Textual Analysis

Have Public Schools Adequately Accommodated Religion – No

Analytic Reading

Warren Nord makes the argument that public schools have not adequately accommodated religion, but not the argument that is thought to be made on this aspect. Rather than arguing that religion should be allowed in schools from a religious perspective, he argues it from an educational perspective. Nord argues, quite explicitly that “the study of religion has a legitimate and important place in the public school curriculum” and that by not teaching religion “public schooling discriminates against religious ways of making sense of the world”. (Nord, 1999) With this, Nord is making the argumentclaims that students are missing a big chunk of education by not being taught about religion; students are not able to learn about how it has affected history and they are not able to use this perspective of religion when learning. Comment by Terrence Harewood: This is a very interesting argument, especially given what we have discussed in class about mysticism and supernaturalism as an important way of explaining reality.

The majority of Nord’s arguments make normative claims. He claims that by not teaching religion students are limited in their ability to make substantial decisions, students do not get a full view of the world, and students are not given a liberal education. According to Warren Nord, a liberal education is “a broad education, one that provides students with the perspective to think critically about the world and their lives” (Nord, 1999). This will appeal to a parents’ values by raising the following question: do you want your children to be taught one specific theory and from one point view, or do you want them to learn all of the theories and perspectives before making a decision on what to agree with? Nord also states that “public schools nurture a secular mentality” (Nord, 1999). This means that students are not taught about religion at all, though he argues that it is important to learn these views to make educated decisions. Nord would argue that students are not able to critically think without learning all of the facts. Comment by Terrence Harewood: Very good introductory analysis.

Nord uses juxtapositions, an analogy, and a hyperbole to make his point. Nord uses a statement about public school curriculum that is endorsed by both religious and educational groups, and then uses it to point out where education and religion should be intertwined. The statement is, “Because religion plays significant roles in history and society, study about religion is essential to understanding both the nation and the world. Omission of facts about religion can give students the false impression that the religious life of human kind is insignificant or unimportant. Failure to understand even the basic symbols, practices and concepts of the various relgionsreligions makes much of history, literature, art and contemporary life unintelligible.” (Nord, 1999). Nord later goes on to address many issues this statement raises, by comparing them to how religion is currently dealt with in public school, and also uses this statement to show how it can be fixed. At the very beginning of his argument, Nord makes a war analogy to compare the debates over religion in schools to war. He makes statements such as “public administrators have been on the front lines of our culture wars over religion and education” and “the causes of war are deep-seated”. Here Nord is making the point that religion in schools have caused many debates that have gone on for many years, and may never be settled with one side winning completely. This statement can also be taken as a hyperbole, because it makes it seem as if these debates are very hostile and hard fought. Nord later states that “we don’t agree about everything, but we do agree about a lot” (referring to religious groups and educational groups), and that “a large measure of common ground has been found”. (Nord, 1999). Nord addresses the fact that the war analogy is a hyperbole and allows the reader to see that the fight between religion and schools is not as tough as it might seem. Comment by Terrence Harewood: Is this the example of the juxtaposition you mentioned earlier? If so, make it more explicit.

Though Nord makes many points as to why religion should be taught in schools, he does seem to argue with an inductive reasoning, while using a slippery slope fallacy. Nord’s statements tend to make it seem that if students are not taught about religion, then they will never be able to think critically about the world, meaning they will never be able to make critical decisions. Comment by Terrence Harewood: I see the slippery slope here, but I would like to see more of why you concluded this was an inductive argument.

Interpretive Reading

Written around 1999, right before the turn of the century, not a whole lot was going on with education and religion. The biggest issue of the time seemed to be that Kansas had decided to drop all standards dealing with evolution from their curriculum. The biggest world event going on around this was the shooting at Columbine High School. This shooting appealed to the values and morals of many people, and whether it was right or wrong. It dealt with, from a philosophical perspective, axiology. Is this right or wrong? Who decides whether this is right or wrong? This made people think about where schools where going and what was driving it there, was it the teaching of evolution and was it by teaching students about religion? Another issue during this time was creating core standards for all students. One issue was the inclusion of religion and how it should be addressed in schools.

These events could have influenced the reading of this text by appealing to what parents want their students to be taught in schools and how it can influence their action and the actions of their peers. Things like school shootings can make some parents firmly believe that religion taught in schools can hinder things like this, while others think that it will increase the chances of this happening.

If this text wereas written just ten years earlier, it would have been right around the time creationism being taught in school was being debated. In 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard made the court decide on whether creationism should be taught with evolution or not, which the court decided it should not be. This article could have brought the views on how teaching this could help students to become better critical thinkers. Comment by Terrence Harewood: Very good use of outside information.

Not mentioned in this text, that is always important to address when discussing religion in schools, is which religions should be taught and which should not be taught? Or should they all be taught? Should only the relevant ones be taught and if so will that be endorsing a specific religion by choosing to teach that one? Comment by Terrence Harewood: Very good point? Also, a related issue is how do we distinguish between a religion and a cult?

This author makes claims seated in purpose two, calling for a change in the way religion is being taught and the way teachers are taught to handle religion in the classroom. Going against purpose one, this author believes that students should be taught about different views and cultures to make an educated decision rather than just the dominant belief or culture. This also deals with metaphysics, based on the question of whether God is real. This deals more with the idealist side by claiming that it is a belief and should be taught to show the different perspectives. Two popular myths that this argument busts is that religion cannot be taught without taking sides, and teaching about religion cannot be for solely educational purposes. Comment by Terrence Harewood: Since the author is arguing for legitimizing another way of knowing, you may also interpret this as addressing a different type of epistemology.

Normative Reading

Nord raises the issue of a call to change our schools. He see this as something in society that needs to be fixed so that students can learn about religion and its history and struggles. Nord does not seem to agree with purpose one, which holds American values at number one and looks to teach students mainly about the American values and not be taught different perspectives to make their own decision. Comment by Terrence Harewood: Can we conclude here that he values diversity or plurality, or even democracy as crucial drivers in helping people think critically about the world.

I believe that Nord writes from more of a liberal view point, because he is focusing on different issues which are mainly social and economic, and he wants students to be able to learn to make their own decisions. He also writes with the students interests in mind, he is calling for this change to make students better thinkers and better decision makers. He wants them to have a more well-rounded education, or a liberal education. Nord is writing for transformation, with a counter-hegemonic argument that is looking to empower educators to make a change. Comment by Terrence Harewood: Why did you draw this conclusion?

What I bring to this text is my views keeping religion in schools. I think it is important to teach students about religion because it is a part of their history, and it will allow them to look at different perspectives. I also believe that critical thinking is a very important skill taught in schools, and I agree with Nord that by looking at religion students are able to learn about these views and cultures to make better decision about their own world. Comment by Terrence Harewood: What specific religious ideologies do you have? What was the role of religion in your own upbringing? How have these experiences and personal ideologies impacted the way you approach this argument?