essay about should religion be taught in schools brainly

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

On religious and moral education: Should religion be taught in public schools?

Religious education for children is a controversial issue, especially in secular states. We discuss if religion should be taught in public schools and the importance of religious education.  

Should religion be taught in schools?

Historically, it is difficult to deny the importance of religious education . During the Middle-Ages, most education was oversighted or run by the Church across Europe. Most of the books were copied by monks and theology was a key subject of study. Similarly, in the Muslim World the emergence of formal education was driven by religious purposes. Reading and seeking knowledge was recommended by Quran. Consequently muslims rulers contributed to the creation of impressive libraries in Baghdad, Cordoba and Cairo as ways of disseminating religious and moral education. 

Over the twentieth and twenty-first centuries an increasing number of countries have been declared secular. This means that there is a clear distinction between the Church (or other religious institutions) and the State, and that no religion will enjoy privileges over others. The goal is that people with different religious and non-religious beliefs enjoy similar opportunities and are treated equally by the state. The issue of religious education becomes therefore a controversial one.  Many argue that religious education is very positive and foster  respect of authority, moral values and even academic excellence. But not everyone agrees with this view. Religious views often clash with scientific rationality , as in the case of the denial of the theory of evolution and other theories explaining the origins of our planet. Moreover, some parents are agnostic, atheists or simply prefer that their children choose their religion once they are adults. In some countries, such as France and the Netherlands, wearing ostentatious religious signs or symbols such as big Christian crosses or Muslims headscarves is banned in schools.

Religious education curriculum worldwide

Countries with an official religion tend to provide instruction in the faith to their students. For instance, in most Arab countries Islam is part of children's education. Similarly, i n Pakistan religious and moral education is mandatory for muslim children from primary to higher education. In Greece  the basics of orthodox religion are taught to children in school. In the UK religious education (RE) has been part of the compulsory curriculum  for students in state schools. Although it is taught in a non-proselytizing way and covers a variety of different faiths, Christian Anglican content tends to dominate. Moreover the Department for Education and The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation have announced consultations for the new General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSEs) and Advanced Level (A-Levels) subjects in order to reform the religious education curriculum. 

Secularists claim that religious instruction should not take place in state schools, that government should not offer religious education as a public service . Many countries by law establish the separation of church and state. In China religious education is banned from schools. Only some licensed state-run theology courses include moral and religious education in their curriculum. In the USA and other countries, religious education is provided outside normal school hours, at Church , through supplementary private bible lessons for kids in "Sunday schools", weekend Islamic schools, Hebrew schools, etc. Children thus can attend public schools and also be instructed in the religion of their family choice. However, some parents think that this system of supplementary education is insufficient and they enrol their children in full-time religious schools or practice homeschooling . In the US these institutions are privately funded.

Although in some secular countries religious education is strictly forbidden in state schools, in many others governments provide religious education or sponsor private schools where religion is taught to students. For instance, in Finland religious education is compulsory. In  Poland or Spain , the education of religion (usually Catholicism) has been optional for many years in government schools. In Israel , France and parts of Canada , the government funds private schools, many of which provide religious education to their pupils. As we can see, even among secular countries there is often some involvement of the government in religious education.

Some argue that religion should be taught in a secular way in public schools as a means of intercultural awareness and a way to limit the segregation of students, which may be otherwise sent by their families to study in private schools offering religious education.

But is it possible to teach religions in a neutral and balanced way? Should not that time be devoted to learning languages, history, sciences or maths?

Check out these videos on the debate on religious and moral education in schools

Many question emerge: Is religion beneficial for our society? Is it desirable that children learn religion in school? If so, should schools teach faith and worship or only offer an overview of different religions and their relevance for our history and culture? Who should teach religion?  What do you think of bible lessons for kids or other mandatory religious education in the curriculum?

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Teaching Religion in Schools Pros And Cons

Teaching religion in schools is a divisive issue, with both pros and cons arguments.

Some people believe that it is essential for children to learn about different religions so that they can make their own informed decisions about what they believe in and it may provide moral guidance and a feeling of togetherness for students.

Some, on the other hand, believe that religion should be taught in religious institutions rather than in public schools. It should not be taught in schools because it can lead to discrimination and division among students. The decision of whether or not teaching religion in schools depends on various factors- community and the resources available.

Should Religion Be Taught in Schools?

This issue is complicated and nuanced, which leads to different answers. There are both compelling and persuasive reasons for teaching religion in schools, but there are also compelling and persuasive reasons against it.

Ultimately, on a case-by-case basis, considering the particular needs and beliefs of the community, school boards should decide whether or not to teach religion in schools.

Religious education is often used to justify its inclusion in schools because it is thought to encourage tolerance and understanding. It is hypothesized that by exposing children to various faiths, they will become more accepting and embracing of others.

In addition, religious education may help students comprehend the globe and diverse civilizations in a more comprehensive manner. It might also enhance youngsters’ moral character.

Yet, there are a number of compelling arguments against religion being taught in schools. Another fear is that non-religious pupils or persons from minority faiths might be discriminated against as a result of it.

Some people believe that religious education, rather than being taught in a public institution like a school, should be a private matter between parents and children.

Some contend that since pupils may feel compelled to conform to one specific faith system, religious instruction may actually exacerbate tensions between various ethnic groups.

It is a difficult topic with no simple answer, whether or not religion should be taught in schools.

Why Should Religion be Taught in Schools?

Religious education, they claim, is essential to the curriculum and should be taught in all schools. Some people believe that parents should have the freedom to choose their kids out of religious instruction if they want.

Religious education should be taught in schools for a variety of reasons. It first and foremost helps youngsters understand different faiths and ideas. For two reasons, this is critical.

It teaches youngsters to appreciate and embrace other people’s viewpoints. Second, it allows them to better comprehend the world around them and those in it. Children are also taught about morality and ethics in religious education.

It assists them in determining what is ethical and unethical, as well as in making educated judgments about their own conduct. This is a valuable life skill that they will use as they get older and explore the wider world. Young people can be taught to develop a feeling of togetherness through religious education.

It may help them to see that there is a bigger planet out there populated with individuals of various viewpoints and histories, which may help them to transcend their own personal family or social group. People may become more accepting of others and have a greater desire to engage with individuals who are different from themselves as a result of this.

What are the Benefits of Teaching Religion in Public Schools?

There are many benefits to teaching religion in public schools.

Teaching religion in public schools can provide students with a better understanding of different faiths and the history and practices of those religions.

Additionally, teaching religious traditions in public schools can help to foster cooperation and tolerance between different groups of people.

Religious education can help young adults make decisions about their life path based on sound moral principles rather than simply following tradition or peer pressure.

Students’ identities and belonging can be strengthened through religious education.

Another benefit of teaching religion in public schools is the potential it has to provide students with job opportunities after they graduate from college.

Many religious organizations are looking for individuals with a degree in religious studies, so offering classes specifically devoted to this subject may be beneficial for students who want to pursue careers within the church or faith-based organizations.

Reasons Why Religious Education is Important

Some might argue that religious education is not as important as others might think. However, there are many reasons why it is a critical part of an individual’s development and growth

For a variety of reasons, religious education is crucial.

• It helps us to understand our place in the world.
• It depicts a wide range of civilizations and behaviors.
• It aids us in forming our own values and beliefs.
• It might aid us in dealing with difficult life circumstances.
• When things get tough, it can offer support and advice.
• It may help us build strong connections with others.

Considering the above, the reasons why religion should be taught in schools are totally clear as stated with some points and real-life examples.

Why Religion Should Not Be Taught in Schools

If youngsters want to learn about religion, there are several methods available. Many households have kids who may participate in kid-oriented events and programs centered on their particular religion.

There are plenty of ways for parents to educate their children about religion outside of classroom hours if they want them to do so. Moreover, virtually any religion may be found in a book, website, or other resources.

Religion should not be taught in schools for a variety of reasons.

Religion should be respected as a personal belief system. It can be a polarizing influence, and teaching it in schools would exacerbate the polarization of society. If a kid prefers, there are already various ways for them to study religion outside of school.

For a reason, the public school system is secular: to provide a curriculum that accepts all pupils, regardless of their religious beliefs. It’s crucial to protect everyone’s freedom of conscience (or lack thereof).

The secular public education system in the United States is necessary for a reason: it must embrace all pupils, regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Forcing children who do not belong to any specific religious heritage to study about one would be unfair and possibly discriminatory.

It would also create the opportunity for parents to sue if they opposed particular faiths being taught in schools (as has occurred in numerous situations already).

forcing youngsters to learn about religion in school would be infringing on their rights. Religion is a very personal matter. The conflict between students of different religions (or no religion) would also be a likely result. Rather than creating division, the purpose of public schooling should be to foster tolerance and understanding.

What are the Cons of Teaching Religion in Schools?

It is important for educators to be sensitive to these reactions and make sure that all students have an opportunity to express their opinions and beliefs without feeling pressured or judged.

Some students may feel uncomfortable discussing religious topics with their classmates or teachers.

• Religion is often seen as a divisive and contentious issue, which can lead to disagreements and conflict between students of different faiths or no faith.
• Religious education can be difficult for non-religious students to engage with, as religious texts may be unfamiliar or inaccessible to them.
• Teaching religious beliefs in schools could potentially encourage children to adopt particular religious dogmas or behaviors, which may not reflect their own personal beliefs (or those of their families).
• Religion can sometimes be seen as a form of indoctrination, which could lead students to adopt views that are opposed to those of their peers or the wider community.
• Religious education can often promote exclusivity and segregation between different faith groups, which may not be inclusive or beneficial for everyone involved.
• Religious education may conflict with the beliefs of some students who do not subscribe to any specific religious denomination and can lead to tension and argument among classmates.
• Religious education can be a time-consuming and expensive affair, which could limit the number of students who are able to take part in it.
• Teaching religion in schools can sometimes be seen as a form of proselytizing, which could lead students to adopt an overtly religious or missionary attitude toward life.

Religious education: pros and cons

Should public schools teach world religions?

There is no one answer to this question as different schools may have different opinions on which world religions should be taught in public schools. The same answer to the question “should religion be allowed in schools?”.

Generally, however, most people would say that teachings from the major religious traditions of the world – Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism – should be included in public school curriculums.

Some people may argue that other world religions, such as Taoism or Wicca, should also be included in public school curriculums.

In general, though, the inclusion of various faiths in public schools is more contentious than it may at first seem.

Some parents and religious groups feel that teachings from other world religions are not sufficiently accurate or well-researched and can create divisions among students instead of building bridges.

Others believe that exposure to a variety of perspectives will help young people develop critical thinking skills and understand the complex origins and histories behind different world religions.

Ultimately, it is up to individual schools to decide which world religions should be included in their curriculums.

Some Things to Consider while Teaching Religion in Schools

There are a few things educators should keep in mind when deciding whether or not to teach religion in public schools.

Firstly, the focus of religious education should be on the teachings and practices of specific religions rather than on general concepts such as “God.”

Secondly, teaching about religion should be supplemental rather than replace other academic subjects such as history or geography.

Thirdly, teachers must make sure that all students have an equal opportunity to participate and express their views without feeling harassed or intimidated.

There are pros and cons of religion in school teaching. Religious education, on the other hand, can help children learn about various societies and faiths while developing tolerance for others. Students might also feel connected and part of a group.

Others feel that religious instruction should be a personal concern and that institutions should not favor one faith over another when it comes to teaching. The separation of church and state, as well as the competence of teachers to teach religion, are two further issues.

Sherry Lane

Meet Sherry Lane, a proud holder of a PhD in Educational Psychology with a concentration in Montessori Methods. At EduEdify.com, I dive deep into Montessori Education, Teaching-Learning, and Child-Kid paradigms. My advanced studies, combined with years of research, position me to provide authoritative insights. Let's explore the many facets of education, ensuring every child receives the best instruction tailored to their needs.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

• 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.

EducationalWave

Pros and cons of religion in schools.

The topic of religion in schools has long been a subject of debate, drawing passionate arguments from both proponents and opponents. The inclusion of religious education in the school curriculum has been touted as a means to instill moral values, foster cultural understanding, and build a sense of community among students.

However, it also raises legal and ethical concerns, potential for bias, and challenges regarding inclusivity and diversity. As we explore the various dimensions of this contentious issue, it becomes apparent that the implications of religious education in schools are far-reaching, touching upon matters of personal beliefs and values, social cohesion, and parental involvement.

Key Takeaways

• Religious education in schools can promote moral values, ethical behavior, and a sense of community and belonging.
• However, there are potential drawbacks such as the risk of promoting one religion over others, indoctrination, and conflicts between religious teachings and scientific knowledge.
• The impact of religious education on academic performance is mixed, with some studies suggesting a positive correlation and others indicating no significant relationship.
• Legal considerations require schools to maintain a neutral stance on religion, provide alternative options for students, and ensure compliance with constitutional principles.

Moral Development

Moral development, the process through which individuals form their understanding of right and wrong, is a crucial aspect of a well-rounded education. It is often influenced by religious teachings in schools. Exposure to religious principles can provide students with a foundation for ethical decision-making and a sense of community values.

However, it is essential to ensure that religious teachings are presented in a respectful and inclusive manner, acknowledging diverse belief systems.

Cultural Understanding

As students engage with religious teachings in schools, they also have the opportunity to develop cultural understanding, fostering an appreciation for diverse belief systems and traditions.

This exposure can lead to greater empathy and respect for others' perspectives, contributing to a more inclusive and harmonious society.

Understanding different cultures and their associated religious practices can also help students navigate an increasingly diverse world, preparing them for success in an increasingly globalized society.

Sense of Community

The incorporation of religious education in schools can foster a strong sense of community by providing students with a shared foundation that promotes unity and cooperation among peers.

• Encourages mutual respect and understanding among students from diverse backgrounds.
• Creates a supportive environment for students to express their beliefs openly.
• Promotes empathy and compassion, leading to a more inclusive and harmonious school community.

Inclusivity and Diversity

When considering the implementation of religion in schools, it is essential to address the aspects of inclusivity and diversity.

One point to consider is how the promotion of shared values through religious teachings can foster a sense of unity among students.

However, it is also crucial to acknowledge the potential for exclusion of minority beliefs and the impact this may have on the overall inclusivity of the school environment.

Unity Through Shared Values

In a pluralistic society, fostering unity through shared values of inclusivity and diversity is essential for promoting a sense of belonging and respect among students of varied cultural, religious, and social backgrounds. This can be achieved through:

• Embracing diverse cultural traditions and practices
• Encouraging open dialogue and understanding
• Celebrating the unique contributions of each individual

Exclusion of Minority Beliefs

Fostering unity through shared values of inclusivity and diversity is crucial in schools. Yet, the exclusion of minority beliefs poses a significant challenge to this fundamental principle. It can lead to feelings of marginalization among students and hinder the development of mutual respect and understanding.

Embracing and accommodating diverse religious perspectives can enrich the educational experience. It promotes tolerance and broadens students' worldviews. Therefore, addressing the exclusion of minority beliefs is vital for creating a truly inclusive learning environment.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Legal and ethical concerns regarding the inclusion of religion in schools continue to be a complex and contentious issue in many educational settings.

• Legal Concerns
• Separation of church and state
• Potential for discrimination
• Infringement on students' rights

These concerns must be carefully navigated to ensure that the rights and beliefs of all students and their families are respected within the educational environment.

Academic Impact

The incorporation of religious education into the academic curriculum necessitates a careful examination of its potential impact on students' scholarly pursuits and intellectual development.

On the positive side, religious studies can enhance critical thinking, cultural understanding, and moral development.

However, there is a risk of bias, limited exposure to diverse beliefs, and potential conflicts with scientific teachings.

Balancing these factors is crucial in determining the academic impact of religious education in schools.

Social Cohesion

Building on the potential impact of religious education on students' intellectual development, an examination of its role in fostering social cohesion within the school community is essential.

• Promotion of Understanding : Religious education encourages understanding and respect for diverse beliefs and cultures, contributing to a more inclusive and harmonious school environment.
• Reduced Conflict : By promoting empathy and tolerance, religious education can help reduce conflicts and bullying within the school.
• Community Engagement : It provides opportunities for community service and collaboration, fostering a sense of shared purpose and unity among students.

Personal Beliefs and Values

The discussion of personal beliefs and values in the context of religion in schools brings to light the important considerations of religious expression rights and respect for diversity. These points are crucial in understanding the potential impacts of religious practices and beliefs on the school environment.

It is essential to explore how these aspects can be balanced to create an inclusive and respectful educational setting.

Religious Expression Rights

When considering the topic of religious expression rights in schools, it is essential to recognize and respect the diverse personal beliefs and values held by students and staff. This includes:

• Understanding that individuals may have different religious affiliations or spiritual beliefs.
• Acknowledging the importance of accommodating religious practices and observances.
• Ensuring that no one feels marginalized or discriminated against due to their religious beliefs.

Respect for Diversity

Respecting the diverse personal beliefs and values of students and staff is foundational to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment within schools. It encourages mutual understanding, empathy, and tolerance, essential for a harmonious educational setting.

Potential for Bias

Religion in schools inherently carries the potential for bias, as educators and administrators may inadvertently favor or prioritize certain religious perspectives over others in the classroom. This can lead to unequal treatment of students based on their religious beliefs.

The potential for bias also raises concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the information presented about different religions. Additionally, it may create an environment where students feel excluded or marginalized based on their religious affiliations.

Parental Involvement

Given the potential for bias in the presentation of religious perspectives in schools, parental involvement becomes crucial in ensuring the fair and accurate representation of diverse religious beliefs and practices.

Parents can contribute by actively participating in discussions with school administrators, reviewing curriculum materials, and providing feedback on the inclusion of religious education.

Their involvement can help mitigate the risk of favoritism towards certain religions and promote a more inclusive approach to religious education.

In conclusion, the inclusion of religion in schools can have both positive and negative impacts on students and the school community.

While it may support moral development, cultural understanding, and a sense of community, it also raises concerns about inclusivity, diversity, bias, and legal and ethical issues.

It is important for schools to carefully consider the implications and seek input from parents to ensure a balanced and respectful approach to addressing religion in the educational setting.

Related Posts:

educationalwave.com

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | 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 .

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

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Religious Freedom — Should Religious Studies be Taught in Schools

Should Religious Studies Be Taught in Schools

• Categories: Religious Freedom

About this sample

Words: 622 |

Published: Feb 12, 2024

Words: 622 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, why should religion be taught in schools, reasons why religion should not be taught in schools.

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: 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

5 pages / 2096 words

2 pages / 905 words

4 pages / 1789 words

4 pages / 2701 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 Religious Freedom

Dearden, Lizzie. “France Burkini Ban: What Is It and Why Is It Controversial?” The Independent, 17 Aug. 2016, [...]

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic societies worldwide. This cherished freedom, enshrined in numerous international declarations and constitutions, allows individuals to practice [...]

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that encompasses the freedom to practice, change, or abstain from any religion or belief system. It is recognized as a cornerstone of democratic societies, ensuring individuals' [...]

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that has been recognized and protected by various international treaties and conventions. The right to practice one's religion, or to have no religion at all, is essential for the [...]

In the time period of 1692, when the Puritans came to this country for religious freedom, they had a strict moral code which everyone in the village lived by. Religion was especially important. The state was founded on religion, [...]

There has been much debate dating back to the 17th century over whether or not the English Revolution brought with it increased religious tolerance. Much of the discussion centers on whether or not the Parliamentary Acts [...]

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

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

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Religion Religious Tolerance

Should Religion Be Taught in Schools

Table of contents, the case for teaching religion, concerns about bias and indoctrination, promoting critical thinking and civic engagement, the separation of church and state, striking a balance.

• Haynes, C. C. (2011). Teaching about Religion in National and State Social Studies Standards. Religion & Education, 38(3), 215-232.
• Jackson, R., & Miedema, S. (2007). Religion and Education around the World: Comparative and International Perspectives. Springer.
• Kerr, D., & Ingvarson, L. (2017). Teaching Religion in Public Schools: European Perspectives. Routledge.
• Lipka, M. (2021). What Americans Know About Religion. Pew Research Center.
• Noddings, N. (2011). Education and Democracy in the 21st Century. Teachers College Press.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• The Second Coming
• Problem of Evil
• Christianity
• Five Pillars of Islam

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

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

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Should Religion be Taught in School?

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Religious studies and theology essays
• Reading time: 3 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 21 January 2020*
• File format: Text
• Words: 610 (approx)
• Number of pages: 3 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 610 words. Download the full version above.

Religion has been an influential feature on the world since the beginning of time. One of the biggest debates is whether or not religion should be allowed in school.Many people argue that allowing education and religion to coincide is going against the first amendment but I feel that if it’s done respectfully then it can really be beneficial in one’s life.Teaching religion in schools helps students understand the differences among the principles of each and every religion and also creates a more open-minded individual.

A century ago, most of America’s public schools were religious schools.

In 1963, in the case Abington V. Schempp, The supreme court outlawed public school teachers from reading the Bible devotionally to their students or leading prayer in public schools.Over time, redesigned schools have been created in order to make schools for all children and not exclude any students .Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.Freedom of religion exists to ensure that the state doesn’t establish or impose any official religion. That doesn’t mean that a government can’t show support for certain religious practices or beliefs.

Religious groups are growing world wide and everyday we push it further from our day to day life. We try to ignore it rather than be open to New teachings and the possibility to find an interest in one of the groups.About 40% of Americans can’t name the first book of the bible, Only half of Americans know that the Quran is the holy book of Islam, 47% know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist. This is Religious illiteracy or when people are lacking the knowledge, Sensitivity, and understanding of other religions.

Chuck Stetson wrote, The Bible and Its Influence, the only First-ammendment safe textbook that is currently being taught in over 625 public high schools in 43 states., The Bible and Its Influence is an opportunity to share the contents of the Bible in an appropriate way. Used in combination with the Bible, the textbook presents biblical content such as the narratives, characters, plots, parables, prophecies, and proverbs in the Bible. The program was designed to address the fact that, without an understanding of the Bible, today’s youth cannot fully understand literature, art, history, music or culture. A survey showed that nearly 100% of teachers agree that students are disadvantaged by not knowing the Bible. They agree that they need to teach the Bible academically because if they don’t understand the Bible then they can’t fully understand the English language, literature, History, Art, Music and Culture.

There are over 1200 documented references to the Bible in the 36 plays of Shakespeare and the first sentence in Moby dick is “ Call me Ishmael” but if you don’t know who Ishmael is then you won’t receive the full understanding of the text.

I strongly believe that Religion should be taught to educate the students on the effects of religion in social, cultural and political life. Religion continues to play a huge role in society and studying religion doesn’t mean being indoctrinated, it should be critiqued and questioned but it shouldn’t be from a position of ignorance.

Boosting religious literacy eliminates harmful stereotypes such as Islamophobia and it boosts your critical thinking skills, It creates a better functioning society because it affects how we get along and how we as a society work to get over conflicts and you get to see how many interpret questions such as “ who are we?” and “What is the meaning of life?”.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Should Religion be Taught in School? . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/religious-studies-and-theology-essays/should-religion-be-taught-in-school/> [Accessed 27-03-24].

These Religious studies and theology essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

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