Dissenting Opinion: Ignorance is Not Bliss

Political and religious discourse have always been intimately bound in America. Today as ever, the United States is an intensely religious place. Nine in 10 Americans consider themselves religious, and almost as many self-identify as Christian. Indeed, Protestant morality informs many of the laws and attitudes that govern our society. But in a globalized world, Americans cannot afford to be ignorant of the religious beliefs held by others, especially the growing religious minorities in our own country. Much of the commentary and advice bandied about the airwaves and into American living rooms by televangelist political pundits like Glenn Beck require just such knowledge of listeners, if these claims are to be critically examined for their validity.

It is for this reason that the results of the Pew Research Center’s recent survey of Americans’ religious knowledge are particularly worrisome and must be addressed. They show a widespread ignorance of non-Christian faith among members of the largest religious groups. In a country where religion is often used both as a point of distinction between groups of people and as an argument toward political ends—as during the recent Ground Zero mosque debate—it is essential that this ignorance be erased.

The best practical fix would rely on the public school system; that is, indeed, its purpose. States ought to institute a comparative-religion curriculum that familiarizes students with the basics of all major world religions. In so doing, they will ensure that most Americans become discerning world citizens less likely to believe and proliferate the bigoted generalizations and pure falsehoods about other faiths that often go unchallenged in today’s political arena.

Comparative religion classes by definition give every religion, including Christianity, a critical but fair shake, regardless of the religious beliefs represented by the students in the classroom, their teachers, or the members of the regional school board. It is meant to inform, not convert—to educate, not preach. One can learn about the nature of the Hajj, Rosh Hashanah, or the Bhagavad Gita without putting the validity of Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu beliefs in contest with one another.

Critics of such a requirement argue that teachers are not to be trusted—that they will unconstitutionally proselytize from the chalkboard. But comparative religion is already a common offering at many universities and private high schools, including Harvard. It is a well-defined subject with an established canon of textbooks and lesson plans.

Teachers who stray too far, whether Muslim, Christian, or atheist, will be held accountable by students, if not administrators or parents, all of whom can take legal recourse as they often do when public schools confront breakdowns in the separation of church and state. Furthermore, states themselves can examine and ensure the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of what is being taught in their school systems by means of the teacher evaluations and standardized testing that are increasingly taking hold nationwide.

Suggesting that comparative religion should not be taught anywhere simply because it might not be taught correctly is absurd. Comparative religion, like any other coursework, is always to some degree subject to instructor bias. Should we recommend that students in Texas not be taught any science whatsoever just to avoid the risk that a handful will be exposed to creationism alongside evolution? Or axe history altogether because some teachers may particularly despise communism? Allowing ignorance to go unchallenged is no better than reinforcing it, and is certainly not part of the path to progress.

Anita J Joseph ’12, a Crimson editorial associate editor, is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House.

Karthik R. Kasaraneni ’12, a Crimson editorial associate editor, is a chemistry concentrator in Currier House.