Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

For Goodness Sake


reviewed by R. Murray Thomas - June 05, 2006

coverTitle: For Goodness Sake
Author(s): Walter Feinberg
Publisher: Routledge/Falmer, New York
ISBN: 0415953790, Pages: 241, Year: 2006
Search for book at Amazon.com


In writing this book, Walter Feinberg stepped out of his role as a professor of philosophy of education at the University of Illinois in order to serve as a tour guide. His self-assigned task was to lead readers on visits to religious-education classrooms in a variety of American private schools, mainly Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Lutheran. He approached his visits from a secular perspective—that of liberal democracy—rather than from the viewpoint of any religious denomination. Thus, during the months that he sat in classrooms, interviewing teachers and their students, his quest was driven by a concern for how religious instruction in parochial schools affects the fate of democracy in a multicultural—particularly multi-faith—America. His motive can be cast as a pair of questions:


The ideal—“What kind of religious/moral education in parochial schools best prepares youths to participate constructively in a multi-faith American democracy?”

The real—“To what extent do students in religious schools experience such an ideal kind of instruction?”


For Goodness Sake is divided into three major parts, with the author’s answer to the “real” question in Parts I and II and his response to the “ideal” question explained in Part III. Thus, what readers first encounter is the “real” portion of the author’s project, wherein he offers a fascinating analysis of what he witnessed in classrooms, observing both teachers and students.  


For instance, at a Jewish middle school, class sessions bordered on chaos as teenagers argued with each other and their teacher over interpretations of Judaic doctrine. The teacher encouraged noisy debate, for he wanted his charges to encourage his students to base their convictions on a critical examination of their religion’s history and not simply on what their elders told them to believe. In contrast, the mode of instruction in a fifth-grade class of a fundamentalist Lutheran school involved students remaining politely at their desks as they memorized passages from the Bible (“the literal word of God”) and Luther’s Small Catechism.


Through portraits of teaching in four Roman Catholic schools, Feinberg illustrates the extent of pedagogical variation found within a single denomination. He applies the label traditionalist to a class in which the instructor taught students “the fixed nature of doctrine as defined by the authorities in Rome” (p. 47). He calls two other classes modernist, because the teachers presented traditional doctrine but modified its application as they tried to protect the self-esteem of individual students, such as homosexuals and children of divorced parents. Feinberg dubs a fourth class postmodernist because its teacher (a nun in an all-girls school) subscribed to feminism and liberation theology. She used historical analysis to show how church doctrine changed over the centuries from what she viewed as a gender-equality position in Jesus’ time to a present-day male paternalism that she believed could be reversed in the future. Thus, in Catholic schools, “teachers will differ from one another in their view of the moral authority of the Church hierarchy and the emphasis they place on critical thinking” (p. 47).

 

To sustain the health of American democracy, Feinberg believes it is important to have diverse religious schools so that individuals are not forced into a single moral-values mold but can instead, from an array of belief systems, select one suited to their needs. Furthermore, belonging to a religious body can enable persons to share the same set of convictions and thereby enjoy the security of belonging to a community of fellows that extends across the world and over the centuries. In addition, being well versed in a particular moral doctrine furnishes a person an intellectual perch from which to judge other people’s belief systems.


However, in Feinberg’s opinion, religious instruction in parochial schools threatens the welfare of multicultural democracy if that instruction produces chauvinistic bigots. It is difficult to maintain a sense of unity and mutual respect among members of a pluralistic society if adherents of each faith are taught that members of other faiths are wicked, stupid, or badly misled. Thus, for Feinberg, a key aim of religious education should be to foster tolerance of beliefs other than one’s own, although promoting such tolerance did not seem to be a goal of many of the classes he observed.


Now then, compared to the real state of religious instruction in parochial schools, what should be the ideal form of religious education? Feinberg believes the ideal program would be built on such principles as tolerance, self-esteem, critical reflection, and public surveillance.


Self-esteem.  A central goal of schooling should be to promote learners’ sense of worth so they will confidently confront life’s challenges. Feinberg writes: “Assault on the self-esteem of children can be crippling.  It can lead them to give up on a task because they feel themselves inadequate; it can lead to unreasonable caution and fear of risk and novelty” (p. 191).


In Feinberg’s opinion, religious schools damage students’ self-esteem whenever instruction in church doctrine burdens learners’ with guilt and fear of eternal damnation because their own lives do not meet the faith’s traditional standards. A sense of worthlessness can result from students being labeled sinners for violating the church’s ban on masturbation, birth-control devices, pre-marital sex, abortion, marriage outside the faith, divorce, or doubt of the church’s authority. Thus, flexibility in applying traditional standards to individual students is required if youths’ self-esteem is to be fostered.


Critical reflection. If students are to be more than robots repeating what they have been told, teachers should engage them in critical reflection, which “entails distancing one’s self from certain practices and meanings, entertaining doubt about certain beliefs, and being willing to consider evidence and arguments that might counter those beliefs.” (p. 103)


Public surveillance. A feature of Feinberg’s plan that will be difficult to sell to most Americans is his proposal that a system of public monitoring of the content of religious education in faith-based schools should be adopted to help ensure—or at least to encourage—that tolerance and critical reflection are included in religious instruction.


In summary, Feinberg views religious schools as desirable in a democracy. However, he fears they breed hatred and divide the society if they fail to teach tolerance and critical reflection. Because of a tendency for religious schools to teach their own doctrine as the only acceptable “truth,” Feinberg suggests that public schools, rather than those operated by churches, must serve as the principal training ground for the majority of citizens in a pluralistic American democracy:


Religious schools can teach their students to cherish their own specific conception of the good, but they must be able to count on the public schools to reproduce the understandings and dispositions needed to secure the political climate where all deeply held religious ideals can be expressed.  Public schools, when working as they should, can provide the trust and understanding that can allow single-tradition religious schools at the educational margins.  (p. 214)





Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: June 05, 2006
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12526, Date Accessed: 10/23/2021 12:48:39 AM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
Article Tools
Related Articles

Related Discussion
 
Post a Comment | Read All

About the Author
  • R. Murray Thomas
    University of California, Santa Barbara
    R. MURRAY THOMAS is a professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His current interests are reflected in the titles of his recent books: Comparing Theories of Child Development (6th edition, 2004), Teachers Doing Research (2004), High Stakes Testing—Coping with Collateral Damage (2005), Religion in Schools—Controversies Around the World (2006), God in the Classroom—Religion and America’s Public Schools (2007), and Violence in America’s Schools (2007).
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS