightenment." And this is visible today. Let's go to the Texas school board this summer, for a frightening example of how religion in schools can go wrong. Allow me to introduce Cynthia Dunbar, who is part of a coalition of Christian evangelicals who have taken over the Texas School board.
Dunbar and her education board is on the brink of changing what kids in Texas learn. She said;
I don't believe the important dialogue that is needed will come from text books, or policy change, although that would be helpful. It will come from teachers willingness to engage in the subject. It will come from the integration of religion into other core subjects, such as global studies or literature. Hindi and Arabic texts were never in my school curriculum, but are immensely rich. It will come from reading the daily news and then discussing fact. I'm talking religious literacy. Like, what is Jihad? Perhaps this kind of sensitive exploration can only commence in Secondary School, though I would imagine that the younger the children, the more open they are to speak and listen without fear or dogma. Teachers are masters at speaking with a voice that holds no bias, thus, discussion about religions can be carried forth in casual, factual dialogue.
Nash, in his exploration of religious pluralism often begins by raising the Hindu insight that although religious truth may indeed be one, there are an infinite number of ways to reach, interpret, and practice that truth. Rig Veda, the oldest and most sacred Hindu text puts it this way:
It takes me back to the memory of sitting in a classroom on September 11th of 2001. It was the first time that my predominantly white, suburban, privileged class had ever engaged in such riveting dialogue. Because we were forced to wake up. Those atrocious acts of religious fundamentalism 'changed the geopolitical-religious landscape forever (Robert J. Nash).' Suddenly, youth and adults alike were compelled to further question 'Why? why had this happened? And 'what do Muslims really believe?' and 'What is the difference between Shiite and Sunni? These events and the continuing war on terrorism around the world makes it clear that we are now forced to reexamine the core of what we teach in schools in order to make students more globally aware.
I return to Professor Robert J. Nash, who teaches religious pluralism at the University level, who writes, "...Much of what we in the United States believe to be moral - or immoral - is largely a legacy of the Judeo-Christian heritage, as well as of the European Enlightenment." And this is visible today. Let's go to the Texas school board this summer, for a frightening example of how religion in schools can go wrong. Allow me to introduce Cynthia Dunbar, who is part of a coalition of Christian evangelicals who have taken over the Texas School board.
Dunbar and her education board is on the brink of changing what kids in Texas learn. She said;"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future. In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."Some of these corrections drop references to the slave trade, while highlighting the considerable efforts of Confederates and sidelining Thomas Jefferson. This is when religion in schools gets scary. Unfortunately, Texas also has a great influence on text book production because they buy so many. So, if Dunbar is so close to changing history with the strength of her Conservative Christian cohorts, then the rest of us should be able to make some more liberal minded adjustments too?
I don't believe the important dialogue that is needed will come from text books, or policy change, although that would be helpful. It will come from teachers willingness to engage in the subject. It will come from the integration of religion into other core subjects, such as global studies or literature. Hindi and Arabic texts were never in my school curriculum, but are immensely rich. It will come from reading the daily news and then discussing fact. I'm talking religious literacy. Like, what is Jihad? Perhaps this kind of sensitive exploration can only commence in Secondary School, though I would imagine that the younger the children, the more open they are to speak and listen without fear or dogma. Teachers are masters at speaking with a voice that holds no bias, thus, discussion about religions can be carried forth in casual, factual dialogue.
Nash, in his exploration of religious pluralism often begins by raising the Hindu insight that although religious truth may indeed be one, there are an infinite number of ways to reach, interpret, and practice that truth. Rig Veda, the oldest and most sacred Hindu text puts it this way:
"Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti"
or Truth is one, but the wise call it by many Names" (Rig Veda 1.46.46).
The only way youth will begin to operate with that mind set is when we are free and capable of discussing religion. The best time to do this is when it is relevant; either on the news, or on the day of some religious holiday or ritual. When children see people walking around their city with ash smeared on their foreheads, they should be able to have a discussion in school about its significance. We need our children to be literate for the world they are entering. I am no authority on the subject, or its manifestation in schools, but I am a strong believer in educating citizens for global awareness.
If you are interested in some new ideas on religious pluralism and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.
ReplyDeleteMy thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.
In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.
The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:
1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.
Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.
* The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.
** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.
For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca
Samuel Stuart Maynes