Religious endorsement in schools

[Teresa S. Collett]

Several postings have discussed the effect of religious expression in public
schools, and assumed that the harm such expression works upon the
non-believer or different believer is sufficient to preclude such
expression.  Although my beliefs are such that I would agree with much of
what would pass for religious expression in most American schools if
permitted today, I too thought such expressions should be prohibited until
teaching a high school Sunday School class a few years ago.  I asked the
students to answer two questions:  1) Atoms exist as a small component of
all matter; is this a statement of fact or opinion?, and 2)God exists; is
this a statement of fact or opinion? Not surprisingly, the students
classified the first statement as a statement of fact,and the second as a
statement of opinion.  When challenged about how they distinguish the two,
the students responded that they know the first statement was a fact because
they had seen a molecule, but they had not seen God.  When I asked how many
had actually seen an atom, most admitted they had only seen pictures.  I
then asked if they had not seen pictures of God--the ceiling of the Sistene
Chapel for instance.  I also asked if they believed that ET existed since
they had seen pictures of him.  The students agreed that "seeing" is not
sufficient basis for belief--particularly with the new technology available
that allows all sorts of creative changes to what purport to be photographs.

        They then told me that they believe in atoms because they are
described in their science books.  I pointed to their Bibles and said God is
described, at least partially, in there.  They replied that the science
books were supposed to be true.  I responded that more people throughout
history have believed in the truth of the Bible than in any particular
proposition of science.

        Finally one student said he believed in atoms because he was taught
about them in school, and he was not taught about God in school.  He
reasoned that with sex education, driver's ed, and the more academic
curriculum, anything that was true and useful was taught in the school.
Anything that was not true or was not useful was not.  Therefore he argued
that God's existance must either be something we are uncertain about or we
don't beleive that it is sufficiently useful to require discussion of it in
school.

        That conversation changed my opinion on "religion free" schools.  I
understand the endorsement problem, and as a practising Catholic who grew up
in Oklahoma, I have concerns about how major theological concepts get
presented, but maybe that just goes to whether we should have government
schools instead of schools that represent the community from which students
are drawn.