Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:31:08 MST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Gene Glass <ATGVG@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Green on Religion in Education

     Tom Green (TFGREEN@SUVM) of Syracuse University sends along the
 following thoughts as a postscript to the recent discussion of
 religion and ethics and their place in the public school currriculum.
 This topic never dies, and never should, In anticipation of still more
 light being shed on these difficult matters, I am happy to forward Tom's
 thoughts.
   +++++++++++++++=======================================++++++++++++++

            RELIGION, MORALS, CIVIC POSITION & EDUATION

                          Tom Green
                     Syracuse University

The discussion on this topic has intrigued me, especially the exchange
between Frank Doherty and John Covaleskie joined in by others.  This
kind of exchange occurs on one network or another with fair regularity.
And thus we learn.

But I wonder less about what may be the answers than about what
may be the questions.  Why would anyone think that something
important is touched by teaching religion in the schools?  What would
it be?  Then there is the question as to what we must mean by
"religion" in any case.  Is it doctrine?  Then we teach belief.  But belief
ought not to be confused with faith, and besides in some traditions,
like Judaism, for instance, belief, creed and the like are hardly central
concerns.  There are religions, of course, in which faith is not of much
importance either.

Maybe we can teach ABOUT religion.  That's a familiar ploy, but like
teaching ABOUT anything else it doesn't take the matter seriously.  We
don't merely teach ABOUT logic, mathematics and ethics.  We aim to
teach calculating, reasoning and conduct.  What's the parallel in the
case of religion?  It would be entering into worship, spiritual disciplines
and acts of piety, n'est pas?  The difficulty draws near.  Make the
treatment of religion just that -- a treatment OF religion and you will
probably find that many without strong religious convictions will be
agreeable to the project along with others, like myself, with strong ties
of faith.  We could form a united front in support of "religious
instruction" in the schools as we see it on the grounds that such
instruction is not RELIGIOUSLY serious.

But this, of course, is quite unacceptable to those who think of specific
religious instruction (of some kind) as necessary for moral education.
The reasons that make one course of action religiously ineffectual and
thus acceptable to many for inclusion in the common schools of the
nation are the very same reasons that make it unacceptable to others,
namely its being religiously innocuous.

Religion, on the other hand, is a part of our general culture.  Teach
that.  Well, so is science.  Teach ABOUT science -- its history, its
impact on our culture.  That can be a very good thing.  Certainly, it's
better than nothing.  But this is hardly parallel to what those who want
religion in the schools have in mind.

If Bible (Hebrew or otherwise) is what is at issue here, then we
ought to pay some attention to what "the Bible" says about "religion."
The suspicion to explore is that "religion" and "the religious" get a
rather bad press in the Biblical texts.  Certainly some good Talmudic
scholars out there will correct me on this, but using my limited
resources and my poor skills, I cannot find a single instance of the
word "religion" or "religious" occurring in the OT.  The word does occur
in the New Testament.  I am speaking, of course of English translations
--in this case both the King James Version and the New Revised
Standard Version.  This means, of course, that there is nothing in the
Hebrew Bible that the English translators found it necessary to
translate as "religion" or "religious."

Using E-text versions, we can make a wild-card search of the English
translations ("relig*" should catch them all).  We find 7 occurrences of
the term in the KJV, and in the NRSV, 8.  Not many in either case.
Interestingly, only 3 of these instances occur in both translations.  This
obviously doesn't get us very far.  But examining the Greek will give us
a clue to what is being translated as "religious" or "religion."

The driving suspicion in this project is that "religion" is not a Biblical
idea at all.  And this suspicion stems, on the one hand, from my
impression that Jesus has some rather harsh things to say about
"religion" and "religious people," and, on the other hand, the passage
in Acts where Paul says of the Athenians "I observe that you are a
'religious' people" not intending to offer praise.  The term used (only in
this one setting, by the way, but there, twice) is deisidaimonesteros.
The KJV translates it as "superstitious," because, though the literal
meaning would be "more religious than others" the term is based upon
deisidaimonia which does mean "superstition."  In the NRVS it is
translated "too religious," and has the same meaning.

Now this is an interesting word.  It is based upon two others -- deilos
(coming from deos (dread) and timid; hence faithless, i.e., fearful  --
and daimon (which comes, in turn from dao, meaning to distribute
fortunes) hence a supernatural spirit of some kind, mostly bad.  I
conjecture "mostly bad," in part because this is the root of eudaimonia
or happiness (better termed blessedness, perhaps) which Aristotle
took to be the chief human good.  The need for the prefix [eu -- as in
eukrasia in contrast to akrasia] betrays the assumption that this
daimon is a suspect being, probably up to no good, causing some
otherwise normal people, like Socrates, to go around doing dangerous
things like corrupting the youth.

So, by this example we see that "religion" is viewed biblically as akin to
superstition.  But there is another clue in this queer little bit of research.
It relates to the term deilos [stem of deisidaimonia] meaning "faithless"
akin to "fear" and "timidity."

This flags for us what to look for next.  Another word translated
"religion," "religious," is threskos, meaning ceremonious in worship,
i.e., pious, religious.  But this and threskeia, occurs only three times
and then only in James Chapt. 1.  This is an interesting word too.  It
apparently is rooted in throeomai, to wail, to clamor, i.e., by implication
to frighten: --- trans. "trouble."

But then comes a more promising suggestion.  There is sebomai
which occurs ten times [often for the idea of "religion" in the Biblical
texts]  and it means to revere, adore, hence devotion and devout
religious worship.  If we combine all the occurrences of this term in
both the KJV and the NRSV we find that the term is used once in Mat,
once in Mark, and ten times in Acts [but, oddly enough, not even once
in Luke].

What does all this suggest?  Well many things, I suppose, to many
persons.  ---That in the Biblical texts, the idea of religion is not very
prominent, that it is often not viewed with much favor, that it deals
mostly with matters of the cultus, is usually used in contexts where
"religion" refers to other peoples' "peculiarities" or to old and queer
ideas that 'we' 'used to have.  For example, when St. Paul speaks of
"religion" it is usually to ways of thinking that he claims to have
discarded or to the ways of the Athenians which he sees as
superstition.  In short, we don't describe our own views, ways of
viewing, and orthodoxies as "religious," but apparently we do describe
others' views, ways of viewing, etc. that way.

Another cluster of suggestions having to do with the relation of religion
to belief.  How do these two things come to be associated?  It has
always seemed to me a matter quite remarkable that, when you stop to
think about it, one realizes that the Rabbi hardly cares what you
believe.  Belief is not what matters (not what "religion" in that case
amounts to) and if not belief, then not creeds either [except maybe
"Hear O! Israel. Your G__ is one."] and if not creeds, then also
theology is no big deal.  What then are we to suppose constitutes the
lack (absence) of religion.  Sounds strangely like the absence of
religion is viewed as an absence of faith.  Yet, surely, if its presence is
not belief then its absence cannot be unbelief.  Faith is rather more a
matter of trust, confidence, and absence of fear than adherence to any
particular line of belief.  The cluster of terms associated with "religion"
in the Biblical texts involves the idea that with religion comes fear --
remember deisidaimonia, fear, timidity, thus unfaithfulness hence
superstition, the word translated in Paul's speech as "religion."

One wonders then why would anyone think it important to teach
religion to all children in the schools.  There are many good reasons
for doing so.  But the good reasons are almost never discussed and
the reasons usually discussed are seldom Biblical.

Tom Green     Syracuse University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU