The Philadelphia Inquirer's Frank Wilson (whose blog Books, Inq. is wonderful) has a review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion which touches on something I can't resist:

Dawkins is well aware that many believers object to a curriculum that presents, as one person he quotes put it, "all faiths as equally valid." Only one doesn't have to get into the question of validating different creeds. You can simply study what people believe and why. And read their scriptures. And admire their art and music and ritual. Even Dawkins grants that "we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals... without buying into the supernatural beliefs... ."

I suspect these ideas would not have the effect Dawkins thinks they would....

What I cannot understand is the position (taken by so many teachers) that "all faiths are equally valid." How can anyone maintain logically (or with anything resembling a straight face) that the statement is not judgmental? It only seems non judgmental, but it is about as non-judgmental as it would be to say that all political ideologies or systems are equally valid. Or that all versions of the origins of the universe are equally valid. It's illogic at it's worst, and I wouldn't be surprised if the idea came from politicians who simply didn't want to offend anyone.

The only way to be non-judgmental is to not make any judgment at all. Saying that concept or idea A is "just as valid" as concept or idea B is an assertion which, unless it is proven, has as much educational value as a political slogan.

Not that someone doesn't have a right to believe or maintain, say, that "all ways are valid and all gods exist." I once belonged to a church which maintained exactly that. But if I taught that to kids, I would be indoctrinating them -- every bit as much as if I taught them that only Jesus was "the way, the truth, and the light."

It's amazing that this approach could be passed off as secularism.

Not taking a position on religion means not taking a position, favorable or unfavorable. Saying all religions are equally valid is anything but secularism.

A larger question, of course, is whether it's possible to teach without making judgments. In the case of religion, it might be possible, but I see nothing wrong with being personally honest and disclosing one's own view if it becomes relevant to a discussion, as long as that isn't done in an indoctrinating fashion. Nor do I see any problem with being able to point out that dragging sacrificial victims to the tops of pyramids would not be considered freedom of religion under our First Amendment, and that I might think a religion advocating that is definitely not "equally as valid" as all other religions. Those who think it is, they should feel free to disagree with my assessment, but that doesn't mean I should have to consider their opinions equally valid.

If everything is equally valid, how can anyone think critically about anything?

(I swear, if I had to sit and listen to the "all ways are valid" mantra in a classroom, they'd have to drug me....)