U.S. Dept of Ed funding a program on ... religion?

[the_mother_thing]

Just caught a blip on the news about DoEd funding the creation of a program on PBS and used in schools to teach children all about Islam. Surely, I must have misheard ...

Nope ... there it is ...

ACCESS ISLAM is a pioneering new tool designed to support the study of Islam in grades 4-8. Comprising over 100 minutes of digital video from the award-winning PBS series RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY the site also contains high quality, multi-media tools; downloadable lesson plans; and resources related to Islamic holidays, traditions and cultures. The video segments can be used alone, or in conjunction with any of 10 lesson plans which are aligned to national standards and vetted by an advisory committee of experts in education and Islamic cultures. We hope these materials will offer both students and teachers exciting new ways to bring to life a fuller understanding of Muslims the world over.

Funding for ACCESS ISLAM is provided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Website: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/accessislam/about.html

I guess 'separation of church & state' only applies to Christian & Jewish denominations.

I don't care if kids want to pray 5 times a day, just before lunch, or not at all while at school. Deploying a curriculum about a religion - any religion - .

 

[Maria D]

You are mistaken if you believe that PBS doesn't produce programming related to teaching about Christianity and Judaism.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/teach/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/story-jews/

 

[the_mother_thing]

While PBS does receive Federal funding (and to that point, I don't believe they should be doing such for any religious); however, I'm more troubled by the direct support/funding of this specific religious program by the U.S. Dept. of Education. It's CLEARLY crossing the line of 'establishment' in my mind (before I go dig through law/cases), unless they are doing the same for EVERY religion, which I somehow doubt.

 

[Maria D]

Oh, if ONLY we personally got to direct how every tax dollar is spent based on our individual beliefs, views, opinions, and thoughts about the recipients ...

 

[the_mother_thing]

That's almost cute ... if libs weren't the ones who regularly throw temper tantrums about "Separation of Church and State" every time a Christian wanted to say a prayer before a HS football game or commencement. So either you (collectively) don't really care, or your a hypocrite.

 

[the_mother_thing]

From Dept of Ed's own website:

Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals.

https://answers.ed.gov/link/portal/28022/28025/Article/686/Religion-in-public-schools

Paying for a religious education program sure seems to qualify as 'sponsoring'.

spon·sor
ˈspänsər/
noun

1. 1.
   a person or organization that provides funds for a project or activity carried out by another, in particular.
2. 2.
   a person who introduces and supports a proposal for legislation.
   "a leading sponsor of the bill"

verb

1. 1.
   provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out).
   "Joe is being sponsored by his church"
   synonyms: finance, put up the money for, fund, subsidize, back, promote, support, contribute to, be a patron of, guarantee, underwrite; More
   
   
2. 2.
   introduce and support (a proposal) in a legislative assembly.
   "Senator Hardin sponsored the bill"

I'm sure Mrs. DeVos will be tickled to see this when crafting her voucher program for use in religious education.

 

[ksinger]

That site is a tool for schools, nothing more. And while PBS materials are generally good, such resources are generally compiled by people who are far enough removed from the classroom that they don't have a handle on the constraints real classroom teachers are dealing with - those materials are usually way too deep for the amount of time teachers actually have. I suspect the teachers have to do a lot of picking and choosing, but nice to have some quality material available in one spot.

And about that separation of church and state. It's about not proselytizing from the lectern, or adding the weight of government authority to the push for social conformity - like demanding the right to invoke Jesus over the tax funded loudspeaker to help you win fooball games. So, what is being separated is the government-endorsed preference of one religion over another, not the teaching about any of them. A lot of people (including students) think that's what separation means, not mentioning or teaching about religion at all, (unless of course it's Christianity, that's always OK... ) It takes some serious chip on the shoulder to see the mere availability of a canned curriculum about Islam, as federal governmental preference for Islam. No one is required to use said canned lessons after all. Developing curriculum to help educate about a religion that is more and more in the news and more relevant to understanding that news, can’t in any way be seen as “preference”. And no, demanding equal curricula for the study of Jainism or Zorastrianism is not required to make it “fair”.

In fact, there is no coherent nationwide requirement to teach about Islam at all. You seem unaware of the fact that each state has its own standards as to what will be taught. Even in deep red Oklahoma, there is a state requirement that some of the background and history of Islam will be taught in World History. Religion is also talked about often in American History. You can't adequately teach it otherwise. But apart from the LOCAL CONTROL that is so jealously guarded, if you want to get 4 views on a teaching issue, ask 3 teachers. This idea that there is some authority on high that sends out some edict and all the teachers sieg heil and start goose stepping together, is ludicrous. What you do NOT get to do as a teacher is put a big old value judgement of "Christianity good/Islam Judaism and any other religion bad" on the end of every lesson. I suspect you would not be so upset about that curriculum if you could be assured that anything about Islam came with that value judgement flogged from the lectern.

As is usual in these cases, the history of this issue, which is the teaching of vs about religions in the nation's schools, goes back a long way, and is far more complex and nuanced than simply frothing about the use of your tax dollars developing a canned curriculum you might not like.

Anyway, this is good for how things should be when separation is observed:
http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/study_about_religions

" In 2000, the U.S. Department of Education disseminated to every public school a packet of guidelines on the constitutional role of religion in public schools, including "A Teacher's Guide to Religion in Public Schools," endorsed by NCSS and 21 other national organizations. The guidelines underscore the critical difference between teaching of religion (religious education or indoctrination) and teaching about religion:

The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion.
The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.
The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view.
The school educates about all religions; it does not promote or denigrate any religion.
The school may inform the student about religious beliefs, but should not seek to conform him or her to any particular belief.4

Despite recent improvements in study about religions brought about by the new consensus, religious illiteracy remains wide spread in the United States.5 Public schools can and should do more to take religion seriously in a world where religion--for better and for worse--plays a critical role in shaping events at home and abroad."

 

[vc10um]

...

I had a long reply typed out but it didn't hold a candle to ksinger, so I'll just second her post.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Ksinger,

 

[telephone89]

"I guess 'separation of church & state' only applies to Christian & Jewish denominations."
More like your outrage at religion being taught in schools only applies to Islam.

edit: Maybe if you taught kids about other religions they wouldn't be so taboo and afraid of them.

 

[the_mother_thing]

KSinger: thank you for your thoughtful reply/comments. Allow me to clarify: I (personally) have no problem with any particular religion including Islam, and I don't care one way or another if any of them are or are not covered in schools or on PBS ... so long as (from a broader, non-'personal' perspective) there is CONSISTENCY among all religions as well as with the constitution.

Dems (on this board as well as otherwise) have repeatedly balked at the mere presence of a bible, a football team praying, or mere reference to 'God' on any state/federal government property, so it's reasonable to assume (is it not?) that they would also take issue with the government funding - with their tax dollars - a program on any religion - whether it's for supplemental school use or 'gits & shiggles'. There certainly was an uproar from the left (on here) about DeVos promoting a voucher program for education that could be used at religious schools.

For example:

Because "school choice" is her nice way of saying that she wants to essentially de-fund public schools in favor of private (read: religious) schools. Here's an excerpt from an interview she did in 2001.

She wants to tear down the barrier between church and state.

I find this terrifying

... Add in [DeVos'] views on Creationism and biblically led education, you have us in very questionable territory. But I really do need coffee.

... It becomes another "separate but equal" situation, which I hope we have learned from the past can never be equal. Public education means education for the public, for all. There will always be options like private school or home schooling for those who choose that, but I do not feel state or Federal dollars should go to that. The dollars should go to public education.

Spot-on. Plus the religious aspect with abstinence-only stance rather than sex education and access to birth control makes me concerned for the likely rise in teen and young twenties pregnancies with no or very limited access to abortion. Does not bode well for women and children. Regression on that front.

As FYI:

Pre-marital sex is absolutely forbidden in Islam, no matter whether it is with a girl-friend or a prostitute. Pre-marital sex is fornication (zina).

https://www.al-islam.org/marriage-a...i/chapter-three-islamic-sexual-morality-2-its

All the more reason I'd think there would be strong objection to Ed's funding a religious program. And I'm really rather surprised there is so much sarcasm directed at me here for questioning this, considering I am actually siding with the left's usual position on this topic.


In this particular case, and what I take issue with, is the U.S. Dept of Education FUNDED this program, which appears in direct conflict with their own interpretation of constitutional limitations set forth in the First Amendment:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals.

https://answers.ed.gov/link/portal/28022/28025/Article/686/Religion-in-public-schools

The 'Lemon Test' (https://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp) provides guidance on what does & does not violate the establishment clause:

The three-part Lemon Test asks:

(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.

(2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.

DoEd's funding of a religious program - in my opinion - appears to violate all three.

Ksinger,

Surely - as someone who used to work for the department of education as you stated - I'd hope you have some insight or perhaps something more constructive to offer the discussion than a .gif.

"I guess 'separation of church & state' only applies to Christian & Jewish denominations."
More like your outrage at religion being taught in schools only applies to Islam.

edit: Maybe if you taught kids about other religions they wouldn't be so taboo and afraid of them.

Wrong; read above - I don't care if it's Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or witchcraft. I didn't pick the religion Ed chose to fund; I'm just citing the situation for awareness.

So you're advocating public schools teaching religion? Interesting, and good to see some can actually find value in opposing party concepts. Perhaps if that IS the case, and the left now supports federal funding for religious programs, we can gain some consensus on federal funds funding programs that Conservatives oppose, such as PP.

 

[telephone89]

"So you're advocating public schools teaching religion? Interesting, and good to see some can actually find value in opposing party concepts. Perhaps if that IS the case, and the left now supports federal funding for religious programs, we can gain some consensus on federal funds funding programs that Conservatives oppose, such as PP."

Do not twist my words Jen. I'm advocating learning about religion in schools, not indoctrinating children as your country already does with 1 particular religion.
In Canada I was taught about other religions. We learned about the basis of Christianity, judiasm, buddism, islam, Sikhism, Hinduism.. probably a ton more. We weren't indoctrinated with them, but learning about them and their differences and similarities was part of the curriculam. You know, learning about the rest of the world, rather than shoving your head in the sand and pretending there is only 1 Great Religion.

 

[the_mother_thing]

"So you're advocating public schools teaching religion? Interesting, and good to see some can actually find value in opposing party concepts. Perhaps if that IS the case, and the left now supports federal funding for religious programs, we can gain some consensus on federal funds funding programs that Conservatives oppose, such as PP."

Do not twist my words Jen. I'm advocating learning about religion in schools, not indoctrinating children as your country already does with 1 particular religion.
In Canada I was taught about other religions. We learned about the basis of Christianity, judiasm, buddism, islam, Sikhism, Hinduism.. probably a ton more. We weren't indoctrinated with them, but learning about them and their differences and similarities was part of the curriculam. You know, learning about the rest of the world, rather than shoving your head in the sand and pretending there is only 1 Great Religion.

Don't get your knickers in a bunch; I didn't twist your words. Unlike your directly-accusatory comment that I oppose Islam, I asked you to confirm your statement, thus the question mark at the end of my first sentence, and followed up the question using terms such as "Perhaps if that is the case" meaning I don't know that to be fact, but ponder the possibility. Since you're not a resident in the U.S. - while I whole-heartedly welcome your experience and input to the topic - I now understand that your position on teaching religion in schools will be influenced by your country's culture vs. what has been deemed largely unacceptable in the U.S. - not that I agree or disagree with the concept; I can see both sides of the coin. But it'd be nice if we - as a society - could actually find some middle ground on such matters that makes everyone happy.

At least, I am hopeful ...

 

[OreoRosies86]

I will post any old gif I please. I don't owe you a response as a former DoE employee either, but I appreciate that you were paying such close attention when I mentioned that some weeks or months ago.

I believe in education. I do not believe in indoctrination. I believe that religion is a driving force in how many places in the world conduct themselves and interact with each other. As such, rather that pretend it doesn't exist, I am all for students learning about the diversity of religion, particularly when those lessons establish common themes between them. Right now the culture of fear and anti intellectualism in our country has a lot to do with citizens behind kept in a bubble, taught to be afraid of things they don't understand. Read your bible, get your gun, speak English.

Atheism, agnostic views, Pastafarian ideology, Taoism, etc. all hold some value that can broaden a person's view of the world. As long as the focus remains on education, I am never in favor of shutting down opportunities to learn about the world. There are invaluable learning opportunities to be found from people who have a potentially completely different way of viewing the world than I do.

There is a monster truck sized difference between taking an education motivated, non indoctrination approach to learning about the dogma of various cultures, and Let's-Glorify-the-Kingdom-Through-DofE or electing someone who believes people can "pray the gay away" to the helm of the ship which is carrying every young mind and supposedly having their best interest at heart.

 

[telephone89]

I believe in education. I do not believe in indoctrination. I believe that religion is a driving force in how many places in the world conduct themselves and interact with each other. As such, rather that pretend it doesn't exist, I am all for students learning about the diversity of religion, particularly when those lessons establish common themes between them. Right now the culture of fear and anti intellectualism in our country has a lot to do with citizens behind kept in a bubble, taught to be afraid of things they don't understand. Read your bible, get your gun, speak English.

Atheism, agnostic views, Pastafarian ideology, Taoism, etc. all hold some value that can broaden a person's view of the world. As long as the focus remains on education, I am never in favor of shutting down opportunities to learn about the world. There are invaluable learning opportunities to be found from people who have a potentially completely different way of viewing the world than I do.

There is a monster truck sized difference between taking an education motivated, non indoctrination approach to learning about the dogma of various cultures, and Let's-Glorify-the-Kingdom-Through-DofE or electing someone who believes people can "pray the gay away" to the helm of the ship which is carrying every young mind and supposedly having their best interest at heart.

Yup. It always feels a bit like a dictatorship when ONLY ONE RELIGION can be taught and learned.

Jen, while I might not reside in your country, I actually deal directly with cross border relations. And as your country has a direct impact on my livelihood, I'm quite interested in it. So if that comes across as too 'culture specific' because I actually have knowledge of other cultures, then I guess I'm sorry?
Just because something is "largely deemed acceptable" in your country does not make it acceptable in general. I can think of a few examples just off the top of my head...

 

[AGBF]

I have posted here before about being a history teacher when I was a young woman. I taught a great deal about religion in the course of teaching modern European History and I have posted some of what I taught here on Pricescope. I have mentioned that my high school students were appalled (being almost exclusively Christians and Jews) to learn that during the renaissance; reformation and counter-reformation Roman Catholics burnt dissenting sects at the stake; then Roman Catholics burnt Lutherans at the stake, then Lutherans burnt Roman Catholics at the stake; in England that The Anglican Church (Church of England) and Roman Catholics took turns burning each other at the stake depending on who was on the throne; and that in Switzerland the Calvinists (the forbears of our Congregationalists) burned both Roman Catholics and Lutherans at the stake.

I was teaching about religion in a high school (a prep school) to educate, not to indoctrinate children in a specific religion. That does not (as ksinger pointed out) violate the separation of Church and State. The separation of Church and State does not demand ignorance.

Deb

 

[the_mother_thing]

I have posted here before about being a history teacher when I was a young woman. I taught a great deal about religion in the course of teaching modern European History and I have posted some of what I taught here on Pricescope. I have mentioned that my high school students were appalled (being almost exclusively Christians and Jews) to learn that during the renaissance; reformation and counter-reformation Roman Catholics burnt dissenting sects at the stake; then Roman Catholics burnt Lutherans at the stake, then Lutherans burnt Roman Catholics at the stake; in England that The Anglican Church (Church of England) and Roman Catholics took turns burning each other at the stake depending on who was on the throne; and that in Switzerland the Calvinists (the forbears of our Congregationalists) burned both Roman Catholics and Lutherans at the stake.

I was teaching about religion in a high school (a prep school) to educate, not to indoctrinate children in a specific religion. That does not (as ksinger pointed out) violate the separation of Church and State. The separation of Church and State does not demand ignorance.

Deb

Thank you for the helpful input Deb! Seeing your curriculum, I wouldn't think there'd be objection to that, as well as if you spanned into including Islam and others. I guess I just see it as this: if we are going to cover any, cover them all - equally, and with an opportunity for those who for their own reasons (e.g., non-believers) to abstain from the discussion if they choose and perhaps complete an alternative curriculum. Personally, I'd have loved the opportunity in HS to have covered a multitude of religions, and better understand various perspectives on them, the 'whys' so to speak. Unfortunately, that was at the same time one family brought a lawsuit against my district due to the prayer at commencement, so the school erred on the side of caution and omitted ALL religious references. I do feel like I missed out on an earlier opportunity than I did via college and 'life' to learn about them.

ETA: Just imagine where we as a society would be now - given the global climate with regard to religious understanding and awareness - HAD we all learned about them earlier in our education. I suspect we might have a different and more positive level of tolerance for others today had we been able to learn such (formally) at a younger age before prejudices in some were set.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I gave you a well thought out response and you went completely off the deep end into personal attacks which, I assume, were supposed to hurt me? You behaving like an ugly person isn't exactly earth shattering news but whatever in my post made you snap all I can say is really, that was the post that did it?

 

[the_mother_thing]

I gave you a well thought out response and you went completely off the deep end into personal attacks which, I assume, were supposed to hurt me? You behaving like an ugly person isn't exactly earth shattering news but whatever in my post made you snap all I can say is really, that was the post that did it?

I responded respectfully to both the topic-related portion of your post, as well as the non-related portion of your post, which is not a personal attack considering I'm quite politely referencing what YOU posted on this forum as the reason I usually give you the benefit of the doubt. And rest easy, I'm nowhere near the deep end; your perception of me is just projecting & reflective of your own behavior.

Now, might you address my topic-related response to your post, or do you just want to keep baiting me with your nonsense? If it's the latter, please be respectful at least to others with an interest in the topic, and go start a new thread to reinvent 'romper room'.

 

[Kbell]

I attended a Catholic school and we had a religion class covering Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. It was educational and obviously not to indoctrinate. I didn't see anything wrong with it then or now. But that was before everyone started getting all out of shape about a "Christmas" tree and a private, not public school.

I don't think anyone is advocating only teaching one religion, but not to fund the teaching of certain religions and not others with federal government money. Either teach all or none. Most public school teachers, in my opinion, aren't educated enough on the many religions to teach or cover them all properly so my thought is to teach none in the public school arena.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I attended a Catholic school and we had a religion class covering Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. It was educational and obviously not to indoctrinate. I didn't see anything wrong with it then or now. But that was before everyone started getting all out of shape about a "Christmas" tree and a private, not public school.

I don't think anyone is advocating only teaching one religion, but not to fund the teaching of certain religions and not others with federal government money. Either teach all or none. Most public school teachers, in my opinion, aren't educated enough on the many religions to teach or cover them all properly so my thought is to teach none in the public school arena.

Thank you for your experience & perspective, Kbell! I think the issue here is two-fold: should any federal/tax payer money be used to fund non-indoctrinating religious programs (regardless of how/where they're leveraged); and, if so, is there an theoretical 'line' that can be drawn between educating & indoctrinating that would be acceptable all around, or are the various religions so different that it's too gray an area to be 'fair/equal'? I'm not really sure.

 

[AGBF]

Thank you for the helpful input Deb! Seeing your curriculum, I wouldn't think there'd be objection to that, as well as if you spanned into including Islam and others. I guess I just see it as this: if we are going to cover any, cover them all - equally, and with an opportunity for those who for their own reasons (e.g., non-believers) to abstain from the discussion if they choose and perhaps complete an alternative curriculum. Personally, I'd have loved the opportunity in HS to have covered a multitude of religions, and better understand various perspectives on them, the 'whys' so to speak. Unfortunately, that was at the same time one family brought a lawsuit against my district due to the prayer at commencement, so the school erred on the side of caution and omitted ALL religious references. I do feel like I missed out on an earlier opportunity than I did via college and 'life' to learn about them.

I do realize that this thread is not about me and the classes I taught thirty years ago, but I still hate to have been misleading (which I was). As I reread what I wrote and your response to it, Jenn, I realize that I made it appear that I was teaching simply about religion. I understand why you would feel that Islam should have been included in the discussion of world religions, had I been doing that. However, I was teaching in a very classical prep school that was totally western oriented in a way that schools are not in the modern, more global world. In the freshman and sophomore years the students essentially went theough what, in college, is called "Western Civilization". In their freshman year I taught them everything about how man went from hunter gatherer societies to agricultural civilizations like ancient Sumer; then through ancient Greece; and ancient Rome. In their sophomore year I started them off with the dark ages in Medieval Europe and took them through the Vietnam War. The focus throughout, however, was always on Europe. (Not the United States. The United States was done in their junior year and was allotted an entire year because it was so important.) Asia and Africa and South America were mentioned only in how they affected Europe. So Islam was mentioned in passing, because the Ottoman Empire was mentioned in passing, as was Moorish influence on Spain. But that's about it. Very, very ethnocentric.

Sorry for the threadjack.

Deb

 

[the_mother_thing]

No worries Deb. I think your experience highlights ways/degrees of depth of coverage that the topic can perhaps be discussed educationally without going 'over the line'.

I am curious about the funding aspect though and your opinions on it, in this specific example. Do you know/recall Ed funding (to this extent) programs on religion? I'm not sure if you had a chance to look at the website material or not.

 

[t-c]

In the US, Christianity is somewhat covered in history classes (how could you not when it is an integral part of European history), but not so much the other major religions: Hinduism, Judaism, Islam. I think the Department of Ed acknowledges this fact with this program.

There is a huge difference between teaching about religion and the practice of religion. I took several classes on Religion while at university; we studied the Bible (Old Testament), the Torah, the Quran, the Upanishad, as well as the Greek myths, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc. Lessons on the texts were led by professors who have long studied them and were wholly academic -- with no value judgement. In fact, I finished those classes not knowing what religion anyone else practiced or if they practiced any (except for one professor who I assumed is a Jew because he wore a yarmulke).

Praying during a school event is bringing the practice of religion into schools. While I wouldn't necessarily bring a complaint, those prayer moments personally make me uncomfortable.

 

[vc10um]

I just wonder if anyone has thought, in the course of all this, that curricula on Christianity (including Catholic and Protestant denominations) and Judaism, being the previous predominant religions in American society, have most likely existed for decades, but much less has been developed for the teaching of the history of Islam? And as such, in order to broaden the scope of education, investment in Islamic curriculum was needed at this point in time?

I don't have the time at this moment to go back and look through all DoEd funding (or Federal funding prior to creation of the DoEd) to check for investment in other World Religion curricula, but I'd bet dollars to donuts there was investment sometime around the point we added "In God We Trust" to our currency and "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Just a thought.