Religion in the public school curriculum

[David F. Austin]

Charles Haynes <haynesc at FAC.ORG> wrote on
Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:21:01 -0700

<stuff deleted>
>        In school districts throughout the nation, we have encountered
>plenty of examples of hostility to religion, confusion about how to deal
>with religion, silence about religion, or promotion of a particular
>religion.
<stuff deleted>
>        The most difficult challenge we face is in the curriculum.  It is
>fairly easy to get agreement on the importance of study about religions in
>history, literature and other courses.
<stuff deleted>
>        As many on the List noted, there are many constitutional and
>educational issues surrounding the role of religion in the public schools.
>In my view, one of the best treatments of these issues may be found in
>Warren Nord's provocative study Religion and American Education
<stuff deleted>
>Professor Nord and I are now working on a "how to" follow-up to his book
<stuff deleted>

        I hope that this hypo is neither too weird nor too far
off the thread's theme.  I apologize if it is already taken care
of in Nord's book, which I've not (yet) read.

        In an introductory, college-level text in which I try to
highlight some of the conceptual complexities of the relationships
between science and religion, I end by asking students to
imagine that they've been elected to their local school board,
and are attending a meeting that goes like this:

        Congratulations to all of you on your election to the
School Board!  I'm the attorney for the school system, and
I'd like to welcome you to what I'm sure will be an
interesting first meeting.  I was delighted to learn that you've
all just completed a course on religion, science and public
education.  You'll certainly need a clear head on these
matters.  That's why the Superintendent, who's away at a
three-week conference in Belize, has asked me to attend this
meeting.
        Before we get down to business, I thought that you
might enjoy reading over a couple of court decisions that talk
about the definition of religion in our legal system.  I'll just
pass them out, and you can read them over after the meeting.
[Distributes copies of: _Smith v Board of School
Commissioners of Mobile County_ 1987 (S.D. 655 F.Supp.
939) [Judge Brevard Hand on religion and secular
humanism] and _US v David Meyers_ (US Ct of App 10thC
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 23363 September 6, 1996, Filed)]
        About half of the parents and science teachers want
the science curriculum, including, of course, biology
courses where evolutionary theory is discussed, to cover the
similarities and differences between purpose-directed [aka
teleological] explanation as it is deployed in Arguments from
Design for the existence of deities and purpose-directed
explanation as it is deployed in biology, psychology and
physics.*  The other half say this is smuggling religion into
the science curriculum and that it will confuse students who
are already having a tough time with the material they already
have to cover.  For a short time, there seemed to be a
compromise in the making when a rather idealistic parent
suggested that what should be avoided throughout education
is indoctrination.  The courts make it clear that government
indoctrination of children in the tenets of a particular religion
is against the law.  But some teachers and parents pointed
out that public schools feel an obligation to indoctrinate
young children in the values of American democracy, and,
even more obviously, in the truths of arithmetic.  (It didn't
help to point out that the latter are necessary, as opposed to
contingent, truths, since many theists also regard their
fundamental beliefs, for example, that God exists, as
necessary.)  They've tried talking it out and coming to some
other compromise, but with no success, and plenty of
residual bad-feeling on both sides.  One of the opponents to
this expansion of the science curriculum claimed that the
view of the Beknighted Half, as he uncharitably called them,
has all the marks of pseudoscience. I'll read you his
prepared statement, on which he obviously spent a lot of
time.
        "What the members of the Beknighted Half are trying
to force on us in the Science Department is a system of
statements and practices makes reference to uncontrolled,
unobserved things, encourages selective expression and
repression of emotion, expresses an attitude of awe and
wonder towards Nature, seeks to discover some moral
truths, is based partly on faith, explains in terms of purposes
and intentions, originated in ancient times, contains vague
terms, focuses on phenomena for which there are no fully
understood physical mechanisms, and has been misused by
many evil people who were also utterly dogmatic in their
attitudes towards it."
        I'm sure that you realize that given this much
information and no more, what's being described could be a
respectable psychological theory, a mainstream religion or
pseudoscientific, pseudoreligious drivel.  So even if all this
is an apt description of the proposed curricular changes, it
doesn't advance the debate.
        Until I read Justice Scalia's dissent, I thought that
one of the most recent Supreme Court decisions, Edwards v.
Aguillard, might also guide us in this matter.  Having studied
his dissent, I'm not so sure. One of the questions that Justice
Scalia raised in my mind is, Just how deeply do we have to
look into the motives of the petitioners?  And anyway, why
should their motives be relevant?  No one - certainly not the
courts - objects to teaching our children about, or having the
government act on, (for example) religiously inspired
Abolitionist objections to slavery.  Nor is it always against
the rules for the government to help religion out; for
example, Justice Scalia writes, "few would contend that Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which both forbids
religious discrimination by private-sector employers ... and
requires them reasonably to accommodate the religious
practices of their employees, ... violates the Establishment
Clause, even though its 'purpose' is, of course, to advance
religion, and even though it is almost certainly not required
by the Free Exercise Clause."
        So this hot potato lands in the Board's collective lap.
I'm really looking forward to your wise counsel on this one.
Maybe you shouldn't wait to read those decisions that I
passed out at the beginning of our meeting.  Then again,
maybe we should ignore them.
        No, the Board doesn't usually take a break this early
in its meetings.  Yes, some meetings have run all night.

---------------
*The uses in physics are illustrated in the discussion of
anthropic cosmological principles.  In the unlikely event
that anyone is skeptical about the feasibility of discussion
of teleological explanation at the high school level, I'd
be glad to provide examples.


David F. Austin <David_Austin at ncsu.edu>
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Philosophy and Religion
Box 8103
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC  27695-8103
(919) 515-6333
FAX (919) 515-7856
--------------------------------------------------
"No good deed goes unpunished." Oscar Wilde
"Just say 'No'."  Nancy Reagan