Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
But why is it necessarily invisible and overarching? I think education works best under a seminar approach so confining subjects totally to their individual classes loses the important lesson of how all these subjects are interrelated. Giving a general overview of Christianity, for instance, is quite necessary for a class on early European history. In other classes, too, religion as a social institution can be relevant to the subject. I suppose I don't understand what you mean of religion as a way to discuss all topics, even though I went to a Jesuit university.
|
Of course, and that's not what I meant at all. To talk about Christianity's role in the evolution of history, literature, politics, the arts and even science is utterly crucial. That's an entirely different matter to letting a teacher working in a state school invisibly allow their faith to colour the student's understanding of various topics. It's the same with any faith, be it religious or secular. I disapprove just as much of Marxist teachers talking about history solely from a Marxist perspective without declaring it as just that, a position, and not providing even-handed accounts of other positions that might contradict it. In essence, I disapprove of any kind of teaching method that could be seen as providing a kind of ideological indoctrination, be it faith based, politically biased or even secular.