Between Church and State: Religion and Public Education in a Multicultural America

Rating:
Summary: Easing Toward A Middle Ground
Review: James W. Fraser, now Dean of the School of Education at Northeastern University in Boston, details for the reader a fascinating history of the issue of church and state in public education in the United States, all the way back to our country's origins, and how the issue has come to be polarized with those who want absolutely no influence of religion whatsoever in both education and the public square at one end of the spectrum and those who would seemingly like to see Christianity, conservative Christianity with all its secular and nationalistic aspects, as the dominating, or only religious influence, at the other end.

Fraser makes the case for a middle ground, the allowing of religious expression through its students, regardless of their individual religion, and an equal respect for all by all participants. Respect for all would be expected from the educators as well.

The history of the issue will come as much of a surprise to those at either end of the spectrum as the resulting simplicity and validity of the suggested solution.

Since Fraser as a clergyman or former clergyman probably stands to the Liberal end of the theological spectrum, and thus would be historically placed at one end of the argument, and your reviewer as a clergyman stands to the so-called evangelical right, or other end, I would like to heartily reccomend both his book and his conclusions.

The book deserves wide reading by those on both sides of the issue. Especially those with the loudest rhetoric. Then maybe we can find the middle ground Fraser suggests, and with the respect that all deserve.

Rating:
Summary: Easing Toward A Middle Ground
Review: James W. Fraser, now Dean of the School of Education at Northeastern University in Boston, details for the reader a fascinating history of the issue of church and state in public education in the United States, all the way back to our country's origins, and how the issue has come to be polarized with those who want absolutely no influence of religion whatsoever in both education and the public square at one end of the spectrum and those who would seemingly like to see Christianity, conservative Christianity with all its secular and nationalistic aspects, as the dominating, or only religious influence, at the other end.

Fraser makes the case for a middle ground, the allowing of religious expression through its students, regardless of their individual religion, and an equal respect for all by all participants. Respect for all would be expected from the educators as well.

The history of the issue will come as much of a surprise to those at either end of the spectrum as the resulting simplicity and validity of the suggested solution.

Since Fraser as a clergyman or former clergyman probably stands to the Liberal end of the theological spectrum, and thus would be historically placed at one end of the argument, and your reviewer as a clergyman stands to the so-called evangelical right, or other end, I would like to heartily reccomend both his book and his conclusions.

The book deserves wide reading by those on both sides of the issue. Especially those with the loudest rhetoric. Then maybe we can find the middle ground Fraser suggests, and with the respect that all deserve.

Rating:
Summary: Sensible, detached, incomplete
Review: This book offers a good historical overview of the relationship between church and state and in particular, public education and religion. The author emphasizes themes both modern and ancient. On the modern side, there is diversity - a concept in danger of becoming a societal demand rather than a cultural expression. There is also the issue of sensitivity to other believers (or non-believers), again an idea that has gone to its illogical conclusion of universal neutral expressions concerning religious issues.

The author rightly speaks for the role of religious ideas in a liberal education. The most powerful arguments for introducing children to religion and its role in society are traditional: (1) An education is incomplete without a knowledge of the historical importance of religion. Indeed, one might rightly be as viewed culturally illiterate without such learning. (2) An understanding of different religious faiths does more to promote acceptance and diversity than any federal mandate possibly can.

It is nothing less than cultural suicide to forbid teaching of the incredible importance of religion in art, music, literature and government. What kind of educational establishment denies to students a study of the major historical and literary influences of that culture? The biggest illusion is that we can ignore our cultural roots without long-term societal peril. It is as if one taught an art course and omitted perspective or trained a surgeon without knowledge of the circulatory system.

It is no surprise that societies that once included religious knowledge as part of the curriculum - Western Europe, the United States and Australia exhibit the greatest religious tolerance. Not coincidentally, Latin America, the Muslim "Arc", India and Africa (Mandated Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism and tribal beliefs respectively) are the most intolerant regions on Earth. There is a short distance from ignorance to prejudice to hatred and we ignore the warning signs at our own peril.

Rating:
Summary: Sensible, detached, incomplete
Review: This book offers a good historical overview of the relationship between church and state and in particular, public education and religion. The author emphasizes themes both modern and ancient. On the modern side, there is diversity - a concept in danger of becoming a societal demand rather than a cultural expression. There is also the issue of sensitivity to other believers (or non-believers), again an idea that has gone to its illogical conclusion of universal neutral expressions concerning religious issues.

The author rightly speaks for the role of religious ideas in a liberal education. The most powerful arguments for introducing children to religion and its role in society are traditional: (1) An education is incomplete without a knowledge of the historical importance of religion. Indeed, one might rightly be as viewed culturally illiterate without such learning. (2) An understanding of different religious faiths does more to promote acceptance and diversity than any federal mandate possibly can.

It is nothing less than cultural suicide to forbid teaching of the incredible importance of religion in art, music, literature and government. What kind of educational establishment denies to students a study of the major historical and literary influences of that culture? The biggest illusion is that we can ignore our cultural roots without long-term societal peril. It is as if one taught an art course and omitted perspective or trained a surgeon without knowledge of the circulatory system.

It is no surprise that societies that once included religious knowledge as part of the curriculum - Western Europe, the United States and Australia exhibit the greatest religious tolerance. Not coincidentally, Latin America, the Muslim "Arc", India and Africa (Mandated Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism and tribal beliefs respectively) are the most intolerant regions on Earth. There is a short distance from ignorance to prejudice to hatred and we ignore the warning signs at our own peril.