why should religion be taught in schools essay

Argumentative Essay Samples on Religion in Public Schools: To Teach or Not to Teach?

In this article, the basic requirements for this type of writing are presented so that you could write a good argumentative essay on religion in public schools. Moreover, some examples of essays are given on whether students should study religion in public schools or not. Pay attention to every detail and create your own essay on the same topic “Religion in Public Schools: To Teach or Not to Teach?”

Table of Contents

3 Basic Rules for Argumentative Essay Writing

It is obvious that an argumentative essay has the same structure as a paper of any other type. So, there is a necessity to write:

• An introduction in which a student should point out the main topic of a paper based on the thesis statement. Look at how to write argumentative thesis statements .
• The body (three paragraphs as a must, then consider what can be added more) where it is necessary to prove your thesis with strong arguments and explain them in details. Get to know how to evaluate the validity and strength of arguments .
• A conclusion is aimed at summarizing all the above mentioned briefly to convince the reader of the significance of reading this essay to the end. Study the guide on writing conclusions to argumentative essays .

10 Main Arguments to Write an Essay on Religion

As your argumentative essay is to be built on a set of reasons that show that you’re right, it is better to think about them in advance. You can brainstorm on your own if it is worth to teach religion in public schools or not. Alternatively, you can take into account the following ideas:

Top 5 Pros of Teaching Religion in Public Schools

• Children learning religious practices and beliefs and aware of their deferences are more tolerant towards people around;
• Schoolchildren learning religion apply more critical thinking in matters of morality. They learn to comprehend their actions not only from the perspective of their own advantages but also from the point of view of moral norms.
• Modern society has an urgent need to cultivate moral values, tolerance, mutual understanding, and respect for each other in the younger generation.
• The classes in Religion cover most topics that are ignored in many families.
• Studying more subjects broadens the schoolchildren’s outlook.

Top 5 Cons of Teaching Religion in Public Schools

• Teaching religion at school is an attempt to impose a religious outlook on the child, but not on critical scientific thinking.
• In a civilized state, there is no imposition of dogmas of any religion. Most modern people have a habit of believing inwardly, individually.
• Teachers may not be able to teach the basics of a particular religion; they may have other faiths. In this case, it is necessary to preserve the secular nature of the subject and to separate their own faith from theoretical information.
• Textbooks can be compiled in the preaching and anti-scientific style and absolutely do not meet the goals.
• Fierce disputes arising during the classes in Religion can provoke hatred and animosity among students that can be manifested in aggression.

2 Argumentative Essay Samples on Religion – Should Students Study It or Not?

As we have already said, the main aim of argumentative essay writing is to confirm a certain point of view. Since this opinion is by definition controversial, we decided to show you how to state that that religion should be taught in schools in the first essay sample, and refute this opinion in the second example.

1. Religion Should Be Taught in Public Schools

The times when education was religious are in the past. As a result, today, we have a selfish and individualized society, where everyone protects himself. Religion should be taught in school, as this is the only way to return to society the forgotten moral standards and true values.

Religion is a way to show our differences through our unity. People practice different religions, but they have the same moral ideas. It is a way to unite groups of people globally, based on common values, even if religious groups are different.

Learning religion is a way to know the world. In Finland, children from primary school study religion practiced in their family or ethics, and this is one of the most popular subjects.

Since not many parents talk to children about God and religion, the school can fill this gap. Thus, schooling will become more complex. This is an opportunity to give not only academic knowledge but also to grow a human from a person.

In conclusion, it should be said that it is necessary to prepare for the teaching of religion in schools – to teach teachers to translate the true values and compile textbooks correctly. With this approach, religion has the opportunity to become one of the most important and favorite subjects.

2. Religion Should NOT Be Taught in Public Schools

In most countries, religion is separated from education. This is a balanced decision, as a civilized society implies the ability of each person to make an individual choice and believe in their values. Religion should not be studied in school because it is contrary to the views of most modern societies and can lead to enmity between young people and their groups.

We live in the 21st century, when the understanding of religiosity is critically rethought – now it is not identified with spirituality. Religiousness is part of spirituality. And spirituality is very broad; it is often called the whole life of a person. Therefore, each person should develop spirituality independently, without forcible influence and even not under the influence of certain religious norms.

Religion is an inner sense of belonging to certain values. When we start broadcasting it outside, where there are various other thoughts, then the person becomes vulnerable. And it does not develop self-confidence but adds disagreement in adolescence.

If the school focuses on the ethics of a particular religion, then the topic of bullying in schools will continue. Because now the child can be offended on a religious basis. And from a social point of view, it is necessary to unite society, and not to develop enmity.

As a result, the school can give basic knowledge of the religions of the world, point out their differences, make a comparison of the traditions of these peoples. This should be an objective presentation of the picture, without priorities and deviations. Then the children of all religious denominations will feel at ease in the classroom. As for religious ethics, it is better to develop an understanding of basic human values that are universal.

Too busy to write your paper by yourself?

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Religion in the public schools.

More than 55 years after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling striking down school-sponsored prayer, Americans continue to fight over the place of religion in public schools. Questions about religion in the classroom no longer make quite as many headlines as they once did, but the issue remains an important battleground in the broader conflict over religion’s role in public life.

Some Americans are troubled by what they see as an effort on the part of federal courts and civil liberties advocates to exclude God and religious sentiment from public schools. Such an effort, these Americans believe, infringes on the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Many civil libertarians and others, meanwhile, voice concern that conservative Christians and others are trying to impose their values on students. Federal courts, they point out, consistently have interpreted the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of religion to forbid state sponsorship of prayer and most other religious activities in public schools.

This debate centers on public schools; very few people are arguing that religious doctrine cannot be taught at private schools or that teachers at such schools cannot lead students in prayer. And even in public institutions, there is little debate about the right of individual students, teachers and other school employees to practice their religion – by, say, praying before lunch or wearing religious clothing or symbols.

Moreover, as a 2019 survey of American teens shows some forms of religious expression are relatively common in public schools. For instance, about four-in-ten public school students say they routinely see other students praying before sporting events, according to the survey. And about half of U.S. teens in public schools (53%) say they often or sometimes see other students wearing jewelry or clothing with religious symbols.

About this report

This analysis, updated on Oct. 3, 2019, was originally published in 2007 as part of a larger series that explored different aspects of the complex and fluid relationship between government and religion. This report includes sections on school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, religion in school curricula, and the religious liberty rights of students and teachers.

The report does not  address questions of government funding for religious schools (that is, school vouchers and tax credits) because the schools in question are largely private, not public. For a discussion of vouchers and similar issues, see “ Shifting Boundaries: The Establishment Clause and Government Funding of Religious Schools and Other Faith-Based Organizations .” Because that analysis was published in 2009 and has not been updated, it does not include a discussion of more recent Supreme Court voucher rulings or upcoming cases .

Conflicts over religion in school are hardly new. In the 19th century, Protestants and Catholics frequently fought over Bible reading and prayer in public schools. The disputes then were over which Bible and which prayers were appropriate to use in the classroom. Some Catholics were troubled that the schools’ reading materials included the King James version of the Bible, which was favored by Protestants. In 1844, fighting broke out between Protestants and Catholics in Philadelphia; a number of people died in the violence and several Catholic churches were burned. Similar conflicts erupted during the 1850s in Boston and other parts of New England. In the early 20th century, liberal Protestants and their secular allies battled religious conservatives over whether students in biology classes should be taught Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

The Pillars of Church-State Law

The Legal Status of Religious Organizations in Civil Lawsuits March 2011 Are legal disputes involving churches and other religious institutions constitutionally different from those involving their secular counterparts, and if so, how?

Government Funding of Faith-Based Organizations May 2009 The debate over the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

Free Exercise and the Legislative and Executive Branches October 2008 A look at state and federal statutes that protect religious freedom.

Free Exercise and the Courts October 2007 The courts have grappled with the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.

Religious Displays and the Courts June 2007 Government displays of religious symbols have sparked fierce battles.

The Supreme Court stepped into those controversies when it ruled, in  Cantwell v. Connecticut  (1940) and  Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township  (1947), that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause applied to the states. The two clauses say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Before those two court decisions, courts had applied the religion clauses only to actions of the federal government.

Soon after the Everson decision, the Supreme Court began specifically applying the religion clauses to activities in public schools. In its first such case ,  McCollum v. Board of Education  (1948), the high court invalidated the practice of having religious instructors from different denominations enter public schools to offer religious lessons during the school day to students whose parents requested them. A key factor in the court’s decision was that the lessons took place in the schools. Four years later, in  Zorach v. Clauson , the court upheld an arrangement by which public schools excused students during the school day so they could attend religious classes away from school property. (The new Pew Research Center survey finds that one-in-ten religiously affiliated teens in public school leave the school for religious activities.)

Beginning in the 1960s, the court handed religious conservatives a series of major defeats. It began with the landmark 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale , that school-sponsored prayer – even nonsectarian prayer – violated the Establishment Clause. Since then, the Supreme Court has pushed forward, from banning organized Bible reading for religious and moral instruction in 1963 to prohibiting school-sponsored prayers at high school football games in 2000. (The new survey finds that 8% of teens in public school have ever seen a teacher lead the class in prayer, and the same share have ever had a teacher read to the class from the Bible as an example of literature.)

In these and other decisions, the court has repeatedly stressed that the Constitution prohibits public schools from indoctrinating children in religion. But it is not always easy to determine exactly what constitutes indoctrination or school sponsorship of religious activities. For example, can a class on the Bible as literature be taught without a bias for or against the idea that the Bible is religious truth? Can students be compelled to participate in a Christmas-themed music program? Sometimes students themselves, rather than teachers, administrators or coaches, bring faith into school activities. For instance, when a student invokes gratitude to God in a valedictory address, or a high school football player offers a prayer in a huddle, is the school legally responsible for their religious expression?

The issues are complicated by other constitutional guarantees. For instance, the First Amendment also protects freedom of speech and freedom of association. Religious groups have cited those guarantees in support of student religious speech and in efforts to obtain school sponsorship and resources for student religious clubs.

The right of a student or student club to engage in religious speech or activities on school property may, however, conflict with other protections, such as the right of students to avoid harassment. In one case, for example, a federal appeals court approved a high school’s decision to prohibit a student from wearing a T-shirt containing a biblical passage condemning homosexuality. Because the student had graduated by the time the Supreme Court granted his appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the lower court to vacate its ruling and dismiss the case.

In another instance of conflict, some student religious groups want the right to exclude students who do not share the groups’ beliefs, specifically on questions of sexuality. For example, the Christian Legal Society (CLS), which has chapters in many law schools, requires those who serve in leadership positions to agree to a statement that renounces “unbiblical behaviors,” such as engaging in sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage. CLS sued a number of law schools after they denied the group official recognition because this leadership policy violated the schools’ nondiscrimination policies. In one of these cases, the Supreme Court ruled against CLS, stating that these nondiscrimination policies were constitutional so long as they were viewpoint neutral and fairly applied to all groups seeking recognition on campus.

As these more recent controversies show, public schools remain a battlefield where the religious interests of parents, students, administrators and teachers often clash.  The conflicts affect many aspects of public education, including classroom curricula, high school football games, student clubs, graduation ceremonies.

Prayer and the Pledge

School prayer.

The most enduring and controversial issue related to school-sponsored religious activities is classroom prayer. In  Engel v. Vitale  (1962), the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibited the recitation of a school-sponsored prayer in public schools. Engel involved a simple and seemingly nonsectarian prayer composed especially for use in New York’s public schools. In banning the prayer exercise entirely, the court did not rest its opinion on the grounds that unwilling students were coerced to pray; that would come much later. Rather, the court emphasized what it saw as the wrongs of having the government create and sponsor a religious activity.

The following year, the high court extended the principle outlined in  Engel  to a program of daily Bible reading. In  Abington School District v. Schempp , the court ruled broadly that school sponsorship of religious exercises violates the Constitution. Schempp became the source of the enduring constitutional doctrine that all government action must have a predominantly secular purpose – a requirement that, according to the court, the Bible-reading exercise clearly could not satisfy. By insisting that religious expression be excluded from the formal curriculum, the Supreme Court was assuring parents that public schools would be officially secular and would not compete with parents in their children’s religious upbringing.

With Engel and Schempp, the court outlined the constitutional standard for prohibiting school-sponsored religious expression, a doctrine the court has firmly maintained. In  Stone v. Graham  (1980), for instance, it found unconstitutional a Kentucky law requiring all public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments. And in  Wallace v. Jaffree  (1985), it overturned an Alabama law requiring public schools to set aside a moment each day for silent prayer or meditation. However, in a concurrent opinion in Wallace, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor  suggested that a moment of silence requirement might pass constitutional muster if it had a “secular purpose.” And in a subsequent 2009 case, Croft v. Perry , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a Texas law mandating a moment of silence because it determined that, in passing the law, the state legislature had sufficiently articulated a secular purpose.

But while courts have given states some latitude in crafting moment of silence statutes, they have shown much less deference to laws or policies that involve actual prayer. In 2000, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled in  Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe  that schools may not sponsor student-recited prayer at high school football games.

More sweeping in its consequences is  Lee v. Weisman  (1992), which invalidated a school-sponsored prayer led by an invited clergyman at a public school commencement in Providence, Rhode Island. The court’s 5-4 decision rested explicitly on the argument that graduating students were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony. The case effectively outlawed a practice that was customary in many communities across the country, thus fueling the conservative critique that the Supreme Court was inhospitable to public expressions of faith.

So far, lower appellate courts have not extended the principles of the school prayer decisions to university commencements (Chaudhuri v. Tennessee, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1997; Tanford v. Brand, 7th Circuit, 1997). The 4th Circuit, however, found unconstitutional the practice of daily prayer at supper at the Virginia Military Institute. In that case, Mellen v. Bunting (2003), the appellate court reasoned that VMI’s military-like environment tended to coerce participation by cadets. The decision was similar to an earlier ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which found unconstitutional a policy of the U.S. service academies that all cadets and midshipmen attend Protestant, Catholic or Jewish chapel services on Sunday (Anderson v. Laird, 1972). For the court, the key element was the service academies’ coercion of students to attend the religious activity.

Most recently, in 2019, the Supreme Court declined to review a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the firing of a football coach at a public high school for praying on the field with his players after games. However, in a statement accompanying the denial of review, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. (joined by fellow conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) indicated the high court would be open to reviewing other cases involving similar issues. Alito wrote that the court denied review in this case due to “important unresolved factual questions,” and that “the 9th Circuit’s understanding of free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future.”

The Pledge of Allegiance

In 1954, Congress revised the Pledge of Allegiance to refer to the nation as “under God,” a phrase that has since been recited by generations of schoolchildren. In 2000, Michael Newdow filed suit challenging the phrase on behalf of his daughter, a public school student in California. Newdow argued that the words “under God” violated the Establishment Clause because they transformed the pledge into a religious exercise.

The case,  Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow , reached the Supreme Court in 2004, but the justices did not ultimately decide whether the phrase was acceptable. Instead, the court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to bring the suit because he did not have legal custody of his daughter. In concurring opinions, however, four justices expressed the view that the Constitution permitted recitation of the pledge – with the phrase “under God” – in public schools.

While the issue never reached the Supreme Court again, it continued to be litigated in the lower courts. In Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools (2005), the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld recitation of the pledge in Virginia, but a U.S. district court in California ruled the other way in another suit involving Michael Newdow and other parents. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 reversed the district court decision, ruling that the recitation of the pledge did not constitute an establishment of religion.

School officials and student speech

The courts have drawn a sharp distinction between officially sponsored religious speech, such as a benediction by an invited clergyman at a commencement ceremony, and private religious speech by students. The Supreme Court made clear in Lee v. Weisman (1992) that a clergyman’s benediction at a public school event would violate the separation of church and state. Judges usually reach that same conclusion when school officials cooperate with students to produce student-delivered religious messages. But federal courts are more divided in cases involving students acting on their own to include a religious sentiment or prayer at a school commencement or a similar activity.

Some courts, particularly in the South, have upheld the constitutionality of student-initiated religious speech, emphasizing the private origins of this kind of religious expression. As long as school officials did not encourage or explicitly approve the contents, those courts have upheld religious content in student commencement speeches.

In Adler v. Duval County School Board (1996), for example, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved a system at a Florida high school in which the senior class, acting independently of school officials, selected a class member to deliver a commencement address. School officials neither influenced the choice of speaker nor screened the speech. Under those circumstances, the appeals court ruled that the school was not responsible for the religious content of the address.

Other courts, however, have invalidated school policies that permit student speakers to include religious sentiments in graduation addresses. One leading case is ACLU v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education (1996), in which the senior class of a New Jersey public high school selected the student speaker by a vote without knowing in advance the contents of the student’s remarks. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless ruled that the high school could not permit religious content in the commencement speech. The court reasoned that students attending the graduation ceremony were as coerced to acquiesce in a student-led prayer as they would be if the prayer were offered by a member of the clergy, the practice forbidden by Weisman in 1992. (Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was then a member of the appeals court, joined a dissenting opinion in the case, arguing that the graduating students’ rights to religious and expressive freedom should prevail over the Establishment Clause concerns.)

Similarly, in Bannon v. School District of Palm Beach County (2004), the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Florida school officials were right to order the removal of student-created religious messages and symbols from a school beautification project. The court reasoned that the project was not intended as a forum for the expression of students’ private views but rather as a school activity for which school officials would be held responsible.

Religion in the curriculum

The Supreme Court’s decisions about officially sponsored religious expression in schools consistently draw a distinction between religious activities such as worship or Bible reading, which are designed to inculcate religious sentiments and values, and “teaching about religion,” which is both constitutionally permissible and educationally appropriate. On several occasions, members of the court have suggested that public schools may teach “the Bible as literature,” include lessons about the role of religion and religious institutions in history or offer courses on comparative religion.

Creationism and evolution

Courts have long grappled with attempts by school boards and other official bodies to change the curriculum in ways that directly promote or denigrate a particular religious tradition. Best known among these curriculum disputes are those involving the conflict between proponents and opponents of Darwin’s theory of evolution , which explains the origin of species through evolution by means of natural selection. Opponents favor teaching some form of creationism, the idea that life came about as described in the biblical book of Genesis or evolved under the guidance of a supreme being. A recent alternative to Darwinism, intelligent design, asserts that life is too complex to have arisen without divine intervention.

The Supreme Court entered the evolution debate in 1968, when it ruled, in  Epperson v. Arkansas , that Arkansas could not eliminate from the high school biology curriculum the teaching of “the theory that mankind descended from a lower order of animals.” Arkansas’ exclusion of that aspect of evolutionary theory, the court reasoned, was based on a preference for the account of creation in the book of Genesis and thus violated the state’s constitutional obligation of religious neutrality.

Almost 20 years later, in  Edwards v. Aguillard  (1987), the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required “balanced treatment” of evolution science and “creation science,” so that any biology teacher who taught one also had to teach the other. The court said the law’s purpose was to single out a particular religious belief – in this case, biblical creationism – and promote it as an alternative to accepted scientific theory. The court also pointed to evidence that the legislation’s sponsor hoped that the balanced treatment requirement would lead science teachers to abandon the teaching of evolution.

Lower courts consistently have followed the lead of Epperson and Edwards. As a result, school boards have lost virtually every fight over curriculum changes designed to challenge evolution, including disclaimers in biology textbooks. One of the most recent and notable of these cases, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), involved a challenge to a Pennsylvania school district’s policy of informing high school science students about intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. After lengthy testimony from both proponents and opponents of intelligent design, a federal district court in Pennsylvania concluded that the policy violates the Establishment Clause because intelligent design is a religious, rather than scientific, theory.

Kitzmiller may have been the last major evolution case to make national headlines, but the debate over how to teach about the origins and development of life in public schools has continued in state legislatures, boards of education and other public bodies. In 2019, for instance, policies that could affect the way evolution is taught in public school (often by limiting discussion of “controversial issues”) were introduced and in some cases debated in several states, including Arizona, Florida, Maine, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Virginia.

Study of the Bible

Courts have also expended substantial time and energy considering public school programs that involve Bible study. Although the Supreme Court has occasionally referred to the permissibility of teaching the Bible as literature, some school districts have instituted Bible study programs that courts have found unconstitutional. Frequently, judges have concluded that these courses are thinly disguised efforts to teach a particular understanding of the New Testament.

In a number of these cases, school districts have brought in outside groups to run the Bible study program. The groups, in turn, hired their own teachers, in some cases Bible college students or members of the clergy who did not meet state accreditation standards.

Such Bible study programs have generally been held unconstitutional because, the courts conclude, they teach the Bible as religious truth or are designed to inculcate particular religious sentiments. For a public school class to study the Bible without violating constitutional limits, the class would have to include critical rather than devotional readings and allow open inquiry into the history and content of biblical passages.

Holiday programs

Christmas-themed music programs also have raised constitutional concerns. For a holiday music program to be constitutionally sound, the courts maintain, school officials must ensure the predominance of secular considerations, such as the program’s educational value or the musical qualities of the pieces. The schools also must be sensitive to the possibility that some students will feel coerced to participate in the program (Bauchman v. West High School, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1997; Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, 5th Circuit, 1995). Moreover, the courts have said, no student should be forced to sing or play music that offends their religious sensibilities. Therefore, schools must allow students the option not to participate.

Multiculturalism

Not all the cases involving religion in the curriculum concern the promotion of the beliefs of the majority. Indeed, challenges have come from Christian groups arguing that school policies discriminate against Christianity by promoting cultural pluralism.

In one example, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered a New York City Department of Education policy regulating the types of symbols displayed during the holiday seasons of various religions. The department allows the display of a menorah as a symbol for Hanukkah and a star and crescent to evoke Ramadan but permits the display of only secular symbols of Christmas, such as a Christmas tree; it explicitly forbids the display of a Christmas nativity scene in public schools.

Upholding the city’s policy, the Court of Appeals reasoned in Skoros v. Klein (2006) that city officials intended to promote cultural pluralism in the highly diverse setting of the New York City public schools. The court concluded that a “reasonable observer” would understand that the star and crescent combination and the menorah had secular as well as religious meanings. The judicial panel ruled that the policy, therefore, did not promote Judaism or Islam and did not denigrate Christianity.

In another high-profile case, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum v. Montgomery County Public Schools (2005), a Maryland citizens’ group successfully challenged a health education curriculum that included discussion of sexual orientation. Ordinarily, opponents of homosexuality could not confidently cite the Establishment Clause as the basis for a complaint, because the curriculum typically would not advance a particular religious perspective. However, the Montgomery County curriculum included materials in teacher guides that disparaged some religious teachings on homosexuality as theologically flawed and contrasted those teachings with what the guide portrayed as the more acceptable and tolerant views of some other faiths. The district court concluded that the curriculum had both the purpose and effect of advancing certain faiths while denigrating the beliefs of others. The county rewrote these materials to exclude any reference to the views of particular faiths, making them more difficult to challenge successfully in court because the lessons did not condemn or praise any faith tradition.

Rights in and out of the classroom

At the time of its school prayer decisions in the early 1960s, the Supreme Court had never ruled on whether students have the right of free speech inside public schools. By the end of that decade, however, the court began to consider the question. And the results have made the rules for religious expression far more complex.

Rights of students

The leading Supreme Court decision on freedom of student speech is  Tinker v. Des Moines School District  (1969), , which upheld the right of students to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War. The court ruled that school authorities may not suppress expression by students unless the expression significantly disrupts school discipline or invades the rights of others.

This endorsement of students’ freedom of speech did not entirely clarify things for school officials trying to determine students’ rights. Tinker supported student expression, but it did not attempt to reconcile that right of expression with the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions forbidding student participation in school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading. Some school officials responded to the mix of student liberties and restraints by forbidding certain forms of student-initiated religious expression such as the saying of grace before lunch in the school cafeteria, student-sponsored gatherings for prayer at designated spots on school property, or student proselytizing aimed at other students.

After years of uncertainty about these matters, several interest groups devoted to religious freedom and civil liberties drafted a set of guidelines, “Religious Expression in Public Schools,” which the U.S. Department of Education sent to every public school superintendent in 1995. The department revised the guidelines in 2003, placing somewhat greater emphasis on the rights of students to speak or associate for religious purposes. The guidelines highlight these four general principles:

• Students, acting on their own, have the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they do to engage in comparable secular activities.
• Students may offer a prayer or blessing before meals in school or assemble on school grounds for religious purposes to the same extent as other students who wish to express their personal views or assemble with others. (The new survey finds that 26% of religiously affiliated teens in public school say they often or sometimes pray before eating lunch.)
• Students may not engage in religious harassment of others or compel other students to participate in religious expression, and schools may control aggressive and unwanted proselytizing.
• Schools may neither favor nor disfavor students or groups on the basis of their religious identities.

A case decided by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the difficulties that school officials still can face when students exercise their right to religious expression on school property. In this case, gay and lesbian students in a California high school organized a Day of Silence, in which students promoting tolerance of differences in sexual orientation refrained from speaking in school. The following day, Tyler Harper, a student at the school, wore a T-shirt that on the front read, “Be Ashamed, Our School Has Embraced What God Has Condemned,” and on the back, “Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27.” School officials asked him to remove the shirt and took him out of class while they attempted to persuade him to do so.

The Court of Appeals, in Harper v. Poway Unified School District (2006), rejected Harper’s claim that the school officials violated his First Amendment rights. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for a 2- 1 majority and citing Tinker, argued that students’ constitutional rights may be limited to prevent harming the rights of other students. He concluded that the T-shirt could be seen as violating school policies against harassment based on sexual orientation.

Writing in dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski asserted that the school’s sexual harassment policy was far too vague and sweeping to support a restriction on all anti-gay speech. He also argued that the school district had unlawfully discriminated against Harper’s freedom of speech. By permitting the Gay and Lesbian Alliance to conduct the Day of Silence, Kozinski said, the district was choosing sides on a controversial social issue and stifling religiously motivated speech on one side of the issue.

Harper petitioned the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision. But Harper graduated from high school, and the case took a different turn. The Supreme Court, in early 2007, ordered the lower court to vacate its ruling and dismiss the case on the grounds that it had become moot.

Harper highlighted a tension – one that may yet recur – between the rights of students to engage in religious expression and the rights of other students to be educated in a non-hostile environment. The Supreme Court eventually may clarify school officials’ power to suppress speech as a means of protecting the rights of other students. For now, cases like Harper illustrate the difficulties for school officials in regulating student expression.

Rights of parents

Parents sometimes complain that secular practices at school inhibit their right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. These complaints typically rest on both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which forbids the state to deprive any person of “life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted them as protecting the right of parents to shape and control the education of their children. When they object to certain school practices, the parents often seek permission for their children to skip the offending lesson or class – to opt out – rather than try to end the practice schoolwide.

The first decision by the Supreme Court on parents’ rights to control their children’s education came in  Pierce v. Society of Sisters  (1925), which guarantees to parents the right to enroll their children in private rather than public schools, whether the private schools are religious or secular. In  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette  (1943), the court upheld the right of public school students who were Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse to salute the American flag. The students said the flag represented a graven image and that their religion forbade them from recognizing it. The court’s decision rested on the right of all students, not just those who are religiously motivated, to resist compulsory recitation of official orthodoxy, political or otherwise.

Of all the Supreme Court rulings supporting religious opt-outs, perhaps the most significant came in  Wisconsin v. Yoder  (1972), which upheld the right of members of the Old Order Amish to withdraw their children from formal education at the age of 14. The court determined that a state law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 burdened the free exercise of their families’ religion. The Amish community had a well-established record as hardworking and law-abiding, the court noted, and Amish teens would receive home-based training. The worldly influences present in the school experience of teenagers, the court said, would undercut the continuity of agrarian life in the Amish community.

In later decisions, lower courts recognized religious opt-outs in other relatively narrow circumstances. Parents successfully cited religious grounds to win the right to remove their children from otherwise compulsory military training (Spence v. Bailey, 1972) and from a coeducational physical education class in which students had to dress in “immodest apparel” (Moody v. Cronin, 1979). In Menora v. Illinois High School Association (1982), the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois High School Association was constitutionally obliged to accommodate Orthodox Jewish basketball players who wanted to wear a head covering, despite an association rule forbidding headgear. The Menora case involves a narrow exception from the dress code, rather than a broader right to opt out of a curriculum requirement.

A great many school districts, meanwhile, have recognized the force of parents’ religious or moral concerns on issues of sexuality and reproduction and have voluntarily provided opt-outs from classes devoted to those topics. Under these opt-out programs, parents do not have to explain their objection, religious or otherwise, to participation by their children. On other occasions, however, parental claims that the Constitution entitles them to remove their children from part or all of a public school curriculum have fared rather poorly.

The issue of home schooling is a good example. Before state legislatures passed laws allowing home schooling, parents seeking to educate their children at home were often unsuccessful in the courts. Many judges distinguished these home schooling cases from Yoder on the grounds that Yoder involved teenagers rather than young children. The judges also noted that Yoder was concerned with the survival of an entire religious community – the Old Order Amish – rather than the impact of education on a single family. Indeed, in virtually all the cases decided over the past 25 years, courts have found that the challenged curriculum requirement did not unconstitutionally burden parents’ religious choices.

The most famous of the cases is Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (1987), in which a group of Tennessee parents complained that references to mental telepathy, evolution, secular humanism, feminism, pacifism and magic in a series of books in the reading curriculum offended the families’ Christian beliefs. The school board originally allowed children to choose alternative reading materials but then eliminated that option.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the county’s favor on the grounds that students were not being asked to do anything in conflict with their religious obligations. Furthermore, the court said, the school board had a strong interest in exposing children to a variety of ideas and images and in using a uniform series of books for all children. Because the books did not explicitly adopt or denigrate particular religious beliefs, the court concluded, the parents could insist neither on the removal of the books from the schools nor on their children opting out.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in a case involving a public high school in Massachusetts that held a mandatory assembly devoted to AIDS and sex education. In that case, Brown v. Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions (1995), the court rejected a complaint brought by parents who alleged that exposure to sexually explicit material infringed on their rights to religious freedom and control of the upbringing of their children. The court concluded that this one-time exposure to the material would not substantially burden the parents’ freedom to rear their children and that the school authorities had strong reasons to inform high school students about “safe sex.”

More recently, parents and students have, on religious liberty and other grounds, sued school districts that accommodate transgender students by allowing them to use bathroom and locker facilities that match their current gender identity rather than their sex at birth. Some parents and students argue that the new arrangements violate their religious liberty rights because the school policy forces them to accommodate a set of moral and religious beliefs they disagree with.

So far, however, federal courts have sided with school districts that have accommodated transgender students. For instance, in Parents for Privacy v. Dallas School District No. 2, a federal district court dismissed a suit against Oregon’s Dallas school district, stating that accommodating transgender students does not impinge on the religious rights of other students or their parents. And in 2019, the Supreme Court declined to review Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, letting stand a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding a Pennsylvania school district’s policy to accommodate transgender students.

Rights of teachers and administrators

Without question, public school employees retain their rights to free exercise of religion. When off duty, school employees are free to engage in worship, proselytizing or any other lawful faith-based activity. When they are acting as representatives of a public school system, however, courts have said their rights are constrained by the Establishment Clause.

This limitation on religious expression raises difficult questions. The first is what limits school systems may impose on the ordinary and incidental expression of religious identity by teachers in the classroom. Most school systems permit teachers to wear religious clothing or jewelry. Similarly, teachers may disclose their religious identity; for instance, they need not refuse to answer when a student asks, “Do you celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah?” or “Did I see you at the Islamic center yesterday morning?”

At times, however, teachers act in an uninvited and overtly religious manner toward students and are asked by school administrators to refrain. When those requests have led to litigation, administrators invariably have prevailed on the grounds that they are obliged (for constitutional and pedagogical reasons) to be sensitive to a teacher’s coercive potential.

In Bishop v. Aronov (1991), for example, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a set of restrictions imposed by the University of Alabama on a professor of exercise physiology. Professor Phillip Bishop had been speaking regularly to his class about the role of his Christian beliefs in his work and had scheduled an optional class in which he offered a “Christian perspective” on human physiology. The court recognized the university’s general authority to control the way in which instruction took place, noting that Bishop’s academic freedom was not jeopardized since he retained the right to express his religious views in his published writing and elsewhere.

In Roberts v. Madigan (1990), a federal district court similarly upheld the authority of a public school principal in Colorado to order a fifth-grade teacher to take down a religious poster from the classroom wall and to remove books titled “The Bible in Pictures” and “The Life of Jesus” from the classroom library. The court also backed the principal’s order that the teacher remove the Bible from his desktop and refrain from silently reading the Bible during instructional time. The court emphasized that school principals need such authority to prevent potential violations of the Establishment Clause and to protect students against a religiously coercive atmosphere.

That much is clear. What is less clear is how public school systems should draw the line between teachers’ official duties and their own time. That was the key question in Wigg v. Sioux Falls School District (8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2004), in which a teacher sued the South Dakota school district for refusing to allow her to serve as an instructor in the Good News Club (an evangelical Christian group) that met after school hours at various public elementary schools in the district.

A federal district court ruled that the teacher, Barbara Wigg, should be free to participate in the club but said the school district could insist that the teacher not participate at the school where she was employed. The appellate court affirmed the decision but went further in protecting the teacher’s rights, concluding that the school district could not exclude her from the program at her own school. The court reasoned that once the school day ended, Wigg became a private citizen, leaving her free to be a Good News Club instructor at any school, including the one where she worked. The court ruled that no reasonable observer would perceive Wigg’s after-school role as being carried out on behalf of the school district, even though the club met on school property.

In general, then, the courts have ruled that public schools have substantial discretion to regulate the religious expression of teachers during instructional hours, especially when students are required to be present. The courts have also ruled, however, that attempts by schools to extend that control into non-instructional hours constitute an overly broad intrusion on the teachers’ religious freedom.

Religious activities and the principle of equal access

Over the past 20 years, evangelical Christians and others have advanced the rights of religious organizations to have equal access to meeting space and other forms of recognition provided by public schools to students. These organizations have consistently succeeded in securing the same privileges provided by public schools to secular groups.

Their victories have not been based on a claim that religious groups have a right to official recognition simply because they want to practice or preach their religion; instead, these cases have been won on free-speech grounds.

Whenever public schools recognize student extracurricular activities (for example, a student Republican club or an animal rights group), the schools are deemed to have created a forum for student expression. The constitutional rules governing the forum concept are complicated, but one consistent theme is that the state may not discriminate against a person or group seeking access to the forum based on that person’s or group’s viewpoint. In a now-lengthy line of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that religious groups represent a particular viewpoint on the subjects they address and that officials may not exclude that viewpoint from a government-created forum for expression or association.

The first major decision in this area was  Widmar v. Vincent   (1981), , in which the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Missouri could not exclude from campus facilities a student group that wanted to use the school’s buildings for worship and Bible study. The university had refused the group access, asserting that the Establishment Clause forbade the use of a public university’s facilities for worship. The court rejected this defense, ruling that the university had allowed other student groups to use university property and that the complaining group could not be excluded on the basis of its religious viewpoint.

The Supreme Court later extended Widmar’s notion of equal access to nonstudent groups. They, too, should have access to public space, the court said. Despite the decision in Widmar, however, some public high schools continued to refuse access to student religious groups. Those schools took the view that prayer and Bible reading in public schools were constitutionally impermissible, even if wholly student initiated. At least one court of appeals has upheld that argument.

Congress responded by passing the Equal Access Act of 1984. As a condition for receiving federal financial aid, the law required that public secondary schools not discriminate on the basis of religion or political viewpoint in recognizing and supporting extracurricular activities. This law has benefited a variety of student organizations, from gay and lesbian groups to evangelical Christian clubs.

In 1985, a year after Congress passed the equal access law, school officials in Omaha, Nebraska, refused a student request for permission to form a Christian club at a public high school. The club’s activities included reading and discussing the Bible and engaging in prayer. The students filed suit under the Equal Access Act, and the school officials responded that allowing such a club in a public school would violate the Establishment Clause.

In the court case, Board of Education v. Mergens (1990), the Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act. The 8-1 majority reasoned that high schools were indistinguishable from universities for purposes of equal access to public facilities. Because there were many student groups devoted to different and frequently opposing causes, the court determined that no reasonable observer would see the school’s recognition of a religious group as an official endorsement of the group’s religious views.

The limits of  Widmar  and  Mergens  were later put to the test in  Rosenberger v. University of Virginia  (1995) and  Good News Club v. Milford Central School District  (2001). In Rosenberger, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment required a state university to grant the same printing subsidy to an evangelical journal that it made available to all other student journals. The dissenters argued, unsuccessfully, that state financial support for a proselytizing journal violated the Establishment Clause. In Good News Club, a 6-3 majority held that the Free Speech Clause prohibited an elementary school from excluding an evangelical Christian program for children from the list of accepted after-school activities.

These equal access decisions have led to new controversies in the lower courts. In Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools (2006), for instance, a federal appellate court extended the equal access principle to fliers that schools distributed to students to take home for the purpose of informing parents about after-school activities. For years the county had distributed fliers for children’s sports leagues and activities like the Boy Scouts. But it refused to distribute fliers for the after-school programs of the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland, which are not held on school property. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the county’s flier distribution policy was unconstitutionally discriminatory.

The presence of student religious groups in public schools has raised one additional issue. At times these groups insist that their officers make specific religious commitments, such as accepting Jesus Christ as savior and maintaining sexual abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage. As a result, some students are excluded from joining the group or from its leadership ranks. In Hsu v. Roslyn Union Free School District No. 3 (1996), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal Equal Access Act gave students in an evangelical Christian group the right to maintain religious criteria for office. The court said the school’s policy against religious discrimination by student groups was unenforceable in this instance.

The issue arrived at the Supreme Court in 2010 in a case involving a public law school’s decision to deny official recognition to the Christian Legal Society (CLS), a nationwide, nondenominational organization of Christian lawyers, judges and law students. Although the case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, involved just one law school (the University of California, Hastings College of Law), other law schools around the country also had been sued by the organization for similar reasons. By the time the Supreme Court agreed to hear Martinez, lower federal courts in different cases had ruled both for and against the organization.

The case centered on Hastings’ policies toward student organizations. Student groups that are officially recognized by Hastings enjoy certain privileges, including access to school facilities and funding. But CLS membership requirements effectively bar non-Christians from becoming voting members and non-celibate gays and lesbians from assuming leadership positions, which conflicts with the law school’s stated policy of requiring registered student groups to accept any students as members. After Hastings refused to exempt CLS from the policy – known as the “all-comers” policy – the group sued, claiming the policy violated its First and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and freedom of religious expression. A federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Hastings, and CLS appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case was widely viewed as a contest between the right of free association and nondiscrimination policies. In its ruling, however, the court did not resolve any broad questions raised by this conflict. Instead, the 5-4 majority handed down a narrowly tailored decision that upheld the specific policy of Hastings Law School – the “all-comers” policy – as long as it is applied in an evenhanded manner.

Writing for the high court’s majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Hastings’ policy requiring officially registered student groups to allow anyone to join does not unconstitutionally discriminate against groups with particular viewpoints or missions. Quite the contrary, she wrote, the policy is completely neutral since it requires all organizations to open their membership and leadership to all students. Ginsburg argued that it is CLS that wants an exemption from the policy and thus threatens its neutrality. Moreover, she wrote, an “all-comers” policy is reasonable for an educational institution because it encourages all groups to accept and interact with students who hold diverse views. Finally, Ginsburg noted that even though the Christian Legal Society has been denied official recognition by the law school, the group can, and still does, freely operate on campus and is even allowed to use school facilities to hold meetings.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that by affirming Hastings’ policy, the majority sacrificed core First Amendment principles in favor of political correctness and armed “public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.” In addition, Alito asserted, the majority overlooked certain evidence demonstrating that Hastings had singled out CLS because of its beliefs. Prior to the lawsuit, he said, many officially recognized groups on the Hastings campus – not just CLS – had membership requirements written into their bylaws that were discriminatory. Justice Alito also disputed the majority’s contention that CLS, even without official recognition, can still effectively operate on campus, noting that the administration has ignored requests by the group to secure rooms for meetings and tables at campus events.

This report was written by Ira C. Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis  Professor Emeritus of Law at George Washington University Law School; David Masci, Senior Writer/Editor at Pew Research Center; and Robert W. Tuttle, David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor of Law & Religion at George Washington University Law School.

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Table of Contents

In u.s., far more support than oppose separation of church and state, teens in the south more likely than other u.s. teens to experience religion in public school, for a lot of american teens, religion is a regular part of the public school day, european countries that have mandatory church taxes are about as religious as their neighbors that don’t, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons

Why should religion be taught in schools? If you’re writing an argumentative or persuasive essay on pros and cons of religion in schools, this sample is for you.

Introduction

Religious studies help to raise morally decent citizens, religious studies promote religious freedom, religious studies help in explaining the mysteries of life, reasons why religion should not be taught in schools.

The discussion of religious studies in schools is a subject that has elicited contention in academic circles. Scholars are divided on whether or not religious studies should be taught in schools. The subject matter has also brought out controversy among curriculum developers. The main issue of contention revolves around establishing the boundary between religion and state.

Religious studies are critical in raising morally upright citizens in a nation. Although it is possible to reject the move to offer religious studies in schools based on the claim that parents should instill morals in their children at home, it is crucial to realize that many contemporary parents are usually busy to the extent that getting time to share moral stories with their kids is almost impossible. Hence, with this foundation, the paper argues that there is a place for religious studies in schools today and that the benefits of studying religion outweigh the demerits.

Why Should Religion Be Taught in Schools?

The main argument in favor of teaching religion in schools is that it helps to instill good morals in people. It also promotes faith as religious freedom and helps explain complicated life issues not addressed by other disciplines.

According to Cochran (2014), the study of religion should be encouraged from the entry-level since it assists in character molding. It is important to note that religious studies instill good morals in people. Examples of these morals include honesty, faithfulness, hard work, respect, and dignity.

All religious studies promote these virtues, including Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Religion also helps to prevent vices among young people in society today. The witnessed violence among young people may be attributed to a lack of religious teachings. Video games contribute to aggressive behavior in kids of age between 9 and 12 years (Ellithorpe et al., 2015).

Religion discourages vices such as early pregnancies among young people, most of whom are in school. As part of their work, tutors of religious studies discourage drug and substance abuse among learners, thus encouraging them to be productive citizens in a country. Since religion prohibits sexual relationships before marriage, it plays an essential role in eradicating sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV and AIDS, among others.

Furthermore, religious studies teachers address the issue of the sanctity of family and the need to promote faithfulness in marriage. Hence, as future parents, students who lack such understanding from school may fail to know the aspects that must be imparted to their kids.

According to Cochran (2014), religious studies help to develop learners’ character, values, and beliefs. Hence, failing to offer lessons that instill these concepts in school may result in a violent and undisciplined generation lacking meaningful focus.

According to Cheadle and Schwadel (2012), religion helps to promote ethics among learners. Such ethical elements help to nurture students to become all-rounded citizens. The religious principles in a school setting form the basis of professional work ethics in many organizations today. It also promotes good interpersonal relationships by making people appreciate diversity and/or create the need for peaceful co-existence.

These attributes can only be acquired through the study of religion in schools, where they are instilled from the formative stages of growth and development (Cheadle & Schwadel, 2012). It is also important to note that many careers today have their foundation in religion. Religion comes in handy in the career development of disciplines such as law, medicine, philosophy, psychology, and counseling, among others.

These disciplines have their foundation established on the morals and ethics of religion as presented in the various schooling levels. Moreover, people majoring in religious studies can grow to become professionals in various areas, such as teachers, counselors, and religious leaders.

They can also run religious organizations and ministries, facilitate proper international relations, and/or work in the media and non-governmental organizations. Governmental organizations such as public schools, the police force, and the military typically have a chaplain.

Such a role can only be developed after studying religion and developing an interest in the career. According to Jeynes (2012), schools that teach religion achieve the highest level of performance compared to those that discourage religious studies. The implication here is that religious studies significantly impact career advancement.

Religion also helps in acquiring essential life skills. Such skills are acquired after learning about religious personalities who demonstrated great faith, perseverance, and commitment. Students with such skills will also try to emulate such persons and hence grow to become responsible citizens.

It is also important to note that moral uprightness is acquired by instilling the fear of God in students’ lives. Such fear helps learners to acquire knowledge and wisdom. However, it is apparent that schools are the best placed to impart this understanding through religious studies.

As Russo (2016) reveals, the freedom of religion is a guaranteed fundamental human right in most progressive constitutions. Therefore, religious studies give students a better understanding of their religions. It is important to note that religious studies teach the basic pillars of every belief.

For example, through religion, students learn essential aspects such as the believers’ creed and the five pillars of Islam. Therefore, teaching religion gives one the freedom of choice in relation to worship.

It is also important to note that the best democracies in the world have their countries founded on the belief in a Supreme Being or deity. From these establishments, it becomes crucial to instill morals among learners by teaching them religious studies in schools.

Furthermore, Duemmler and Nagel (2013) reveal how religion helps learners to understand the cultural diversity of the world’s populations since different regions practice diverse religious beliefs. Understanding the varied beliefs will promote peaceful co-existence while allowing for better diplomatic negotiations among nations.

It is important to note that religion has a lot of influence on how people live, do their businesses, and/or relate with one another. Therefore, this situation makes religious studies a crucial aspect of schools since it helps prepare students to work in any part of the world.

In other words, religion plays an important role in helping students understand the world’s history. It may also help a student explain the patterns of politics, trade, and law. Religion forms the foundation of these major areas, which eventually directly impact people’s way of life. Equipping students with religious knowledge helps them understand and appreciate the role of faith in shaping the world.

According to Kunzman (2012), the worsening levels of education can easily be attributed to strict regulations on religious studies in schools. This restriction has led to deteriorating standards of education, as well as moral decay in society.

Religion helps explain the complicated issues of life that are not addressed in other disciplines. Some mysteries include life after death, miraculous occurrences, eternal living, hell, and heaven. Science and other disciplines do not explain these things, yet they are essential religious items.

Therefore, addressing these aspects gives learners a broader view of the matters of life. Furthermore, in line with Vermeer’s (2012) views, religious studies help to enhance learners’ critical thinking. It expands the scope of students since it goes beyond issues that happen in the present world.

Religion also reveals future events in the form of prophecy, helping learners have an insight into events to come. Hence, it is crucial to include religious studies in the school curriculum to boost students’ level and scope of thinking.

Religion answers many learners’ curiosity questions. For this reason, elements from religious studies dominate discussions on social and mainstream media. Therefore, such studies cannot be wished away. Religion dramatically influences people’s cultural activities and beliefs, making it an important subject of study in schools.

According to Banton (2013), religious studies form part of the social structure of a society. Hence, omitting the study of religion in school means denying learners a crucial element they need in their life.

It is crucial to note that religious education comes with some drawbacks when presented in a school setting. One disadvantage is that the subject excludes the interests of nonreligious groups. It also disregards cultural diversity and the personal beliefs of students.

According to Kurtzleben (2017), nonreligious groups such as atheists have interests and freedom that should be respected in schools. Religious studies are based on the belief in supernatural beings that are not recognized in atheism. Therefore, the teaching and practicing of religion in schools may make atheists and other nonreligious groups feel socially excluded and discriminated against.

Furthermore, religion may not consider every individual’s cultural diversity and beliefs (Kurtzleben, 2017). Nonreligious groups that form a minority may also feel harassed and discriminated against by the teaching of religion in schools. Furthermore, the study of religion contradicts some teachings of science.

For instance, while science teaching in schools will make learners believe and uphold the evolution theory, religious studies teach the opposite to the same learners. Hence, opponents of teaching religion in schools assert that it confuses the learner.

For instance, according to Gaylor (2014), it is advisable to teach atheism in schools as well for all learners to be well-represented. The evolution theory believes people are transformed over time through several stages and advancements.

I support religious studies in schools since the learner has more to gain than lose from religious subjects. Religious studies help in molding and shaping the world’s culture. However, it is important to allow students to choose whether they want to study religion since it has a bearing on their careers, as previously highlighted.

In my opinion, religious studies should not be made compulsory but optional. In so doing, it will ensure that the interests of religious and nonreligious students are respected and that nobody will feel discriminated against.

From the discussions above, it comes out clearly that religious studies should form part of the school curriculum. However, it is essential to underscore that the studies should provide an understanding of various cultures in the world to facilitate the integration of communities.

The peaceful integration and co-existence of the world’s population guarantee proper political relations. The study of religion in schools should not be aimed and converting individuals. Instead, it should help people to appreciate diversity. Carrying out religious studies appropriately in schools may help to stop many religious wars and persecutions that the world is witnessing today.

Banton, M. (2013). Anthropological approaches to the study of religion . London, England: Routledge.

Cheadle, J. E., & Schwadel, P. (2012). The ‘friendship dynamics of religion,’ or the ‘religious dynamics of friendship’? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools. Social Science Research , 41 (5), 1198-1212.

Cochran, C. E. (2014). Religion in public and private life . London, England: Routledge.

Duemmler, K & Nagel, A. (2013). Duemmler, Kerstin; Nagel, Alexander-Kenneth: Governing religious diversity: Top-down and bottom-up initiatives in Germany and Switzerland. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science , 47 (2), 265-83

Ellithorpe, M., Cruz, C., Velez, J., Ewoldsen, D., & Bogert, A. (2015). Moral license in video games: When being right can mean doing wrong. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 18 (4), 203-207.

Gaylor, A. (2014). The Dangers of Religious Instruction in Public Schools .

Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects and contributions of public, public charter, and religious schools on student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education , 87 (3), 305-335.

Kunzman, R. (2012). Grappling with the good: Talking about religion and morality in public schools . Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Kurtzleben, D. (2017). Nonreligious Americans Remain Far Underrepresented In Congress .

Russo, C. (2016). Religious freedom in faith-based educational institutions in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges: Believers beware. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 1 (2), 263-308.

Vermeer, P. (2012). Meta-concepts, thinking skills and religious education. British Journal of Religious Education , 34 (3), 333-347.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 9). Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons. https://studycorgi.com/religion-in-schools-is-there-a-place-for-it-pros-and-cons/

"Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons." StudyCorgi , 9 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/religion-in-schools-is-there-a-place-for-it-pros-and-cons/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons'. 9 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/religion-in-schools-is-there-a-place-for-it-pros-and-cons/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/religion-in-schools-is-there-a-place-for-it-pros-and-cons/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/religion-in-schools-is-there-a-place-for-it-pros-and-cons/.

This paper, “Religion in Schools: Is There a Place for It? Pros and Cons”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: August 24, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Our Mission

7 Reasons Why Religion Must Be Taught in School

1. We shouldn’t refrain from doing anything out fear of retribution.

My colleagues and I were working on an interdisciplinary unit that included a giant timeline that traced certain historical themes within each region of the world along side of one another, including politics, economics, art and literature, science and invention, and social history.  As we were brainstorming what themes to use, I said, “Oh, yeah, don’t forget religion.”  Now, I had grown to love and respect these colleagues over a long period of time, and we could pretty much say anything in our meetings and know that we wouldn’t be judged, but when I suggested that groups of students would research and plot the development of the major religions of the world, you’d have thought I’d suggested we convert the 8th grade class to Islam.

The awkward silence ended with everyone reassuring me that religion would be covered within the other themes. Finally, they conceded we could have a religion theme but we would not call it religion.  We could call it “culture.” What I took away from the discussion was not that my colleagues were against teaching religion. They were against the idea of us being accused of teaching religion. It was an reflexive reaction to a very real fear that we were entering territory that gets teachers in big trouble. We are so hardwired to avoid what might upset even one or two parents or correspondingly raise the eyebrows of our principal. I know I am guilty of the same. I might navigate a little closer to the boundaries (or a lot closer, to my detriment), but I have refrained from “doing the right thing” many times to avoid the political aftermath of the decision.

The implications of the way we, as teachers, censor ourselves are far-reaching and frightening. We have got to find a way to put those fears on the shelf when we reflect and make decisions about all aspects of our practice, including curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, classroom culture, discipline--at least long enough to think about our practice on its own merits of appropriateness, importance, and relevance. We know that religion a perfectly legitimate and important subject to study, but we avoid it out of fear of retribution. That means we are depriving our youth of important knowledge they are entitled to receive. And we are allowing extremists and the under-informed to dictate what we do and do not teach, without even making them lift a finger, before there is even a issue to resolve. If we are supposed to be teaching our youth to be active citizens in their society, we need to model those behaviors more often.

2. We heard somewhere that teaching about religions was a violation of church and state, but it  is not.

I don’t know how this “rumor” got started, but once misinformation is out there, it’s very difficult to undo it. It reminds me of when I taught about the most recent Iraq War. To this day, students who were old enough to remember the Iraq War believe that we went to war because Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. After readings, discussions, debates, essays, even numerous pop quizzes with just that very question on the quiz, some kids were still resistant to stating that Saddam Hussein was not directly behind 9/11. Once we get an erroneous idea in our head, it’s very hard to get it out. You would hope we would be better at it than 12 year olds, but that is not always the case.

The Supreme Court has been very clear about studying religion in school. It’s allowed. What we can’t do is give one religion special attention over the other or promote a particular religious text as a singular truth. Religion can be included in our curriculum in a myriad of ways. We can study it as history, as literature, as art and architecture, as part of the study of a contemporary society or culture (including our own), or as it influences or is influenced by a current political or social issue. We can even teach entire electives, called Religious Studies. The Constitution and the Supreme Court give us very clear license to allow students of all ages to become students of the religions of the world.

3. We shouldn’t shy away from curriculum that could get a little dicey where we have to navigate in volatile waters.

Just because studying religion is perfectly legal doesn’t mean teaching it may not get a little challenging, at times. The same can be true of other important subjects, such as politics, sex education, racism, bullying, and conflict resolution. I’ve found most of the challenges don’t come from legal boundaries at all, but more from the stigma attached to discussing religion in the classroom.  Most students think we’re not supposed to talk about religion, so they may react emotionally and impulsively if we don’t prepare them. Having a discussion before hand about what separation of church and state means, and what limitations do exist and what limitations do not exist, could eliminate unnecessary fires and reactions when we start discussing the actual subject matter.

I use the word, discussion, a lot because whole group and small group discussions, talking circles, or Socratic seminars, is powerful pedagogy that shouldn’t be avoided when we hit sensitive subject matter. Having said that, it is essential that students have already practiced important dialogue guidelines that have been clearly established prior to the exploration of religion. Having said that, all the preparation in the world won’t prevent some kids from going straight for the gusto, the topics sure to trigger a response from their peers. For example, some will be anxious to talk about their own religious beliefs at the first opportunity. Some will find a way to bring up the very issues we “pray” won’t come up- creationism, abortion, who doesn’t get to go to heaven, etc. I usually allow these attempts at shock and awe to play out as long as they stick to the rules of respectful conversations, which include staying on topic, using I statements, among others. By allowing the discussion, it usually demystifies the idea of talking about such taboo topics. Then we can get on with it, and the process becomes more fluid and on point. The key is to be underwhelmed by the topics they bring up, and strictly adhere to the rules of respectful discourse, which would have already been practiced with other units and topics.

There are lots of other mine fields we could walk into. There is always the awkward potential for Sally to go home and tell her parents she much prefers the tenets of eastern Buddhism, thanks to her ____ class,  to her Methodist upbringing and she’d like to make a temple in the back yard and refrain from going to church from now on. That never happened to me, by the way, but it could, and it’ll be totally awkward, but that’s okay, because of reasons #4, #5, and #6.  The importance of the subject matter transcends having to live with a little uncertainty and unpredictability.

4. The subject matter is very important if we are going to understand other people and other societies.

Just like any subject we teach at school, studying religion shouldn’t be the study of a series of isolated facts, but sometimes some very basic knowledge offers perspective and opens up a whole new world that they hitherto didn’t have a chance to know about. Most students, no matter what the age, predict that the majority of the world is Christian. It’s very interesting to them and exciting to uncover a more realistic perspective about the world. And then the questions just start flowing. They want to know who was Buddha, who was Abraham, are Catholics Christians? and so on..

Comparing and contrasting religions offers enormous opportunities to not only see fundamental differences but also similarities, which students can analyze and draw conclusions about. I remember the kids especially enjoying choosing between ways of knowing between an indigenous and non-indigenous world view, or eastern and western religious world views, then we uncover which views belonged to which group. We unpack what it all might mean for us in understanding other groups, our own culture, and our own values. They also like studying the similarities of the religions within the Western and Eastern religions. They read quotes from various sacred texts and try to make conjectures on whether they are Eastern, Western, or Indigenous then they try to guess which religion they most sound like. They also really liked a lesson that I retrieved from Teaching Tolerance showing the Golden Rule of Christianity also being the Golden Rule in every major religion.  We read the original text and the translation and discuss the implications of these similarities.

Finding correlations, connections, relationships, and causation in relation to religion is an essential component in understanding much of what has occurred in history, politically, scientifically, artistically, in literature, personal relationships and economics. When studying a culture, historical or contemporary, we can’t begin to understand a group of people without knowing their beliefs. And a group’s fundamental beliefs about matters of ultimate concern are connected to all other beliefs and behaviors within the culture. We can’t look at politics, economics, art, social relationships, science, our environment, or religion, without looking at how they interact with each other. An indigenous spiritual world view might impact our treatment of the environment and our economic system. It might affect what one eats, how much one produces, who gets what, and so on. This, in turn, will impact how much time we spend with our families, how we treat Elders, and other social relationships.

5. The subject matter is very important if we are going to understand ourselves.

Students can see the long term effects of ideas and beliefs that permeate cultures today that arose from religions and world views of the past. If those ripple effects happen to be part of American history, we are really learning about layers of ourselves and assumptions about the world that we can now “unpack”, evaluate, then either embrace, reject, amend, or leave them to percolate as we continue our quest for self-identity, our beliefs, and our role in society. Students are fascinated to learn of the Puritan work ethic, pre-destination, and the “city upon a hill” mentality that has rippled into our economic and political systems today. They also learn the rich history of the Quakers and their firm and early stance against slavery, the subjugation of women, and the suffering of the poor. The Quakers, too, are part of our identity that they rarely have a chance to learn about.

6. The subject matter is very important if we want to eliminate prejudice, intolerance and hate.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years, creepy ideas aren’t just for extremists. Better words for creepy might be intolerant or dangerous, but when I hear some of the flawed belief systems that kids will share if they are allowed to express how they really feel, and when I know these kids to be otherwise kind and loving people, the word that comes to mind is creepy.  It’s one thing to here these statements come out of the mouths of a Ku Klux Klan member, but it’s quite another to come out, in chorus, from the majority of any given classroom of beautiful children. The incredibly good news is that a real education allows students to explore these prejudices and come out the other side completely transformed, but we have to have the courage to dive in and take on these powerful and difficult issues.

The only thing as poignant and powerful as watching someone discover their way out of a previously held prejudice is to watch someone who has been discriminated against and oppressed become aware of their predicament. We must provide a forum for to study all kinds of prejudice, including religious persecution. We must speak of the origins and effects of these prejudices. If we don’t kids automatically assume there is something wrong with them and there is something wrong with their family and their community, without ever verbalizing it. They assume this is the way of things, so they have a good chance of continuing the deeply entrenched destructive cycle of prejudice. But when those kids start to become aware of the direct causes that created the problems they are experiencing in their lives and communities, their consciousness emerges into an empowered individual who is no longer chained to the patterns they see around them. Naming oppression is the first step to liberation, and we as educators, have an absolute obligation to provide that space in the curriculum for our students; otherwise, we are being not only irresponsible, but we are promoting institutional racism and prejudice, much of which has its origins in religious persecution.

7. Kids can deal with it.

Often when I promote the idea of dealing with complex sensitive issues with kids, a common reaction is that kids are too immature to deal with all that. That may be fine for college students, but not high school, certainly not middle school or elementary. I believe we don’t give kids near enough credit. The earlier kids start learning about the world realistically in an educational setting, the more mature and reflective they become as adults. We can’t expect to shield them from thinking, and then expect them to start when they turn 18. Moreover, we are fooling ourselves if we think our kids are sheltered from important issues of any kind. They see, live with, see others live with, and wonder about far more than we can imagine--not to mention what is experienced via television, internet, and music. If we don’t provide a safe environment to learn to make sense of the world, we end up with kids who don’t have the tools to cope, who suppress and ignore or react, or who follow their parents lead, never quite knowing how to process and develop their own views. There are wonderful units and lessons out there already and yet to be created for kindergarteners through 12th graders that appropriately integrate and embrace the study of religion in a way that nurtures curiosity, inquiry, and growth.

Making religion an integral part of the fabric of our curriculum may not be easy, but it is certainly legal and well worth the effort if we want to help our kids become independent tolerant critical thinkers who seek to understand and improve themselves and the world in which we live.

This piece was originally submitted to our community forums by a reader. Due to audience interest, we’ve preserved it. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own.

Public School Students Need to Study Religion

• Share article

Should religion be taught in public schools?

Yes, but not in the ways you might think.

There has been much publicity in recent years highlighting how ignorant U.S. citizens are about religion. The 2010 U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey conducted by the Pew Research Center (the most recent available of its type), for example, revealed that only 66 percent of Christians surveyed knew that Genesis is the first book of the Bible, fewer than half of Americans knew that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and even fewer knew that Shiva and Vishnu were associated with Hinduism.

The Pew survey reflects the same kinds of knowledge about religion that students might learn in U.S. public schools. For example, in nearly all world history or world culture textbooks, students will find a “religion unit” with the primary content represented through three to five pages of multicolored charts representing the “major world religions” and highlighting their “facts” such as number of adherents, geographical location, founder or major figures, scripture, ritual practices, and beliefs. Here students learn about the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Five Pillars of Islam, and the 10 Commandments of Judaism and Christianity.

Teaching about religion through the isolated lens of rituals, beliefs, and practices is problematic."

At first glance, this may sound like a good vehicle to strengthen knowledge about religion, but the limitation of this approach is quickly revealed when reading the morning news. How will knowing the Four Noble Truths help students understand how some Buddhists in Myanmar are actively engaged in the persecution of minority Rohingya Muslims? Or how does knowing the 10 Commandments help explain why 80 percent of white Evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election? Or how will knowing the Five Pillars of Islam help explain the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

The limitations are even more apparent when considering history. How can knowing the Christian Beatitudes explain the Crusades or the Inquisition or Christian support for chattel slavery?

It is important to note, of course, that there are counter-examples for each of the illustrations I cite. Though some Buddhists in Myanmar are promoting the persecution of Muslims, many others are opposing these actions. And while it is true that a majority of Evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump, many others did not, and understanding the diverse reasons for each of these actions is important. Similarly, many Muslims in Afghanistan and throughout the world oppose the Taliban.

These facts help to highlight why teaching about religion through the isolated lens of rituals, beliefs, and practices is problematic.

As an alternative, the American Academy of Religion and the National Council for the Social Studies promote a different way to teach about religion that focuses on giving students the tools to understand the complex roles that religions play in human experience. (I collaborated with both organizations to produce and utilize these guidelines.) In this approach, students learn the following four fundamental tenets of the academic study of religion. These tenets challenge many of the commonly held assumptions about religion that teaching about rituals, beliefs, and practices reproduce.

1. There is a distinction between personal or communal religious convictions and the study of diverse assertions that constitutes the academic study of religion. This distinction honors individual faith stances but doesn’t presume that any one stance represents the whole of the tradition itself. The academic study of religion is the appropriate and constitutionally sound way to teach about religion in public schools.

2. Religions are internally diverse as opposed to uniform. Their internal diversity extends beyond differing sects of a tradition (e.g., Mormons, Quakers, and Roman Catholics for Christianity; Mahayana and Theravada for Buddhism; Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reconstructionist for Judaism). There is diversity even within a particular religious community because religions are living traditions interpreted and practiced through the lens of adherents. In this way, it is always problematic to assert that “Buddhists are nonviolent” or “Christians oppose same-sex marriage.” Such declarations are always too simplistic to capture the rich and dynamic diversity of religious expression and belief.

3. Human interpretation and experience of religion evolves and changes in response to differing social and historical contexts. For example, in the 1970s, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a series of resolutions affirming the moral legitimacy of abortion and supporting Roe v. Wade . In 2003, however, the SBC officially retracted all past resolutions that gave moral sanction to abortion. Southern Baptists themselves can (and do) debate which of these stances is the “correct” one, but the question for students of religion is different. Our question is: What were the social and historical conditions that gave rise to the first resolution, and what shifts led to the 2003 reversal?

4. Religions are embedded in all dimensions of human experience and can’t be isolated in a so-called “private” sphere of faith. The belief that religion is a private matter and separable from the “public” realm of political and economic activity is a persistent one and it had a profound influence on the discipline of international relations. For decades, foreign service officers and diplomats considered religion the “third rail,” with which they shouldn’t engage. It wasn’t until the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the Polish Solidarity movement in the second half of the 20th century that international relations theorists began to rethink this tenet of strict separation. Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry famously commented that he wished he had majored in comparative religions to learn the tools needed to address the complex roles that religions play in contemporary global affairs.

We at the Religious Literacy Project—which seeks to advance the public understanding of religion with special attention to power, peace, and conflict—at Harvard Divinity School support and extend this approach by partnering with teachers to create new resources for classroom use and by offering a weeklong summer training institute.

Giving students the tools to better understand the complex and powerful roles that religions play in human experience has the potential to help mitigate bigotry based on misrepresentation, while simultaneously enhancing empathy and understanding across differences of all kinds. In our current climate of extreme partisanship (a climate that today’s students experience as “normal”), we need all the empathy and understanding we can muster.

A version of this article appeared in the October 10, 2018 edition of Education Week as Public Schools Can’t Ignore Religion

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Religion in schools in the united states.

• Suzanne Rosenblith Suzanne Rosenblith Clemson University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.46
• Published online: 28 June 2017

The relationship between religion and public education has been fraught with misunderstanding, confusion, tension, and hostility. Perhaps more so than other forms of identity, for many, religion evokes a strong sense of exclusivity. Unlike other forms of identity, for many, particularly the religiously orthodox, religious identity is based on a belief in absolute truth. And for some of the orthodox, adherence to this truth is central to their salvation. Further, unlike cultural identity, religion is oftentimes exclusive in its fundamental claims and assertions. In short, matters of religious faith are indeed high stakes. Yet its treatment in public schools is, for the most part, relatively scant. Some of this is because of uncertainty among educators as to what the law permits, and for others it is uncertainty of its rightful place in democratic pluralistic schools.

• public education
• first amendment

Introduction

This article seeks to provide an overview of the historical, legal, and curricular relationship between religion and public schooling in the United States. This relationship, often fraught with tension, attempts to reconcile often incommensurable public goals. The article begins with a review of the history of religion in the public domain. Since public schools are often thought of as microcosms of society, it is important to understand the relationship of religion within society. Following this overview, the article delves more deeply into seminal court cases that have more or less cemented the legal constraints of religion in public education. With legal parameters in mind, the next section explores the relationship of religion in public schools from curricular perspectives. Moving beyond a discussion of creationism in science class, this section aims to examine the benefits of broader inclusion of religious perspectives as a way to approximate pluralistic and democratic schools. The final section explores broader concerns for a liberal democracy—pluralism, autonomy, and respect—as it wrestles with the appropriateness of religion and religious identity in public schools.

History of Religion in the Public Sphere

To understand the contemporary relationship between religion and public schooling requires a review of the history of religion in the public sphere. Many schoolchildren in the United States have been taught that the first European settlers to the colonies fled Europe and the Church of England to seek freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. And while this is true, far from the feel-good narrative that some like to extend (Baritz, 1964 ), the first settlers, the Puritans, were an extremely rigid and dogmatic group of religious believers who settled in the colonies not for freedom of religion but to practice and entrench their religious beliefs (Kaveny, 2013 ). They did not believe in a secular state but rather believed their version of Christianity to be predominant, and as far as they could see, the only justifiable established religion (Fiske, 1889 ). The Puritans believed Satan lurked around every corner and that religion was the essential tool to ward off Satan’s trickery. This in fact was the basis for the 1647 Old Deluder Satan Act (Constitution Society, 1647 ).

Common School Movement

As time progressed after the American Revolution, leaders like Horace Mann and Benjamin Rush made calls for a more organized public school system (Rudolph, 1965 ). Horace Mann famously called for the creation of the Common School (Hinsdale, 1898 ). Though Mann grew up, like so many, in a deeply religious home, he did not think these new public schools needed to be centrally religious. That is, their focus was not to be on inculcating biblical views, but rather for Mann, the focus of the Common School was to cultivate a tolerant, what we might call today, pluralistic, citizenry (Mann & Massachusetts Board of Education, 1957 ). Morality, more so than literal scriptural reading, was what Mann called for. For Mann, the chief concern in creating this Common School was attending to the increasing social strife that came as a result of the development of industry (Mann, 1965 ). Further, Mann was concerned about racial/ethnic hostility as the newest waves of immigrants to the United States were from Southern and Eastern Europe. Not only did they look different than the Northern and Western European immigrants, but they came with different languages, customs, and cultures. Assimilating them into a decidedly American culture was a goal for Mann and his allies (Hayes, 2006 ). All in all, the most orthodox religious believers were supportive of Mann’s efforts because these common schools exuded what was considered a nondenominational Protestantism (Moore, 2000 ). On the one hand was the belief that if you wanted the kind of hard-working, morally upright, conscientious citizens, then religion necessarily needed to be a part of the Common School. On the other hand, the religion that was foundational to the school did not need to be sectarian so as to privilege one group to the exclusion of others.

And so the Common School and then the Public School very much functioned with a role for religion—in many/most states, the school day began with a biblical recitation. In many schools, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries , McGuffey Readers were the main textbook (Westerhoff, 1978 ). The Readers , unlike their predecessor the New England Primer , mirrored this nondenominational Protestantism by inculcating morality through a veiled Christianity as opposed to a direct and overt use of the King James Bible in efforts to educate young citizens to become literate. For example, the New England Primer had a solemn prayer to be recited everyday, which states, “Oh Lord God, I beseech thee, of thy fatherly goodness and mercy to pardon all my offenses which in though, word, or deed, I have this day committed against thee and thy holy law” ( The New England Primer , 1805 ). The McGuffey Reader , in comparison, invoked a more nondenominational, less orthodox, religious tone. In one of its lessons it states, “I hope you have said your prayers and thanked your Father in Heaven for all his goodness … for your good health, and a blessing of home” (McGuffey, 1836 ).

Modernization and Industrialization

A significant, some might argue fatal, shift for those advocating the centrality of religion to public schools came in the early mid- 20th century . As has always been the case, public schools, serving as microcosms of society, reflect not just the dominant values and ethos of society, but also serve an important economic and intellectual purpose. That is, to the degree that the needs of society change, so must the public schools. Public schools were the central place to prepare the young for future citizenship. While an important part of that citizenship was moral and social, increasingly with industrialization, that role was also intellectual and economic (Fraser, 2001 ). The frame through which public schools cultivated curriculum changed substantially. For example, the type of citizen and future worker needed expanded from someone who was morally upright to someone who could contribute to the burgeoning Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. Shifting from the absolutism and fixidity of religion to the flexibility and tentativeness of science required a rethinking of pedagogy and curriculum (Greene, 2012 ). Further, with the country’s religious diversity increasing and the country itself maturing, religion seemed to be less central to the public schools. In contrast, understanding that ethical decision-making required an understanding of the context in which a person might find herself as opposed to the absolutes favored by religious belief, required a more open-ended, what today we might call, critical reasoning approach, to teaching and learning (Sears & Carper, 1998 ). The idea that the world was not absolute and fixed but ever changing, caused a real need for a different sort of education. As nondenominational Protestantism lost its stronghold over public schools in favor of a more science-focused secularism, Christian Orthodox—the Evangelical—become its harshest critics. They argue that the removal of God (religion) from the public sphere is a threat to their faith and a violation of their rights (Larson, 1997 ). Court cases related to religion and public education seem to lend some credence to their claims. The tension between the religiously orthodox, specifically evangelical Christians, and the secular public schools began in the mid- 20th century and has persisted to the present day (Deckman, 2004 ).

To survey popular media, particularly cable news, one might depict the current state of tension between those advocating for more religion in public schools and those advocating for its removal in the following way. On the one hand you have religious zealots making calls for prayer, creationism, released time, religious clubs, posting the Ten Commandments (Rogers, 2010 ; Shreve, 2010 ) and to the other extreme you have atheist zealots who refuse to consider any idea that has some association with religion as appropriate for public schools (Hedges, 2008 ). While these caricatures might fit some in each of these groups, contrary to the popular media depiction is, instead, a conflict built upon a reliance on different aspects of the first part of the First Amendment. That is, those advocating for more religion in public schools cite the “Free Exercise Clause” as the basis for their demands (Hodgson, 2004 ), while those arguing for a relatively “religious free public school” argue that anything less than this would be an instantiation of government support or “Establishment” of religion (Long, 2012 ). Given this, it is important to understand the legal context in which these tensions arise.

Religion and the Law

Perspectives on establishment.

The first part of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I). The establishment clause , as it is commonly called, is meant to protect individuals from the establishment of an official state religion. In contrast, the function of the free exercise clause is to protect individual religious freedom. In terms of legal impact, the establishment clause has historically garnered more attention because of the wide-sweeping impact a legal decision will have. In contrast, free exercise cases address issues that pertain largely to religious minorities, so the impact is smaller and more context dependent.

Typically, when justices decide Establishment Clause cases they are asked to determine whether an enactment effectively establishes, or supports, a state religion. There are generally three different judicial perspectives on establishment, strict separation, accommodation, and neutral separation. Strict separationists invoke the idea of a wall separating Church and State. For strict separationists there is no instance in which an enactment would be tolerated (Neuhaus, 2007 ). Accommodationists point to the Framers’ “original intent” and argue that the only thing the Framers were concerned about in terms of the role of religion in government was the establishment of an official State Church. Barring this, certain accommodations are permissible as long as government does not prefer one religion to another (Massaro, 2005 ). Finally, the neutral separation position examines enactments with a slightly different lens arguing that what is most important is official State neutrality between religion and non-religion and thus argue that to adhere to the establishment clause may mean at times accommodating religion if it is to maintain neutrality between religion and non-religion (Fox, 2011 ; Temperman, 2010 ). Generally speaking, when focusing on the major court cases that have impacted public education, the neutral separation position has carried the day when it comes to issues such as school prayer, religious instruction, and released time.

Immediately following the Civil War, Congress passed the 14th amendment that states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … ” What this means is one’s national citizenship is one’s highest source of rights. The degree to which state laws contradict federal/constitutional laws, state laws must give way. For our discussion this is important because it is the application of the 14th amendment to the 1st amendment that holds public schools and public school employees to the restrictions of the 1st amendment ( Everson v. Board of Education ). The 14th amendment application to the 1st amendment is also essential since it is the states, rather than the federal government, that hold substantive influence over public school curriculum and policy.

Several watershed cases have firmly established the preference for the neutral separation position. In McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ), the court struck down an Illinois program that provided time during the school day on school premises for “released time” for religious instruction. Arguing that school personnel were involved with the administration and execution of this program was tantamount to supporting religion it was found unconstitutional. In contrast, the courts sided with the school district in Zorach v. Clauson ( 1952 ) where students were released from the school premises (with parental permission) during the school day for religious instruction arguing that it was the school’s job to maintain neutrality between religion and non-religion, and since it was the parents and students who voluntarily signed up for the released time program, the school did not violate the establishment clause by permitting such a program to continue.

Key Court Cases

In the middle of the 20th century it was commonplace for the school day to begin with a religious prayer or invocation. Beginning in 1962 , cases made their way through the courts, and in every instance the court found such prayers violated the establishment clause. Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) concerned a New York State Board of Regents Prayer that was to be read over the intercom system in every New York public school at the start of each school day, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.” The court ruled that the prayer violated the establishment clause because although, nondenominational (in a sense), it still favored religion over non-religion. Further, because the prayer was broadcast at the start of the school day, students had no choice (captive audience) but to listen. The following year, the court in an 8-1 decision in Abington School District v. Schempp ( 1963 ) determined that a commonwealth of Pennsylvania law that read, “Ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read without comment at the opening of each public school on each school day” was unconstitutional. Of greater importance in this case was the distinction made between the unconstitutionality of practicing religion in public school with the constitutionally permissible act of studying religion in public school. That is, if there is an educational purpose to studying religion, then presumably this would be permissible. The fact that the law included the clause “without comment” made it appear to the majority of justices that it served a devotional, rather than an educational, purpose. The second significance of this case is that it offered the first two of what later became a three-prong test used to adjudicate Establishment clause cases. The first prong asks what is the primary purpose of the enactment? Is it religious or secular? The second prong asks what is the primary effect of the enactment—religious or secular? In cases where the primary purpose and effect are secular the enactment is said to be permissible. This formula is particularly useful when determining whether curriculum, such as evolution or creationism, for example, is permitted. Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) addressed the matter of an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. The law was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that the primary purpose of the law was to advance and protect a religious view. Following the Epperson decision was the famous case Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ). It was famous mainly because of the establishment of the third prong used to adjudicate establishment clause cases. At issue in this case was the question of whether public schools could reimburse private schools for the salaries of their teachers who taught secular subjects. Since the majority of the private schools were parochial, the matter fell under establishment. In deciding that it was unconstitutional for the public schools to pay the salaries of the parochial school teachers, the court determined that while primary purpose and primary effect were central to deciding constitutionality, a third prong, which says that the enactment must not foster an excessive entanglement between religion and government was needed. Paying the salaries of private school teachers who teach secular subjects may not serve a primarily religious purpose or have a primarily religious effect, but it certainly would foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion in that government would be very involved with accounting for their investments in a parochial school.

Contemporary Tensions

Other important Establishment Clause cases related to education include Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ). This case dealt with the constitutionality of moments of silence. In this case, the state of Alabama allowed for a moment of silence for the purpose of meditation or private prayer. While moments of silence with no explicit purpose have been found constitutional, this law was found unconstitutional on the grounds that it had a clear religious purpose. Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) concerned a Louisiana “balanced treatment act,” a law that required creationism be taught alongside evolution to maintain neutrality. The court, in a 7-2 decision found the law unconstitutional according to all three prongs of the Lemon test. The courts have ruled similarly in more recent court cases such as Selman v. Cobb County School District ( 2006 ), which ruled that “warning labels” on evolution texts violated the Establishment Clause as well as Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education ( 1997 ) where the majority ruled that a “disclaimer” teachers were required to read before teaching evolution was unconstitutional.

In summary, since the 1940s when the 14th amendment was applied to the 1st amendment, public schools have been limited in what counts as permissible in relation to religion and public schooling. Summing up the legal parameters nicely is a document issued by the federal government entitled, “Federal Guidelines for Religious Expression in Schools ( 1997 ).” These guidelines, developed by a wide ranging panel first commissioned during the Clinton administration and then reauthorized under George W. Bush, emphasize that restrictions on religious expression are limited to school personnel while in their official capacity. Students, in contrast, have free range to express their religious beliefs in public schools, “short of harassment.” So although the religious orthodox have claimed that God has been removed from the public schools, the legal record tells us that free exercise has only been limited in the case of school officials and not students. For example, under the Equal Access Act ( 1984 ), student-initiated religious groups are permitted at schools. However, teachers cannot create or lead these groups, though they are allowed to monitor them.

Free Exercise

It is worth mentioning briefly the role of the free exercise clause in public schools. The chief function of the free exercise clause is to provide protection to religious minorities where laws created by the majority might serve unintentionally to restrict their free exercise. The most famous free exercise case related to public schools is, Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ). In this case, members of the Amish community requested an exemption from state compulsory attendance laws. Wisconsin law required all students to attend school until the age of 16. The Amish requested an exemption from the last two years of schooling (what essentially would have amounted to the first two years of high school). Their rationale was that the exposure Amish children would have could undermine their very way of life; indeed they claimed it threatened their survival. Ultimately, the court sided with the Amish for two very different reasons. First, acknowledging the importance of an education for participation in public life, the court reasoned that because the Amish live a self-sufficient life and by all outward expressions are a successful social unit, the exemption was warranted. Second, they reasoned that laws should not serve to threaten the very way of life of a religious minority group and the state ought to be respectful, not hostile, to minority religious views.

The law, then, sets clear parameters for what constitutes an establishment of religion and when individual free exercise should take precedent over generally applicable laws. One can conclude from this discussion that, contrary to the claim made by the religiously orthodox, public schools are not hostile to religion but rather are welcoming of religion in the public school in so far as it serves an educational purpose. This next section treats curriculum. Where, if at all should religion reside in the curriculum? What are the strengths and limitations of its inclusion? And finally, how does its inclusion contribute to cultivating a democratic ideal?

Curriculum serves as a battleground in education. Perhaps more than other dimensions of schooling, it tells us what is worth knowing and understanding. Curriculum, however, does not exist in a vacuum. Curriculum can be a deeply political issue, especially when dealing with the topics of science, history, and religion (Erekson, 2012 ). There is also significant discussion on who should set the curriculum priorities (the local school district, the states, or the federal government) as well as how much freedom teachers should have to move away from the set curriculum (Webb, 2002 ). How the curriculum treats religion has often created controversy. This is an even more complex issue in a society that is becoming both more non-religious as well as more religiously diverse (Pew Religious Center, 2015 ). Herbert Kliebard, the preeminent American curriculum historian, identifies four primary groups who have vied for supremacy in schools. These groups sought to define the U.S. educational curriculum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries . They were humanists, social meliorists, those focused on child development, and social efficiency educators (Kliebard, 2004 ; Labadee, 1987 ). Depending on which view enjoyed currency at a particular time in history, could determine whether religion, in some form, found its way into the formal narrative of schooling. Whereas the humanists were primarily concerned with fostering in students intellectual skills through the traditional disciplines, social meliorists thought curriculum should have a focus on activism—social improvement. Developmentalists thought that it was important to design curriculum around the development of the individual learner and social efficiency advocates thought curriculum should be limited to preparation for the workforce. As one examines different movements to include religion within the curriculum it is valuable to note which theoretical model is invoked. For these curricular approaches provide a lens into the view of religion with respect to larger society.

Religious Ways of Knowing

Discussions about the place of religion in the public schools are generally limited to robust discussions of the relevance and place of creationism in science classes (Berkman & Plutzer, 2010 ). Limiting discussions to creationism and science misses far more consequential arguments for an important and relevant role for religion in the public schools. Warren Nord has made perhaps the most convincing and comprehensive arguments for the centrality of religious ways of knowing to all disciplines (Nord, 2010 ). Nord argues that we fail to adequately teach common disciplines such as history and economics if we do not also provide religious ways of examining these disciplines (Nord & Haynes, 1998 ). For Nord it is not so much that religious perspectives have a stronger purchase on the truth of things, but rather the religious lens or a religious lens asks different sorts of questions than non-religious lenses and thus enlarges the conversations about various historical perspectives, economic theories, etc. For example, religion can serve as a type of critique of our current market-driven society or it can enlarge conversations related to scientific development, environmental sustainability, etc. (Nord, 1995 ). Nord, however, is not alone in his calls for including religion (religious perspectives) in the public school curriculum. Stephen Prothero and others have made a strong call for religious literacy (Prothero, 2007 ). Particularly since the terrorist attacks of 2001 in the United States, there has been a collective realization that, generally speaking, Americans are largely ignorant when it comes to understanding much about religion (Moore, 2007 ). Politicians and media outlets have often exploited this ignorance to create fear about Muslims, refugees, and the religious other. The contention goes, the more illiterate we are, the more religious intolerance predominates. This illiteracy is not limited to Islam, but can be said to be a general religious illiteracy (Wood, 2011 ). Nel Noddings has also made a forceful case for providing students with opportunities to explore existential questions in the public school classroom (Noddings, 2008 ). She argues that students already come to school bogged down with these types of questions, so schools have an obligation to help students make sense of them (Noddings, 1993 ). The Bible Literacy Project, an ambitious project endorsed by a wide range of academics and theologians provides a well-sourced textbook that can be used in schools (Bible Literacy Project, 2015 ). Though, their intentions may be less educational and more religious, many states have passed legislation permitting the teaching of the Bible in public schools (Goodman, 2006 ). The Bible used for literary or historical reasons seems justifiable (and fully constitutional). Furthermore, a “policy of inclusion” toward religion is vital for the “demands of a liberal, pluralist state” (Rosenblith, 2010 ).

Multiculturalism

A recent text by philosopher Liz Jackson makes the case that Muslims, in particular, are done a disservice when schools do not attend substantively to the study of Islam in schools. Her argument is based on three essential claims. First, in the absence of a substantive treatment in schools, citizens are left with popular culture depictions of Muslims (Jackson, 2010 ). These characterizations typically misrepresent Muslims. Second, the ways in which Muslims are depicted in social studies textbooks also take a narrow view. That is Muslims and Islam are largely depicted beginning in 2001 through the lens of terrorism (Jackson, 2011 ). Finally, Jackson argues that preservice teacher preparation programs do not do sufficient work in preparing future social studies teachers to be knowledgeable about Muslims and Islam, and therefore they are ill-equipped to disrupt the narratives perpetuated in textbooks or through popular culture (Jackson, 2011 ). It was not until the 2007 edition of the Banks and Banks Handbook on Multicultural Education that religion was even included as a form of identity (Banks & McGee Banks, 2007 ). Perhaps, U.S. schools should set up a system to certify teachers in the area of religious studies as they will “need to have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions” that would be expected in other disciplines (Rosenblith & Bailey, 2008 ). Other nations with liberal and pluralistic traditions such as Great Britain have been able to integrate religion into the curriculum while still embracing diversity and civic values (Rosenblith & Bailey, 2008 ).

Curricular Opportunities

There are many ways in which religion can be addressed in public school curricula that are both constitutionally permissible and educationally justifiable. Schools could provide world religion survey courses so that students have at least a superficial understanding of the range of religions in the world. Schools could offer controversial issues classes where religion could serve as both a topic and a perspective. Schools can study religious perspectives on a variety of current issues. Discussing religion does not need to lead to conflict or violence but can rather create an environment for “healthy, robust dialogue” (Rosenblith, 2008a ). In an increasingly diverse society, the ability to understand the perspectives of those from other faiths is vital for social cohesion and peace. Ignoring differences does not make intolerance dissipate but often allows stereotypes and antagonism to flourish. A pluralism that merely engages in “eschewing matters of truth, is wholly inadequate. It is inadequate because it fosters ignorance” (Rosenblith, 2008a ).

Central to carving out a curriculum that is both constitutionally permissible and educationally justifiable is framing it within a theory that honors the pluralistic and democratic commitments of public schools. Religious curriculum should contribute “to the public good” by helping students “develop knowledge and dispositions to resist religious intolerance and bigotry” and to understand and respect the “religious other” (Rosenblith, 2008b ).

Democracy, Autonomy, Pluralism

A central question when considering the role of religion in public education is grounded in questions about the role of the school, the rights of individuals, and the rights of groups. Perhaps more than many other forms of identity, religion casts the inherent tensions in bold terms. To paraphrase John Rawls’s central question in Political Liberalism , how does a society deeply divided on doctrinal grounds learn to get along (Rawls, 2005 )? To complicate matters further, even if we were to determine a mutually agreeable way forward for groups who are deeply divided by religious and political beliefs, what role would even more diverse individuals within those groups have in articulating their vision for a good life? These questions figure centrally in an understanding of religion and public schools.

Political theorists take a variety of perspectives on these matters. For some, the purpose of the public school is to privilege the pluralism of the nation and thus must be accommodating to such a degree that all particular groups feel included and valued (Kymlicka, 2001 , 2015 ). For others, the chief purpose of public schools is fundamentally civic and to that end, while schools should try to accommodate differences, they must not do so to such a degree that it jeopardizes a sense of civic identity and the values of a liberal democracy (Macedo, 1995 , 2000 ). While there are still others who fall somewhere in the middle, arguing that schools ought to promote a shared civic identity, but not at the expense of citizens finding the public school inhospitable to their particular religious views. In these instances, schools ought to accommodate religious believers by using levers such as opt-outs for curricular materials they find religiously objectionable if these levers prevent the groups from exiting the public schools (Gutmann, 1995 ). Others stress the importance of individual autonomy for students as the most important goal when looking at the often conflicting values of multiculturalism and civic liberalism (Reich, 2002 ).

Others are concerned about minority voices within particular religious groups (Okin, 1998 ). As Susan Okin points out, out of a desire to accommodate the free exercise of religious minority groups, there can be a denial of the individual rights that are the cornerstone of a liberal society. She asks what societies should do with religious groups that promote forced marriages, remove students from formal education, or prevent any outside socialization (Okin, 2002 ). Even though defenders of religious minorities may say that individuals have exit rights, Okin is concerned if this is truly an option for most people, especially young women who are the most oppressed in these systems. As she states, “even if it were feasible or even possible in a practical sense, exit may not be an option at all desirable, or even thinkable, to those most in need of it” (Okin, 2002 ). She does not believe the state should make special exemptions for religious groups if it endangers individual liberty. To fail to enforce these individual rights is “to let toleration for diversity run amok” (Okin, 2002 ). The prototypical example of this tension can be found in the famous case, Wisconsin v Yoder ( 1972 ). The majority decision sided with the Amish who only wanted their children to study in public schools until the age of 14 out of religious concerns ( Wisconsin v. Yoder , 1972 ). While the case is a moot issue today in an age where the option to homeschool is relatively simple (Gaither, 2008 ), it still generates significant discussion in relation to discussions of individual rights. Certainly the parents have rights that are distinguishable from the state, but many will argue that children have rights distinct from their parents (Worthington & Fineman, 2009 ). While it might be the parents’ interest in securing protection from exposing their kids to ways of life contrary to their own, the question becomes whether children have rights as individual agents and do the parents’ decisions overly determine their children’s futures. This leads to some of the deeper philosophical questions in public education. What role does the state and family play in making sure children have an environment that is both secure and open to individual autonomy?

Exit Rights, Civic Education, and Religious Orthodoxy

This concern spills over into discussion of exit rights. Do children have a right to an education that might lead them to exit their religious group (Lester, 2004 )? Might a robust civic education provide new and different lenses through which children see the world that might make their home belief system less compelling? Should public schools in a pluralist state provide individuals with the kind of education that might lead to their exit from their home faith? Should public schools refrain from a robust civic education in order to protect and allow religious ideologies to flourish? To whom does the public school primarily answer? When is a religious ideology so extreme that to accommodate it seriously undermines the ideals of the American society? These are not easy questions to address and while they are difficult questions to wrestle with in terms of identity broadly understood, they are that much more vexing when it comes to religion. The reason being that religion, unlike culture, rests on epistemological foundations that for those who identify as religiously orthodox, are exclusive, inalienable, and unchanging. Educators are mistaken in simply “conflating” religion as another aspect of culture as it “strips religion” of its “essential qualities” (Rosenblith, 2008a ). This makes the project of civic education, for some, in many ways incommensurable with fostering religious identity. If the idea of a public school is, in part, to bring together people with very different visions of the good life and figure out ways forward, those who believe their very salvation hangs in the balance of one particular vision are understandably not going to be flexible in terms of tolerance and respect for a wide range of beliefs or for the very idea that public schools espouse—good citizenship hangs on an individual’s ability to respect and tolerate those with whom we disagree. In short, the problem becomes a non-starter for the most orthodox, making the civic project that much more difficult. This is of special difficulty for teachers as they seek to “navigate” the tensions between “the religiously orthodox and pluralist public schooling” (Bindewald & Rosenblith, 2015 ).

Religion, Schooling, and Indoctrination

One of the conflicts with integrating religion in schools is whether it is perceived as exposure or indoctrination. A suspicion of indoctrination can create angst in both the non-religious and the deeply orthodox. An extreme example of this fear occurred this past year when a father threatened a teacher because she was teaching about Islam in the class. It led to the closure of a whole school district (Robertson, 2015 ). If we are to have classrooms, which are filled with vibrant students who are open to critical thought, we have to move beyond the anxiety that any discussion on religion is the same as indoctrination. This is why the “trump card” of parental rights in preventing students from being exposed to materials that may conflict with private teachings is problematic (Rosenblith & Bindewald, 2014 ).

If educators approach religion appropriately in the classroom, it should not lead to a concern of indoctrination. Rather, it can be a tool that helps students become more religiously literate and “resist religious intolerance and bigotry and instead learn about the religious other” (Rosenblith, 2008b ). Are we limiting the possibilities for educational vibrancy and civic and multicultural understanding due to an exaggerated fear of religion in the classroom? What if the reasons for teaching religion in the classroom were not an attempt of “relativizing truth” or wanting to “coax students away from the religion of their parents” but rather helping to garner “fair depictions of the other” (Rosenblith & Bindewald, 2014 ). Perhaps, this is the approach to religion in the classroom that the majority of society could agree to.

Within the literature, far less attention has been given to treating the problem than has been given to identifying the problem. Diana Hess and Rob Kunzman have addressed ways forward. Suzanne Rosenblith and Benjamin Bindewald have as well. Hess argues for encouraging a discussion of controversial issues in the classroom as controversy is not an “unfortunate byproduct” of democracy but rather one of its “core and vital elements” (Hess, 2004 ). Hess argues that these controversial conversations should be the “students’ forum” where the teachers’ views do not directly impact the discussion but are integral for the discussions chosen (Hess, 2002 ).

Kunzman argues for “loosening liberal boundaries” in allowing for alternative and more orthodox perspectives in classroom discussion. After all, there is no consensus on what is “reasonable” when it comes to the discussion of religion and controversial issues. A truly civic education can work against the “disenfranchisement” of religious perspectives in the public sphere (Kunzman, 2005 ). He also argues that there will inherently be conflict in a religiously diverse society. Instead of ignoring this, educators should teach students how to navigate these conflicts and help create a greater understanding of religious diversity (Kunzman, 2006 ). He suggests using activities such as role play and field experience to create a more “empathetic understanding” of the other and move students “beyond knowledge to appreciation” (Kunzman, 2006 ). He also suggests letting students be the “source of insider perspective” when it comes to their own religious traditions (Kunzman, 2006 ).

Rosenblith and Bindewald look at this issue from a slightly different angle. They explore how teachers should handle exclusive comments made by the religiously orthodox that may be offensive to other students. They use the example of a student using the Bible to justify statements against homosexuality. They suggest for teachers to not simply ignore or downplay these types of comments, but rather make the distinction regarding arguments based on reason versus those based purely on religious belief. While giving the students the freedom to discuss the issues, teachers can and often should deal with these issues “directly” and with a level of “certitude” (Bindewald & Rosenblith, 2015 ). In another text, they argue for “mutuality,” which is a type of middle ground between “mere tolerance” and “robust respect” (Rosenblith & Bindewald, 2014 ). They see this mutuality as a willingness to engage in a relationship with the religious other (Rosenblith & Bindewald, 2014 ). It means that differences are not necessary “resolved” or “trivialized” but rather students engage in “a process of mutual reciprocity and understanding” (Rosenblith & Bindewald, 2014 ). The ultimate hope is that this will lead to “to a greater realization of justice and tolerance in the larger public sphere” (Rosenblith & Bindewald, 2014 ).

In our increasingly diverse, global, and interdependent society, confronting, understanding, and respecting the religious other is of paramount importance. In the United States, this places a particular obligation on the public schools to rethink its role in helping young citizens understand the history, complexity, and contributions of religion historically as well as in contemporary contexts. The relationship between religion and public education is one that has been inexorably tied to politics—religious and secular politics. This has led to a relatively ineffective exploration of religion in public schools. Recognizing the direct connection between religious illiteracy and religious intolerance, one can hope that a reconceptualization of the role of religion and public schools, one that takes religion, education, democracy, and pluralism seriously is near. In treating religion, education, democracy and pluralism seriously, the public schools can come closer to fulfilling their obligations to attend at once to individual and collective goals.

• Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
• Banks, J. A. , & Banks, C. A. McG. (2007). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Baritz, L. (1964). City on a hill: A history of ideas and myths in America . New York: Wiley.
• Berkman, M. B. , & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms . New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Bindewald, B. J. , & Rosenblith, S. (2015). Addressing orthodox challenges in the pluralist classroom. Educational Studies , 51 (6), 505–506.
• Constitution Society . (1647). The Old Deluder Act . Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/
• Deckman, M. M. (2004). School board battles: The Christian right in local politics . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
• Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
• Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
• Erekson, K. A. (Ed.). (2012). Politics and the history curriculum: The struggle over standards in Texas and the nation . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Everson v. Board of Education, 30 U.S. (1947).
• Hinsdale, B. A. (1898). Horace Mann and the common school revival in the United States . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Fiske, J. (1889). The beginnings of New England: Or, the Puritan theocracy in its relations to civil and religious liberty . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Fox, J. (2011). Separation of religion and state and secularism in theory and in practice. Religion, State and Society , 39 (4), 384.
• Fraser, J. W. (2001). The school in the United Staes: A documentary history (1st ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill
• Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 975 F.Supp 819 (1997).
• Gaither, M. (2008). Homeschool: An American history (1st ed). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Goodman, B. (2006, March 29). Teaching the bible in Georgia’s public schools. New York Times .
• Greene, S. (2012). The bible, the school, and the Constitution: The clash that shaped modern church-state doctrine (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gutman, A. (1987). Democratic education . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Gutman, A. (1995). Civic education and social diversity. Ethics , 105 (3), 557–579.
• Hayes, W. (2006). Horace Mann’s vision of the public schools: Is it still relevant? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
• Hedges, C. (2008). I don’t believe in atheists (1st ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education , 30 (1), 29–32.
• Hess, D. E. (2004). Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. PS: Political Science and Politics , 37 (2), 257.
• Hodgson, C. V. (2004). Coercion in the classroom: The inherent tension between the free exercise and establishment clauses in the context of evolution. Next, A Journal of Opinion 9 , 171.
• Jackson, L. (2010). Images of Islam in U.S. media and their educational implications. Educational Studies , 46 (1), 17.
• Jackson, L. (2011). Islam and Muslims in U.S. public schools since September 11, 2001. Religious Education , 196 (2), 173.
• Kaveny, M. C. (2013). The remnants of theocracy: The Puritans, the Jeremiad and the contemporary culture wars. Law, Culture and the Humanities , 9 (1), 59–70.
• Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958 (3d ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Kunzman, R. (2005). Religion, politics and civil education. Journal of Philosophy of Education , 39 (1), 162–164.
• Kunzman, R. (2006). Imaginative engagement with religious diversity in public school classrooms. Religious Education , 101 (4), 518.
• Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular: Nationalism, multiculturalism and citizenship . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kymlicka, W. (2015). Multiculturalism and minority rights: West and east . Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issuses in Europe: JEMIE , 14 (4), 1–26.
• Labadee, D. (1987). Politics, markets, and the compromised curriculum. Harvard Educational Review , 57 (4), 483–494.
• Larson, E. J. (1997). Summer for the gods: The Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion . New York: Basic Books.
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
• Lester, E. (2004). Gratitude and parents’ right over their children’s religious upbringing. Journal of Beliefs & Values , 25 (3), 295–306.
• Long, E. (2012). Church-state debate: Religion, education and the establishment clause in post war America . Bloomsbury, U.K.: GB.
• Macedo, St. (1995). Liberal civic education and its limits. Canadian Journal of Education , 20 (3), 304–314.
• Macedo, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural democracy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mann, H. (1965). Horace Mann on the crisis in education . Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
• Mann, H. , & Massachusetts Board of Education . (1957). The republic and the school: Horace Mann on the education of free men . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Massaro, T. M. (2005). Religious freedom and “accommodationist neutrality”: A non-neutral critique. Oregon Law Review , 84 (4), 935
• McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
• McGuffey, W. H. (1836). McGuffey reader: Eclectic second reader . Cincinatti, OH: Truman and Smith.
• Moore, D. L. (2007). Overcoming religious illiteracy: A cultural studies approach to the study of religion in secondary education (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Moore, R. L. (2000). Bible reading and nonsectarian schooling: The failure of religious instruction in nineteenth-century public education. The Journal of American History , 86 (4), 1581–1599.
• Neuhaus, R. J. (2007). Strict church-state separationists of a fanatical bent routinely claim that exempting religion from government regulation constitutes a violation of the no-establishment provision of the religion clause of the first amendment. First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life , 176 , 80.
• New England Primer . (1805). Retrieved from http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/his341/nep1805contents.html
• Noddings, N. (1993). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief . New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
• Noddings, N. (2008). Chapter 13: Spirituality and religion in public schooling. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education , 107 (1), 185–195.
• Nord, W. A. (1995). Religion & American education: Rethinking a national dilemma . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• Nord, W. A. (2010). Does God make a difference?: Taking religion seriously in our schools and universities . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nord, W. A. , & Haynes, C. C. (1998). Taking religion seriously across the curriculum . Nashville: ASCD.
• Okin, S. M. (1998). Feminism and multiculturalism: Some tensions. Ethics , 108 (4), 661–684.
• Okin, S. (2002). Mistresses of their own destiny: Group rights, gender, and realistic rights of exit. Ethics , 112 (2), 215.
• Prothero, S. R. (2007). Religious literacy: What every Americna needs to know—and doesn’t (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper.
• Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Reich, R. (2002). Bridging liberalilsm and multiculturalism in American education . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Robertson, G. (2015, December 18). Virginia county closes schools as Islam assignment prompts backlash . Reuters .
• Rogers, T. K. (2010). Parental rights: Curriculum opt-outs in public schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas).
• Rosenblith, S. (2008a). Beyond coexistence: Toward a more reflective religious pluralism. Theory and Research in Education , 6 (1), 114.
• Rosenblith, S. (2008b). Religious education in a liberal, pluralist, democratic state. Religious Education , 103 (5), 510.
• Rosenblith, S. (2010). Educating for autonomy and respect or educating for Christianity? The case of the Georgia Bible bills. Journal of Thought , 45 (1–2), 26.
• Rosenblith, S. , & Bailey, B. (2008). Cultivating a religiously literate society: Challenges and possibilities for America’s public schools. Religious Education , 103 (2), 159.
• Rosenblith, S. , & Bindewald, B. (2014). Between mere tolerance and robust respect: Mutuality as a basis for civic education in pluralist democracies. Educational Theory , 64 (6), 590, 598, 602.
• Rudolph, F. (1965). Essays on education in the early republic . Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
• Sears, J. T. , & Carper, J. C. (1998). Curiculum, religion, and public education: Conversations for an enlarging public square . New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
• Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320. 11th Cir. (2006).
• Shreve, G. (2010). Religion, science and the secular state: Creationism in American public schools. The American Journal of Comparative Law , 58 , 51–58.
• Temperman, J. (2010). State-religion relationships and human rights law: Towards a right to religiously neutral governments (1st ed., Vol. 8). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
• Webb, P. T. (2002). Teacher power: The exercise of professional autonomy in an era of strict accountability. Teacher Development , 6 (1), 47–62.
• Westerhoff, J. H. (1978). McGuffey and his readers: Piety, morality, and education in nineteenth century America . Nashville: Abingdon.
• Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
• Wood, S. K. (2011, Winter). Religious illiteracy . Marquette Magazine .
• Worthington, K. , & Fineman, M. (2009). What is right for children? The competing paradigms of religion and human rights . New York: Routledge.
• Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).

Related Articles

• Islamophobia and Education
• The Controversy of Muslim Women in Liberal Democracies

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 06 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Why Education in Public Schools Should Include Religious Ideals

• Open access
• Published: 29 October 2008
• Volume 28 , pages 295–311, ( 2009 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Doret J. de Ruyter 1 &
• Michael S. Merry 2  

10k Accesses

18 Citations

Explore all metrics

This article aims to open a new line of debate about religion in public schools by focusing on religious ideals. The article begins with an elucidation of the concept ‘religious ideals’ and an explanation of the notion of reasonable pluralism, in order to be able to explore the dangers and positive contributions of religious ideals and their pursuit on a liberal democratic society. We draw our examples of religious ideals from Christianity and Islam, because these religions have most adherents in Western liberal democracies that are the focus of this article. The fifth and most important section “Reasonable pluralism and the inclusion of religious ideals in public secondary schools” provides three arguments for our claim that public schools should include religious ideals, namely that they are important to religious people, that they are conducive for the development of pupils into citizens of a liberal democracy, and that the flourishing of pupils as adults is advanced by encountering religious ideals. We also offer a more practical reason: religious ideals can more easily be included within public education than religious dogmas and rules.

Similar content being viewed by others

Religious Freedom and Civic Education in American Public Schools

Religious Education in Finnish School System

Religion: A Legitimate Anomaly in Education?

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Public or state schools in some Western liberal democratic societies are notoriously silent on the subject of religion. Operating on a certain reading of the constitutional separation of church and state, schools are expected to be ‘neutral’ Footnote 1 concerning conceptions of the good life. Hence, the argument runs, the best way of guaranteeing that the state does not influence its young citizens towards a particular religious view of things is to have no religion in public schools at all. Although this line of argument is logically consistent, we will defend the opposite position: religion should be an aspect of the education of pupils in public schools. The arguments for this claim do not involve the suggestion that schools should include religions uncritically or that every aspect of every religion prevalent in society should be covered in its curriculum. Neither will we defend the view that schools should aim to strengthen religious adherence amongst their pupils. Our claim is that there is at least one aspect of religions that public schools should address, namely the ideals that are fostered within religious traditions and which believers adhere to and pursue. We will show that if public schools offer pupils the opportunity to learn from a diversity of religious ideals they contribute to one of the important aims of education in liberal democracies, i.e. that pupils become reasonable citizens, Footnote 2 and that they are able to do so without advocating a particular conception of the good life.

Yet we knowingly enter a crowded field of inquiry, for there is a long-standing discussion about religion in schools, separate schools, state-funding of separate schools in both Europe Footnote 3 and North America. Footnote 4 Contributors to the debates come from different academic backgrounds—philosophy of education, practical theology or political philosophy—and address different topics. Some have questioned whether religious education simpliciter or religious schools can be justified (see McLaughlin 1984 , 1985 ; Callan 1985 ; Dwyer 1998 ; De Ruyter and Miedema 2000 ; Hand 2004 ). Others have addressed the question of whether or not religious education and civic education are compatible (see Gutmann 1995 ; Macedo 1995 ), and, if they are, what sort of virtues religious schools promote (see Callan 1997 ; Spinner-Halev 2000 ; Gardner et al. 2002 ; Feinberg 2006 ; Merry 2007 ). Still other debates include the distinctiveness of separate schools (see Bryk et al. 1993 ; McLaughlin 1996 ; Conroy 1999 ) and whether or not religious views ought to be given ‘equal time’ in the classroom, etc. (see Nord 1995 ; Pennock 2007 ). We will set these and many other debates aside in order to concentrate on religious ideals in public schools.

We have several reasons for defending our focus on religious ideals. First, for persons of faith, religious ideals are one of the most important sources of meaning and therefore constitute an important part of their identity that schools in multicultural societies are called upon to recognize (see Salili and Hoosain 2006 ). Second, as we will argue, being a citizen in a liberal democratic society requires particular dispositions as well as knowledge and understanding. Children are more likely to develop into reasonable liberal democratic citizens when they possess an understanding of the ideals that motivate the actions of other citizens. In other words, we believe it is less important that children know about the practices and central dogmas of the main religions in their society, than that they understand the ultimate motivations of other people, i.e. the ideals to which fellow citizens aspire. Third, we will argue that the possibility that children will flourish as adults is advanced by offering them a variety of ideals to examine and consider (see also Levinson and Levinson 2007 ; De Ruyter 2007 ). Religious ideals provide a valuable source of alternative views on what contributes to a flourishing life. Footnote 5

Finally, there is a practical reason, which may nevertheless be a convincing argument concerning why public schools should include religious ideals in their curriculum. It seems clear to us that religious ideals can more easily be included within public education than religious dogmas and rules. Ideals, as we will explain, are typically abstract in character and therefore are open to personal interpretations of those who subscribe to the ideal—although we will show that ideals may lose this character, too. The openness of ideals has two important advantages. First, it gives them the potential to function as bridges between persons and their community and those who have attachments to different communities. Second, while the value of ideals can be discussed (see for instance Noddings 1993 ) or their importance can be scrutinized, they do not lend themselves to an examination of the epistemological basis or truth claims of religious beliefs in public schools as some propose (see Rosenblith 2008 ; Rosenblith and Priestman 2004 ). In our view, such discussions certainly have their place, but a number of conceptual and logistical obstacles in schools stand in the way of this happening. Footnote 6 Therefore, our more modest claim is this: to become good citizens, pupils must understand what inspires and motivates other people. Moreover it is important that they are offered the opportunity to discover whether or not there is a possible value in religious ideals for them too – which, as we will explain, does not mean that they ought to become religious persons themselves.

We circumscribe our discussion in at least three ways. First, the relevant contexts in this article are Western liberal democracies. Our arguments will primarily pertain to North America because the place of religion in public schools is more openly contested there. While European religious piety (at least among Christians) has been in decline since the 1960s, a large percentage of the North American population, particularly in the United States, continues to be religiously devout. Consequently, appeals for including religious ideals in public schools have particular resonance. However, our arguments are not limited to North America; indeed, they also broadly pertain to the European context, because while religious education is widely on offer—indeed, outside of secular France, some religious instruction is mandated Footnote 7 by the state—its focus most of the time is decidedly Christian in character, thus excluding most non-Christian religious ideals. In fact, the virtual absence of non-Christian religious instruction in most non-religious schools in Europe has precipitated repeated calls for separate religious schools in order to address what parents claim are the spiritual needs of pupils. Thus our argument for the inclusion of religious ideals in public education implies the inclusion of Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. ideals. Second, while the arguments we develop in this article apply to all schools, our focus is on public or state schools. Denominational schools can reasonably be expected to offer a variety of religious ideals too, but because their position with regard to religion(s) is profoundly different from public schools we will not pursue that line of defense here. Third, our arguments apply to high schools or secondary schools, because they assume particular cognitive capacities that children at primary school age do not normally possess.

Finally, it is necessary that we are selective in our examples of specific religions. In Western liberal democratic societies the two religions with the most adherents are Christianity and Islam. To be sure, Christianity has enjoyed an historically privileged position in Western society, and other important differences are salient (e.g., Muslims do not comprise a socioeconomic underclass in North America). However, in our age of so-called ‘global terror’, Muslims in both North America and Europe receive a lot of public attention. Particularly on continental Europe, the fear of so-called Islamization of society has led to a significant increase of—primarily negative—attention in the media and politics. Therefore, with regard to the position of religion in the public domain and public schools, our examples in this article are drawn from these religions and our arguments also are illustrated by reference to these two religions.

Before we can begin with addressing the central question, we will first elucidate the meaning of ‘religious ideals’. In the sections “Religious ideals in the public domain” and “Reasonable pluralism and religious ideals”, we will then address the more general question of whether or not religious ideals have a role to play in the public domain and how this role may be evaluated. In the section “Reasonable pluralism and the inclusion of religious ideals in public secondary schools” we will provide arguments for including religious ideals in the curriculum of public schools and we end with a concise conclusion.

Religious Ideals

Religious ideals can be defined as ideals that acquire meaning due to a belief in something transcendent or a divine being (De Ruyter 2006 ). This means that only ideals that are related to a religious conception of the good are called religious ideals and that they are exclusive to those who adhere to such a conception. Footnote 8 Thus, we reserve the term religious ideals for those with beliefs in something transcendent and only for those ideals that are related to their beliefs. This gives rise to two kinds of religious ideals. The first type may be called religious ideals in the strict sense and consists of ideals that are constituted by a belief in a transcendent being. These ideals are oriented towards the divine or are characteristic of one’s relation to the divine. Such ideals are only pursued by people who believe in something transcendent or a transcendent being; the ideals have no meaning beyond this faith. For instance, the ideal of a devout Christian may be to live up to the commandments of God. The second type of religious ideals refers to religious ideals in the broad sense. These ideals belong to other domains of life, i.e. the moral, social, economic, political or aesthetic domain, but these ideals get a specific religious meaning through the belief in a divine being. For instance, the aspiration of being a good Christian or a good Muslim is translated into ideals regarding the way in which society is best organized, the economy is ideally run, etc. The relationship between the religious and other domains is normally an iterative one, i.e. the way in which people conceptualize their ideals is based on a mutual influence. We do not wish to suggest that the religious domain is necessarily foundational for the other kinds of ideals, although for some groups, most particularly fundamentalist believers, this will be the case.

Religious ideals are a type of ideals and therefore we also have to describe the concept of ‘ideals’. We define ‘ideals’ as those values that people believe to be excellent or perfect, to which they attach high importance, and that have not been realized as yet (De Ruyter 2003 , 2007 ). Put differently, ideals are imaginations or visions of situations or personal characteristics that the person who has the ideal believes to be excellent or perfect and to which she attaches high value. The images tend to be open to diverse interpretations, for they refer to visions of traits of character and situations that are not precisely defined and therefore persons find it necessary to give their own interpretation to the ideal. We can illustrate this by examining a small section of the diversity of conceptions of religious ideals found in Christianity. Christians are called upon by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount to be as perfect as God is (Matthew 5: 48), which includes relating to one’s enemies with charitable love ( agape ) and forgiving the offending other as much as “seventy times seven.” However, the characteristics that are ascribed to God in the Bible are highly diverse, for instance that He is all-knowing, righteous, jealous, immutable, forgiving, vengeful and merciful. Similarly, what characterises heaven and the ways in which Christians pursue the situation they call heaven, may also be very different. Further, it is also clear that Christians have different and even conflicting views on what constitutes an ideal society or ideally run economy, for Christians can be found on the (far) left and (far) right of the political spectrum. And finally, Christ’s commandment to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19) has been interpreted in a variety of ways, from Christopher Columbus’ violent and exploitative colonisation and Christianization of indigenous peoples, to the arguably selfless work of Mother Theresa in the slums of Calcutta. Footnote 9

But before we go any further, we will briefly elucidate the distinction between religious dogmas and rules which we referred to in the introduction. We will mention three important differences. First, religious ideals are open to a personal interpretation by believers, while dogmas and particularly rules are laid down in relatively precise terms that the believers are expected to adopt. Phrased in terms of Nicholas Rescher ( 1987 , p. 122): ideals are the spirit of the law, while rules and regulations are the letter of the law. Of course, this description is crude and should be nuanced, but it is helpful for a good understanding of what religious ideals are. The nuance with regard to ideals is for instance that there are boundaries to the personal interpretation one may give to religious ideals, because they also have a communal character: religious ideals arise out of a shared social practice within a community of believers. Not every personal interpretation will be recognised as a version of the communal religious ideal. For instance, most Christians would not recognise a hedonistic world in which everyone aspires to have as much fun as possible as they would an eschatological ideal of heaven on earth. On the other hand, dogmas and rules are not as unalterable as they may seem. Throughout history, religious communities have altered their rules and requirements and dogmas have evolved over time. Furthermore, each differs in importance; while disregarding a more peripheral rule is normally not a reason for exclusion, breaching central dogmas may indicate that a person no longer perceives himself to be a member of the religious community. However, this is possible precisely because dogmas and rules operate rather differently, and the importance ascribed to each varies.

Second, ideals belong to the aspirational domain, while dogmas and rules belong to the domain of duties. Footnote 10 Rules and dogmas describe what people must do or believe if they are to meaningfully adhere to a particular faith. For instance, ordinarily Muslims are required to follow the five pillars of Islam, i.e. to fulfil the five duties—among which are daily prayer, giving alms, fasting during the Ramadan—if they want to be considered good Muslims; Christians are expected to believe that Jesus is the son of God. Religious ideals, on the other hand are aspirations that aim for an optimum outcome. Believers cannot be obligated to pursue religious ideals, because ideals reach beyond what may be required of people; they refer to excellences to which people aspire, not to expectations people have to pursue.

Finally people are intrinsically motivated to pursue an ideal. While they can follow rules for extrinsic reasons, for instance because they want to belong to a religious community or participate in its rituals, they pursue an ideal because they are convinced of the excellent qualities to which the ideal refers. Therefore, religious ideals, and not dogmas, will often tell us more far more about a person.

The combination of the high importance attached to the ideal and the supremacy of the value the ideal refers to motivates individuals to pursue their ideals. This makes ideals a powerful source of meaning and action. However, ideals—including the ways in which they are pursued—can be good or evil, as we will argue in the next sections.

Religious Ideals in the Public Domain

Religious ideals in the broad sense comprise religious conceptions of political and moral ideals, which per implication means that religious views have a bearing on discussions in the public and political domain. A lot has been written about religion in the public and political domain and therefore we will only briefly describe three possible evaluations of religiously influenced moral and political ideals in the public and political domain within Western liberal democracies.

The first evaluation of reference to religious ideals in the public domain is a negative one: religious ideals undermine social cohesion and, therefore, are disruptive to political stability. Religious ideals can be understood as having two characteristics that may more easily give people the justification to impose their ideals on everyone: (1) they are sanctioned by an unquestioned authority and (2) they are believed to be in the best interests of all—whether in this life or in the afterlife. Because some religious groups operate on the force of these convictions in their attempts to convert others, including the use of political power to impose those convictions, it is argued that allowing reference to religious ideals in the public and particularly the political domain undermines the existence of a peaceful pluralistic society. This will be difficult to deny when religious ideals require that all humans need to be converted by whatever means necessary. In these instances, ideals may indeed prove to be highly dangerous.

History has given us myriad examples as evidence that religious ideals impel some people to become religious extremists and recent examples are not hard to come by either; presently most western countries have installed special (intelligence) organizations to combat the threat of religiously-inspired terrorism. Even when religious ideals do not necessarily lead to extremism, they can encourage oppression of those who hold alternative views. This is particularly the case when ideals become concrete blueprints that are thought to be realizable. Emmet ( 1994 ) has eloquently described the difference between two conceptions of ideals. Regulative ideals do not describe a practice or society in precise detail like blueprints, but offer a standard for a practice. Furthermore, while regulative ideals are perceived to be unrealizable, blueprints are presented as an achievable states of affairs. Finally, regulative ideals orient a practice, whereas blueprints prescribe what should be thought and done ( 1994 , p. 17). When religious ideals of an ideal society become utopian blueprints, religious adherents may try to realize the utopia by whatever means available to them; if the ideal society can be realized, the end may well justify all means.

However, the second evaluation is that religiously inspired ideals can have a positive influence on society, because they offer an alternative voice that can make a constructive contribution to discussions of social or political import. In addition to being self-regarding, many religious ideals are other-regarding (as well as Other-regarding). This ethical dimension of religious ideals can have a positive influence on the ways in which societies function. In some cases, the voice of religion may even buttress the most reasonable arguments on offer concerning human rights and dignity, which, for example, occurred during twentieth-century freedom struggles in India and the United States. Yet one does not have to think of moral paragons such as Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr.; there are also other, less renowned, religious persons and groups that feed and shelter homeless people, offer drug counseling, employment assistance, etc.

Both of these evaluations can be accused of one-sidedness or of being simplistic, for it is obvious that the positions can defeat one another by the examples and arguments they each provide. Yet a third evaluation can be positioned in the middle. This evaluation does not deny the importance of religious ideals for people, but merely states that they cannot be a basis for public or political law. An example of this position is Rawls’ idea of the overlapping consensus. According to Rawls ( 1987 , 1989 , 1993 ) it is unreasonable to impose a comprehensive doctrine like religion on all citizens of a society. Rather, the basic structure of a society should be founded on “fundamental ideas we seem to share through the public political culture” ( 1993 , p. 150). Reasonable principles are (1) those which are accessible to reasonable persons and which facilitate willing consent, and (2) those which are consistent with fair terms of cooperation and free and equal citizenship. Rawls ascribes two qualities to a reasonable person, namely that they are “ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so” and “that they are ready to discuss the fair terms others propose” ( 1993 , p. 49). These two qualities are also articulated as two moral powers: a capacity for a sense of justice and a capacity for a conception of the good.

As an ideal, reasonable pluralism describes a society, comprised of many conceptions of the good, in which reasonable persons, as citizens, willingly support a political conception of justice that is not grounded in comprehensive truth claims but by principles they may endorse in light of their common human reason. So a well-crafted political conception of justice that governs the basic structure of society will function independently of comprehensive doctrines. Of course this does not mean that a political conception of justice cannot fit into or be supported by various reasonable comprehensive doctrines. Thus, significantly, one’s religious conviction is not excluded from the public domain in the sense that it may be one of many good reasons for supporting the non-comprehensive political conception of justice. As Rawls suggests, “It is left to citizens individually to decide for themselves in what way their shared political conception is related to their wider and more comprehensive views” ( 1989 , p. 249).

The middle position is not neutral vis-à-vis all religious ideals, for then it would be a version of the second (positive) evaluation. It does place limits on the acceptability of positions and the way in which they are pursued (see for instance Macedo 2000 ; De Jong and Snik 2002 ). For instance, it requires that principles of toleration and recognition as well as the harm principle necessarily apply. That is, individuals and the communities to which they belong may not act upon their ideals in ways that harm others (physically or psychologically), including fellow group members. Further, internal restrictions must be challenged that unduly limit the exercise of free will or which impose unfair restrictions on exiting a community (Spiecker et al. 2006 ). Determining what constitutes ‘unfair’ will invariably require examining specific cases but we can outline minimal prerequisites such as that children especially require the resources—beginning, importantly, with an education—to develop their capacity for making deliberative judgments and acting upon those judgments without fear of reprisal, even (or, perhaps especially) in cases of apostasy. Developing such capacities necessarily excludes practices like indoctrination or brainwashing that aim to establish precisely the opposite effect (see Merry 2005 ). Thus, some ideals will more comfortably ‘fit’ within reasonable pluralism’s demands, while others will ostensibly be squeezed out, or, at least be made to feel less welcome.

Even though the principles of reasonable pluralism cannot include all ideals of all citizens, we still maintain that the principles of reasonable pluralism serve a pluralistic society in the best way. Pluralism in western societies is a fact, which can be lamented or applauded, but it is the situation in which people in Western societies live. The best type of organization of pluralistic societies is one that allows all people to flourish by giving meaning to their lives on the basis of the ideals they value. Yet this is an arrangement that is impossible to realize, because the ideals of some may inhibit the pursuit of ideals of other citizens, and ideals should therefore be interpreted as a regulative ideal. Thus, a society should be organized in such a way that citizens can aspire to the regulative ideal in conjunction with giving meaning to their own lives on the basis of their private ideals. We suggest that reasonable pluralism is the best way of doing so, because well-crafted public policies will not be based on a particular conception of the good life that coerces citizens to comply without their consent. Moreover, reasonable pluralism encourages citizens to reflect upon the best way in which a pluralistic society can include the diversity of ideals. In other words, reasonable pluralism offers the best opportunity for citizens to evaluate policies and practices in the public domain by means of the regulative ideal that everyone will be able to flourish.

Nevertheless, it might be argued that reasonable pluralism is unjust, because it is intolerant towards people who adhere to (religious) ideals that do not cohere with reasonableness. Moreover, education congenial to reasonable pluralism, which requires that children learn that they need to complement their religious ideals with reasonableness in the public domain, may have the consequence of placing some in conflict with their religious ideals. Consider how many deeply religious persons feel profoundly uncomfortable with the manner in which pluralism appears to govern public life. Seemingly endless choices and opportunities provide little comfort to those whose ultimate religious ideals decisively trump other ideals. Indeed, reasonable pluralism is believed by some (Holmes 1995 ; Tarazi 1987 ; Yousif 2000 ) to be a type of moral relativism that has an intentionally eroding effect on their cultural or religious ideals. Footnote 11 Such beliefs may induce some to withdraw from the public sphere, or others to banish them from democratic conversations. Yet this would be an unfortunate outcome, as Strike ( 2007 , p. 707) reminds us:

[D]emocratic conversations that seek common ground cannot begin by excluding a whole genre of widely held views from serious discussion. Moreover, the attempt to exclude has tended to cause the expression of such views to go underground where they gain strength, go unrebutted and emerge in aggressive and theocratic forms. It is both more principled and strategically wiser to invite advocates of such views to the conversational table.

It is true that the principles of reasonableness are not neutral against every position, but this does not necessarily make them unjust. This would only be the case if they conflict with pursuing the regulative ideal of a society in which everyone can flourish. Since the opposite is true, sufficient reasons exist for defending reasonable pluralism as the best organizing principle of a pluralistic society. Thus, reasonable pluralism is the background against which we aim to defend the position that religious ideals be included in the curriculum of schools. The three evaluations offered above have shown that it is necessary to make a distinction between two aspects of religious ideals: the ideals themselves can be evaluated with regard to their compatibility with the ideals of a liberal democracy and the way in which they are pursued can be scrutinized. Before we address this topic, we first want to give a more precise account of the ways in which religious ideals and the ideals of reasonable pluralism may be compatible or incompatible.

Reasonable Pluralism and Religious Ideals

The former section has not settled the matter of precisely how religious ideals can best be voiced within the public sphere, or, for that matter, whether all religious ideals are compatible with reasonable pluralism. We suggest that there are three possible evaluations, both with regard to the ideals as well as their pursuit: they can be complementary to, neutral, and opposite to the ideals of a liberal democracy.

Some religious ideals are complimentary to the purposes of the liberal state. Indeed, far from being inimical to the interests of the public, some religious ideals may be perfectly compatible with liberal notions of citizenship such as equality of persons, individual autonomy and freedom of expression. Though sometimes expressed differently religious ideals may nevertheless extend the language of reasonable pluralism in useful ways. A powerful example of such an ideal is ‘all people are equal in the eyes of God’ that Christians profess, which complements the liberal right to non-discrimination. Another one would be ‘to love your neighbor as yourself’, which is consistent with the liberal notion of reciprocity. Most Christian ideal characteristics of a person are also complementary to those valued in liberal democracies. We have already mentioned ideals like being righteous or just, humble, merciful and charitable. Each may contribute to a flourishing liberal democracy. That these ideals are not unique to Christianity may be offered as a further illustration that religious ideals can be compatible not only with other religious ideals but also to the presumed secular ideals of the liberal democracy and reasonable pluralism.

The same may be said of Islam. For the majority of Muslims in the West, Islamic ideals and practices normally do not conflict with the ideals of reasonable pluralism. Similar to our Christian example, most Islamic and liberal ideals have a complementary relationship, and Muslims normally support the political institutions that help to make their life a rather good one (see Malik 2001 , 2004 ; March 2006 ). The pursuit of religious ideals that are complementary can also be conducive to a flourishing liberal democracy. If religious ideals are voiced reasonably they can keep alive the critical debate amongst citizens about what constitutes an ideal liberal democracy and in which ways liberal societies fall short. This certainly happens when Muslims challenge various types of discrimination, or push for positive freedoms, including the right to bury their dead or slaughter animals according to Islamic custom, or work to advance legislation in order to receive equal treatment in establishing Islamic schools. To be sure, Muslims who exercise their political will in this way are voicing an alternative to the prevailing practices that favour certain (normally Christian or secular) institutions; however, they are doing so in a manner that is consistent with deliberative democratic ideals and the requirements of reasonable pluralism. Hence, when religious ideals enter the political arena in this way, there is potentially real fruit to be borne.

Religious ideals that are politically neutral comprise only a small group. They primarily consist of religious ideals in the strict sense, i.e. ideals that are oriented towards the divine or are characteristic of one’s relation to the divine. Normally these ideals principally affect one’s private life and one’s (personal) relation with a transcendent being and are therefore neutral with regard to the public domain. However, this is not necessarily the case, for even personal ideals can also have a bearing on convictions that shape the way in which people act in the public domain. For instance, trying to live up to the commandments of the divine will likely have an influence on the way in which adherents look upon others. To take an extreme example we could mention the Phelps, an extremist Christian family living in Westboro, Kansas. Their religion is particularly toxic, for owing to their immovable convictions they have been known to organize pickets at funerals of soldiers who have fallen in the Iraq war at which they tell the world that God hates America because the US, in their view, loves homosexuals. Footnote 12 Although their hate campaign falls under First Amendment protections of free speech—and thus is permissible within the bounds of a liberal democracy Footnote 13 because they do not physically attack other people or incite others to do so—their ideals, including the way in which they pursue them, are not neutral to the ideals of a liberal democracy. Neither, for that matter, are they consistent with the requirements of reasonable pluralism.

However, the pursuit of religious ideals can be neutral to the public domain while the ideals themselves are not. Some are devout believers as well as convinced liberal democrats. While they may personally believe that divorce that is not annulled by the Roman Catholic Church is immoral or that homosexuality is an abomination, they are also committed to the liberal democratic ideal that everyone should be able to live their life as they see fit and therefore oppose any kind of discrimination on the basis of their private moral convictions. Notice that this pursuit of religious ideals is consistent with the requirements of reasonable pluralism.

Finally, some religious ideals, including the way in which they are pursued, are opposed to those of reasonable pluralism. When religious ideals are perceived as blueprints and thereby cease to be tolerant, it seems they necessarily collide with reasonable pluralism, because being reasonable not only assumes that one is able to revise one’s ideals, but also that others are entitled to espouse beliefs—and in most instances act upon those beliefs—with which one does not agree. The ideal of a theocracy is clearly in conflict with the ideals of a liberal democracy, but so are ideals that lead believers to discriminate against others because of their utter contempt of the other’s political views, religion or sexual identity.

For example, a political understanding of religious ideals impels some Muslims not only to prioritize the global Muslim community ( ummāh ) but also to view liberal democratic political institutions with utter contempt. Muslims who assimilate themselves to Western institutional norms (e.g., military service, jury duty) are believed by some to be betraying their Islamic faith, particularly if they are called upon to fight or testify against other Muslims. Taking matters further, residence in non-Islamic lands for a few has a tactical side, one that is driven by ideals which seek to establish an Islamic state (see Abbas 2007 ; Choudhury 2007 ; Husain 2007 ). Though only endorsed by a small minority, some Muslims believe that submission to non-Islamic authorities, with no consideration for Islamic law ( shari’āh ), makes the pursuit of specific Islamic ideals impossible. Clearly, these political ideals would not count as reasonable comprehensive doctrines on any reading of reasonable pluralism not only because such ideals offend against the principles of toleration or mutual respect; they also directly threaten a number of social goods that political liberals support, including legitimacy, reciprocal trust, tolerance, and political stability.

Thus, religious ideals may be compatible, or they may collide, with the ideals of reasonable pluralism, which indicates that reasonable pluralism is not an intolerant or anti religious doctrine, but is in fact a middle position. This implies that education consistent with reasonable pluralism in public schools need not exclude the possibility of incorporating religious ideals in their curriculum. On the contrary, the discussion in this section has corroborated our reasons for claiming that religious ideals should be part of the education of pupils in public schools. First, for those whose religious ideals are compatible with reasonable pluralism it is important that their ultimate values are recognized in public schools and accepted as a source of inspiration to foster the ideals of reasonable pluralism. Secondly, it is beneficial to the flourishing of a liberal democracy that future citizens learn to make nuanced evaluations about conceptions of the good life for themselves and other citizens. Teaching children about the positive influence of religious ideals as well as their dangers is arguably conducive to their development into reasonable citizens.

Of course, our proposal will not be agreeable to those whose religious ideals are incompatible with the ideals of reasonable pluralism. This is unavoidable, but we have already argued that this outcome is not unjust given the educational and societal benefits that accrue to others, including the children of those who espouse ‘unreasonable’ ideals.

Reasonable Pluralism and the Inclusion of Religious Ideals in Public Secondary Schools

In the introduction we argued that entering the broader discussion of religion in the public school through the door of religious ideals may shed some different light on this discussion. We aim to show in the remainder of this section that a focus on religious ideals both in a strict and broad sense does indeed make a novel contribution to the debate about religion in public schools.

In the former sections we have shown that religious ideals can be given a place in the public domain, but it also became apparent that not every religious ideal or every way of pursuing religious ideals is compatible with the ideals of reasonable pluralism. In this section we return to three reasons for including religious ideals in public schools we gave in the introduction, leaving the fourth practical reason aside, and will investigate their validity in light of the conclusions of the former sections. First, we will ask whether the importance of religious ideals for believers is a good enough reason for incorporating religious ideals in public schools. Second, we will review the (in)compatibility of religious and liberal ideals in relation to the development of pupils into citizens of a liberal democracy. Third, we will address the claim that including religious ideals into the curriculum of public schools is conducive to the possibility that pupils will flourish as adults. Finally, our arguments will lead to the observation that religious ideals can indeed be included successfully in public secondary schools.

We will not be very practical or concrete in this section, but we can say something in general about the approach and aim of the inclusion of religious ideal in public schools. Grimmitt ( 1994 ) suggests that religious education can pursue three types of aims: (1) learning religion, (2) learning about religion, and (3) learning from religion. In the first instance, religion is being transmitted to pupils; in the second, religion is presented as an academic subject; in the third, educators present religions in such a way that pupils are invited to investigate the value of various religions. With regard to the inclusion of religious ideals in public schools, we suggest that the third option is to be preferred, though interpreted in both a positive and a negative sense. Positively, pupils ought to explore both the value that religious ideals have for others, but also whether or not particular religious ideals have value for themselves. Negatively, pupils ought to examine the dastardly lessons that can be learned from the pursuit of religious ideals.

Religious Ideals are Important to Religious People

In the former section we saw that reasonable pluralism does not exclude the possibility that people also refer to their religious ideals in the public domain and base their decisions on these ideals. This means that there is in principle not an argument for excluding them in the public domain of public schools either. Therefore, it does not seem unfair for religious persons to insist that their ideals be taken seriously as well. Even stronger, our analysis suggests that it is difficult to find good reasons for why in principle religious ideals should be banned from schools. Most religious parents will receive this conclusion with enthusiasm, for religious ideals are of considerable importance for believers; for some, religious ideals in the strict sense are at the core of their identity. It is therefore not surprising that many parents wish to pass on their religious ideals, both in the strict and broad sense, to their children, and want to see their ideals recognized in the public schools their children attend. However, it is also true that many fear any education in public schools that may undermine this faith in their children. They may believe that reasonable pluralism supplies the conditions that will subvert religious ideals in the broad sense, and consequently, religious ideals in the strict sense (thus motivating some to withdraw their children from the public schools altogether in order to have those ideals reinforced in a private religious school). Footnote 14 This will be true primarily for the group of fundamentalist or orthodox parents; for the majority of religious parents, the inclusion of the ideals that have a profound meaning in their lives will be an important recognition of what they dearly value.

Fundamentalist and orthodox parents may find fault with the way in which religious ideals are addressed in public schools; they will certainly not warm to the idea that their ideals may be scrutinized in public schools. Even though education congenial to reasonable pluralism does not have as its aim to undermine the validity of religious ideals, (though it may restrict the way in which they are pursued), these groups may nevertheless be concerned that the education their children receive will have a negative effect on their beliefs (see Macedo 1995 ). Be that as it may, it is important to stress that religious persons not only live within their respective communities, they also are called upon to function as members of society.

Religious Ideals and Citizenship of a Liberal Democracy

We have described three types of relation between religious ideals and those of a liberal democracy and will now discuss the way in which public schools can address religious ideals that are complementary to, neutral, or opposite to, the ideal of reasonable pluralism. The focus in citizenship education will primarily be on religious ideals in the broad sense, more particularly on the religiously inspired moral, social and political ideals. However, these ideals are influenced by religious ideals in the strict sense and therefore those ideals will be part of citizenship education, too. Moreover, we would argue that understanding the motives of religious people with regard to the kind of person they think they should be is conducive to what it means to be a reasonable citizen.

Earlier we gave several examples of the positive influence of religious ideals on public life or society, like being just, caring, humble and temperate and an ideal society in which everyone is equal (because everyone is equal before God). We stated that these religious ideals are complementary to liberal democratic ideals. Inviting pupils to learn from religious ideals that cohere with liberal democratic ideals can have a twofold function: Doing so (1) fosters understanding and respect of others; and (2) pupils learn that the laws of a liberal democracy serve to protect reasonable pluralism and that religious ideals may be an important source of inspiration for some to pursue the ideals of a liberal democracy.

All pupils need to learn that there is a difference to be made between evaluating religious ideals and the way in which they are pursued. Pupils may be stimulated to discuss religious ideals and be critical about them, but they also need to learn that they have to respect the right of others to have ideals they themselves believe to be unjust, wrong or simplistic. In contrast, the way in which ideals are pursued should be scrutinized and the pursuit of ideals that infringes the harm principle should be sanctioned. Pupils also need to learn that what is of ultimate importance to them may not be the same for others, and that no one’s particular conception of the good life should determine what happens in the public and political sphere. Pupils who have religious ideals that do not cohere with those of a liberal democracy, should learn that they are nevertheless entitled to have these, i.e. that no one may deny them their right of having and pursuing them in the private domain—unless they are harmful to others. However they should also learn that in the public domain they should pursue their ideals in such a way that the effect is not negative but at least neutral in the way we have described it. Although these pupils may feel that this invites a kind of schizophrenia between their public and private life (McLaughlin 1995 ), they have to learn to accept that this is the best way in which people with different and even opposing views on life can live together harmoniously.

Finally, pupils will learn valuable lessons from religious ideals that are opposed to those of a liberal democracy, particularly from the ways in which the pursuit of these ideals may undermine the freedoms of others as protected under a liberal democratic constitution. That it is necessary for citizens of a liberal democracy to stay within the limits of the law, even when they believe themselves to be on the higher moral high ground, needs no defense. The evils that may emanate from the pursuit of certain religious ideals may be precisely the examples that motivate pupils to cultivate the moral dispositions necessary for strengthening deliberative democracy.

Religious Ideals and the Flourishing of Pupils

By learning from religious ideals pupils are invited to reflect on the values they take for granted, either because they are unthinkingly adopted from their parents or because they prevail in mainstream society. But why would this be important for their flourishing?

We suggest that persons are only able to flourish if they can give their own subjective interpretation to the objective goods of human well-being such as health, caring relationships, autonomy, creativity, and intellectual development. By ‘interpretation’ we mean that persons must come to identify with a conception of each of these in a way that personally makes sense and is worth pursuing for its own sake (De Ruyter 2007 ). In order to be able to discover which interpretation allows children to flourish as adults, it is important that they are introduced to different ways of life. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between what parents do or believe and find meaningful and what will enable their children to flourish. Public schools can play a significant role in furthering the possibility that children flourish when they are adults precisely by including values in the curriculum that are different from those of the families of the pupils and mainstream society (Brighouse 2005 ).

Yet the inclusion of alternative ways of life is not sufficient. It is important that children also learn that there are good and bad interpretations of the objective goods (De Ruyter 2007 ). For example, being a modest eater is arguably more conducive to one’s flourishing than the extremes of obesity or anorexia; an honest friend or a loving partner are clearly much more able to contribute to human flourishing than would someone who is deceitful or narcissistic. Educators can assist children in providing them with examples of the best or ideal interpretations of objective goods. This enables children to become good judges of values themselves. Which interpretation will bring intrinsic satisfaction is something that children have to discover for themselves, but what makes their actions within this interpretation good is something that educators can teach them. If someone knows what is best, that person is able to evaluate current as well as future or alternative practices against these supreme standards. This includes religious ideals as well.

We suggest that public schools offer religious ideals in the broad sense, in order for pupils to discover if the ideals of these religions regarding, for example, sexuality or morality, are good for them, too. This does not mean that they have to adopt the religion itself; the ideal does not have to become a religious ideal for them, though it may be transformed into a personal ideal for their own lives. For example, the sexual ideal of chastity before marriage or fidelity during one’s life-long relationship are meaningful alternatives to promiscuous alternatives found on music channels like the Box, MTV or TMF. We also stated that Christian and Islamic religious ideals normally refer to non-materialistic and non-competitive excellent or perfect values, and therefore, for some children, could be an antidote to the dominance of materialism and competition in mainstream society (see Burtt 2003 ; Conroy 2004 ; Merry 2007 ). By learning from religious ideals, pupils are invited to learn from what, to paraphrase Matthew Arnold’s words, many consider to the best that has been said and thought in the world.

On the basis of our foregoing reflections, we conclude that it is important for public schools to incorporate religious ideals into their curricula. Concisely put, this consists of offering pupils the possibility for positive learning from religious ideals that are compatible with reasonable pluralism and for learning from the negative effects of ideals when they are pursued in ways that are detrimental to those valued in liberal democracies.

Finally, it still might be objected that our argument, including our suggestions for the way in which the religious ideals might be included, is based on liberal democratic principles and therefore we have been begging the question. This may be partly true, but we have pushed the discussion of religious toleration and reasonable pluralism much further along. Importantly, we have shown that a separation between church and state does not mean that religious ideals have no place in the public domain or that ideals should be banned from public schools. Particularly today when religion is back in the centre of the public and political discussion, but where much of the attention is negative and does little to foster mutual understanding among religious and non-religious persons, or, for that matter, among persons with different religious commitments, the current silence in public schools should be replaced with the inclusion of religious ideals. The combination of the reasons we have offered is, in our view, sufficient to draw this conclusion, and, we hope, will assist in opening a new line of debate about religion in public schools.

Although public schools are neutral towards religions, they are not neutral per se, nor should they be. As instruments of the state, public schools have an important function to play in promoting specific kinds of civic virtue.

We shall have more to say about reasonableness below, but briefly by reasonable we mean that persons are prepared to respectfully listen to and interpret what others have to say, as well as propose fair terms of cooperation with others with whom one may not agree.

For an overview of ideas about or practices in religious education in Europe see for instance Leicester et al. 2000 or Jackson et al. 2007 .

It should be noted, however, that the debate among educators and philosophers of education in North America has focused primarily on fundamentalist or orthodox religious communities and families. This is understandable, because these believers tend to draw most public attention hrough court cases (the Yoder case or the Mozert case) and because they tend to be opposed to mainstream liberal views and scientific theories. There is, however, a disadvantage to this focus on fundamentalist and orthodox communities. Fundamentalists and orthodox believers represent only one group within the enormous diversity of religious persons, and quite a distinct one. This means that the discussion about inclusion of religion in schools runs the risk of being too narrow in focus. In Europe, this focus is less prevalent, although it is interesting to note that in debates about schools in France, a country whose public school system is also strictly secular, conservatives—Muslims in this case—form the center of attention.

Briefly, people are able to lead a flourishing life if they give personal meaning to the objective goods that are good for all human beings, for instance health, relations, creative and intellectual development, and if the life that follows from this is satisfying to them. We will return to this in the section “Reasonable pluralism and the inclusion of religious ideals in public secondary schools”.

Proponents of epistemic analysis will no doubt object to this, claiming that we are exempting religious truth claims from rational analysis and engaging in some kind of multicultural moral relativism. Yet we would argue that conceptually religious truth claims by their very nature are non-rational and therefore are not amenable to rational analysis. Further, the difficulties both with respect to adequate (and unbiased) teacher training and parental objections to epistemological analysis of their faith claims in classrooms surely must give us pause.

Of course, there are usually opt out provisions in place, and in some countries ethical instruction of a non-specific sort may be substituted for religious education.

‘Religious ideals’ is the generic name of a category consisting of a wide range of specific religious types of ideals, for instance Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai’ ideals. And it might be argued that these labels are still too general. For instance, Christianity (like many other religions) is a highly diversified religion, which may even make it impossible to speak about ‘Christian ideals’. Rather, one may wish to use terms like Roman Catholic ideals, Eastern Orthodox ideals, Wesleyan ideals, Reformed ideals, etc, though of course one will find various subsets within each of these traditions as well.

Although there will be those who would argue that she was not actually doing selfless work, but was merely working out her own salvation.

Here we follow Fuller ( 1969 ), who makes the distinction between the morality of duty and the morality of aspirations.

Importantly, when this perception is aggravated by unfavourable economic circumstances and social exclusion, conditions may be ripe for strengthening less tolerant religious ideals that militate against those prized by liberal democratic states.

For more information about the Phelps family, we can refer the reader to their website: http://www.godhatesfags.com/

While all liberal democratic constitutions make provisions for criminal action to be taken against defamation and the incitement to riot, exactly what constitutes hate speech, and thus what will be publicly tolerated, will vary from one liberal democratic context to another.

This phenomenon is perhaps more common in North America,, but one certainly notices a similar phenomenon in Europe with the rapid expansion of faith schools, particularly among various minority groups. For example, concerning the recent growth in Hindu schools, see Merry and Driessen, forthcoming.

Abbas, T. (2007). Ethno-religious identity and Islamic political radicalism in the UK: A case study. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 27 (3), 429–442.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brighouse, H. (2005). Channel one, the anti-commercial principle, and the discontinuous ethos. Educational Policy, 19 (3), 528–550.

Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Burtt, S. (2003). Comprehensive educations and the liberal understanding of autonomy. In K. McDonough & W. Feinberg (Eds.), Citizenship and education in liberal-democratic societies . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Callan, E. (1985). McLaughlin on parental rights. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 19 (1), 111–118.

Callan, E. (1997). Creating citizens: Political education and liberal democracy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Choudhury, T. (2007). The role of Muslim identity politics in radicalisation: A study in progress . London: Department of Communications & Local Government.

Conroy, J. C. (Ed.). (1999). Catholic education: Inside out, outside in . Dublin: Lindisfarne.

Conroy, J. C. (2004). Betwixt and between. The liminal imagination, education and democracy . New York: Peter Lang.

De Jong, J., & Snik, G. (2002). Why should states fund denominational schools? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36 (4), 573–587.

De Ruyter, D. J. (2003). The importance of ideals in education. Journal of Philosophy and Education, 37 (3), 467–482.

De Ruyter, D. J. (2006). Be ye perfect? Religious ideals in education. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 27 (3), 269–280.

De Ruyter, D. J. (2007). Ideals, education and happy flourishing. Educational Theory, 57 (1), 23–35.

De Ruyter, D. J., & Miedema, S. (2000). Denominational schools in the Netherlands. In M. Leicester, C. Modgil & S. Modgil (Eds.), Spiritual and religious education; education, culture and values (Vol. 5, pp. 133–141). London: Falmer Press.

Dwyer, J. G. (1998). Religious schools v children’s rights . Cornell: Cornell University Press.

Emmet, D. (1994). The role of the unrealisable. A study in regulative ideals . New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Feinberg, W. (2006). For goodness sake: Religious schools and education for democratic citizenry . New York: Routledge.

Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law (revised ed.) . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gardner, R., Cairns, J., & Lawton, D. (Eds.). (2002). Faith schools: Consensus or conflict? London: Routledge.

Grimmitt, M. (1994). Religious education and the ideology of pluralism. British Journal of Religious Education, 16 (3), 133–147.

Gutmann, A. (1995). Civic education and social diversity. Ethics, 105 , 557–579.

Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hand, M. (2004). The Problem with faith schools. Theory and Research in Education, 2 (3), 343–353.

Holmes, M. (1995). Common schools for a secularist society. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 20 (3), 284–296.

Husain, E. (2007). The Islamist . London: Penguin Press.

Jackson, R., Miedema, S., Weisse, W., & Willaime, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). Religion and education in Europe: Developments, contexts and debates . Münster: Waxmann.

Leicester, M., Modgil, C., & Modgil, S. (Eds.). (2000). Spiritual and religious education; educations, culture and values (Vol. 5). London: Falmer Press.

Levinson, M., & Levinson, S. (2007). “Getting Religion”: Religion, diversity, and community in public and private schools. In R. Curren (Ed.), Philosophy of education: An anthology (pp. 283–289). London: Blackwell.

Macedo, S. (1995). Liberal civic education and religious fundamentalism: The case of God vs. John Rawls? Ethics, 100 , 468–496.

Macedo, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural democracy . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Malik, M. (2001). Islam in Europe: Quest for a paradigm. Middle East Policy, 8 (2), 100–115.

Malik, M. (2004). Muslims pluralize the West, resist assimilation. Middle East Policy, 11 (1), 70–83.

March, A. (2006). Liberal citizenship and the search for an overlapping consensus: The case of Muslim minorities. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34 (4), 373–421.

Merry, M. (2005). Indoctrination, moral instruction and non-rational beliefs: A place for autonomy? Educational Theory, 4 (55), 399–420.

Merry, M. (2007). Culture, identity and Islamic schooling: A philosophical approach . New York: Palgrave.

Merry, M., & Driessen, G. (forthcoming). Integration by other means: Hindu Schools in the Netherlands.

McLaughlin, T. H. (1984). Parental rights and the religious upbringing of children. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 18 (1), 75–83.

McLaughlin, T. H. (1985). Religion, upbringing and liberal values: A rejoinder to Eamonn Callan. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 19 (1), 119–127.

McLaughlin, T. H. (1995). Liberalism, education and the common school. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29 (2), 239–256.

McLaughlin, T. H. (1996). The distinctiveness of Catholic education. In T. H. Mclaughlin, J. M. O’Keefe & B. O’Keeffe (Eds.), The contemporary Catholic school: Context, identity and diversity (pp. 136–154). London: Falmer.

Noddings, N. (1993). Educating for intelligent belief or unbelief . New York: Teachers College Press.

Nord, W. (1995). Religion and American education: Rethinking a national dilemma . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Pennock, R. (2007). Should creationism be taught in the public schools? In R. Curren (Ed.), Philosophy of education: An anthology (pp. 539–552). London: Blackwell.

Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7 (1), 1–25.

Rawls, J. (1989). The domain of the political and overlapping consensus. New York University Law Review, 64 (2), 233–255.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Rescher, N. (1987). Ethical idealism. An inquiry into the nature and function of ideals . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rosenblith, S. (2008). Beyond coexistence: Toward a more reflective religious pluralism. Theory and Research in Education, 6 (1), 107–121.

Rosenblith, S., & Priestman, S. (2004). Problematizing religious truth: Implications for public education. Educational Theory, 54 (4), 365–380.

Salili, F., & Hoosain, R. (Eds.). (2006). Religion and multicultural education, vol. 4 in series research in multicultural education and international perspectives . Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Spiecker, B., De Ruyter, D. J., & Steutel, J. W. (2006). Taking the right to exit seriously. Theory and Research in Education, 4 (3), 313–326.

Strike, K. (2007). Common schools and uncommon conversations: Education, religious speech and public spaces. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41 (4), 693–708.

Spinner-Halev, J. (2000). Surviving diversity. Religion and democratic citizenship . Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Tarazi, N. (1987). Who is teaching your child? Islamic Horizons, 30 (4), 40–43.

Yousif, A. (2000). Islam, minorities and religious freedom: A challenge to the modern theory of pluralism. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 20 (1), 29–41.

Download references

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Psychology and Education, Department of Theory and Research in Education, VU University, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Doret J. de Ruyter

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Philosophy and History of Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Michael S. Merry

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doret J. de Ruyter .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

de Ruyter, D.J., Merry, M.S. Why Education in Public Schools Should Include Religious Ideals. Stud Philos Educ 28 , 295–311 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9120-4

Download citation

Received : 29 August 2007

Accepted : 11 October 2008

Published : 29 October 2008

Issue Date : July 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9120-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Reasonable pluralism
• Religious ideals
• Public schools
• Political liberalism
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Public School — My Opinion on Whether Religion Should Be Taught in Schools

My Opinion on Whether Religion Should Be Taught in Schools

• Categories: Public School Religious Tolerance

About this sample

Words: 2124 |

11 min read

Published: Jan 29, 2019

Words: 2124 | Pages: 5 | 11 min read

Works Cited

• Bhatia, S., & Davie, G. (2019). Teaching about religion: Towards a research agenda for religious education in schools. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 40(3), 285-298.
• Education Week. (2016). Religion in the public schools: A road map for avoiding lawsuits and respecting parents’ legal rights. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-religion-in-public-schools-a-road-map-for-avoiding-lawsuits-and-respecting-parents-legal-rights/2016/03
• FaithStreet. (n.d.). The lack of religious knowledge is dangerous. https://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/04/08/the-lack-of-religious-knowledge-is-dangerous/31639
• Hans, V. P., & Hans, A. S. (2016). Religion and education: A guide for the perplexed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Hickman, H. A. (2019). Teaching about religion and religious diversity in the public schools: A legal analysis. Journal of Law and Education, 48(1), 1-28.
• Jeynes, W. H. (2015). A meta-analysis on the effects of religion in K-12 education. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 744-769.
• Kennedy, K. (2018). Teaching about religion in a polarized age. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1), 14-18.
• Lee, C., & Patte, M. (2018). Teaching about religion in public schools : What do social studies teachers believe and what do they do? Canadian Journal of Education, 41(1), 128-159.
• National Council for the Social Studies. (2017). Religious studies in the social studies classroom. https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/8004/800409.html
• Wertheimer, L. K. (2016). A Jewish writer’s argument for not teaching religion in public schools. The Washington Post.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1078 words

1 pages / 504 words

1 pages / 557 words

2 pages / 966 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Public School

Educational choices are among the most significant decisions parents make for their children. One of the debates that has gained prominence in recent years is the choice between homeschooling and traditional public schooling. [...]

Binder, Shawn. “Why Lunches In Schools Need To Be Free.” Guff. Web. Machell, Kyla, et al. “Buffering the Negative Impact of Poverty on Youth: The Power of Purpose in Life.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 126, no. 2, 2016, pp. [...]

The cost of education in the United States has risen exponentially over the past few decades, with the average cost of tuition and fees at public universities increasing by 212% since 1987. Additionally, the student loan debt in [...]

Have you ever wondered why your parents hesitated to get you a phone at a young age? What impact do smartphones have on the lives of middle and high school students? In the modern era, technological devices like smartphones play [...]

American Psychological Association. (2015). Sex Education: Talking with Teens about Sex.DiIorio, C., & Kelley, M. (2017). Heterosexual college students who don't use condoms: A review of the literature with implications for [...]

In 1900 school counseling increases its prospects. The history of school counseling has existed for hundreds of years. In 1907 Jesse B Davis is the first person who implemented a schematized guidance program in public [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Rite&Reason: Why we should teach religion in school

Religions as bearers of possible truth are contributors to the search for truth.

The late French philosopher Paul Ricoeur: religions can be “driven and invigorated by the unkept promises of their own histories of foundation”. Photograph:Juerg Mueller/AP/Keystone/

In the past 20 years, the place of religion in the public sphere has been discussed from multiple angles. On the continent, French, Italian and German philosophers from widely differing approaches have written books on God. Globally, the two key future themes of the 21 st century, it has been said, will be “water” and “religion.”

Since antiquity, religious traditions have shaped individual and collective self-understandings, cultures of knowledge and the realm of politics. Given their role at the most fundamental level of culture, of co-creating conceptions of what it is to be human, how should they be approached and taught today?

Recent debates in philosophy and theology, politics and education highlight several aspects. What constellations led to their powerful intellectual and motivating roles? What practical conclusions are to be drawn from the modern right to religious freedom? And from what perspective should they be taught as part of the school curriculum?

What conditions allowed the great world religions and philosophies to develop in just a few centuries, the sixth to fourth century BC, as Karl Jaspers’s newly debated thesis of an “Axial Age” asks? And what factors were relevant for specific religions to spark cultural transformations, such as the turn to monotheism?

Which translations had to be worked out to mediate between understandings of life, community, nature and law as different as those of Athens and Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome, Constantinople and Baghdad?

If the legal right to freedom of religion and the neutrality of the state are two sides of the same coin, then both an “over-secularising” and a “radical orthodox” stance are problematic, as the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas concludes. For him, religions are not “a priori irrational” and, as long as they continue to feature among the plural sources of value formation, societies are “post-secular”.

The state in its neutrality towards world views needs the competence and willingness of secular and religious fellow-citizens to “translate” their core intuitions to each other. This is only possible, as theologians have reminded Habermas, because religions have their own internal link to human reason.

The shorthand label appearing in policy documents, “faith-based”, is thus misleading. How can the ability to articulate and comprehend diverse heritages, for Habermas a prerequisite for a vibrant public sphere, be fostered?

Across Europe we find diverse models for the provision and the format of Religious Education in schools. This variety – even within the same country, as between the Länder in Germany – in itself is an exciting laboratory of the future, as are the major differences between education systems in general.

New policy proposals should be based on comparative studies.

A major insight from hermeneutics as the critical philosophical theory of understanding is that one's own starting point needs to be reflected. If there is no pure objective platform available for inquiries into human self-understandings, and if they are all in need of justification through discourses marked by "conflicts of interpretation", as the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur showed already in the 1960s, what practical conclusions should be drawn?

Religions as bearers of possible truth are contributors to the search for truth, as well as objects for analysis from other disciplines. Exploring the transformations of a religious tradition from the inside, as theology does, can identify sources for renewal and for mutual understanding.

If religions are not to be seed beds of indoctrination, but seeds for universal values, society and the state need to give them space for critical reflection and discuss appropriate models of education.

Religions can then contribute their resources of motivation and contemporary insight to the future course of pluralist democracies marked by the dynamics of rationalisation and differentiation, science and technology: in dialogue with other cultural and political traditions, each of them “driven and invigorated by the unkept promises of their own histories of foundation”(Ricoeur).

Prof Maureen Junker-Kenny is head of the department of religions and theology at Trinity College Dublin. Two autumn lecture series there explore questions raised above: Religions in Public: Great Speeches (which began on Monday, from 6-8pm) an d Religions as Part of Education (from Tuesday, October 4th, from 6-8 pm). Inquiries to 01-896 1297. Details at tcd.ie/Religions_Theology/

IN THIS SECTION

Battle lines are being drawn over the cost of irish reunification, big sister energy: how taylor swift built a billion-dollar musical empire, could a more conservative coalition emerge from the next election, david mcwilliams: a successful, prosperous gaza is possible. here is a model, martyn turner, dublin’s victorian fruit and vegetable market finally to reopen, divorced man no longer has to pay €385 monthly maintenance to ex-wife, judge rules, rté executives spend over €175,000 on corporate credit cards, the end of direct dublin-rosslare trains: ‘it’s the best thing ever. someone is using their head’, sarah mcnally moved to new york, worked in a bar: a very irish life, cut violently short, latest stories, hat-trick hero gibson-park outstanding on flawed night for leinster, leinster 36 leicester 22: champions cup last 16 as it happened, zelenskiy: ukraine’s air defence missiles are running out, fireworks arrive on final night as clare hold on against kilkenny in tense endgame, latin american governments rally around mexico after embassy raid in ecuador.

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Information
• Cookie Settings
• Community Standards

Schools should teach religion. What they shouldn't teach is faith.

At high school graduation three decades ago, keeping my lips pursed shut, I stared straight ahead as my classmates bowed their heads and echoed the pastor’s words, “In Jesus’s name, we pray.”

It was the same silent protest I had performed repeatedly since elementary school in my rural Ohio school system. Pastors led us in prayer at annual Easter and Christmas assemblies in the gymnasium; a Christian band’s singers urged us to proclaim our love for Jesus at a special assembly.

My parents and I did nothing, though we knew the school was violating the constitution’s Establishment Clause prohibiting the promotion of one religion. We were afraid of backlash; we were the only Jewish family in the school system.

My story should be a thing of the past, but it’s all too present: Just ask Kaylee Cole, a 17-year-old from Webster Parish, La., who is fighting a battle over morning prayers and other overtly religious activities at her public school. Her mother sued the teen’s school system on her behalf in December; the case is pending in federal court.

Ms. Cole’s lawsuit comes at a troubling time for those of us who want to see more focus on educating the next generation about many religions, rather than pushing Christianity into public schools.

Ms. Cole, who told her story to CNN in late January , described how some classmates glared at her when she said nothing rather than recite the Lord’s Prayer as it was said daily over the loudspeaker during morning announcements. The suit claims that nearly all school events, including assemblies, have had Christian-sponsored prayer or religious messages. Ms. Cole considers herself agnostic; her mother describes herself as Christian.

The school system denies the allegations, saying in its response to the suit that the prayers were voluntary and student-led. Those claims of innocence ring hollow. But, if the prayers were okay, why then did the school system stop using the prayers in announcements after Ms. Cole’s mother filed the lawsuit?

Ms. Cole’s lawsuit comes at a troubling time for those of us who want to see more focus on educating the next generation about many religions, rather than pushing Christianity into public schools. The national conversation on religion and schools has been heading in the wrong direction.

Teaching about world religions is the better approach, because such instruction can help erase stereotypes of religious minorities and fill a pressing need to reduce ignorance about religion.

And religious conservatives have an advocate in the White House: President Trump has been vocal about welcoming expressions of religion in schools and has vowed to make it okay to say Merry Christmas again — though such a greeting has never been forbidden.

Last year, a mother of a kindergartener sued the Mercer County, W. Va., school system to halt weekly religious Christian Bible classes conducted in classrooms. The mother, an atheist, noted that such classes held in school were unconstitutional. The school system, in response to the lawsuit, suspended the program for a year. A federal judge in November dismissed the lawsuit because the program never resumed. Meanwhile, in Florida, a state lawmaker is promoting a bill that would require all public schools to post “In God We Trust” in their buildings.

And West Virginia and Iowa lawmakers are promoting measures to require elective courses on the Bible in schools , mirroring laws already passed in a handful of other states. Such bills would be appropriate if they were truly designed to improve religious literacy, and the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute has been providing more training for teachers so they learn where the legal lines are (Religion scholars have been creating more resources for teachers as well.) But as Texas’s experience has shown , many of the courses end up using a Bible course to preach Christian values.

Religion does have a place in school: as a part of lessons meant to show various religions’ place in history as well as their similarities and differences.

Teaching about world religions is the better approach, because such instruction can help erase stereotypes of religious minorities and fill a pressing need to reduce ignorance about religion. Americans flubbed half of 32 questions on a religious knowledge survey given by the Pew Research Center .

Those who teach courses on world religions often include another important element: Lessons on the First Amendment. Ms. Cole’s school, for instance, rather than trying to satisfy the religious desires of its predominantly Christian community with morning prayers, would have done better by students if it had spent time teaching about the 1963 case, Abington v. Schempp. That case pitted a 16-year-old atheist named Ellery Schempp against his school system, where teachers lead morning prayers. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Schempp, saying it was unconstitutional for his teachers to lead students in Bible verses. Just like students in Abington, Pa. were, students in Ms. Cole’s high school are a captive audience.

Justice Tom C. Clark, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, laid out what was okay and what was not: Religious exercises led by public school teachers are not okay, but teaching about religion is fine.

Schools cannot promote prayer, because they are institutions for educating, not preaching.

Religion does have a place in school: as a part of lessons meant to show various religions’ place in history as well as their similarities and differences. And, around the country, most state standards actually require schools to teach about the world’s religions as a part of world history or geography.

Those who want to restore formalized prayer and God to America’s schools are misguided. Students can pray in school — that is their right — but schools cannot promote the prayer, because they are institutions for educating, not preaching.

I returned to my school system in Ohio about five years ago, and saw that my school had shed some (but not all) of its past practices of promoting Christianity, and students in social studies were learning about world religions. As a child, I felt like an outsider because peers saw my religion as foreign; now students may know enough to refrain from telling a Jewish girl that she is going to Hell because she does not pray to Jesus.

Linda K. Wertheimer, a veteran journalist, is the author of "Faith Ed, Teaching About Religion In An Age of Intolerance" and gives workshops on teaching about religion to educators. 

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Study Abroad Test Prep /

IELTS Essay Topic: Many think that religion should be taught in schools, while others think it should be avoided.

• Updated on  
• May 4, 2023

Q- Many think that religion should be taught in schools, while others think it should be avoided. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

Ans- Religion has been a contentious topic throughout history, and its place in educational institutions has been a subject of debate. While some argue that religion should be taught in schools, others believe it should be avoided. This essay will explore both perspectives and provide a personal opinion that religion should be taught in schools, but only in a neutral and objective manner that does not promote any particular religion or belief system. 

Supporters of teaching religion in schools argue that it can help promote religious literacy and respect for different cultures. By learning about different religions, students can develop a better understanding of the world’s diverse traditions and beliefs. Additionally, studying religion can promote tolerance and respect for other people’s faiths, which can help build stronger, more diverse communities. Moreover, teaching religion in schools can promote moral values and ethics. Many religious texts contain ethical principles that can help students develop a sense of right and wrong. 

However, opponents of teaching religion in schools argue that it can be challenging to remain impartial when discussing religion. Educators may inadvertently promote one religion over another, leading to feelings of exclusion and marginalization for students who do not share the same beliefs. Another argument against teaching religion in schools is that it can be viewed as a violation of the separation of church and state. Public schools are meant to be secular institutions that do not promote any particular religion. 

In my opinion, I believe that religion should be taught in schools, but only in a neutral and objective manner that does not promote any particular religion or belief system. Religion plays a significant role in many people’s lives, and it is essential to learn about different religious traditions and beliefs to promote understanding and respect for diverse cultures. However, it is equally crucial to ensure that religious teachings do not lead to discrimination or marginalization of students who do not share the same beliefs. By maintaining a secular environment and providing balanced education on religion, schools can help students develop a sense of morality and promote respect and empathy for all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs.

In conclusion, the debate over whether religion should be taught in schools is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. In my opinion, religion should be taught in schools in an objective and impartial manner that respects the beliefs and values of all students. While it is essential to promote religious literacy and respect for different cultures, it is equally important to maintain a secular environment that does not favour any particular religion or belief system. 

Outline statement: Religion has been a contentious topic throughout history, and its place in educational institutions has been a subject of debate.

Paraphrased statement: While some people argue that religion should be taught in schools, others believe that it should be avoided. 

Thesis statement: This essay will explore both perspectives and provide a personal opinion that religion should be taught in schools, but only in a neutral and objective manner that does not promote any particular religion or belief system. 

Body paragraph 1-Topic sentence: Supporters of teaching religion in schools argue that it can help promote religious literacy and respect for different cultures.

Body paragraph 1- Supporting evidence: By learning about different religions, students can develop a better understanding of the world’s diverse traditions and beliefs. Additionally, studying religion can promote tolerance and respect for other people’s faiths, which can help build stronger, more diverse communities. 

Body paragraph 1- Analysis: Moreover, teaching religion in schools can promote moral values and ethics. Many religious texts contain ethical principles that can help students develop a sense of right and wrong. 

Body paragraph 2- Topic sentence: However, opponents of teaching religion in schools argue that it can be challenging to remain impartial when discussing religion.

Body paragraph 2- Supporting evidence: Educators may inadvertently promote one religion over another, leading to feelings of exclusion and marginalization for students who do not share the same beliefs. 

Body paragraph 2- Analysis: Another argument against teaching religion in schools is that it can be viewed as a violation of the separation of church and state. Public schools are meant to be secular institutions that do not promote any particular religion. 

Body paragraph 3- Topic sentence: In my opinion, I believe that religion should be taught in schools, but only in a neutral and objective manner that does not promote any particular religion or belief system.

Body paragraph 3- Supporting evidence: Religion plays a significant role in many people’s lives, and it is essential to learn about different religious traditions and beliefs to promote understanding and respect for diverse cultures. However, it is equally crucial to ensure that religious teachings do not lead to discrimination or marginalization of students who do not share the same beliefs.

Body paragraph 3- Analysis: By maintaining a secular environment and providing balanced education on religion, schools can help students develop a sense of morality and promote respect and empathy for all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the debate over whether religion should be taught in schools is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. In my opinion, religion should be taught in schools in an objective and impartial manner that respects the beliefs and values of all students. While it is essential to promote religious literacy and respect for different cultures, it is equally important to maintain a secular environment that does not favour any particular religion or belief system. 

Vocabulary 

Religion has been a contentious topic throughout history, and its place in educational institutions has been a subject of debate . While some argue that religion should be taught in schools, others believe it should be avoided. This essay will explore both perspectives and provide a personal opinion that religion should be taught in schools, but only in a neutral and objective manner that does not promote any particular religion or belief system. 

Supporters of teaching religion in schools argue that it can help promote religious literacy and respect for different cultures. By learning about different religions, students can better understand the world’s diverse traditions and beliefs . Additionally , studying religion can promote tolerance and respect for other people’s faiths, which can help build stronger, more diverse communities . Moreover , teaching religion in schools can promote moral values and ethics. Many religious texts contain ethical principles that can help students develop a sense of right and wrong. 

However , opponents of teaching religion in schools argue that it can be challenging to remain impartial when discussing religion. Educators may inadvertently promote one religion over another, leading to feelings of exclusion and marginalization for students who do not share the same beliefs. Another argument against teaching religion in schools is that it can be viewed as a violation of the separation of church and state . Public schools are meant to be secular institutions that do not promote any particular religion. 

In my opinion , I believe that religion should be taught in schools, but only in a neutral and objective manner that does not promote any particular religion or belief system. Religion plays a significant role in many people’s lives, and it is essential to learn about different religious traditions and beliefs to promote understanding and respect for diverse cultures. However, it is equally crucial to ensure that religious teachings do not discriminate or marginalise students who do not share the same beliefs. By maintaining a secular environment and providing balanced education on religion, schools can help students develop a sense of morality and promote respect and empathy for all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs.

In conclusion , the debate over whether religion should be taught in schools is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. In my opinion, religion should be taught in schools in an objective and impartial manner that respects the beliefs and values of all students. While it is essential to promote religious literacy and respect for different cultures, it is equally important to maintain a secular environment that does not favour any particular religion or belief system. 

Linkers and Connectors Used in this Essay

• “has been a contentious topic throughout history”
• “subject of debate”
• “This essay will explore both perspectives”
• “Supporters of teaching religion in schools argue that”
• “Additionally”
• “Moreover”
• “However”
• “Opponents of teaching religion in schools argue that”
• “Another argument against”
• “In my opinion”
• “Furthermore”
• “While it is essential”
• “it is equally important”
• “In conclusion”

Are you preparing for IELTS? Check out this video to improve your writing skills for the IELTS exam given below👇.

Related Articles

• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS Essay Topics

Download the Leverage IELTS App today.

Need help to prepare for IELTS? Check out the best  IELTS preparation courses  in the market offered in a live training environment by trusted educators in a live training environment. If you want help  studying abroad , call 1800-572-130.

Purti Chawla

Purti is a CELTA, British Council, and IDP-certified language trainer. Having worked as a Study Abroad Test Prep Expert for the past 7 years, she has guided thousands of students towards their desirable scores in IELTS, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and other language proficiency tests to study abroad. She is adept in molding learning strategies according to the needs of the learners and has built multiple courses at Leverage IELTS with result-oriented strategies. Proficient in test prep courses such as IELTS, TOEFL, PTE, and Duolingo, she loves to explore different classroom teaching methods, keeps continuously improving her own skills, and stays abreast with the latest teaching methodologies. She is a master trainer at Leverage Edu and aims to help thousands more through her expertise.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

How Do Public School Teachers Believe Religion Should be Taught in the Classroom?

• Maloney, P. (Speaker)
• Texas Tech University

Activity : Talk or presentation › Oral presentation