By
Maureen Trantham
May 22, 2007
"I'm bringing you home a few treasures," my boyfriend hinted to me on the phone several days before he returned from a recent trip. "Souvenirs from afar."
"A little gold, frankincense and myrrh?" I coyly rejoined.
"What?"
"You know, gold, frankincense and myrrh? From the nativity story?"
"What are you talking about?"
Though I was shocked that he had no concept for the gifts that three wise men brought Jesus, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it was a slightly obscure reference, save for the fact that every nativity scene in Western holiday commercial culture depicts the three wise men bearing gifts.
Perhaps.
The next day, however, a similar scenario occurred– — only with a different individual.
I had referenced Mecca in a conversation with another friend only to hear the phrase: "Mecca's in Jerusalem, right? It's what Muslims call Jerusalem."
What?
Both my friend and boyfriend are college-educated, vastly intelligent individuals, and yet, after more than 17 years of education, neither could identify basic components of two of the world's largest faiths.
Interestingly and unfortunately, they are not alone. Year after year, I am increasingly baffled by the relative illiteracy college students possess toward basic issues of religion.
To be clear, I do not separate myself from this equation. Randomly watching a PBS documentary on the history of the Mormon Church in America, I was shocked to find how out how little I knew about Mormons, despite their place as one of few religions completely founded in the United States and one of the world's most rapidly expanding faiths.
Though religious activity was taken out of public schools long ago, it seems that the push for students to grasp the basic tenets of world faith has grown weaker and weaker.
"For a long time, it was assumed that a major point of higher education was to put religion behind you. Eventually, it was also assumed that the world would do the same. Things haven't worked out that way," wrote Peter Steinfels in a recent New York Times article.
The world is indeed full of religion. But just how prepared are college students to enter this world?
Though Steinfels contends that the data is sparse, he cites the work of professor Stephen Prothero — a chairman of the religion department at Boston University — who "has assembled a rather bleak picture from available pools as well as his own experience and that of other professor's."
Prothero notes that "every year colleges provide bachelor degrees to students who cannot name the first book of the Bible and who cannot name one salient difference between Hinduism and Buddhism."
Maybe that's why one of my jokes involving the senior class gift of a tree and Buddha's Bodhi tree fell flat (or maybe I'm just not that funny, but I swear, you had to be there).
Prothero continues to suggest that all college students should be required to take one class in religious studies as a prerequisite for graduation.
Call me crazy, but I think at the UW we could all take a break from worshipping the god of science for one quarter and take Prothero's advice.
Not that I'm suggesting mass indoctrination. Students should be able to pick which course in religion they pursue (and that should include a study of atheism and its motivations), but at least they would have some hooks to hang their hats on in the real world — the real world in which the majority of individuals subscribe to some type of faith.
"In today's world it is irresponsible to use the word 'educated' to describe high school or college graduates who are ignorant of the ancient stories that continue to motivate the beliefs and behaviors of the overwhelming majority of the world's population," writes Prothero.
At the UW, we have "Individuals and Society" requirements — what could be more crucial to the study of individuals and society than religion?
And if — as we claim — we are attempting to educate the next generation of the world's leaders, shouldn't that education include the footnotes to some of the world's greatest struggles?
In a perfect illustration, Prothero concludes that it was not necessary for President Bush to have known the precise difference between Sunnis and Shias, but merely to have known that there was a difference and "that it might be important to know more."
As much as a large portion of the ivory tower shuns the religious world, it alienates and does a disservice to students who will inevitably be faced with issues and problems of faith in their lives. Hopefully, in the global search for tolerance to which we pay lip service, we can all learn a thing or two.
Reach columnist Maureen Trantham at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.
11 Comments
#1 ellie
on May 22, 2007 at 8:17 a.m.(Enumclaw, WA | Unverified Name)
This is a great column. Understanding different religions helps us understand each other. There seems to be fear or disdain related to relgion in the academic world; yet it is probably the most definitive part of the differences in culture.
#2 Lee Robison
on May 22, 2007 at 8:29 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
There are plenty of classes at major universities that offer study of the bible or other religious texts as studies in fiction. We should not be requiring educated individuals to take courses that have a basis in faith. Those classes are reserved for students who wish to take them, not who are forced too. Your beliefs are your own, and I don't think it's appropriate to require those beliefs of others under the guise of being all inclusive of every religion. If it is important to you, then make sure you save your money so that your children can attend a religious university, but don't require your beliefs, or belief in general from anyone else but yourself.
#3 Will Erickson
on May 22, 2007 at 8:33 a.m.(Edmonds, WA | Unverified Name)
Additional religious courses available? Sure thing. Required understanding of worldly faiths to graduate? No.
While this article does prove that the lack of religion in schools has led to a number of awkward pauses in conversations and the lack of understanding of inside jokes, it hardly justifies the requirement for religious education. Why should we require students to take a class on fictional history when they aren't even required to take a factual one?
Yes, Bush should understand the difference between Sunnis and Shias. I would agree that he or at least someone on his staff should be well versed in this matter. However, this is because he is the president of a nation that is conducting a war in a highly volatile region where conflict stems from religious and cultural beliefs. Does this mean that the average Joe graduating from "Insert name here" University should be held to the same standard?
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that while religion is a prevalent piece of our worlds culture, we shouldn’t be required to learn about fictional stories that are a cornerstone of someone else’s existence.
#4 Amber
on May 22, 2007 at 9:06 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
AMEN! There is such an aversion to religion seen in schools today. People can't seem to understand that by leaving people ignorant about these major and very influential religions, they create even more superstition, fear, and persecution surrounding these beliefs. This gives rise to incorrect misconceptions and stereotypes that further divide people. Some parents don’t want their kids exposed to religion in school but they can’t hide them from it forever. Religion is everywhere. It’s better to learn about the different religions in an academic environment where the subject can be dealt with on a neutral basis, rather than allowing that child to grow up with misconceptions that twist his/her perception of other people. We teach racial tolerance in public schools, but religious tolerance is actually discouraged.
On a different note, if you want to know about a religion, the absolute best way to learn about it is to discuss it with someone of that faith. I learn more about other religions that way. Other sources are not quite so reliable. I, for one, would not want people judging my faith on what a corkscrew PBS special had to say about it.
#5 Will Erickson
on May 22, 2007 at 9:10 a.m.(Edmonds, WA | Unverified Name)
It's not simply a lack of understanding that causes the rift between peoples of different faiths. Acceptance is a better adjective. If people could just learn to accept the differences of their fellow man (Or women), there would be no need for required education in such areas of studies. This approach can also be applied to other aspects of our world’s culture such as race, social status, and sexual orientation. That, however, is a topic worthy of its own article and discussion.
#6 Anna
on May 22, 2007 at 12:13 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I don't think the fictional stories are really the issue. A HISTORY of religion would be a very worthwhile academic endeavor, especially one that compares different types of religions and highlights how many share the same basic tenents. Some say that the average Joe University Grad doesn't need to know about the religion of other, but I'd argue Joe Grad could be the MOST important person to understand these things. Religion, in addition to fear and love, is one of the greatest motivational elements in human history. People have been killed, countries have been conquered (and freed) and cultural divides have been created--all in the name of religion AND all by "average Joe Grad"-types. How are we to change our behavior without a better understanding of what motivates us?
#7 Will Erickson
on May 22, 2007 at 12:55 p.m.(Edmonds, WA | Unverified Name)
Anna,
I agree that the history of religion would be a very interesting and worthwhile class to take. One can learn a lot from the past and apply it to their actions in the future. While I still think even this type of class should be optional, I was under the impression that the author of this article was referring to a class that studies the religion itself (i.e. Read from the Bible and interpret the word of God kind of stuff).
In regards to the comment about religion being needed for its motivational aspects, I would have to disagree. While the majority of people need something along the lines of religion to find meaning and hope in their lives, there are others who are content with simply living in the now. I don't need an omnipotent being to get me out of bed each morning and stop me from running a red light or stealing from the fridge at work.
If people want and or need this outside motivation, then they are more than welcome to be recruited by the multitude of religious enticement techniques used today (Jehovah witness anyone?).
I just don't want to be forced to take a class about something I believe to be fictional so that "God" can ring in another average Joe Grad that unbeknownst to him, was in need of religion his whole life.
#8 Mo
on May 23, 2007 at 11:09 a.m.(Rahway, NJ | Unverified Name)
A nice gesture to be sure but let's face it, teaching religion in a college is nothing more than a gesture. How many of us simply skated through our gen. ed. classes? How much do you really remember from your intro to French film class?
The teaching of religion is a serious matter. Knowledge of this subject is absolutely essential if we are to understand the world and its conflicts today. A simple, nominal course isn't going to redress our shortcomings. We need to start earlier. Religious education deserves a place in the public schools (and I mean all religions!). After all, one is more likely to meet a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu in their adult life than they are to meet a partial derivative, force vector, or quadratic equation.
#9 Anna
on May 23, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Will-
In most academic circles (certainly those employed by our own University), a course in Topic-X "studies" includes consideration of the historic, cultural, and generally external factors that influence the human understanding of that topic. Example: Women studies examines the various socioeconomic, historical and other factors that have influenced how women behave, think, work and live. Since Trantham uses the phrase "religious studies" rather than "Sunday School" or "Religion Class," especially in context of including religions OTHER than just Christianity in said proposed course's curriculum, I'm more inclined to think she's in favor of a class that explains the tenents of a certain religion, NOT the attempt to convert others. That's the whole point of having a religion class in academia: Students would hopefully be able to discuss religions within a fact-based and/or historical perspective that expands beyond what their particular orgainized religious group teaches. Such framework would allow students to better understand what "rules" (so-to-speak) practitioners of that religion have been taught themselves.
And as to your dubiousness regarding religion as a motivational factor, I did not mean God makes me get out of bed every morning, nor did I say such a thing SHOULD happen. Rather, I'm considering history on the large-scale: People who are already religious have used their religions as the stated motivational reason for wars, genocide, alliances (or lack therof), etc. I back this up by pointing out that 6 people (your and myself included) have been motivated by the topic of religion to post on this message board...
#10 T.S. Looney
on May 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.(Tulsa, OK | Unverified Name)
First of all, the frankincense, Myrrh, and gold are only mentioned in one of the Gospels, so you could possibly miss it and still know a good deal about Christianity.
Secondly, What makes you think Atheists have a motivation? Is there a motivation behind your disbelief in Zeus or Odin? Atheism is not a religion, creed, or club. It's a lack of belief in theism.
Perhaps you should have been required to take class on looking up what words actually mean before going online and spouting your opinions.
Should all students have to take a course in mythology as well? If so, whose? Lets add more and more irrelevant crap to college kids workload, so that the rest of the world can finally pass us by completely in terms of education. At least when our economy collapses, our citizens will know a lot of fairy tales
#11 Bjorn, Norway
on May 24, 2007 at 1:36 a.m.( | Unverified Name)
Education in religions and mythology - and Atheism and related freethinking is good as long as it's objective. Either you're for or against religions, you're always better off with knowledge about the subject. And a good overall understanding of religion tends to undermine fundamentalists.
This is good for Atheism too, because it seems a lot of religious people start to question their own religion's supreme validity when they learn more about other religions.
And speaking as an Atheist, I know that every piece of scripture I know is useful in debate! (I had no problem with the references in the article.)
Post a comment