Religion, Education, and the Unwitting Reproduction of Bigotry
This chapter is a partial reprint1 of my articulation of a defense for teaching about religion utilizing a cultural studies model. It includes a new section outlining and situating several other approaches to advancing literacy about religion in light of my advocacy for the cultural studies approach. I close with responses to some of the challenges to the cultural studies model that have been raised over the years since I first articulated the concept in 2006. I hope that this entire chapter will further our understanding of the multiplicity of issues and contexts that must be considered when attempting to advance a better public understanding of religion in our contemporary age.
The premises of this chapter are threefold: First, there exists a widespread illiteracy about religion that spans the globe;2 second, one of the most troubling and urgent consequences of this illiteracy is that it often fuels prejudice and antagonism, thereby hindering efforts aimed at promoting respect for pluralism, peaceful coexistence, and cooperative endeavors in local, national, and global arenas; and third, it is possible to diminish religious illiteracy by teaching about religion from a nonsectarian perspective in primary, middle, and secondary schools.
By religious illiteracy, I mean the lack of understanding about (1) the basic tenets of the world’s religious traditions; (2) the diversity of expressions and beliefs within traditions that emerge and evolve in relation to differing social/ historical contexts; and (3) the profound role that religion plays in human social, cultural, and political life in both contemporary and historical contexts. Conversely, I define religious literacy in the following way:
Religious literacy entails the ability to discern and analyze the fundamental intersections of religion and social/political/cultural life through multiple lenses. Specifically, a religiously literate person will possess 1) a basic understanding of the history, central texts (where applicable), beliefs, practices and contemporary manifestations of several of the world’s religious traditions as they arose out of and continue to be shaped by particular social, historical and cultural contexts; and 2) the ability to discern and explore the religious dimensions of political, social and cultural expressions across time and place.
These definitions presume that religion is a social/cultural phenomenon that is embedded in human political, social, and cultural life. They also presume that religion shapes and is shaped by the social/historical contexts out of which particular religious expressions and influences emerge. Finally, these definitions presume that there is a difference between religion understood through the lens of personal devotional practice and the academic study of religion. One way to characterize this distinction is to recognize the difference between religious learning (or learning religion) through a devotional lens and learning about religion from an academic one. Both are legitimate enterprises that can serve complementary but distinctive ends.
In the following pages, I offer a brief explanation of the three premises just articulated and then make a case for the importance of teaching about religion in schools from a nonsectarian perspective. I then offer an outline of both a theory and a method for how to teach about religion that can be incorporated in and adapted to diverse global contexts. I close with brief remarks summarizing a method for educating teachers about how to enhance their own religious literacy.
Premise One: There Exists A Widespread Illiteracy About Religion That Spans The Globe.
In my work with educators in East Africa, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and the U.S., I have found that in spite of tremendous differences between and within these communities there is a marked similarity in their approach to and understanding of religion as represented the by the following shared practices and assumptions:
These common practices and assumptions expressed by educators about religion are widespread and often indicative of their fellow citizens. They are manifestations of the religious illiteracy that I just defined and should not be interpreted as evidence of a lack of intellectual capability or awareness on the part of those who harbor these and similar assumptions. Given that the main sources of information about religion come from training in or about one’s own religious tradition (or none) and the media, it should come as no surprise that these and other forms of religious illiteracy are widespread. Appropriately, individuals who are raised in or convert to a certain faith tradition will learn about that tradition within their faith communities or through sectarian forms of education in the schools aimed at promoting a particular religious worldview and values that are consonant with it. Individuals who are not religious also learn particular worldviews and associated values from family and/or community members. In relationship to religion, these values are often a-religious or anti-religious. The other main source of information about religion is the media whose coverage about religion is notoriously inconsistent at best and not a reliable source for representing the complexity of religious traditions and their diverse manifestations and influences. None of these sources expose individuals to a comprehensive study of religion whereby (1) the diversity within a given tradition is knowledgeably and sympathetically represented and (2) religion as a social/cultural phenomenon is explored and analyzed. Such an understanding requires an academic approach to the study of religion and although there are some schools that offer instruction representing this approach in primary and secondary education, relatively few citizens of the world have the opportunity to engage in this type of inquiry.
Premise Two: One of the most troubling and urgent consequences of religious illiteracy is that it often fuels prejudice and antagonism thereby hindering efforts aimed at promoting respect for pluralism, peaceful coexistence and cooperative endeavors in local, national, and global arenas.
I am certainly not suggesting that religious illiteracy is the sole or even primary cause of the heartbreaking violence that dominates local and global news stories. I do, however, believe that religious illiteracy is often a contributing factor in fostering a climate whereby certain forms of bigotry and misrepresentation can emerge unchallenged and thus serve as one form of justification for violence and marginalization. Many others share this concern as evidenced by an online consultation focusing on this topic that was sponsored by the United Nations.3 One well-studied example of the negative consequences of religious illiteracy is Christian forms of anti-Semitism that have been promoted wittingly and unwittingly and which have fueled countless atrocities against the Jewish people for centuries, including (but sadly not restricted to) the Holocaust. Another example in countries where Muslims are in the minority is the widespread association of Islam with terrorism and the consequent justification of individual hate crimes against those perceived to be Muslim as well as overt (or barely veiled) political rhetoric that lends justification for State sponsored acts of aggression, including war. A third example is the antagonisms that are fueled between different expressions of the same tradition (e.g., between Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians and between Sunni and Shi’i Muslims). A fourth and final example is when some dismiss religion altogether as obsolete, irrational and/or inherently oppressive thereby offending the dignity and sensibilities of people of faith everywhere.
Training in religious literacy provides citizens with the tools to better understand religion as a complex and sophisticated social/cultural phenomenon and individual religious traditions themselves as internally diverse and constantly evolving as opposed to uniform, absolute, and ahistorical. Learning about religion as a social/cultural phenomenon also helps people recognize, understand and critically analyze how religion has been and will continue to be used to justify the full range of human agency from the heinous to the heroic. Finally, those trained in religious literacy learn to question the accuracy of universal claims such as “Islam is a religion of peace” or “Judaism and Islam are incompatible” thereby helping to deepen discourse about religion in the public sphere. Learning about religion is no guarantee that religious bigotry and chauvinism will cease, but it will make it more difficult for such bigotry and chauvinism to be unwittingly reproduced and promoted.
Premise Three: It is possible to diminish religious illiteracy by teaching about religion from a nonsectarian perspective in primary, middle, and secondary schools.
Given the prominence of religion in human history and contemporary affairs it would seem that education about religion from a nonsectarian perspective would be widespread and popular. This is unfortunately not the case. There are several reasons for this, but the most prominent and relevant for our discussion is that education about religion in the manner promoted here is not without controversy. Conservative religious practitioners from many faith traditions often oppose learning about religion in schools for they feel that it is the role of faith communities and families to teach about religion from their own theological perspectives. Learning about religion from an academic lens presumes the legitimacy of multiple religious worldviews, which is theologically problematic in some circles. On the other hand, many others who identify as religious and nonreligious alike fear that if religion is introduced in the schools some teachers will inevitably proselytize either by intention or default due to a lack of adequate training and clear understanding of the distinction between an academic and devotional approach. These are legitimate concerns that merit attention and I offer the following two responses.
First, it is important to note that religion is already being taught in classrooms across the globe in intentional and unintentional ways. Uninformed and often unconscious assumptions about religion are transmitted on a regular basis to students who, in turn, absorb these assumptions without interrogation. Teachers who have participated in training seminars about how to teach about religion commonly lament with chagrin the false and/or problematic assumptions regarding religion that they unwittingly promoted and reproduced prior to their training. For example, one teacher in Kenya spoke about how before participating in a seminar on Islam she wrongly interpreted Miriam Ba’s text So Long a Letter as “an indictment against Islam as inherently oppressive to women.” This is one of the texts approved for use in the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum and she commented that her entire department made the same problematic assumptions about the text. There are dozens of other examples that I could offer along these lines. Given this reality, I believe it is better to educate about religion directly and to give teachers the training they need to do so more responsibly than they are often currently able to do.
Second, the objections cited here highlight an important point: this form of teaching about religion is not neutral and needs to be justified (or not) in light of the larger aims associated with the nature and purpose of the educational enterprise itself as defined in specific local contexts. Most schools and/or systems of education have articulated a statement of purpose or mission statement reflecting the vision of education they seek to promote. On a larger scale, many nations have imbedded in their own narrative histories the values they hope to instill in their citizens through education in the schools. In some cases, the larger educational values that are articulated may lead to a clear decision not to include the study of religion from a nonsectarian lens in the curricula. This would be true, for instance, in some (but not all) intentionally sectarian schools whose aim is to promote a particular theological worldview. For many others, however, the larger goals of education are quite compatible with learning about religion in this way. This is especially true in contexts where pluralism and the cultivation of respect for diversity are values explicitly articulated. For example, I make a case in my book for why teaching about religion in the U.S. is an important dimension of educating for democratic citizenship in the context of our own multicultural, multireligious pluralism.4 The position I develop in the manuscript is too lengthy to reproduce here, but the point I want to emphasize is that education is never neutral and therefore all educational decisions (including content, pedagogical practices, and assessment standards) need to be justified in light of a larger educational vision that is intentionally articulated and embraced. It is sound practice for any educator to consciously align beliefs with practices in this way, but especially important when engaging in potentially controversial issues such as teaching about religion. Being transparent about the larger goals of the educational enterprise also provides a forum for open deliberation about those goals in ways that will strengthen public discourse and accountability.
How to Teach about Religion
Given the widespread culture of religious illiteracy that I just outlined, teaching about religion from a nonsectarian perspective poses some particular challenges. I will highlight some of these challenges and then outline the cultural studies method that I advocate for as the best way to teach about religion in ways that confront and transcend these challenges while simultaneously advancing religious literacy and critical thinking skills.
Challenges
The first challenge is that few teachers are trained in the methods and content required to teach about religion responsibly. Gaining even a minimal level of competence in these areas requires more training than typical in-service or pre-service workshops can provide. 5
A second challenge is that teachers and students often harbor a host of embedded assumptions about religion; some of which are conscious and able to be openly interrogated but many that are unconscious and therefore difficult to discern and engage. In a related point, teachers and students often feel confident about their conscious assumptions about religion when many of those assumptions are profoundly problematic. For example, it is not uncommon for teachers and students alike to make blanket statements about a particular religious tradition or religion in general that they presume reflect self-evident truths (e.g., “All religions are fundamentally the same.” “Muslims hate America.” “Homosexuality is a sin.” “Religion and science are incompatible,” etc.)
A third challenge is that efforts to teach about religion may well be interpreted by parents, educational administrators and/or community leaders as teaching religion or proselytizing even if the teacher is clearly not doing so. This is another way that the deep association of religion with sectarian practice manifests itself.
A fourth challenge is that the pedagogical dimensions regarding how one teaches about religion are as significant as what one teaches regarding content. In this way, method and content are profoundly interrelated.
The cultural studies method that I construct in my book and outline next is well suited to address and respond to these challenges. The method itself is applicable across the curriculum but especially appropriate and helpful as a framework to teach about religion in the face of widespread religious illiteracy.
A Cultural Studies Method
First, the method is multi- and interdisciplinary and recognizes how political, economic, and cultural lenses are fundamentally entwined rather than discrete. This approach assumes, for example, that economic or political dimensions of human experience cannot be accurately understood without understanding the religious and other ideological influences that shape the cultural context out of which particular political or economic actions and motivations arise. Rather than separating religion into a discrete category, this approach assumes that religion is a near constant ideological factor in social/political life. Sometimes it is more prominent than others, and sometimes the reigning ideology is shaped in reaction to religious influences, but religion is a nearly consistent variable nonetheless. It is appropriate, therefore, to assume the presence of religious influences in a given social/historical context or in relation to a given phenomenon until investigation proves otherwise. This is in stark contrast to current practices in schools where religion is usually only engaged when it is itself the main topic of inquiry, and even then it is often approached as a discrete, ahistorical phenomenon. (For example, many world history textbooks have sections outlining the basic tenets of the world’s major religious traditions in ways that present them as internally uniform and consistent across time and place.)
Second, the method assumes that all knowledge claims are “situated” in that they arise out of particular social/historical contexts and therefore represent particular rather than universally applicable claims. This notion of “situatedness” is drawn from historian of science Donna Haraway’s assertion that “situated knowledges” are more accurate than the “god-trick” of universal or objective claims that rest on the assumption that it is possible to “see everything from nowhere.”6 Contrary to popular opinion, the recognition that all knowledge claims are “situated” is not a manifestation of relativism whereby all interpretations are considered equally valid. Rather, “situated knowledges” offer the firmest ground upon which to make objective claims that are defined not by their detachment but rather by their specificity, transparency, and capacity for accountability. Regarding the study of religion, this understanding of “situatedness” offers a tool to recognize that religious claims are no different than other forms of interpretation in that they arise out of particular contexts that represent particular assumptions as opposed to absolute, universal and ahistorical truths. (For example, claims such as “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Islam promotes terrorism” are equally problematic and need to be recognized as representing particular assertions vs. ultimate Truths.)
Third, this notion of situatedness applies to the texts and materials being investigated, the scholarly interpreters of those materials, student inquirers, and teachers themselves. Analysis includes an understanding of the social and cultural contexts out of which particular interpretive perspectives arise. This dimension helps to address the second challenge of the assumptions that educators and students harbor about religion. The method recognizes that all forms of inquiry are interpretations filtered through particular lenses. By acknowledging this fact, an essential dimension of the inquiry itself is to identify those differing lenses and make transparent that which would otherwise be hidden. (For example, teachers should be explicit about how an individual’s own personal assumptions always shape interpretation and to thus employ learner-centered pedagogical practices that allow for the interpretative dimension of all forms of inquiry to emerge and be engaged.)
Fourth, the method calls for an analysis of power and powerlessness related to the subject at hand. Which perspectives are politically and socially prominent and why? Which are marginalized or silenced and why? Regarding religion, why are some theological interpretations more prominent than others in relationship to particular issues in particular social/historical contexts? (For example, what are the factors that led to the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan and why did their interpretation of the role of women in Islam, for example, gain social legitimacy over other competing claims within the tradition itself? In another example, what were the factors that led the U.S. Southern Baptist Convention to pass a resolution in 1971 that urged Southern Baptists to “work for legislation that will allow for the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother”7 and to reaffirm that resolution in 1974 as a “middle ground between the extreme of abortion on demand and the opposite extreme of all abortion as murder”8 only to dismiss both of these resolutions overtly in a 2003 resolution entitled “On Thirty Years of Roe V. Wade” and by inference in resolutions passed from 1976 to the present day?9) In another vein, what are the converging factors that lend social credibility and influence to some religious traditions over others and which dimensions of those traditions are interpreted as orthodox and which heretical and by whom? (For example, what were the conditions that allowed Muslims, Christians, and Jews to live together in relative harmony in medieval Spain and what are the religious influences that have contributed to shaping contemporary tensions in the Middle East and more globally regarding the “war on terror”?)
Fifth, the method includes reflection regarding the relevance and implications of the investigation itself. In other words, it recognizes that the educational enterprise is never neutral and so educators must be transparent regarding their aims. In relationship to teaching about religion, educators need to be clear about why this is a valid and, indeed, important focus for inquiry in relation to the broader educational goals that a given teacher, school, district, or nation affirms and intentionally tries to promote.
It is worth emphasizing that the interpretive dimensions of inquiry that are foundational to a cultural studies approach need to be modeled in classroom practices for these dimensions to be adequately addressed. In other words, one has to engage in interpretation rather than simply learn about interpretation from a distance. Thus, as I mentioned previously and develop more fully in my book, I believe that teaching about religion responsibly requires that educators adopt a learner centered, problem posing classroom pedagogy as the methodology that models this interpretive dimension most effectively.
Other Approaches to Advancing Literacy about Religion
There are several other contemporary approaches to teaching and learning about religion that are being advanced by groups and individuals. Many of them are represented in this volume. Though these different approaches are often subsumed under a larger category of advancing a better understanding of religion, I contend that the differences are significant and serve diverse and sometimes complementary and sometimes antagonistic ends. The five broad categories that I have identified are (1) sectarian; (2) interfaith or interreligious; (3) faith based; (4) consensus; and (5) religious studies. Within each category, there are subcategories denoting different audiences, methods, and constructions, but I believe these five are appropriately designated as representing distinctive approaches. The cultural studies method that I advance falls under the category of religious studies. Though I believe that the other approaches are useful in particular contexts, I do not believe that any other than the cultural studies model that I describe and develop more fully in my book are appropriate for providing students with the tools they need to understand the complex roles that religions play and have always played in human life and cultures. I don’t say this to be provocative or in any way disrespectful. As I stated earlier and outline next, I believe each approach has its place, purpose, and audience. I do, however, contend that it is problematic to assume that all or most of the approaches outlined are appropriate for promoting a better public understanding of religion in schools in the ways that are necessary for diminishing the consequences of illiteracy that I identify. I will now outline each approach, provide some reflections on the purpose (or purposes) of education each represents, and offer brief remarks regarding why I do not think the approach is appropriate and/or effective for teaching about religion in nonsectarian contexts.
Sectarian
Sectarian teaching about religion is quite straightforward in that this category represents all teachings that promote an explicit religious worldview regarding a specific faith and/or practice and its proper representation. Religious communities employ this approach in their classes on religious instruction that are aimed at communicating a set of values and interpretations of the faith to members or potential members. (This form of education about religion can include nonreligious worldviews such as atheism or specific types of agnosticism, but these distinctions need more elaboration than is possible to provide here.) This approach is appropriate and even necessary within faith communities, families, and religiously based schools, and it serves the important purpose of advancing an informed understanding of particular interpretations of faith and tradition. Significant purposes of education represented by this approach will include (but are not restricted to) the following: (1) formulating and advancing a specific interpretation of faith and/or practice consonant with the community; (2) providing a vehicle for community cohesion and clarity of communal definition; and (3) establishing a foundation for ethical and moral reflection and action. Though critical for fostering and sustaining particular faith communities, this approach represents the devotional expression of religion and is not suitable for nonsectarian contexts.
Interfaith/Interreligious
Teaching about religion from an interfaith or interreligious perspective takes many forms, but what unites them all is that the vehicle of communication is an individual’s own faith journey and self-understanding as an important locus of authority. The assumption is that people of differing faiths (within and among traditions) can communicate important elements of their faith experience to others through story and other forms of mutual explorations and sharing. This approach can include a decision to embrace a religious studies content focus, but the framework of exploration self-consciously emerges from one’s own experience and understanding of faith. This approach is represented by countless interfaith groups formed in local communities, the Tony Blair Face to Faith Project, and Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Corps, among others. An overarching purpose of this form of education about religion will include providing vehicles to understand religion through the experiences of actual practitioners. This serves an important purpose of advancing understanding within communities by fostering productive encounters with people of diverse backgrounds who may not otherwise interact in significant ways. This is not an appropriate approach for teaching about religion in public schools or nonsectarian contexts, however, because authority rests in individual expression and representation. Practitioners represent the tradition through their experiences which is appropriate for interfaith dialogues but not for settings aimed at representing the diversity of perspectives within a tradition, including those that may be perceived to be negative.
Faith Based
The faith-based approach focuses on introducing students to religious traditions and expressions through encounters with religious leaders, practitioners, and/or significant physical sites such as places of worship or other locations designated as holy. This approach is often adopted in nonsectarian contexts such as public schools or continuing education opportunities for teachers. A purpose of education advanced by this approach is to provide students with experiential learning encounters that can ground their studies in the lives of real people and places. This is similar to the purpose of education advanced by interfaith/interreligious groups but the differences are that (1) students will not necessarily reflect upon their experiences explicitly through their own faith perspectives, and (2) mutual sharing is rarely practiced. Religious leaders or practitioners will often be invited as guests to the classroom and excursions to religious sites are usually organized as field trips with students in a spectator role. Though this is a common approach utilized by educators to teach about religion in nonsectarian contexts, it is problematic for the same reason that an interfaith approach is not appropriate in these settings. Practitioners and religious settings always represent a particular interpretation of the faith. Even if teachers remind students of this particularity, the power of the experiential encounter will override any assertion that attempts to place these encounters in a wider context. Furthermore, the equation of religious practitioner as expert is modeled in this context. Teachers often invite experts in to speak about a particular topic so the pattern of expectation is repeated with religious practitioners. Finally, the lack of mutual exchange from personal experience that is present in interfaith groups but absent in school contexts further promotes the notion of special expertise.
Consensus
Teaching about religion through the formulation and distribution of consensus documents represents a civic-minded approach aimed at bringing diverse religious groups together to agree on “common ground” assumptions regarding both method and content for teaching about religion. The First Amendment Center has championed this approach and has published several pamphlets and manuscripts for teachers that diverse religious communities have endorsed.10 Among the purposes of education represented by this approach are (1) the recognition of the importance of learning about religion for civic health and well-being from the perspective of religious leaders and practitioners; and (2) a clarification of the religion clauses of the First Amendment and their relevance for teaching about religion in schools. The same critique echoed earlier applies here: religious leaders or representatives of traditions are serving as experts of the traditions themselves. Furthermore, as consensus documents they represent religion in a wholly positive light and do not provide students with the method for critical inquiry required to understand the full range of religious influences in all dimensions of human experience.
Religious Studies
The religious studies approach is advanced by religious studies scholars and is focused on providing students with tools to understand religion from an academic and nonsectarian perspective. There are many different methods that can fall under the category of religious studies, but the three overarching assumptions about religion that all scholars share are the intersecting ways that religions (1) are internally diverse; (2) are always evolving and changing; and (3) are embedded in all dimensions of human agency and expression. The religious studies approach is best exemplified in the American Academy Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K–12 Public Schools.11 Though geared toward the U.S. context, the Guidelines have relevance for other settings where citizens perceive that illiteracy about religion promotes civic strife and where an important purpose of education is to provide students with information and skills to allow them to function cooperatively in pluralist contexts, including but not exclusive to religious pluralism.
The cultural studies method that I advance falls under the religious studies category and is arguably the most challenging and comprehensive of all the methods outlined in the Guidelines. I develop a full-fledged argument for this approach in my book, but I hope that the overview provided here is a persuasive one.
Objections to the Cultural Studies Approach
I will close by summarizing and briefly responding to three of the most consistent critiques of the cultural studies method.
Teachers are not adequately trained to teach this method. It is true that teachers are rarely trained in religious studies, but many receive training in critical theory/cultural studies through the lenses of race, sex, gender, sexuality, and/or class. Providing them with training through professional development opportunities in the methods of religious studies and relevant content for their teaching areas is all that is needed for these teachers to have the tools required to bring a more robust and intentional study of religion into their classes. For those not schooled in critical theory, pursuing an education focused course on cultural studies is an important first step followed by the same suggestions regarding both method and content outlined. Public school teachers are required to engage in continuing education opportunities to keep their certification updated, and many chose to focus their efforts on increasing their religious literacy.12
Some also assume that critical theory and cultural studies are only taught in elite school contexts. This is true of some dimensions of postmodern thought but the cultural studies method I support and outline is heavily influenced by the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire who forged his method working with illiterate peasants. His method has been adopted by educators across the globe and is especially popular with those working with traditionally marginalized constituencies.
This method may work in elite schools with bright students and small classes but it would be impossible to employ in most public schools that have large class sizes and students representing a wide range of capabilities and motivations. Scores of public school teachers across a variety of disciplines and in diverse school systems have successfully employed this method with large class sizes and students with a broad range of capabilities. It was the method used in the pre-service public school teacher education program at the Harvard Divinity School from the 1990s until it was suspended due to financial constraints in 2008 and it is the method currently employed in the Harvard Extension School Certificate in Religious Studies and Education program which is aimed at (but not restricted to) public school educators. Most graduates of both of these programs are teachers in public school settings and many of them work with underserved populations.13
It is fine to teach this method at the secondary level, but it is inappropriate at the middle and primary levels. Students aren’t mature enough at these younger ages. Students of all ages are capable of employing this method in developmentally appropriate ways. The AAR Guidelines provide “Snapshots of Practice” that illustrate ways that primary, middle, and secondary teachers can adopt the cultural studies method for teaching about religion in their classrooms.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that there are significant challenges to teaching about religion utilizing the cultural studies method. It is a sophisticated approach that appropriately requires substantive training in both method and content. In this way, it is no different than any other academic discipline or area of focus. The flaw is to assume otherwise, and we place educators in an untenable position when we fail to provide them with the education they need to help their students understand the complex roles that religions play in human experience. Religious illiteracy has moral and civic consequences that are often dire. It seems appropriate, therefore, that our efforts to diminish illiteracy should be robust and intellectually sound. Our teachers and their students are more than capable to seize the opportunities and meet challenges that a sophisticated approach to enhancing religious literacy engenders. We sell them and ourselves short when we assume otherwise.
Notes
1. See Diane L. Moore, “Overcoming Religious Illiteracy: A Cultural Studies Approach,” World History Connected, November 2006, paragraphs 1–24. <http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/4.1/moore.html> Many thanks to the editors of World History Connected for their open access policy.
2. By this bold assertion I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t pockets (even large ones) where teachers and citizens are quite well educated about religion and where the academic study of religion is imbedded in local and/or national curricula. I am indebted to my colleague in the United Kingdom, Robert Jackson, who has done much to publicize many such international efforts. See Robert Jackson, Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy (London: Routledge Falmer, 2004.) It is, however, through the work of Jackson and others that I have also come to a deeper awareness of the challenges that many international educators face in their attempts to teach about religion and I characterize many of those challenges as manifestations of religious illiteracy. Finally, in a separate but related point, the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum is quite comprehensive and has great potential as a vehicle to foster literacy about religion. In my experience, however, teachers are unevenly trained in the content and methods associated with the academic study of religion to be able to consistently teach about religion through the IB curriculum in responsible ways. (See the example I cite in the essay regarding Miriam Ba’s text So Long a Letter.) Based on the evidence highlighted here and elsewhere, I believe it is accurate to state that there is widespread religious illiteracy that spans the globe.
3. The consultation was sponsored by the “Alliance of Civilizations,” a UN program formed at the initiative of the Secretary-General to counter terrorism through understanding. The consultation took place over the month of May, 2006.
4. In my book I argue that a nonsectarian approach to religion should be required in all U.S. educational contexts, including sectarian ones. I suggest that in religiously affiliated schools, both sectarian and nonsectarian instruction about religion should be incorporated into the curriculum. Diane L. Moore, Overcoming Religious Illiteracy: A Cultural Studies Approach to Teaching About Religion in Secondary Schools (New York: Palgrave, 2007).
5. Educators can earn a graduate level Certificate in Religious Studies and Education through the Harvard Extension School. This certificate provides a sound foundation for teachers to learn the methods of religious studies, relevant content for their courses, and opportunities for implementation. Certificates can be earned through distance education as well as for those in residence in the Cambridge, MA, area. See http://www.extension.harvard.edu/degrees-certificates/professional-certificates/religious-studies-education-certificate for more information.
6. Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (NY: Routledge 1991), 191.
7. Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution number 4: On Abortion” in Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1971: St. Louis, Missouri June 1–3, 1971 (Nashville: Executive Committee, Southern Baptist Convention, 1971), 72.
8. Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution number 5: On Abortion and Sanctity of Human Life” in Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1974: Dallas, Texas June 11–13, 1974 (Nashville: Executive Committee, Southern Baptist Convention, 1974), 76.
9. For a full text compilation of all the Southern Baptist resolutions on abortion from 1971–2005, see www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html.
10. See, for example, First Amendment Center, Finding Common Ground (Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center) 2007; First Amendment Center, A Teacher’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools (Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center) 2008; and First Amendment Center, What is the Truth About American Muslims? (Washington, DC: First Amendment Center) 2012.
11. American Academy of Religion Guidelines for Teaching about Religion in K–12 Public Schools in the United States (Atlanta: American Academy of Religion) 2010.
12. As previously noted, the Certificate in Religious Studies and Education at the Harvard Extension School is geared toward in service teachers who wish to advance their literacy about religion.
13. I am at the beginning stages of planning an edited volume with contributions from teachers working in a variety of different settings focusing on how they employ the cultural studies model in their contexts.