An incredibly naive question

At the beginning of the month Arthur Keefer posted "Could Charlie Hebdo have been prevented if France allowed religious instruction? (COMMENTARY)" on the Religious News Service's website. Though I do not oppose "religious instruction" outright I do find the idea to be very problematic. Keefer seems to be blissfully ignorant of one of the biggest problems with allowing religious instruction in public institutions. The term is rather amorphous and open to interpretation. Not everyone means the same thing when they talk about "religious instruction".

If Keefer means that a general overview of multiple faiths in terms of the most commonly accepted tenets within each and how each faith has influenced and been influenced by local, regional, and global culture, I would support such an idea. However, that still doesn't mean it would have prevented the tragedy that occurred at Charlie Hebdo. Comparative religious studies can increase tolerance in the general population that participates in such studies but it is not a panacea. Various studies have indicated that a percentage of the population will not only fail to become more tolerant but will in fact become more extreme if that is the mind-set they have already embraced. Religious instruction is just one potential mitigating factor. By itself it cannot accomplish nearly as much as Keefer seems to think

Ultimately, there is just as much reason to believe that relatively strict secularization is just as effective in terms of containing and combating religious extremism as is inserting religious instruction into public education. Personally, I think we should be teaching comparative religion in public education but do not assume it will automatically quell religious extremism. I would encourage it more out of a deep seated loathing of ignorance. So long as religion is a major component of culture it should be taught in as objective a manner as possible. This, inevitably, leads to another problem Keefer overlooks and a major reason why religious conservatives will continue to oppose religious instruction over religious indoctrination. Studies have shown that the more exposure to comparative religion a given population receives the lower the rates of religiosity (in terms of organized religious observance) among that same population.

So, no, it is highly unlikely that religious instruction would have made a difference in France when it comes to the most extreme among the religious right.

"My Religion Is Better Than Yours"

I agree with the sentiment that Mr. Dasa expresses, "...if we made even a little bit of an endeavor to understand another's faith, it could make all the difference in the world." I doubt that our views would line up very well beyond having an interest in seeing people get along better. It's a worthwhile goal. It does seem to be his main point throughout his Huffington Post piece, "My Religion Is Better Than Yours," that the superior attitude that religious people sometimes end up subscribing to is divisive and foolish. He's also right on this point. However, I'm not sure it has occurred to him that if all religions are viewed as completely equal and completely valid that the rational for choosing a specific one to follow starts to fall apart.

Again, I agree with the goal of trying to get along despite any differences that may exist. I do have another motive for favoring the demise of this superior attitude. I see it as increasing the odds that individuals will turn away from organized religion. If you have no strong feeling towards a specific sect/denomination why remain part of one? This, of course, does not automatically follow. It is also not a given that a person will leave their particular brand of religion. If they do that then makes the odds better that they might think more critically of religion in general. I have no doubt if that happens its just a short step away from abandoning religion altogether.

Mr. Dasa, himself, will probably never follow this route. He has definitely drunk deep the Christian kool-aid regarding Christ. It is clear that his ideas about religion will not be viewed in any substantial way. The Christ he talks about is the pleasant side of the mythical figure. All the references to Jesus' being forgiving and compassionate is a nice enough story but it overlooks all the passages where he speaks and behaves quite differently. Mr. Dasa may have read those passages but like Christians he either fails to comprehend what he's reading or makes up some convenient interpretation to gloss over it. His comparisons between his own Hindu faith and that of Christianity is interesting. There are certainly some parallels. Both definitely have their share of contradictions and absurdities.

Mr Dasa is right that all religions are basically equal. Equally loaded with nonsense. I can accept the continued existence of religion, not that I really have a choice, but it would be easier to do so if the believers would accept that it is a personal matter best left out of public life.