1. Name the four gospels.
2. Name a sacred text of Hinduism.
4. Where according to the Bible was Jesus born?
5. President George W Bush spoke in his first inaugural address of the Jericho road. What Bible story was he invoking?
6. What are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Old Testament?
7. What is the Golden Rule?
8. "God helps those who help themselves." Is this in the Bible? If so, where?
9. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God." Does this appear in the Bible? If so, where?
10. Name the Ten Commandments. List as many as you can.
11. Name the four noble truths of Buddhism.
12. What are the seven sacraments of Catholicism?
13. The First Amendment says two things about religion, each in its own "clause." What are the two religion clauses of the first amendment?
14. What is Ramadan? In what religion is it celebrated?
How'd you do? Not so hot? Don't worry, neither did most of America. Stephen Prothero, in his book Religious Literacy, notes that Americans are incredibly religiously illiterate. National surveys show that most Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments, had no idea that "blessed are the poor in spirit" come from western civilization's most important piece of oratory, and most couldn't name a single Hindu holy text. Only 1 in 6 of Prothero's students at Boston University knew that the First amendment guarantees both religious freedom and prohibits the government from endorsing one religion.
Why don't more Americans know more about religion? Simple answer: our schools have never taught it to them. Prothero sees a major problem in the American educational system. We are pumping out students who are nearly totally ignorant on matters of eternal and universal importance.
Warren Nord asks, "How can anyone believe that a college-bound student should take twelve years of mathematics and no religion rather than eleven years of mathematics and one year of religion? Why require the study of trigonometry or calculus, which the great majority of students will never use or need, and ignore religion, a matter profound and universal significance?"
Now personally I think math is important, but Nord, and Prothero, make good points. How can we say that we actually educate our youth if they no next to nothing about the most formative ideas and worldviews history has produced?
"But teaching religion in public schools is illegal!" you might say. President Clinton would disagree with you. In 1999, Clinton's Department of Education sent a memo to every principal in the country saying, "Public schools may teach about religion--for example, in classes on history, music, the arts, or comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, the role of religion in history--but public schools may not provide religious instruction." In addition, several rulings from the Supreme Court support public educators rights to teach about religion in the classroom (see Prothero, 138).
Prothero is right in pointing out an obvious flaw in our educational practices in the public sector. I believe, however, he has gone awry in seeking his motivation primarily in making a better democracy, a more informed electorate. Prothero, as a Religious Studies professor, has either consciously or subconsciously bought into the idea that he is "objectively" looking at all religions from a neutral standpoint. His writing seems to suggest he is ignorant to the fact that he also has a all-encompassing worldview that is not neutral or objective, namely, religious pluralism. The real motivation behind learning about all religions must be the pursuit of truth.
Regardless of this, however, he brings up some important points that all educators ought to heed. How can we honestly say we are educating our youth when they know next to nothing about the most important, life-shaping ideas and philosophies in our world? Religious literacy ought to be on the strategic planning docket of public and private educational leaders alike.
For what it's worth, there is clear religious teaching at public universities. By and large, the religion that is taught in most university classes could be called, "anti-Christianitiy."
ReplyDeleteAnd for what it's worth, in high schools in east tennessee, the NT is an elective students can take. It's not exactly a "religious studies across the curriculum" idea that Clinton was talking about.
And that's what makes Clinton's quote so intriguing. How can you teach American history or Western civilization without discussing Christianity to a large degree? How can you discuss calculus without discussing the guy who discovered/invented it (a Christian philosopher named Pascal)? The subject matter could go on and on.