|
|
|
Curriculum |
Public School (Neutral) |
Religious School |
Secular Humanist School |
|
[General Approach] |
A neutral learning framework of educational goals to be reached is set at the state level by professional educators; curriculum guidelines developed to implement the goals, usually with state-approved resources |
Learning program is couched in a framework of religion and authority (the particular “church” determines what students “should know” and, within civil law, how they “should be taught it” and with what resources) |
Learning program is couched in a framework of pragmatism and rationality as it is construed by these SHs with curriculum/ resources (students taught to interpret the world in terms of humans actions and results) |
|
Portions of the required curricula essentially the same in all three schools |
Mathematics Nutrition; health; P.E. Language arts History (sans teaching about religion/nonreligion) Foreign languages, etc.. |
Like public school |
Like public school |
|
History |
Role and history of religion as interpreted by historians; and teaching about religion as interpreted by historian-educators in the discipline |
History interpreted by historians and also by key religious scholars; also teaching essentials of the general and particular religious narrative tradition/history and interpretation (religious way of knowing attuned to the particular denomination) |
History as interpreted by historians; also teaching essentials of freethought narrative tradition/history and freethought ways of knowing: a critical/skeptical analysis of historicity of religions; tenets/ideas and of religious belief (religion seen as mythology) |
|
Art and Literature |
No
particular emphasis given to religiously-inspired or |
Secular
curriculum plus: |
Secular
curriculum plus: |
|
Government/ |
Social Sciences and Civics, focusing on origins of and current constitution, civil laws, character education, focusing on how values develop and shared values (broad societal agreement) |
Secular
curriculum plus: |
Secular
curriculum plus: |
|
Science |
Science as defined by scientists and as interpreted within state level curricular guidelines in response to civic/political context (example at right shows how our two schools depart from this in a contentious arena): |
Treatment
depends on specific dogma (*): |
Treatment
follows SH tenets: |
|
Holy
Book |
Teaching about scriptures as examples of religious literature and in an objective manner (i.e., treatment of Bible similar to manner of teaching about the sacred literature of world religions) |
Depending
on dogma: |
Teaching about content of sacred books as religious mythology with elements of historic accuracy revealed by archeology and historical record; attention given to scriptural fallacies and contradictions |
|
Holidays |
A striving for a balance during the “December dilemma” season and recognition of a wide variety of holidays; some use of holidays as opportune times to teach about varied cultural practices; ideally taught about in curricular context |
Religious holidays of the specific faith are celebrated and certain level of observance required or encouraged of all students; likely little notice given to holidays of other religions or, depending on dogma, a kinship may be emphasized or a deconstructionist approach taken |
Will not observe religious holidays or religious aspects of civic declared holidays, but seasonal celebrations are observed (the solstices and equinoxes), Freethought Day (Oct. 12), perhaps the birthdays of noted scientists and freethinkers; religious holidays studied as cultural artifacts. |
Untying a Terminology Tangle—Secular vs. Nonreligious By Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell Source: Geisert, P. and Futrell, P. "Untying a Terminology Tangle—Secular vs. Nonreligious"—04.28.02 [Duplication rights freely granted for educational purposes.] ________________________________________________________ Courts have ruled that public schools must conduct secular programs of study that keep religious espousal, guidance, and practice out of the public schools’ curriculum and instruction. Schools also are required to serve all the youngsters—both religious and nonreligious—fairly and equitably. The aforementioned circumstance baffles many educators and the public, and there is a need to clear up the confusion. The confusion derives in part from reliance on common usage that equates the term “secular” to “nonreligious.” In the context of public education, this is a serious semantic error. Background In U.S. public schools the educational enterprise must by law be neutral regarding religion—neutral among religions, and neutral between religion and nonreligion. In other words, it cannot favor one religion over another; nor can it privilege religion over nonreligion (or vice versa). The mandate that public schools, as government institutions, carry out a general evenhandedness concerning religion grows out of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a school system may be under further state constitutional constraints. A considerable body of applicable law has accumulated since the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education U. S. Supreme Court interpretation became a standing criterion regarding religion within public education.[i] Perhaps the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.[ii] The Establishment Clause also precludes “conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.”[iii] The law in essence directs that public school environments and actions be unbiased vis-à-vis students’ belief systems (worldviews). In short, public schools are to operate secular programs that serve all students impartially. A school may endorse neither religion itself nor any specific religions, and its programs and lessons related to religion must not communicate a message that adherents of particular worldviews are either outsiders (not full members of the school community) or insiders (favored members of that community).[iv] Accomplishing religious neutrality is a challenge for any school system, and this challenge will increase, as school systems are required to serve populations of widely varied faith and belief systems.[v] Nevertheless, the directive is of great importance to the learning environment that schools can construct for youngsters. The neutrality ideal translates into educational policy and standard practice that make possible an academic milieu in which children of all the varied religious and nonreligious worldviews are able to participate in the educational program based on equal worth and mutual respect. The result can be a genuine freedom of conscience for all students. The Nonreligious/Secular Muddle Some educational scholars contend that schools—because they are secular—favor a nonreligious outlook. Their advocacy produces a linguistic muddle. Can it be that secular schools, by their very nature, are in actuality showing favoritism toward the belief system of citizens holding a nonreligious worldview? Warren A. Nord and Charles Haynes in their book, Taking Religion Seriously across the Curriculum[vi] uphold this "school is skewed" assertion and recommend, as a corrective measure, augmenting the school curriculum to include more teaching about religion so that students can come to understand "religious ways of knowing." In making their arguments, they often apply the terms secular and nonreligious as if the two are indistinguishable. For example, Nord and Haynes reiterate the law established in Everson v. Board of Education that public schools “… must be neutral between religion and nonreligion.” But on the next page they switch the terms in stating that “…public schools should not promote, much less institutionalize, any particular way of making sense of the world be it religious or secular.” (emphasis theirs).[vii] While the courts identified the corresponding components (religion and nonreligion), Nord and Haynes have drawn their neutrality boundaries between religious and secular. In another passage Nord and Haynes state: “When students do, on occasion, study religion (in a history course, for example), they are taught to interpret its historical meaning in secular categories; they will not learn to interpret history in religious categories. This is the core of truth in the claim that schools teach students the (functional) religion of secular humanism… it is that public education nurtures a secular mentality.”[viii] (See extended comment in endnotes)[ix] This is a signally serious example, a jumble of terminology and concepts, and it is representative of many other assertions offered by writers that, collectively, have spurred our interest to sort things out. Meaning and Context Words often have multiple meanings, and so we must carefully consider context. Further, there may be great disparity between a dictionary definition (common usage) of any given term and its legitimate usage when seen from a legal perspective. Both aspects come into play in the case of secular vs. nonreligious. Confusing the terms "secular" and "nonreligious" casually imperils fair debate about the religious neutrality of our public schools. Largely, these two words are used interchangeably in everyday language. But, contextually—concerning public education—the terms actually apply to different things, and there is a serious semantic problem connected with applying the word “secular” to all of the following: 1) schools, 2) programs, 3) people, and 4) the concept of nonreligion and freethought. The word “secular” does have many meanings. In common parlance, we often pair it with “religious” (religious/secular; sectarian/secular) and treat the two as antonyms. The dictionary invokes notions of worldly or temporal (rather than sacred or holy) in support of viewing secular as “nonreligious.” Many educators usefully employ this common dictionary contrast, such as when, for example, they distinguish two types of humanists (religious/secular). Another sense of “secular” connotes that which is “unrelated to church and religion” (e.g., religious/secular music; religious/secular architecture). An even broader meaning encompasses civil notions, and for governmental settings, the meaning of “secular” has been carefully defined by law in light of civil intent. Public education, as an enterprise of government, follows suit. As secular government is to serve all citizens equitably, the secular school as an institution serves all youngsters equitably. In some sense, the school is much like a theater that places all its actors on a level stage. The platform of the secular school is a simply a neutral stage for all the players, irrespective of their individual worldviews (be they religious or not). Thus, secular in the civil setting also means “a level playing field.” The field is level for the students. It also is level for teachers and staff, but their professional role requires their keeping the field level for the youngsters. This may place restrictions on their individual personal liberty. The word “secular” as applied to government (hence to public schools and their programs) is a legally defined term declaring the neutrality goal and clearly not a synonym for nonreligious (or for the oft-used label, secular humanist). In the school context, the legal meaning of “secular” must hold sway. Public educators have to be precise on terminology because, clearly, the laws are attempting to protect youngsters’ individual civil liberties, most particularly their freedom of conscience. Three Schools of Thought Some have interpreted the notion of secular in the civil setting (e.g., the public school) to mean secular humanist. The implication is not correct. “Secular Humanism” is a type of nonreligious worldview for which organized associations exist to support adherents. To help differentiate these two uses of the term, secular, let’s take a look at the characteristics of three different high schools: 1) a public secular school, 2) a religious private school run by a particular denomination or sect, and 3) a nonreligious private school run by a secular humanist organization. We will compare and contrast the “ways of knowing” taught by the three schools. |
Teaching About Religion |
in support of civic pluralism |
At school, the word “secular” denotes a neutrality ideal, and is not synonymous with "nonreligious". |
Is it not clear that if public schools really taught the values of secular humanism that there would be an immediate parental and community revolution? So, what does our Constitution really demand of our secular schools? Quite simply, it is neutrality regarding the varied religious and nonreligious worldviews—neutrality about students’ ultimate beliefs. Two Lessons Another approach to understanding how secular differs from nonreligious involves contemplating the type of lessons one would use to teach youngsters to discriminate between the two concepts. By thinking about the lessons, a teacher can begin to sense the distinction in usage and more readily avoid using the terms interchangeably. |
Lesson A: The meaning of “secular” (as in secular schools) |
Lesson B: The meaning “nonreligious” (as in nonreligious people) |
To teach what the term "secular" means in this sense involves acquainting students with the cultural and legal underpinnings of state and church separation. Lesson plans would address aspects of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, certain court decisions, and historical situations and events. There will be lessons on why their school classroom is neutral in regards to their varied worldviews and how it is that any person under law has the constitutional right to his/her liberty of conscience. |
To teach students about the meaning of "nonreligious" (or "religious," for that matter), one employs content lessons that focus on the worldviews of people. Lesson plans would pertain to how people describe and account for the world they live in and would concentrate on features of daily living through which they reveal their worldview. E.g., An individual may have a religious stance or hold to a distinctly nonreligious outlook. There are variants of nonreligious worldviews (e.g., atheist, brights, agnostic, humanist, rationalist) just as there are many varieties of religious worldviews (e.g., Catholic, Taoist, Methodist, Mormon, Sikh.) A person uninterested in religion will nevertheless have his/her own worldview. |
Nonreligious, as in Worldviews The American Heritage Dictionary defines a worldview as "the collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group." A worldview encapsulates answers regarding broad questions of "life understanding," such as how the universe and the human race came about (origins), what is the source of moral values, what happens after death, and so forth. Humans with similar worldviews may associate or organize in order to express their shared beliefs, carry out their lives according to their convictions, or better transmit them to youth. Today’s foremost world religions derive from such conduct across countless generations. In the public school context, the term "nonreligious" applies to certain of the students and faculty and staff. Such labels as "unbeliever" or "irreligious" or “godless” may not be relevant in describing such persons and contrasting them with religious peers and may actually be seen as rude or pejorative. One must be careful to avoid terminology that places individuals with a nonreligious worldview in a negative light. For example, the word “unbeliever” in general does not accurately describe nonreligious individuals, for in actuality many have strong convictions. In those, they are believers, not unbelievers. They simply believe in ideas not generally included under the concept of “religious.” It is better to state specifics of beliefs, the contrasting and alternate beliefs, than to categorize people broadly with labels. In a typical U.S. school, most students’ worldviews will be religious, but a substantial fraction will be nonreligious. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2001)[x], which asked adult Americans to self-identify by their religious preference (if any), 14% of the U.S. citizenry declared “no religion.” Some states (e.g., California, Washington, and Idaho) have many such citizens (Washington state shows 25% without religion). Many of these are merely indifferent to religious and nonreligious ideas, whereas others hold to a distinctly nontheistic worldviews (e.g., Secular Humanists).[xi] The ARIS study reports that most U.S. adults (80.2%) self-identify with some type of religion and hold a religious worldview. However, from the inception of the nation, the fact that the United States holds to secular ideals of governance is something the populace has generally favored. In fact, our nation has given special consideration to broad diversity in worldviews. The two religious liberty clauses of the U. S. Constitution’s First Amendment function to the same end—freedom of conscience for citizens of all faiths or none. The nonreligious individuals who maintain or organize around their worldview and depart from many religion-associated cultural conventions have come to be identified as “freethinkers.” Many have earned a place in history books. Hence, the concept of "nonreligion" also can apply in curriculum, particularly in an area such as in history or social studies, when a class is learning about individuals, social groups, or specific philosophies. "Teaching about nonreligion" (freethought) in history and social studies parallels "teaching about religion." Academic study of either entails students learning about the worldview(s) and actions of individuals or peoples who have embraced a certain understanding of life (religious or nonreligious). Teaching about both religion and about freethought can proceed in a secular manner (the lessons stay objective, academic and neutral overall). Secular, as in Governance Secular governance regarding the handling of worldviews (and how they are taught about) provides direction much like a compass. A compass helps maintain a given general direction during a journey. The compass direction for all government institutions serving the public must stay pointed to "neutral" with freedom of conscience for all. There is to be no swerving toward or away from any specific worldview. Public education has to aim for the same compass heading, and schools must by law stick close to that heading, whatever the surrounding social pressures may be. The way schools stay on course with respect to student beliefs is by neither promoting nor inhibiting any religion or any nonreligion. As stated by Abrahamson and Smith:[xii] “In a public school a teacher must try to be as objective as possible. To keep biases in check, he or she can imagine that a highly educated, diverse committee of scholars is monitoring the lessons. The imaginary committee includes religious people of various faiths and nonreligious scholars as well. If such a group were actually in the classroom, the instructor would take special care to see that presentations and activities would be as non-biased as possible.”(p. 1) Similarly, thoughts of external evaluation can aid a school as well as individual teachers in “keeping its bearing” and make veering off the “neutrality heading” less likely. An academic approach is to underlie both content and method. The process is not perfect. (Full worldview fairness in curriculum and absolute impartiality in teaching are ideals.) When students, parents, or other concerned observers notice that the compass is not pointing toward neutrality, then correction is to be sought. Drifting off course is not permissible. Schools must seek to remedy any policy or practice that connotes the "ship" is showing movement in favor of or against a particular worldview. Civil Morality and Secular Schools Discussion about religion and public schools often takes place at a high decibel level. Such issues as prayer-before-football games, school voucher initiatives, religious graduation valedictories, and postings of Christian commandments and may bring forth near tornado force commentary. In a political season, we encounter heightened public discourse concerning religion as it relates to the processes of public education. Much of the heat relates to diverse public conceptions of the schools’ teaching of moral values. Larue[xiii] points out a “wall” pertaining not only to the establishment of a religion but also to the establishment of religious codes of morality. What particular religions accept as right and proper cannot control civil codes. (Neither could convictions advocated by any freethought faction.) He uses as an example the situation in which a given religion believes that divorce is acceptable only on the grounds of adultery, and states: “Civil morality must be secular morality, which is to say that the acceptable reasons for legal divorce cannot be restricted by what a religious group claims to be proper. Therefore, legal divorce becomes possible on other grounds ranging from incompatibility to infidelity. Any given religious organization may have its own grounds for acknowledging the divorce, but that policy remains within the faith system and has no legitimacy or significance for the general populace.” (p.16) Under such a civic code, favor is not given to any given set of religious beliefs; nor are nonreligious beliefs being favored. Civic laws are devised to serve all the public sector regardless of religious or nonreligious convictions. Certain religions and certain nonreligious groups do not like certain civil laws, and may seek to change laws. However, those laws equally bind all participants in the community. For the same reason, this equality of position is true of the secular public school. One cannot claim that not having religion in the school indicates that the secular school is favoring nonreligion, any more than one would claim that civil law favors nonreligion over religion. One must not confuse a level legal playing field with a biased platform that is promulgating “secular humanism” values. A level legal playing field for the citizenry is one of our nation’s highest ideals. As with any other national ideal, the nation struggles as it seeks to achieve its guarantee of religious liberty for the personal beliefs of all citizens, religious and nonreligious alike. As long as the ideal remains, each generation plays its role in moving forward toward a nation dedicated to pluralism and freedom of conscience for all. A secular public education is critical to that enterprise. The maintenance of neutral public schools free of institutional bias or pressure guarantees the right to believe freely on matters of conscience. It works for both the religious and the nonreligious students of today, and for the U.S. citizenry of the future. Endnotes: [i] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). [ii] Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1981). [iii] Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 70 (1984) (O’Connor J., concurring) [iv] Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 120 S. Ct. 2266, 2279 (2000) [v] Diana L. Eck, A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation. San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. [vi] Warren A. Nord, Charles C. Haynes, Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998. [vii] ibid., 19 [viii] ibid., 41-42 [ix]Robert J Nash, in Faith, Hype, and Clarity: Teaching About Religion in American Schools and Colleges (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999), apparently endorses this conception. Nash lists six main points scholars use to argue strenuously for requiring formal study of religion in school curriculum. Preceding the listing, he cites Pannoch, Barr, Barna, Carter, Nord, and many others with the comment: “I find the reasons they give highly convincing,”(p.4) His listing includes: “Educators tend to promote a secular humanist (i.e., ultimate values reside exclusively in worldly human beings and possess no supernatural origins) account of the disciplines.” Public school teachers most likely are representative of the population of Americans who are predominantly religious (80.2%, according to ARIS 2001 [see endnote 11]). We have found no research evidence that these teachers are in actuality systematically teaching moral values contrary to religious principles. Additionally, because it is not legal for public schools to “promote religion,” would it not be equally illegal to “promote secular humanism” (as defined above)? Is there any legal case regarding a school or teacher promoting nonreligion through “teaching secular humanism”? (We would welcome enlightenment on this point.) Furthermore, the claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case (ergo, it stands that secular humanism is not a religion). For an authoritative definition of “secular humanism,” as practiced by secular humanists, one can go to the Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html). An additional exposition of the issue is Professor Paul Kurtz’s talk at the Harbinger symposium (see endnote 11). [x] Barry A. Kosmin, Egon Mayer, and Ariela Keysar, American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, October 2001. [xi]Paul Kurtz, Great Religions in a Pluralistic Society, Harbinger symposium, 30 October 1997, available at http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/plural/kurtz.html [xii] Brant Abrahamson and Fred Smith, Teacher’s Manual, History of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Current Academic Understandings. Brookfield, Illinois: The Teachers’ Press, 2002. [xiii]Gerald A. Larue, Freethought Across the Centuries: Toward a New Age of Enlightenment. Amherst: The Humanist Press, 1996. |