|
This is not the first time
unforeseen events have transformed the mundane to the momentous. If the Titanic
hadn’t found an iceberg that cold, April night in 1912, few today would have
heard of the liner – or Leonardo DiCaprio, for that matter. So I suppose the
timing could be worse.
Yes, and “Freddy
Got Fingered” might win an Oscar. The treatment of Islam in “Across the
Centuries,” a social studies text newly in use in some seventh-grade classes,
most likely would not have made a blip had the September 11 attacks not
occurred. They did, and anything related to Islam has become a touchy subject.
No meaningful
study of history can ignore the world’s major religions. I have a high
school-aged child who would just as soon dispense with history all together, but
until that happens schools will have to finds ways to tiptoe the minefield of
teaching religion without actually teaching religion. It’s not easy, and the
occasional blow-up is inevitable.
I have not read
“Across the Centuries” and know little more than I’ve seen in the media and a
few excerpts. If that sounds like a disclaimer, it is: This is not a book
review, I don’t pretend to be objective, and the text’s content is not my main
topic. Still, I’ve heard no one dispute opponents’ description of the material,
only its intent.
According to
reports, statements of Islamic doctrine are presented as fact rather than
couched as matters of faith. Without the qualifier “Muslims believe,” the text
is said to teach that the Koran is the “final revelation” and Muhammad the final
prophet, that Ramadan is a holy time, and that an angel told Muhammad to recite
in the name of God. Students don Islamic dress, adopt Muslim names, memorize
portions of the Koran, play a jihad game, and recite prayers to Allah.
The curriculum
raises questions enough to launch a thousand columns. Why would public schools,
some known to fight even voluntary prayer at graduations, instruct it in the
classroom? If the slogan “God Bless America” on the marquis of a public school
establishes a religion in the eyes of some, why doesn’t this? And where are the
self-appointed guardians of public sensitivities, from whom we usually fear a
lawsuit whenever a school employee utters “God bless you” after a sneeze?
These are easy
questions, not because the answers are simple but because they are directed at
institutions and interest groups rather than individuals. Let’s look inward.
Are some of us
needlessly getting our socks in a knot over the notion of kids having a little
fun while learning? You can’t really force someone to become a Muslim, or a
Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist for that matter. Do we really care if
our children playact religion?
After all, doesn’t
everyone?
Well, no, but you
can’t blame folks for wondering. While polls show a preponderance of Americans
identify with one creed or another, observation tells a different story. In
countless ordinary ways people stray from the precepts of faith, content not to
be as bad as “some people,” as if our final grade in this earthly classroom will
be on a curve.
I suspect the
underlying objection to voluntary school prayer, as opposed to that required by
“Across the Centuries,” is the fact that a voluntary act of faith is likely to
be sincere. Arguments over church/state separation and the establishment clause
of the Constitution get a bit esoteric, but the mere presence of people of
devout faith forces introspection that can be downright uncomfortable.
Those who do take
it seriously are likely the ones objecting to treating religion as a game. The
study of religions is a good thing, but it is a far different matter to play
them like Parcheesi.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
