Public School Systems Should Teach Religion (Properly)

It is to my opinion that the American public school system should teach religion in high school and in college as part of its curriculum. I am not saying that they should teach it in a way that endorses a particular religion; that would be against the separation of church and state. What I am suggesting is that the government should promote tolerance and knowledge of religious cultures the children otherwise might not be taught in their homes or disregarded through propagandas of the media by teaching and helping them understand key doctrines of worldviews of major religions, and also the alternative to religious life atheism, because it is apparent that what is included in traditional social sciences courses is not enough. Since the courses will teach both religious and non-religious views, the state will be impartial in its education. The reasons why the government should do so will be presented thus. I will not be writing about how the government can ensure educators being impartial in educating them.

    American public discourse is marked by gross misunderstanding of religion. The misunderstanding includes both particular key doctrines of religions as well as religion as a concept. This misunderstanding perpetuates both aisles. On the conservative side, an example would be misinterpreting Islamic doctrines to portray the religion as a religion of violence, and also mischaracterization of Catholicism by some evangelicals. On the liberal side, there is a habit of considering faith and reason mutually exclusive (which is epistemically incorrect), and, of course, misinterpreting religious doctrines (just look up a liberal article on Pope Francis).

(Let us quickly note with rough-cut analogies how religious beliefs can be rational. Consider first faith. I know very little about global climate, but the scientific community tells me that the global climate has been changing, so I believe them. Now, I do not have yet validated the particulars of the scientific findings, but I chose to put faith in their words anyway. Am I rationally justified? Yes. Consider the existence of God. Can science disprove or prove the existence of God? No. But I find, by rational principles of act and potency, I find it necessary that there must be a being of pure act, i.e. God. So I put my faith that God does in fact exist. It is of no question that faith is an integral part of our rational faculties.)

     These misunderstandings, as we can very well see, is toxic to both social cohesion and proper democratic decisions. Social cohesion cannot be achieved well, because, due to a disturbing level of misunderstanding between parties, frustrations arise and unbiased open dialogues become more difficult, since it is only human nature that inflamed minds tend to be partial. Furthermore, the liberal habit of holding faith and reason mutually exclusive leads to people thinking that moral beliefs based on religious viewpoints are irrational. This leads to many atheists thinking that conscientious objections based on religious convictions are meaningless. A baker who will not give support to a gay marriage, a clerk who only asked for a pardon on handing out homosexual marriage licenses, a doctor who refuses to suggest euthanasia... they are all irrational, so the secularists would like to say. The liberal secularists simply dismiss them as bigots who try to force their ways onto others, which is grossly false; conscientious objections do not necessarily equate to bigotry. 

     The secular liberals also temd to "hippify" Eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. Of course, such tainting of religious doctrines is of grwt offense to the devout followers. The religious are tired of being pushed around by sociopathic apathy by their secular opponents. Surely, misunderstanding of religious doctrines lead to  social abrasion.

     It is further toxic to the democratic decision making process, because the representatives might end up misinformed people, making misinformed decision. Let's imagine a world where the government tracks all Muslims with micro-GPS devices because they fear that Islam is a religion of terror. If such a law is passed, we can be sure that such a law was passed on misinformation about Islam.

     Let's also imagine a world where the elected president attempts to coerce private companies to provide contraception and abortifacients, which the companies hold to be immoral from their adherence to their religious doctrines, to their employees as part of an insurance program. Because the government essentially thinks the companies' religious beliefs are are irrational. the government by consequence thinks that the companies' reasoning is automatically disqualified under the government's rational interests. If such a law is passed, or even attempted to be passed, we can know with certainty that the proponents of the government's regulations were infringing on the most precious of rights - (rational) private conscience - whether they were aware of it or not. If in fact they were unaware, it would then be due to a misinformed judgement that religious beliefs are irrational, thereby unworthy of fair consideration for the companies' first amendment rights. We can therefore see how misunderstanding of religious doctrines can be toxic to informed democratic decisions.

     What, then, would relieve us from such problems? The answer is simply to have the general public better educated on religious matters. Since each individual families and communities would be inadequate in educating students about different religious viewpoints including atheism due to their lack of diverse knowledge, the solution should be offered by the entity which has a vested interest in a well-functioning society, i.e. the government. In so doing, the government would promote tolerant dialogues where both parties understand each other, thereby increasing social cohesion and the propensity toward informed democratic decisions.