Parekh on Education

British peer and political theorist, Lord Bhikhu Parekh, presents a case for teaching religion in schools:

There is... a good case for teaching religion in schools on both educational and political grounds. One of the principal aims of education is to familiarize children with and to get them to appreciate the great achievements of the human spirit, and religion is one of these… There are also good political reasons for teaching religion. If schools do not teach it, children will come to depend wholly on their families and religious organizations, which only expose them to their own religion and that too from a narrow sectarian standpoint.

“The Voice of Religion in Political Discourse”, in Religion, Politics & Peace, 1999

Comments

[Peter Crowther]

I have no problem with teaching religion in schools, but I believe the syllabus needs careful examination to achieve the aims outlined here.

One of the best courses I ever did was the *comparative religion* course in my first and second years at secondary school, which happened to be taught by a Buddhist. Excellent breadth of coverage and very non-judgemental.

Then came the third year. Christianity, taught by a loud preaching hellfire-and-damnation ordained Christian minister who would not have been out of place delivering a thundering sermon from an 18th-century pulpit. If you weren't a practising Christian, you were somehow inferior. This was interesting in a school with a very large Jewish minority.

The first two years enriched my life. I suppose the third year did as well, in that I left it with a profound sense that I never wanted to go near Christianity. Ever.

[Chris]

Peter: What I liked about Parekh's perspective here is that he points to the problems that occur when one will not allow teaching of religion in schools. This is not a viewpoint often aired, but it needs to be considered.

I believe many of the problems in the US when religion and schools have come into conflict (including Intelligent Design) could have been avoided if the separation of Church and State had not exceeded it's original purposes and gone on to exclude the teaching of religion in the US curriculum. As Parekh notes, it's not a good idea to let people learn about religion solely from a narrow perspective.

But you are of course correct when you say that the syllabus has to be carefully constructed to achieve the required goal - and letting teachers with narrow sectarian perspectives teach religious classes entirely defeats the purpose of the exercise! :)

Best wishes!

[Katherine]

I totally agree; educate people and let them find their own religion. One reason I thought of why this perspective isn't often aired, is because "OH NO the government is taking away our control over our children" sentiments can be pretty vocal. They already come up when the question of vaccines, or sex education, or bans on corporal punishment in the home come up. And some people already seem to think the school system is set up to indoctrinate children anyway, though I suspect people that have this view are more vocal than numerous.

[Peter Crowther]

some people already seem to think the school system is set up to indoctrinate children anyway

... they are, surely, if (as in the UK) any part of the syllabus is laid down by law? Given that it's essentially impossible to find any general statement on which every member of the human race would agree*, anything that is taught will be regarded as doctrine by some, and hence indoctrination.

* including this one... 'scuse me, I'll just go and find my flameproof suit...

[Chris]

Regarding indoctrination as the role of school, of course, the preceding quote in this sequence raises this exact point... :)

I sympathise greatly with Illich's view that education should facilitate learning, and not dictate it, but unlike Illich I believe there may be merit to the school system as a mechanism for encouraging this. Certainly, the way schools are currently set up falls widely short of the mark.