Question Why not compromise on the creationism vs. evolution argument and simply require that high schools offer an elective class in theology? This way the students still get the more pragmatic information of evolution but at the same time parents are given the option of introducing their children to the opposing ideas if they feel it is appropriate. Along this same line of thought, why not compromise in the argument of safe sex versus abstinence and simply offer both? Allow parents to select which class their child should be enrolled in, but require it to be one or the other? Children are individuals too. Some would benefit more from a conservative class while others would gain from a liberal class. Personally, I’m an eighteen-year-old virgin saving himself for marriage. I was raised on an abstinence program and it worked for me. A peer of mine was raised on the same system and is now at his doctor being tested for hepatitis C. By generalizing all children aren’t we guaranteeing that we’ll fail at least a few of them?

Accepted:
February 8, 2009

Comments

I think the two compromises you propose bring up very different issues. Letting parents choose between two types of sex education classes is problematic. Although you have personally chosen abstinence--which is entirely fine, of course--studies show that abstinence education generally (on average) changes the age of first intercourse minimally or not at all. If regular sex education generally does a better job of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the school would essentially be offering a choice between better sex education and worse sex education. I don't think offering that choice fits within the mission of health education--which is to use the best methods available to steer children and young adults toward better health.

The other compromise seems more sensible. Religion plays such a major role in world affairs, it is odd that a person can graduate from high school knowing next to nothing about it (as I did). It seem reasonable to at least offer comparative religion as an elective. However, if the idea is to offer such a class as an antidote to the teaching of evolution in science classes, that's another matter.

There are conservative Christian organizations that are all too eager to get into schools and manage the curriculum of religion classes. They are eager to push religion education toward a focus on their own literal, exclusivist, evanglical version of Christianity. There would be many other "agendas" that would inevitably shape the teaching of religion in the public schools. Conservative religious leaders would want to stop teachers from approaching religious scriptures as historical texts, for example. In the end, I don't think students would be likely to get a factual introduction to comparative religion as opposed to an air-brushed introduction to each religion as its leaders want it to be seen.

Still, maybe a distorted introduction to comparative religion is better than none at all. For many students, high school is the final stage of education. The important thing would be for curriculum designers to see knowledge and mutual understanding as their goal, not "correcting" the lessons taught in science classes. A true "comparative religion" class would not violate the first amendment to the constitution, but a class molded by Christian evangelicals most certainly would.