Abstract

We argue that there is a well-intentioned—yet mistaken—definitional turn within contemporary cultural discourse in which ‘true’ religion, being essentially loving and peaceful, is distinguished from ‘false’ religion. Concerned with the possibility that this discourse might be prevalent in school Religious Education (RE), we surveyed practicing RE teachers within the United Kingdom (UK) on their beliefs about religion. We wanted to see how far the surveyed teachers evidenced a strand of contemporary cultural discourse which, we argue, conceptualizes bad religion as false religion. Responses from 465 teachers to our online survey indicate that many RE teachers understand religion(s) as essentially benign or pro-social—and present it/them as such in the classroom. We argue that RE can only foster religious literacy if religions are presented as multifarious, complex, social phenomena. This cannot be predicated upon an essentialist conceptualization of harmful religion as false religion, which is inimical to understanding religion in the world today—as in times past. We conclude that this conceptualization is a barrier to UK RE meeting both its extrinsic purpose to educate, and one of its intrinsic purposes to foster tolerance and pro-social attitudes.

Highlights

  • We teach general tolerance to all people, of all religions and that all religions teach peace, love and compassion, with the odd exception where there may be extremists who misinterpret their holy books, but that they exist within all religions and that they are not true followers. [English Secondary Academy/Free School Teacher]Aspects of contemporary religious, politico-cultural, discourse distinguish between true, or genuine, religion which is by its very nature good; and its opposite, which is dangerous, bad—and false—or not genuine religion

  • We argue that Religious Education (RE) can only foster religious literacy if religions are presented as multifarious, complex, social phenomena

  • This cannot be predicated upon an essentialist conceptualization of harmful religion as false religion, which is inimical to understanding religion in the world today—as in times past

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We teach general tolerance to all people, of all religions and that all religions teach peace, love and compassion, with the odd exception where there may be extremists who misinterpret their holy books, but that they exist within all religions and that they are not true followers. [English Secondary Academy/Free School Teacher]. While previously explicit (Cameron 2017a), it is possible to discern implicit notes of essentialism in Cameron’s casting of extremist ideology as a “twisted narrative” In this instance, the twisting that Cameron describes could be understood as misrepresentation; pointing to an essentialist understanding. In his speech at Ninestiles School (UK), Cameron is again clear in his essentialist conceptualization of religion in distinguishing between “Islamist extremism” and “Islam the religion” (Cameron 2017b) From religious leaders, such as the Dalai Lama; to political leaders, like President Obama and. Prime Minister Cameron, extremist violence is conceptualized as a manifestation of bad, that is false, religion; for religion has a nature—an essence—which is peaceful, loving, and good

What’s Wrong with Essentializing Religion?
Presentation of Data
Question
23: Religion is Dangerous
Discussion
Religious Literacy?
Findings
Recommendations
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call