Religious Education: An Oxymoron

Religious Intolerance Begins at School

1. ARGUMENT

A 3-year old goes to school -pre-school, prep, Montessori, nursery, playgroup take your pick- and a month later he has learn't how to recite the pehla kalma, the first Islamic prayer a Muslim must learn/recite to become a Muslim. This becomes a matter of pride for the parents and they proceed to parade him before grandparents, uncles, aunts cousins and friends no differently than a street performer would parade his little monkey.

That's all fine and well, I suppose. No harm done and some decadent pleasure for the parents. But there is a problem. The pehla-kalma is different for different sects within Pakistan. The major sects here are the suni's and the shia's primarily, but many other minority sects such as Ismaili's and Ahmedi's are part of the landscae as well. So consider the psychological impact on a 3-year old Ahmedi or Ismaili or Shia child who learns a different pehla kalma at home then he does at school.

And what of the Parsi, Hindu and Christian 3-year olds? What pehla kalma do our schools teach them? No matter how you measure this activity, no matter what your calculation and no matter what your argument, religion in school for a 3-year old results in ostracizing minority groups against the schools predominant religious practice. The only way to avoid it is keep all 3-year olds pigeon boxed into schools where 'everyone is the same', that itself is a form of self-ostracizing.

The problems of formal religious training as compared to formal education are discussed below.

2. THE LIFECYCLE OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Primary religious education, when children are 3-6 years of age, is all about rote and mimicry. The entire concept of religious learning is dependent upon childrens' ability to repeat and cram. At the very early stages it comes in the form of learning basic prayers (kalma,dua and ayat). While the children have no understanding of what they are preforming, they receive accolades and praise nonetheless. As the child grows up and begins to grasp the ideas and concepts, the same prayers become akin to spells and magic words ala Harry Potter, but unlike the movies, these spells don't work consistently.

During the ages of 7-12, they realize that there is more cramming and little practice. The practice is not practical and the theory is not visible in the society. The schooling focus at this point is more cramming and reinforcement. The fear of hell is also introduced about this time as a just-in-case-you-stray-from-the-flock.

By the early teens, children are already armed with prayers and many have already begun to experience the inconsistent performance (of their prayers). Here a dichotomy between their academic religion and practiced religion is born. Most start to treat as another cram-subject like Pak Studies and several years later they will know it to be no different (in the Matric system they both have the same weightage in exams). The real problem, however, is that most have already distanced themselves from it and turned it into an event based and circumstantial requirement: a celebration, a death a time of year or the weekly prayer.

By their late teens, unless their households are strictly fundamentalist, they are not interested past the superficial. The prayers don't work and the concept that 'God had other plans' doesn't stick anymore. This is where the final separation contract between the individual and religion takes place. An agreement is made that so long as religion doesn't interfere with the individuals daily life (a few prayers and the fasting is acceptable; standing up for whats right without fear is not acceptable), the individual pledges allegiance to the cause.

From here on, the individual will enjoy all membership privileges -social acceptance and a conscience counselling- with no burdens to bear -do good onto your fellow man; resist and struggle against forces that cause pain and suffering.

3. MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORMAL RELIGIOUS TEACHING VERSUS MODERN EDUCATION

In the context of formal education (schools, colleges and universities), religion and education are quite the opposite. While education allows you to explore the different facets and idea put forth, religion letterboxes you to cramming and accepting that what has been decreed. In religious learning you may challenge a sacred text, but (a)it is discouraged and (b)you do not have the option to declare it void or invalid. Education, however, has no such compunction and everything is open to challenge.

• Measure of Excellence

A major difference between the two is the measure of excellence in religion vs the measure of excellence in education. Religion is (often) a final and sealed book and testament. There is no room for improvement as it would be seen as a deviation which is not sustainable in the long term. Excellence in practiced religion comes from regularity and discipline in observing rituals and customs while excellence in the academics of religion is measured primarily in two points: rote and the conviction. Rote is the measure of how much can be copied to and regurgitated from memory in the exact same format, language and tense.The conviction is measured by how far an individual is willing to go to stick to his own interpretation of a theory, idea or concept prescribed in religion. The believer may abandon all common sense and logic to prove the point and the more vehement the defense, the greater the excellence. Refusal to concede to another argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is religious excellence. Insulting or proving an opponent wrong is the highest level of commitment.

Excellence in formal education has more to do with hard work, innovation and proof which is quite to opposite to what religious excellence has to do. If one can come up with something new, different unique, unpopular of idea you have accomplished excellence. Please note that this is not just restricted to the sciences, but to arts as well. If you so strongly disagree with a notion, idea or a concept, then you are free to challenge it and present your own thesis. Each thesis will be confronted with an antithesis which eventually leads to a synthesis -of the thesis and the antithesis- which, in turn give birth to a new thesis.

• Blasphemy

All religions have the concept of blasphemy. The dark ages are called so because the religious dominance did not allow science to grow. Galileo being the most prominent victim of the time. Even today religion takes on the role of deciding what is acceptable what what is taboo. Divorce, homosexuality, cross-faith marriage, theory of evolution and so on. In the most harmless cases, violating diktats is often met with admonishment, ostracizing and segregation. In the more extreme cases, the punishment comes down to killing and maiming.

Formal education has no such compunction. So long as you can defend your point of view with fact and argument (as opposed to sacred text and conjecture); so long as your can present your case on the basis of analytics instead of rhetoric, you are free to explore whatever you wish without fear for loss of liberty or life.

• Importance of Rote in Religious Learning Compared to Formal Education

Many argue that rote is essential in both forms. The problem is that religious training is all about rote while formal education systems use rote as a mechanism to build future concepts on. Numbers and alphabets are taught through rote, however, they are enhanced and furthered immediately (within a year or two) with concepts that build on them. Numbers turn into addition and subtraction and alphabets turn into words.

In religious learnings, the dua and ayats remain the same. The phela kalma will remain the pehla kalma and will only be replaced with the doosra kalma. The former has no bearing on the successor and it is certainly not the enhancement or evolution or even growth of an idea: The 3-year old didn't understand the concept of "there is only one god" anymore than the 4-year old understood the concept of "bearing witness". Additionally, these concepts have no practical significance. The child will not be anymore patient, kind, honest or sharing as a result of memorizing these duas (which, I assume is the purpose of teaching religion) and will be the same brat or angel he was at home.

So why all the emphasis on rote? Given that only bad can come out of this -teaching a 3-year old that his best friend is a shia/sunni is pretty awful- why engage in a futile activity that only adds pressure to a young mind that is only just beginning to see life without his parents? The reason is that most religion practiced and propagated is rote and rhetoric. Islamic prayers are in Arabic while most Muslims don't speak it as their native language. The school-version of the Islamic religion is about hellfire and the wrath of god. Everything is measured by that yardstick. But once you hit 35 everyone talks about how you need to help your fellow man.

My question is why not start teaching children with that lesson? There is a reason why there is a decline in social and community involvement by individuals and an increase in blind religious fervor and practice.

4. DEBATE VS PREACHING

I have always wondered why the more controversial subjects of Islam are never discussed at public forums? The fact that women can't bear witness equal to men, that a widowed mother doesn't control the inheritance, that men can hit their wives but the reverse is never true. The fact is that there is no debate concept of debate amongst the masses and the 'commoners' in religion. You need to be 'special' or at least part of a 'special group' to have a debate over an issue.

In contrast, education encourages learning through debate and discussion. Where religious training is an effort to 'prove' the teacher is right, while religion requires all minds to (eventually) submit and subject to what is the final truth, education says, "if you have a better idea, put some work into it and lets see what you have." Education encourages redefinition while religious training is all about reaffirmation.

5. CONCLUSION

Should religion be taught at schools? The answer is no. Religion should be taught at mosques and temples and churches. Education and religious learning are two very different concepts and must be kept separate: Education nourishes the mind and religion the soul. Rather than have our schools produce jack-of-alls, we should hold our mosques to the task. However, the best way for anyone to learn about religion is from their own family. It is already established that there is no single accepted version of any religion, so given that religion is a personal choice, why enforce it at a public forum such as a school?

Young minds are fresh and honest. We should struggle to maintain that. Give them an environment where they can explore the world they will one day inherit and keep that environment devoid of elements that would make them learn the differences they have. As parents, why don't you take the responsibility to train them religiously? Religion has no homework and (Most of the times) just one single book. A few hours a week would impart far more religious wisdom (and customized to your household version!) than a month at school. But most of the times that doesn't happen because the parents themselves aren't religiously inclined themselves.

Religion is a way of life whereas education is learning how things work and things happen the way they do. Children live at home and study at school.

The segregation is obvious.