Exiled
Many people were offended by this ostentatious display, believing her to be mocking things she did not understand. However, when she was asked to dress “normal” she responded, “This is normal for me.”
I had a conversation with Dina following some of her routine “visits” to the main office and I questioned her purpose in refusing to remove her “symbols” for the school day. She told me that she “âÂ?¦wanted to make waves,” because people “âÂ?¦always notice when you show religion in school.” It was apparent that her objective had little to do with personal religious sentiment and was rooted in expressing her teenage “rebellion” in the most overt way she knew how.
Although Ms. Jules has long since denounced her past mode of dress, the implications of this occurrence need to be considered. Even at such a young age, Dina noticed that religious symbolism in the school setting evokes controversy.
I believe it is clear that religious symbolism, (e.g. pictures, jewelry, clothing, etc. that indicate religious preferences), creates a degree of discomfort in the academic setting. When teachers display religious items, it is argued that students who consider particular teachers as role models are inclined to accept the religious affiliation represented by these symbols as part of the model; thus, the teacher may appear to be advertising what is “right” to believe. As teachers are considered to be somewhat of an expert in their subject matter, it is easy for a student to generalize this expectation of authority and embrace, at least in part, the ideology of the teacher’s religious biases. Although, this notion may have some validity, considering the wide range of student personalities, it is imprudent to assert it as a common practice or problem.
In the case of a student displaying religious symbols, Dina was deemed “offensive” or “eccentric” to exhibit symbols in excess. It is also disconcerting that a student would use religious symbols to “rebel” against school authority, when religion is an intricate feature important and essential to many cultures throughout history to modern times; the fact that it “worked” poses other issues in relation to how Americans as a whole views religion in the educational atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the issue remains that both the physical manifestations of religion and even the minute presence of religious sentiment in the high school curriculum is a controversial topic that creates discomfort in general. The 1963 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Abington vs. Schempp, enforced that the teaching of religion in schools was indeed constitutional. This ruling stated that when religion is presented in the curriculum “âÂ?¦there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion (FindLaw Resources).” I’m certain that we have long understood the portion that concerns not “advancing” religion in any form, but we’ve virtually ignored the rest. The foundation of modern American education recognizes that it is unconstitutional for teachers to proselytize, but do not show awareness that it is also unlawful to “inhibit” the teaching of religion; religion should not be exaggeratedly censored, as though it were a forbidden and paltry topic, and yet there is still reluctance to give it the attention it deserves.
In the usual arguments against the teaching of religion, we are so used to the common assertion of a division between church and state. But what does this really mean?
Indisputably, the American educational system itself found its roots in religion. The early colonists of New England founded a curriculum that taught children how to function in the society in which they lived, which involved, among other skills, study of the Bible. Thomas Jefferson, who is accredited as the primary author of the first curriculum for urban public education, felt it necessary to focus almost exclusively on the Bible and the Watts Hymnal (Closson). It is obvious that these religious texts were instituted into the first curriculums because of the prevalence of Christianity at the beginnings of our nation.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a curriculum with merely one main area of study is not beneficial in developing well-rounded students, and the diversity of present religious preferences makes it necessary to accommodate to their secular education in the public segment and leave private spiritual pursuits to religious institutions.
Needless to say, it was necessary to separate church and state to, among other things, avoid cultivating past mistakes and because this nation is obviously not a homogeneous religious gathering. However, since this division was instigated, confusion has surrounded what is appropriate in terms of how much “church” can be allowed as a course of study; the public frequently responds with a high degree of trepidation when “anything religious” enters the educational sector; the mere fact that we ‘always notice’ the presence of religious sentiment in schools seems to be predicated upon this exaggerated severing of church and state in the minds of most Americans.
The partitioning of church and state resulted in a division of values. Because it was placed as a separate entity that should not interfere or in other ways merge with the state, “church” has moved to a nearly unnecessary study in public schools. But is this a rightfully instituted theory?
Unmistakably, Christianity is a historical part of the American national identity. In the Abington vs. Schempp court decision, it was discussed that the “âÂ?¦founding fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in HimâÂ?¦[this is] clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the US Constitution itself” (Closson). Consequently, the pledge of allegiance designates America as “one nation under God;” our currency is stamped “in God we trust”. Can we rightfully ignore these historical beginnings?
I often had the opportunity to discuss religion with other students in my high school experience, with one conversation in particular standing out in my memory. While I was in 10th grade, participating in the high school chorus, I sat next to another girl my age in the alto section. During a practice session for the annual Christmas concert she turned to me in genuine confusion to inquire, “What does this song have to do with Christmas?” I was startled by her query because the song was titled “Mary’s Lullaby” with a repeated reference to the “Christ child” in the chorus. I explained briefly to her the events being alluded to in the song, but it was apparent that she had never been exposed to even basic doctrinal principles of Christianity. Her high school experience had evidently not given any useful understanding of this nation’s historical heritage or a fundamental knowledge of a major world religion. The high school curriculum clearly failed to educate in this matter.
If the system can be unsuccessful at educating students in a subject so near to their present, more immediate culture, than how can it be doing an accurate and acceptable job of dealing with other religions?
When studying belief systems there are a number of points that must be met in order for a student to truly grasp the “truth” of the matter, situated somewhere between devout and opposed biases. In the teachings of Buddha, he communicated: “No great religion can be fully understood unless that Spirit is apprehended” (Burtt 50). This is a highly relevant concept to understand in dealing appropriately with religion. To state that the ‘spirit’ must be ‘apprehended’ means that one must understand the spiritual, cultural, and regional background behind the belief system.
It is true that in order to understand another’s belief system, or in simpler terms just understanding someone, you must first understand his or her context. Thus, you must seek to orient yourself to his or her life experience and understand what the cultural and spiritual foundations are before you can clearly communicate with them.
The vague explanations of various world religions, as presented in the public high school curriculum, is greatly lacking in “apprehending” this “spirit”. Some of the goals of the American educational system involve knowledge of other cultures and people. How can this system even propose to accomplish this goal without clear focus on or study of the world religions in the high school curriculum?
Often religion and culture merge. In many nations, the culture cannot be understood without sufficient knowledge of the religions that are conjugated in the country. The ancient Egyptian and Greek cultures were centered on their religious ideology. It is impossible to discuss these cultures without establishing this foundation as the fundamental premise for study; likewise, it is also absurd to study modern cultures of the world while neglecting this groundwork.
The dramatic division of church and state seems to have been perpetuated with damaging effects on the present American student. Ideally, education should inform the student about the components of their world. No matter which field of study a student will pursue a career in, there are foundations of knowledge that they should be exposed to; one of these foundations is, of course, religion.
The increasing advancements in technology make it faster and easier to communicate on a global scale. Because of these opportunities for closer association with people from other countries and cultures, there is more urgency in teaching students to be open-minded and considerate. Understanding beliefs enhances appreciation for other cultures and cultivates tolerance. Without the blending of religious sentiment within the curriculum, students are alienated from the world they live in.
Furthermore, the cyclical nature of the job market will soon place today’s students into teaching and leadership positions where it will be imperative for them to be well versed in global issues. We cannot afford to think inside the box anymore; egocentricity and insularity are enemies to peace and cooperation. Moreover, misunderstanding and misinformation has proved to breed prejudice, insensitivity, and intolerance-all of which are undesirable and harmful in a diverse world.
Not only should we “notice” the presence of religion in schools, without the previously affixed discomfort, but we should also be aware of the vital role it plays in everyday existence. No one can “pass through” life without taking “note” of the diversity of religious sentiment among their neighbors in the world around them. Understanding religion facilitates an understanding of the world. If we continue to “exile” religion from the high school curriculum our students will be unqualified for meeting the demands of living in a diverse modern society; a rather disquieting outcome.
Works Cited
Burtt, E.A. The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha: early discourses Dhammapada
and later basic writings. Penguin Group: New York, 1982.
Closson, Don. “Student Rights”. Probe Ministries International. 1995. 23 September
2002< http://www.probe.org>
“U.S. Supreme Court: Abington School Dist. V. Schempp.”‘ FindLaw Resources. 2001
23 September 2002
