I was struck by one of the Divine Miss A's recent posts and I want to riff a bit more on the comment I left her.
She said:
- . . . . it's hard to negotiate with "role." I am the teacher. A position of authority . . . . I constantly am asking myself, "Is this okay to say?" Take religion for instance. Before class students were having a discussion about a friend that was investigating this religion that most people refer to as Mormonism. I pretty much kept quiet, just because I know that religion in schools can be a sticky subject (particularly in this community) [note: Miss A, like me, is Mormon]. That is, I kept quiet until they called it a cult. And then I felt the need to at least tell them a couple of things. Not preaching. Just setting the record straight. I was scared to death, though, that I was going to get called on the carpet. I'm always trying to negotiate my role.
- In one of my credential classes I was told that admitting the existence of religion should pretty much get me fired.
I decided that I'll have the same policy for religion that I have with sex: I give straight questions straight answers and I tell people to shut up when they need it.
Essentially.
What I said in that class was that if a kid asked a question about religion versus science I would answer it with a discussion on epistemology and the different ways we have of obtaining and understanding knowledge. I believe that answer would allow me to be honest without promoting or denigrating either religion or science.
Ultimately, the point I was trying to make is that students deserve straight answers from their teachers and that we should respect them enough to give them to them.
Ultimately, the point made by my teacher is that I should pretend religion does not exist lest I get fired. Because not getting fired should be my highest aim in life.
I guess this is what Pope Pius X was worried about a hundred years ago--that the legal separation of church and state would result in a divorce between sense and sense in the name of sense. (The pope was reacting to changing French law--and within a year of his encyclical, it was a crime in France to wear a crucifix to school, so I guess he wasn't underconcerned.)
What I see now in America's schools is that divorce of sense from sense in the name of sense--a creation of a purposeful ignorance and it disturbs me. What good is an education if that education will be purposefully cut off from large sections of human knowledge? Why should the only religions legal to discuss be ones that died out >1500 years ago? The logic is bewildering. I understand and deeply agree with bans on proselytizing on school campuses, but to tell a teacher they cannot answer a simple question because to do so undermines Western Civilization? What is that all about?
It is impossible to understand the human family without at least addressing religion. Science and religion may in fact form a truly distinct dichotomy, but you cannot similarly divorce the understanding that comes from religion when you read Romeo and Juliet or The Scarlet Letter or My Last Duchess or The Inferno or even The Little Prince. You cannot divorce religion from history without rendering it nonsensical.
You cannot divorce religion from humanity. Even humans without religion define themselves by its absence.
What is this svithe about? Am I calling for instating religious indoctrination in America's high schools?
Are you kidding?
All I'm saying is that we can't terrify teachers if we want them to teach. We can't threaten them if we want our students to be with teachers from whom they can learn.
What I'm saying, if you read very closely, is that we should trust our children with knowledge. And we should trust the people we pay to deliver that knowledge.
What I'm saying, is that we should not be afraid.
Not parents, not teachers, not administrators, not legislators and least of all not students.
Nobody made you read this svithe.
Yet are you any less human for having read it?
last week's svithe
visit the redesigned weekly svithe
Now, I am not a teacher. And I AM a Calvinist.
ReplyDeleteI don't start conversations about Christianity. However, when someone *does* start talking about it, I feel that it'd be stupid not to talk about it- even if it IS only to point out where people's assumptions are incorrect.
What is the harm in that?
.
ReplyDeleteSeriously. Of course, I can't speak for you, but over here we do have this reputation of being a "free country."
(ps: there's a smidgen of a joke in there)
I LOVE The Little Prince!
ReplyDeleteI guess growing up in Santa Horhe where everyone was predominantly LDS or Catholic, this sort of stuff didn't come up very much. And if you weren't one of the two, no one cared to bother you about it.
Yesterday I sat down to svithe about separation of church and state. I didn't do it. Maybe I got vibes that told me you were going to do a better job. Or maybe now I'll really do it. I've been rolling some thoughts around in my head after watching the Legislative session.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI would be really fascinated to hear your take on it, Dg.
Very good. When I read your columns I wanted to say that you should continue being a columnist. But after reading this, I'm glad you're a teacher! I very much like your reasoning and perspective, and see it as an asset to educating children (people, in general!)
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in my MSW program, one thing I was pleased to learn was that, while the subject of 'religion' per se, was considered taboo, the subject of 'spirituality' was considered acceptable for a social worker to be involved in. In other words, as you suggest, proselyting isn't appropriate, but fostering and supporting 'spirituality' is good! I thought that made sense - as does your reasoning in this post! I really grabbed onto that philosopy and used it whenever any of my clients made any mention of religious belief - regardless of what church they belonged to. I even went to church with a couple of them to support them (even though it wasn't 'my' church).
PS: I kind of got carried away with that last comment. I realize that *you* weren't talking about 'fostering and supporting spirituality' - I sort of got off on my own agenda, I guess.
ReplyDeleteBut if I can claim a connection, I think it's *COMMON SENSE*. The point you made about using common sense in education was well taken! My point, I guess, is that it DOESN'T make SENSE to ban religion from social work, when it takes only minimal obserbation to realize that virtually all SOCIAL PROBLEMS could be avoided by observing 'religious principles', regardless of whether or not you believe in God!
Sorry, I'm taking way too much space here!
.
ReplyDeleteOh, you are not. Thanks for stopping by!
And for you insight, because I think you're right right right.
I always love a nice amen.