Sheltering children against religion is not the legal principle involved in excluding religion from the schools. It's avoiding state advocacy of one religious philosophy or theological system over another.

The court rulings on this have been clear but obscure. They have essentially said the schools could teach religion as long as all religions were included. This was too much for public schools, which already have to teach grammar, reading, math, geography, history, science, physical education, art, music, foreign language, business subjects, household management, industrial arts, computer science ... stop me! the list goes on... So the schools opted for the simpler alternative: no religion.

That's equal treatment too.

The problem, as you have stated, is that so much of our history (including the beginnings of science, which were based on the activities of priesthoods in agricultural societies) is tied up with religion, so to teach without mentioning it is like teaching about yellow fever without mentioning the mosquito. It can be done, but the picture is dangerously incomplete.

Let me tell you, though, speaking as a product of Catholic schools, teaching religion integrated into the curriculum is not the way to enlightened truth either. I have an excellent background in medieval European history due to my grammar school's emphasis on Church history, but once we got into the Reformation, the books I studied in school were full of anti-Protestant bias. I began to understand the depth of this problem when, in the 6th grade, I took issue with a vicious characterization of England's Elizabeth I. My opposition was based on two biographies from the public library that I had read. I got slapped down for not reading "approved" books, i.e., books without an imprimatur on the copyright page. The take on the Jews was less complex: They're still wrong, but the Christian thing to do is not to kill them anymore.

This education, of course, in no way prepared me for the Mennonite experience I got when I moved to Pennsylvania. It also didn't prepare me or my children for the fundamentalist neighbors' children telling us that my parents were going to burn in Hell forever because they are Catholic.

The point (and I do have one) is, unless religion is introduced under very controlled conditions, specific to the subject area involved -- such as philosophy, history, art history, study of culture in social studies, music -- and with complete neutrality, two things will happen. First, the dominant religious tradition of the area will take over. Trust me. Second, the other religions practiced in the area will be devalued.

The second a minority religion is even discussed in elementary schools, parents representing a conservative school of the dominant religion object to heathen practices and superstitions being foist on their children. They will win this fight because the community at large can understand their viewpoint. So minority religions fight just as hard to keep the majority views from being explicitly expressed in the schools, because we know that the implicit expression of them is inevitable in the community at large.

If you can think of a way to introduce religion into the classroom as an academic study without hiring 666 clergy consultants for every school district to make sure everyone is represented and everything taught is correct, please tell the world.

You may be the next holder of the Nobel Peace Prize. ;)

Regards--
Mary Anne