Search Results

The essays in Part III of the book, on liberal constraints and traditionalist education, argue for a more regulatory conception of liberal education and emphasize the need for some controls over cultural and religious educational authority. Walter Feinberg’s essay, on religious education in liberal–democratic societies in relation to the question of accountability and autonomy, takes up the issue of educational constraints with respect to religious schools in such societies. While he allows that religious education need not be inconsistent with liberal goals, and can find reasons why some liberal societies feel it appropriate to provide public support for religious schools, he argues that certain conditions can render such support tyrannical and unwise. He concludes that if the conditions are appropriate for public support of religious schools, then there should also be significant public control. After an introduction in Section 14.1, the chapter has six further sections: Section 14.2 discusses some of the potential lines of conflict between religious liberal education and public (common) education; Section 14.3 examines a number of arguments that have been advanced in support of public funding for religious schools; Section 14.4 looks at a potentially fundamental reason for denying public funding for religious schools – that it would be tyrannical to take tax funds from one believer in order to advance the beliefs of another – and the implications as regards the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; both Sections 14.4 and 14.5 suggest some of the conditions that need to be satisfied in order to supply this funding – primarily that it must be predicated on the school advancing individual and social autonomy; Section 14.6 briefly suggests what such an arrangement might entail for the traditional way in which the public/private divide is conceived; Section 14.7 concludes.

The religious dimensions of education represent the most controversial and complex aspect of the law of organized religions. The complexity of current arrangements is a result of an historic residue of past compromises, which this chapter sets out. A distinct body of human rights law also applies in this field. This is considered in depth. The chapter then focuses on religious pluralism in the maintained and independent sectors. This is considered in its impact on questions of school type and ethos, staffing, admissions, religious education and worship and other aspects of school life. In the last decade, largely as a result of equalities legislation, the law has become much clearer as to the elements of education which are permitted to have a religious dimension. As the JFS case demonstrates, there is both an opening and a closure to religious diversity.

At the end of July, the subcommittee turned to the bill of rights: Article 20, banning “religious education”; Article 24, on marriage and the family; Articles 25–28, to which the Social Democrats sought to add a guarantee of “minimum standards” of living, and Articles 31–40, dealing with the rights of accused persons. Ch. 17 analyzes these deliberations. The subcommittee's work produced intense sparring between Yoshida and Ashida around the issue of the imperial family's property. GHQ, in the person of Colonel Kades, kept close watch over these deliberations.

This chapter discusses the protection of religious freedom in both private and state schools. As an important aspect of human societies, religious education obviously features in the educational curriculum. More contentious, however, is the question of whether schools should themselves foster or permit opportunities for religious practice. Less obviously, but no less contentious, are issues concerning the content of the ‘secular’ curriculum in areas such as science or sex education. The material taught may sometimes conflict with the religious beliefs of a pupil or his/her parents. The chapter looks at an issue that is fundamental to understanding the ongoing controversies surrounding all these questions: the conflict between liberalism and Christianity about the very purpose of education.

This chapter compares the ten post-communist members of the EU in terms of the dimensions detailed in the preceding chapters. To make the comparison intelligible, those dimensions are reorganized as follows: (1) the legislative framework pertaining to religion and religious life; (2) the powers and responsibilities assumed by the governmental agencies in charge of religious affairs; (3) the ease with which religious denominations gained official recognition from the state, and the differences among churches imposed upon by the authorities, the different tiers at which denominations could register, and the advantages resulting from such registration; and (4) the manner in which religious instruction was delivered in public schools. The aim is to understand more fully the ways in which church and state, religious and political actors have come together in these countries after the collapse of the communist regime, during their transition to democracy, and during the first years after they joined the EU. The chapter then identifies the areas of church-state relations that fall short of the “twin toleration” principle, with a view to identifying the cases where reforms are needed and to bring these countries closer to democratic standards.

This chapter has two main tasks. The first is to acknowledge a complication. It says something about academic freedom and resolves a potential tension between the positions taken in Chapters 5 and 6 on the one hand, and Chapter 7 on the other. The question is whether teachers have the right to take sides in matters of religion. The First Amendment would seem to forbid this, yet the logic of liberal education might seem to require it (at least sometimes), and academic freedom would seem to protect it (at least sometimes). Second, the chapter addresses some of the most common concerns loosely clumped together under a number of headings: the concerns of religious conservatives, the concerns of religious liberals, the concerns of atheists, and, finally, practical concerns (often coming from teachers and administrators).

This chapter argues that public schools and universities must take religion seriously for a number of reasons. It begins saying something about what it means to take religion seriously, distinguishing among a variety of ways in which students might learn about religion. It focuses on liberal education and its role in facilitating critical thinking. It shows that a liberal education requires that students be initiated into an ongoing conversation about how to make sense of the world—one in which religious voices must be included as live options. It argues that if we take religion seriously, we need not take everything seriously—and attempts to short-circuit the arguments of those who think that religion needn't be taken seriously because it is not intellectually respectable. The chapter concludes with a few comments about the underappreciated virtue of humility in education.

The predominantly Catholic Slovenia has chosen to separate church and state in post-communist times, by taking its inspiration from France and the United States. In virtue of this model, religion is not offered in public schools at any level, although “education about religion is allowed.” For the first fifteen years of post-communist rule, the Liberal Democrats strictly enforced the church-state separation model, but since then a number of concessions have been obtained by politicians with religious beliefs. Parties are not prohibited from using religious symbols, but religious groups have remained relatively neutral. Legislation pertaining to homosexual behavior and abortion remains liberal by Eastern European standards.

This chapter discusses the relationship between al Azhar and the government policy of ulama training in Malaysia. It traces how, during the twentieth century, a number of factors led to al Azhar becoming one of the most popular choices for Malaysian students wanting to major in Islamic Studies. Initially, ulama adopted al Azhar's reformed curriculum by choice, as the mixed curriculum introduced by al Azhar, starting with Muhammad Abduh's modernisation project, helped the religious schools in Malaysia to compete with the state run modern schools. However, to demonstrate its commitment to Islam, the Malaysian state eventually started to invest in al Azhar education. Under a series of policies intended to emphasise Islam, religious education and religious administration expanded rapidly, thus providing increased job opportunities for al Azhar graduates.

This chapter discusses the protection of religious freedom in education, in both state and private schooling. As an important aspect of human societies, education about religion obviously features in the educational curriculum. More contentious, however, is the question of whether schools should themselves foster or permit opportunities for religious practice. Less obviously, but no less contentious, are issues concerning the content of the ‘secular’ curriculum in areas such as science or sex education. The material taught may sometimes conflict with the religious beliefs of a pupil or her parents. The chapter begins, however, with an issue that is fundamental to understanding the ongoing controversies surrounding all these questions — the differing understandings of liberal theorists and Christians of the very purpose of education.

Chapter forty-one deals with the years immediately following the death of so many of Hodge’s friends and family. He underwent intense bouts of grief and his physical health was not strong. He was also named to Princeton College’s Board of Trustees in 1850. He served on the Board until his death in 1878. While a Trustee, Hodge worked closely with Presidents Carnahan, Maclean and McCosh to keep religious instruction an important part of the school’s curriculum. He also stressed a broad-based liberal arts approach to the College’s curricular agenda.

This chapter discusses the importance of raising and educating children on the basis of a set of higher values that contribute to sustained human development. It begins with a description of basic educational outcomes in general and religious education in particular. It then explains the causes of the problems in the education systems, and ends by proposing possible solutions. The analyses focus on religious education curricula (Muslim and Christian) in eight Arab countries. The results show disparities both in terms of the importance given to religious education and the quality of their topics. The curricula emphasize historical facts, the inculcation of rules and prohibitions, and the carrying out of religious rituals, to the detriment of universal values such as tolerance and equality. No effort is made to deepen the understanding of religion by stimulating the higher mental faculties through critical thinking. The chapter ends with a call to establish a new model of education which takes into account the multi-dimensionality of personality and cultural diversity in order to prepare balanced individuals able to live together in an environment free from either threat to identity or any form of fanaticism and violence.

Even after joining the EU in 2004, the Czech Republic retains one of the most restrictive registration requirements for religious groups, one that greatly constraints the autonomy of churches. Churches are ranked into two categories, and only religious denominations registered at the second tier (whose membership amounts to at least 10,000) may perform marriage ceremonies and may serve as chaplains in prisons and military barracks. Given the country's pronounced secularization, Christian Democrat political formations play a small role in Czech politics, and religious education entered public schools in the republic much later than in other Eastern European countries. Tolerant legislation carried out from the communist time permitted abortion on a large scale and this has encouraged “abortion tourism,” which has happened hand in hand with an internationally criticized, state-sponsored sterilization program targeting the Roma ethnic minority.

Just as loving parents have their children take vaccines, loving Muslim parents instill a healthy regimen of Islam for their children, hoping to safeguard their American offspring from perceived and real societal ills. This chapter investigates the various “vaccines” or burgeoning religious institutions that aim to “inoculate” young Sunni Muslim Americans with the religious background necessary to face the challenges of forming a sustainable hybrid identity. First, it looks at the various motives students may have for pursuing a religious education: whether it is for a Muslim's idea of leisure activity, the solidification of social networks, facilitating identity construction, alleviating the paucity of credible Muslim American religious scholars, or simply to know God and His will. Second, it considers models of religious education, citing specific popular institutions, their history, their organizational structure, and their target audience. It explores the physical setup of the classrooms with an eye on gender, pedagogical style, and curriculum. The chapter features models based on some of the more frequented venues cited. The institutions under consideration are generally part-time seminaries that either specifically target or attract young college-aged Muslims in the 18–24 age bracket.