"religious literacy" is not theology. So, I think the term "religious literacy' is meant to affirm confidence in the goal of the agenda behind this program, which IS NOT literacy, religious or otherwise.

With all due respect, enbar, it is the same with every aspect of religious studies in my opinion. You may believe that moderate views and affirming the center somehow elevates the educational stance, but it excludes essence. Does it not?
It would be of no more benefit to me to learn the essence of Islam from a Christian fundamentalist, then it would for an elementary or secondary teacher to educate on any particular faith.

It is not that I am opposed to the idea. I just think the terms o...

"religious literacy" is not theology. So, I think the term "religious literacy' is meant to affirm confidence in the goal of the agenda behind this program, which IS NOT literacy, religious or otherwise.

With all due respect, enbar, it is the same with every aspect of religious studies in my opinion. You may believe that moderate views and affirming the center somehow elevates the educational stance, but it excludes essence. Does it not?
It would be of no more benefit to me to learn the essence of Islam from a Christian fundamentalist, then it would for an elementary or secondary teacher to educate on any particular faith.

It is not that I am opposed to the idea. I just think the terms of faiths being presented in their purest forms is best done by those who know history, theology, apologetics, philosophy, and life application. Something tells me you would be opposed to this.

willhelm, if you study religion historically, as I have done for the past twenty years, you will quickly find that there is no such thing as "presenting religions in their purest form." Other than that, your arguments make no sense to me. Why would it be of no benefit for a schoolteacher to talk about a religious tradition? Because it "excludes essence"? But what does that mean, other than that it excludes the "correct" believer's perspective? But then again who determines what that is? If the only person authorized to talk about Christianity is a "true" Christian, then who gets to decide who a "true" Christian really is? Another true Christian, presumably. You quickly get into a very...

willhelm, if you study religion historically, as I have done for the past twenty years, you will quickly find that there is no such thing as "presenting religions in their purest form." Other than that, your arguments make no sense to me. Why would it be of no benefit for a schoolteacher to talk about a religious tradition? Because it "excludes essence"? But what does that mean, other than that it excludes the "correct" believer's perspective? But then again who determines what that is? If the only person authorized to talk about Christianity is a "true" Christian, then who gets to decide who a "true" Christian really is? Another true Christian, presumably. You quickly get into a very circular argument if you take this perspective.

The point of religious studies, seen from this perspective, is exactly the opposite of what you make it out to be. It's to sever the connection between the putatively authoritative position of the believer and the collection of more-or-less neutral, objective data about what people actually do as part of a tradition, from a standpoint explicitly understood as outside of any one tradition.

And when you come down to it, you're essentially claiming, on what basis I can't really discern, that it would be wrong for an elementary schoolteacher to tell students that Ramadan is a month of fasting, or that Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus. Why?

I think to teach religious literacy one must be able to express the essence of the faith, answer specific theological questions accurately, and describe the meaning of certain aspects and traditions of the faith in ways that may not be readily available to those not involved in the faith.

By "genuine" I mean all the cards should be on the table. If there is just some regular teacher doing the teaching, then there is no knowledge of bias or the potential of dragging a particular faith through the mud. ( For example: We are a predominantly Christian nation. Do you think Islam or Judaism would get a fair shake?)

what makes you think you know the difference between "genuine" and
"irreli...

I think to teach religious literacy one must be able to express the essence of the faith, answer specific theological questions accurately, and describe the meaning of certain aspects and traditions of the faith in ways that may not be readily available to those not involved in the faith.

By "genuine" I mean all the cards should be on the table. If there is just some regular teacher doing the teaching, then there is no knowledge of bias or the potential of dragging a particular faith through the mud. ( For example: We are a predominantly Christian nation. Do you think Islam or Judaism would get a fair shake?)

what makes you think you know the difference between "genuine" and
"irreligious" religious literacy, and on what criteria are you making
that distinction?

I can give you an example of something we are both familiar with...Clipmarks. Obviously you are not unaware of the ridiculous amount of misinformation that goes on in the world. How many times have you heard that Christianity is more responsible for death in this world than any other belief? You should know that is entirely without merit and if someone claiming to be Christian is responsible for some atrocity, then that is in no way indicative of the faith. Yet, we know that this is favorite strategy of those attempting to deride a faith regrdless of the fact that it is fallacious.
Do you think your typical Leftist would respond to such questions with, "Oh no little Suzie, that is not true, evil exists in this world and there has been more death and destruction caused by the non-religious than those of all religions put together. Here are some examples: Pol Pot killed 8 million, 40 million were killed in the Mongolian invasions in China, 30 million people were killed under Mao Tse Tung, 35 million have been killed in China since 1965
(according to the Walker Report, Senate Judiciary Committee), 70 million killed in USSR from 1917-1950, then there were millions killed battling those evils."

I'm not sure if this will be constructive in this discussion, but I'd like to point to Daniel Dennett's lecture on TEDTalks dd 2006 on 'Religion as a Natural Phenomon'.
You might know his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon', which calls for a rational examination of religion as a cultural phenomenon. In a way, he argues the same proposal as enbar's clip: religious education.

I think the way Dennett phrases his proposal might shed a light on this discussion on "religious vs irreligious religious education".
To summarize it in my own words:
"I propose a curriculum on facts on all religions of the world: on their history, their creeds, texts, music, symbolism, prohibit...

I'm not sure if this will be constructive in this discussion, but I'd like to point to Daniel Dennett's lecture on TEDTalks dd 2006 on 'Religion as a Natural Phenomon'.
You might know his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon', which calls for a rational examination of religion as a cultural phenomenon. In a way, he argues the same proposal as enbar's clip: religious education.

I think the way Dennett phrases his proposal might shed a light on this discussion on "religious vs irreligious religious education".
To summarize it in my own words:
"I propose a curriculum on facts on all religions of the world: on their history, their creeds, texts, music, symbolism, prohibitions, requierments. This should be presented factually and straightforwardly, with no particular spin. Only facts, no values"
"Teach your children whatever creed you want them to learn, but also teach them about other religions".
He build his case on 'informed consent'

Maybe the "facts, no values" approuch is synonymous to what's being called "irreligious religious education" by willhelm?
And this is probably where willhelm will disagree and see a 'leftist agenda', blaming the soullessness of such an education?
When you say 'essence', you mean values I think?

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE for the lecture. If you don't want to lose time, his proposal starts at 4m30.

A generalization is not a universal, enbar.
I don't understand your question regarding how I define fact. Facts are facts and they remain so whether we agree on them or are aware of them. However, I think this point of confusion is a good illustration of what I mean by genuine, as in having all cards on the table. When we think we disagree about the meaning of facts (not that I do, but you seem to), then what are we to think of the partisan clamoring that would surely take place if some shadow form of religion is taught in schools by those unable or agenda-driven.

How specific do these stipulations of yours go? Can a Methodist teach
"the facts" on Presbyterianism? What about a Sunni M...

A generalization is not a universal, enbar.
I don't understand your question regarding how I define fact. Facts are facts and they remain so whether we agree on them or are aware of them. However, I think this point of confusion is a good illustration of what I mean by genuine, as in having all cards on the table. When we think we disagree about the meaning of facts (not that I do, but you seem to), then what are we to think of the partisan clamoring that would surely take place if some shadow form of religion is taught in schools by those unable or agenda-driven.

How specific do these stipulations of yours go? Can a Methodist teach
"the facts" on Presbyterianism? What about a Sunni Muslim on Shia? Or a
Conservative Jew on Hasidism? Can a Christian with some doctrinal
reservations teach a course on Christianity? Can someone who's not
born-again teach a course on Southern Baptism?

And this is a further illustration. Where did I ever say anyone of these particular faiths would be incapable of teaching about another faith? This points to my view that this is probably about agenda for you and not about "religious literacy" education.

Like I said, I am for religious literacy. You seem to be for religious literacy on limited terms that fit a secular mindset, not on terms that would bring faiths together and foster tolerance. Hell, I would even support the faith of Atheism being in the mix.

Maybe "anti-religion" is not the correct term.
It is just my contention that religious literacy is best taught by those who are religiously literate. I think the fact that I support religious education being all inclusive (meaning including Atheism and all religions), that I support the free exchange of values, opinions, facts, objections, and open debate. Also, that I prefer these ideas be imparted by those involved in the faiths proves that my focus is on education and open exchange. Your idea seems to be confined to agenda and a politically correct curriculum.
And my tendency is not to use slogans. In fact, I cannot even think of a slogan. Oh wait, Yes I Can. I'm on the right, remembe...

Maybe "anti-religion" is not the correct term.
It is just my contention that religious literacy is best taught by those who are religiously literate. I think the fact that I support religious education being all inclusive (meaning including Atheism and all religions), that I support the free exchange of values, opinions, facts, objections, and open debate. Also, that I prefer these ideas be imparted by those involved in the faiths proves that my focus is on education and open exchange. Your idea seems to be confined to agenda and a politically correct curriculum.
And my tendency is not to use slogans. In fact, I cannot even think of a slogan. Oh wait, Yes I Can. I'm on the right, remember. We are not moved by such emotional, mind-numbing appeals.

Okay, maybe "slogan" isn't the right word for your use of the meaningless expression "anti-religion" -- but I think you get my point. Saying "anti-religion" sounds good, but it doesn't identify anything specific unless you provide some concrete characterization. I'd like to know on what basis you claim that a believer in a particular faith is better suited -- usually -- to impart the "facts" about that faith or tradition. Many people have argued the exact opposite, namely, that outsiders are better placed to give an objective picture of a tradition. I don't know which is right -- there are reasonable arguments to be made for either position -- but as far as I can tell you're just making an a...

Okay, maybe "slogan" isn't the right word for your use of the meaningless expression "anti-religion" -- but I think you get my point. Saying "anti-religion" sounds good, but it doesn't identify anything specific unless you provide some concrete characterization. I'd like to know on what basis you claim that a believer in a particular faith is better suited -- usually -- to impart the "facts" about that faith or tradition. Many people have argued the exact opposite, namely, that outsiders are better placed to give an objective picture of a tradition. I don't know which is right -- there are reasonable arguments to be made for either position -- but as far as I can tell you're just making an assertion here with no evidence. Can you explain how the fact that you believe this "proves" that you're interested in "open debate" and so forth? I don't see any necessary logical connection. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not disagreeing with you, necessarily. I can think of a number of good arguments in favor of that position, though I tend to think most of them are ultimately flawed. My point is just that I don't yet understand on what basis you're making this claim. Have you actually witnessed an example of religious-studies education, performed by somone you thought was a non-believer, which you believed to be somehow aimed at "anti-religion" or whatever? Or do you have evidence to show that believers are always more objective or better teachers than non-believers? Or what?

[continued in next comment]

[continued from previous comment

Besides, you ignored my earlier question -- how do you define a believer? Can a Catholic teach about Eastern Orthodoxy? Can a Calvinist talk about Arminianism? Can a Quaker talk about Pentecostalism? Why or why not?

Look, I've spent the last twenty years as a full-time student of the history of Christianity. By most people's definitions, I am probably not much of a believer. However, I think I'm probably better qualified to explain Christianity in a secular classroom than most committed Christians, and I don't think I'm being conceited in saying so. On this basis, it seems you would accuse me of being "confined to agenda and a politically correct cu...

[continued from previous comment

Besides, you ignored my earlier question -- how do you define a believer? Can a Catholic teach about Eastern Orthodoxy? Can a Calvinist talk about Arminianism? Can a Quaker talk about Pentecostalism? Why or why not?

Look, I've spent the last twenty years as a full-time student of the history of Christianity. By most people's definitions, I am probably not much of a believer. However, I think I'm probably better qualified to explain Christianity in a secular classroom than most committed Christians, and I don't think I'm being conceited in saying so. On this basis, it seems you would accuse me of being "confined to agenda and a politically correct curriculum." Can you explain specifically what agenda that is? Do you have any concrete evidence of this supposed political correctness? Or is what you're saying just based on what you imagine is going on in religious studies classrooms but have never actually witnessed?