Bruce Grelle
California State University

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
Religious Liberty Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The "no establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment provide the constitutional basis for what Thomas Jefferson described as "a wall of separation between Church & State."1 These clauses set the ethical, legal, and pedagogical contexts for any discussion of religion and American public education.

In the United States, "public" schools and universities are funded and administered by state and local governments. As such, they are subject to the constitutional separation of church and state and, therefore, they must remain "neutral" with regard to religion.2 Unlike "private" and parochial schools, which may promote religious beliefs and practices, the "no establishment" clause prohibits the "public" schools from doing so. This prohibition was made clear in a series of famous "school prayer" cases in the 1960s when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored religious exercises, such as organized group prayer and devotional Bible reading, were violations of the "no establishment" clause of the First Amendment.

At the same time, however, the Supreme Court sought to make it clear that learning and teaching about religion in the public schools is perfectly consistent with constitutional principles. Indeed, as Justice Tom Clark wrote in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp (1963),

". . . it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study of its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible and of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment . . . ."

This essay looks more closely at the religious liberty clauses in the U.S. Constitution, considers their ethical and legal implications for public schools, and touches on some pedagogical guidelines for teaching about the world's religions in ways that are consistent with First Amendment principles. This framework for understanding religion and public education in the U.S. should prove useful for other societies that seek to educate their citizens about world religions while, at the same time, maintaining a separation between religious and governmental institutions.

Living in a Pluralistic Democracy:

From its inception more than two hundred years ago, the United States of America has been a pluralistic society. It is now, and always has been, constituted by many different religious, political, racial, ethnic, and cultural groups. As a democracy, the United States has sought to distribute political power among all citizens rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few. Regardless of whether one judges the day-today life and practice of contemporary American society to be more or less democratic, most will acknowledge that democracy - government of the people, by the people, and for the people - is a definitive ideal (even if not always a definitive reality) of American history. Furthermore, the American experiment is an effort to try out the idea that free people from many backgrounds are capable of governing themselves and living together peacefully. The ultimate success (or failure) of the American experiment in pluralistic democracy is contingent upon citizens' commitment to it and upon their ability to secure the conditions that are necessary for its success.

While many societies throughout history and around the world have been plagued by religious, ethnic, and political violence, the United States has by and large avoided this fate. Nonetheless, over the past several decades, America has been wracked by "culture wars" in which public debate has increasingly become reduced to antidemocratic and intolerant caricature and slander of one's political and religious opponents. In many places, public school students and teachers have found themselves caught up in clashes and controversies over religion in textbooks and curricula, religious holidays, sex education, and school funding, among other issues. As Charles C. Haynes has written,

Extremes have surfaced on all sides, and any notion of a common vision for the common good is often lost in the din of charge and counter-charge. As alienation and frustration deepen, public education is weakened and our future as one nation of many peoples and faiths is called into question.

At issue for this nation, as for much of the world, is the simple, but profound question that runs through modern experience: How will we live with our deepest differences? Nowhere is the need to address this question greater than in public education. Not only are schools the storm center of controversy involving religious differences, they are the principal institution charged with transmitting the identity and mission of the Unites States from one generation to the next. If we fail in our school policies and classrooms to model and to teach how to live with differences, we endanger our experiment in religious liberty and our unity as a nation.3

In an effort to identify the principles that will enable Americans to continue to live with their deepest differences rather than being torn apart by them, a growing number of citizens and educators have called for a renewed commitment to the religious liberty principles of the First Amendment as the foundation on which the American experiment is built.

Finding Common Ground and the Three R's of Religious Liberty:

According to the Williamsburg Charter,4 the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment provide the "golden rule" for civic life in a pluralistic democracy. The Williamsburg Charter is a document that was published in 1988 and signed by more than 200 national leaders representing a broad range of religious, non-religious, civic, and educational groups. Even though the individuals and groups who signed the document oppose one another on many issues, they were nonetheless able to agree that commitment to the First Amendment was something that they all shared in common as American citizens. Among the Charter's aims was to set forth the guiding principles within which people with strong differences can contend with each other in a robust but civil manner.

Foremost among these guiding principles are what the Charter described as the three R's of religious liberty: rights, responsibilities, and respect. Rights are the freedoms or liberties that are necessary for the expression of our full dignity as human beings. Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, and the freedom to believe whatever we choose to believe (as well as the freedom to choose not to believe) is among the most precious rights that human beings possess. A society is only as just and free as it is respectful of this right for its smallest minorities and least popular communities.

In addition to the defense of individual rights, the success of a democracy also depends upon the willingness and ability of its citizens to accept their civic responsibilities. Responsibilities are duties or obligations that we owe to ourselves and to our fellow citizens. Chief among these is the responsibility to guard for others those rights that we wish guarded for ourselves. In response to what many view as American society's obsession with individual rights at the expense of a sense of social responsibility, the Williamsburg Charter stresses that the health of a democratic society depends upon the linkage of rights and responsibilities and upon the ability of citizens to balance the pursuit of self-interest with the pursuit of the common good.

The third R, Respect, has to do with the manner in which we conduct ourselves in conflicts and debates with our fellow-citizens, including those fellow-citizens with whom we most seriously disagree. Conflict and debate are vital to democracy. A society without vigorous debate and disagreement is most likely not a very democratic society. But how we debate, not only what we debate, is critical for the health and well-being of a democracy. Respect, or civility, is a fundamental condition for maintaining the health and well-being of a democratic society.

A shared commitment to the three R's of religious liberty can provide the basis upon which citizens with deep religious differences can negotiate their differences with civility and work toward the creation of "a common vision for the common good in public education."5 This approach to finding common ground has had remarkable success in building consensus among very disparate interest groups on a range of controversial questions that arise in public education. An outstanding example of this success is the publication of Religious Liberty, Public Education, and the Future of American Democracy: A Statement of Principles.6 This five-page document was sponsored jointly by a wide-ranging coalition of educational, religious, and civic organizations. It sets forth a vision of religion in the public schools that is both consistent with First Amendment principles and academically sound:

Public schools may not inculcate nor inhibit religion. They must be places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education.

We can better appreciate the significance of this consensus statement when we remember that co-sponsors included such organizations as the Christian Coalition and People for the American Way, which are often opponents in litigation over the place of religion in public life. That such otherwise disparate organizations can come together to co-sponsor a consensus statement relating to the role of religion and public education in American democracy is a testament to the ability of First Amendment principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience to unite Americans across religious, ideological, and political divisions.

Rationale for Teaching About Religion in U.S. Public Schools:

After years of either ignoring or actively avoiding religion whenever possible, due in large part to misunderstandings by educators of Supreme Court decisions and the desire to avoid controversy, there are signs that public school systems in several parts of the country are beginning to recognize the importance of the comparative study of religion. In California, for example, the State Board of Education has adopted a curriculum that explicitly calls for more attention to be given to the study of religion and ethics. The History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools K- 12 stresses the importance of religion in human history and states that "students must become familiar with the basic ideas of the major religions and the ethical traditions of each time and place." It further adds:

To understand why individuals and groups acted as they did, we must see what values and assumptions they held, what they honored, what they sought and what they feared. By studying a people's religion and philosophy as well as their folkways and traditions, we gain an understanding of their ethical and moral commitments. By reading the texts that people revere, we gain important insights into their thinking. The study of religious beliefs and other ideological commitments helps explain both cultural continuity and cultural conflict.7

In California, the world history curriculum for sixth, seventh, and tenth grades deals explicitly with the religions of India, China, and the Middle-East. Teaching about religion in the schools makes an indispensable contribution to historical and cultural literacy. It is simply impossible to achieve an adequate understanding of human history and culture (literature, art, music, philosophy, law, ethics, politics) without knowing the role that religious beliefs, practices, and communities have played and continue to play in human life. Put simply, we learn a lot about human beings (ourselves and others) by studying their religious experiences, stories, symbols, rituals, doctrines, values, and institutions.

The cross-cultural and historical study of religion is also an integral part of education for citizenship in a pluralistic society. As we have seen, a basic requirement of citizenship in such societies is respect for religious liberty or freedom of conscience. This respect must be extended to members of all religious communities as well as to those who are members of none. Yet such respect is often difficult to sustain without some objective knowledge of the histories, beliefs, and customs of the diverse peoples and traditions of the world. Without this knowledge, it is all too easy to caricature and trivialize the religious beliefs and practices of our fellow citizens, especially if they happen to be from a religious, racial, or ethnic community that is different from our own. A civil society cannot long survive in such a climate of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Examining Worldviews:

By describing the study of religion in U.S. public schools as cross-cultural, historical, and comparative, we are saying that it does not focus on one particular or dominant religious tradition, but rather looks at a range of different religious traditions in different times and places. When we engage in the comparative study of religion, we are interested in better understanding the "worldviews" that have shaped the lives of individuals and of entire civilizations.

As Ninian Smart has written, worldviews are "systems of belief which, through symbols and actions, mobilize the feelings and wills of human beings." He goes on to say that "human beings do things for the most part because it pays them to do so, or because they fear to do otherwise, or because they believe in doing them. The modern study of religion is about the last of these motives."8 He adds:

. . . a main part of the modern study of religion may be called 'worldview analysis' - the attempt to describe and understand human worldviews, especially those that have had widespread influence - ranging from varieties of Christianity and Buddhism to the more politically oriented systems of Islam and Marxism, and from ancient religions and philosophies such as Platonism and Confucianism to modern new religions in Africa and America" 9

As we have seen, public schools may teach about religion in a way that is "objective," neutral, fair, and balanced, but they may not inculcate, promote, or inhibit religious beliefs and practices of students. When teaching about religions in the public schools, we are not seeking to demonstrate which religion is true and which is false, which is better or which is worse. Rather, we are trying to understand more about human beings-ourselves and others-by studying their religious beliefs and practices.

Ideally, the comparative approach does not just provide students with information about the world's religions. It also equips them to more fully exercise their responsibilities as citizens in a religiously pluralistic world that is plagued by abuses of human rights, by vast disparities of wealth and power between individuals and nations, by the degradation of the environment, and by seemingly unending religious, racial, and ethnic conflict and violence. Lessons or courses taught from this perspective …

. . . advocate that students employ empathetic understanding to enter imaginatively the context and worldview of other traditions and, further, that after taking up these standpoints of 'the other,' they enter into a respectful dialogue of equals where each exposes his or her own cultural assumptions to the standpoint of 'the other' and works to solve shared socio-moral problems through the fusion of moral horizons and the forging of practical agreements. Students are encouraged to become co-participants in a dialogue where they represent imaginatively the 'voices' of other traditions.10

This type of teaching provides important intellectual and moral background and context for many of the issues and controversies that arise in other areas of the curriculum and in civic life. A sympathetic awareness of diverse worldviews and values is a first step toward building the understanding, cooperation, and larger "sense of the whole" that will be required in order to address many of the global issues that students will be facing as citizens in the next several decades.

END NOTES
1 Jefferson in Charles C. Haynes, Religion in American History: What to Teach and How; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia, 1990, p. 48.
2 While the First Amendment originally applied only to the federal or national government of the U.S., the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection to all U.S. citizens and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have applied it to the state and local governments as well.
3 Charles C. Haynes and Oliver Thomas, eds., Finding Common Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Education; The First Amendment Center, Nashville, 1998.
4 Reprinted in Haynes and Thomas, pgs. A.1-A.14.
5 Haynes and Thomas 1998, p. 1.7.
6 First Amendment Center, Nashville, 1995, pg. 3.
7 California State Department of Education, History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, Sacramento, 1988, pg. 7 and 13.
8 Ninian Smart. Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs; Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1983, p.1.
9 Worldviews, p.5
10 Sumner B. Twiss, "Curricular Perspectives in Comparative Religious Ethics: A Critical Examination of Four Paradigms," The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 1993, p. 257.

Back to Religious Education - Table of Contents