The Hazards of Religious Education

An article here talks about the hazards of giving your children a religious education. (See discussion at Times & Seasons here)

The article is off-base for a number of reasons, one of which is the author's curious (yet common) definition of religion.

(See an earlier article I wrote about the purpose of religion here)

Rubeiz writes:

Children learn one form of religion and take their own faith as the only right one. They are not taught about other religions or at least about the validity of other religions.

Now, what does 'the validity of other religions' mean? What makes a religion 'valid'?

If I had three history textbooks, one of which had the North winning the Civil War, one of which had the South winning the Civil War, and one of which said there never was a Civil War in the US, would you be able to say all three books are still 'valid' textbooks for a history class?

Religion is no different. God exists or he doesn't. Jesus is the Son of God or just an ordinary man (or didn't exist at all). A religion that teaches things that aren't true can't be considered 'valid' anymore than an unfactual textbook can be--regardless of how pure the motives of the author when he wrote it, or how many people read and believe in it.

Rubeiz continues:

"[Children] take [religion] as a prescriptive formula, a community membership, a set of facts and a pass to salvation..."

Sounds about right to me...

Rubeiz appears to believe 'salvation' is an abstract concept that's discussed by religious groups but has no reality. Again, the assumption seems to be religions are just 'social groups' for people with similar backgrounds and beliefs--synonomous with one's 'culture'--without any thought to whether the spiritual concepts discussed by those religions have any factual basis.

Rubeiz's main concern seems to be religious discrimination--which is valid--and discusses 'spiritual education' which seems to be simply learning more about other people's beliefs and recognizing the inherent goodness in other people. That sounds good--most religions teach that other people and their beliefs should be respected. My World Religions class at BYU was very informative and valuable...but it didn't answer any of the real spiritual questions such as "Does God exist?", "Where did I come from?", "What's the purpose of life?" and "What happens after I die?" Rubiez (and many others) seem to think that these questions have no answers and that spiritual education is nothing more than learning what other people mistakenly think those answers are.

That appears to be the biggest obstacle to religious and spiritual progression in the world today. People don't understand the purpose of religion or how to find the answers to questions (or that answers even exist somewhere). Learning truths about who we are and where we come from is vital to understanding (and controlling) where we're going, and it's counterproductive to have the 'religious pluralists' always saying 'There are no real answers, so why don't you stop being so stubborn with the idea of religious 'truth' and start accepting everything as equally valid". Accepting everything, however, leads directly to moral relativism (where there is no 'right' or 'wrong'--it's just a matter of opinion) and will stunt rather than encourage spiritual growth.

As they say on the X-Files: "The Truth is Out There" (really!)