TEACHING ABOUT RELIGIONS

Possibilities and problems

By Rohit Dhankar
O
ne often comes across expres-
sion of worries regarding lack of
moral values in present day ed-
ucation. The teaching of religion in
schools is advanced as a preferred solu-
tion to this problem. Teaching of religion
is also often suggested as a means to re-
duce tension and strife between follow-
ers of different faiths. Basically these
claims boil down to two contentions: one,
that knowledge of each others religion
will enhance mutual goodwill; and two,
that religion can become a viable basis
of moral development in a secular dem-
ocratic society. Both contentions stand
in need of critical examination.
Such examination will require a dis-
tinction between religious teaching and
teaching about religions. This distinc-
tion is often ignored when arguments
to introduce religion in curriculum are
advanced. Religious teaching indicates
teaching of the religious dogmas as well
as acceptance of those dogmas. For ex-
ample, teaching Hinduism for a Vaish-
navite may involve making students be-
lieve that Krishna was really an avatar
of Vishnu. Teaching Islam and Christi-
anity will respectively involve making
the students believe that Muhammad
was prophet of Allah and that Christ was
really the son of God.
Teaching about religions, on the oth-
er hand, will limit to helping the students
to understand the religious beliefs, but
without any commitment to their truth.
In teaching about religions, then, the
three religious beliefs mentioned above
need to be understood and critically ex-
amined but the students are not required
to accept them. Religious teaching, then,
will be incompatible with a secular edu-
cation system. That leads to the assump-
tion that those who want to introduce
religion in curriculum are recommend-
ing teaching about religions.
In principle, understanding of each
others belief systems should facilitate
better mutual understanding, and there-
fore, enhance harmonious living of dif-
ferent religious groups. This should also
increase sensitivity and tolerance as
knowledge of the others beliefs helps
understand emotional importance of
those beliefs for them. But in a multi-re-
ligious secular democracy, there might
be serious practical problems in teaching
about religions in schools.
Religious beliefs
Lets note that one important aim of
education in democracies is to develop
critical citizenship as no democracy can
function well without constantly watch-
ful citizens. Development of critical citi-
zenship necessarily require independ-
ence of judgment and action. Which in
turn will demand critical rational exam-
ination of all ideas and beliefs. Therefore,
if one has to teach about religions in a
democratic system what is being taught
has to submit to critical rational exami-
nation. The study of religions, then, can-
not be a reverential study as Mahatma
Gandhi along with many others often
recommended. It has to be a critical
study rationally examining every belief
and event in the history of religions.
Critical study of religions in schools is
likely to create a practical problem with
two dimensions. One, lack of teachers
who can deal with religious beliefs and
history with respect, without biases and
at the same time without slightest com-
promise in incisive analysis, without
compromising on precise expression of
the results of rational enquiry, whether
they be favourable or unfavourable to
religious beliefs. Our system at present
does not have enough teachers who can
take up this task. The second dimension
is that the very people who are recom-
mending teaching about religion today
will oppose it when religious beliefs will
be seriously interrogated in classrooms
across the nation.
This, however, is not an argument
against teaching about religions in
schools. This is only to indicate that se-
rious preparation will be required before
we could do that. We have to prepare
teachers and we have to prepare the pub-
lic to take critique of religions in a ra-
tional and mutually accommodating
spirit. A beginning in the second could
be made in the press by examining reli-
gious beliefs and history more seriously
than we do at the moment.
The second claim that religions can
provide a basis for moral development
is based on the false assumption that in
essentials all religions meet in perfect
harmony. This claim is born out of un-
duly reverential study of religions and
not out of critical study of them. Actually,
religions are more often in serious con-
frontation with each other. Claim of har-
mony is more of a politically correct
statement than a substantiated one. This
disharmony between different religious
belief systems is enough to dash all hope
of religions becoming basis of moral de-
velopment in a secular system.
But there are even more unsurmount-
able problems. Moral development does
not mean memorisation of moral max-
ims like always tell the truth. Nor is it
complete even if one is conditioned to
act according to such maxims. Moral
development necessarily requires ability
to make reasoned judgment in the face
of value conflicts. There can be no pre-
determined formula to resolve value
conflicts arising in different actual con-
texts. The religious ethics is essentially
a faith based ethics. It depends on the
dogma or divine command, and there-
fore, is not capable of independent ra-
tional judgment. Another problem in re-
ligious ethics is that it is essentially
utilitarian and self-centred. You obey re-
ligious dogma or divine command be-
cause you want personal favours from
the divinity or you want salvation. It,
therefore, depends on non-rational un-
critical belief, for personal benefit. How
does one square development of critical
reason for democratic citizenship and
uncritical belief formation in the same
classroom?
In conclusion, perhaps we can say that
teaching about religions cannot form a
basis for moral development. Though,
it could be very important for develop-
ment of mutual understanding and sen-
sitivity between different religious
groups. However, even for this second
purpose introduction of critical study of
different religious in schools will require
enormous preparation and a very cau-
tious approach.
(The writer is with Azim Premji Univer-
sity, Bangalore and Digantar, Jaipur)
Our system lacks teachers
who can deal with religious
beliefs and history with
respect, without biases and
compromise on analysis.
Deccan Herald, 28th July 2014