Comparative Religion

Comparative religion tends to make people comparatively religious, as the saying goes. Prominent scientist (TM) and philosophical hack Lawrence Krauss has suggested that we should start using comparative religion to indoctrinate children against any religion (save his--atheism is hardly exempt from the charges made against other religions). His analysis of the effects of this are mostly right--which is why I largely believe that we ought not require religion be taught in public schools. This is also why I don't think that universities should be required to teach courses on the Bible, and why I don't think that "Great Books" programs are a cure-all. Too many people in academia (especially) are morally and intellectually compromised to the point where having them teach these subject matters largely result in their ruining these subjects for their students.

This is not to say that all comparative religion classes, or courses covering the Bible, or Great Books programs, are bad. All can be well-done, and well-taught, and when well-taught they are invaluable. But on the whole the effect of requiring a secular-skeptic type academic to teach a religion class will be a comparative religion class so presented as to systematically undermine every religion covered, with the deliberate end being a cultivated skepticism.

We really are at a point in which world-views clash cosmically. Our differences of opinion are increasingly (or perhaps merely more openly) over what constitutes the good and not how to best encourage it. I concur with Dr. Krauss as to the effects of requiring all students to study "comparative religion," and as a result he wishes taht this requirement be put in place whereas I hope it is not.