ABSTRACT
In the face of this aggressive intolerance, religious people and institutions have reacted in a number of ways, including retreat and retaliation. Retreat takes one of two forms, the first being compromise with the secular world so religion looses any distinctive presence. In 1976, concern about this kind of capitulation to the secular Zeitgeist moved a group of American Christian thinkers from a range of traditions to issue the Hartford Appeal. The appeal was a call to American Christians to affirm their traditions, emphasize transcendence and challenge the assumptions of modernity (Berger and Neuhaus 1976). The second manifestation of religious retreat is the restricting of religion to a private affair concerned with the edification and salvation of individuals and religious communities but with nothing to contribute to the wider society and civic discourse. This is the view of religion often propagated by secularists (and the overt policy of the state in some places, including France) but is also adopted by some faith groups. As we show later in the book, this is not consistent with Judaeo-Christian tradition which has a history from ancient times of engagement with civic life, even in hostile or ambivalent contexts. The prophet Jeremiah exhorted the Hebrew exiles in Babylon to ‘seek the peace and prosperity of the city’ where they found themselves. That sentiment is further worked out in the Christian theology of Augustine, Aquinas and many who followed them. Religious groups who choose not to retreat in the face of secularism often resort to retaliation. They respond in kind to the invective sometimes used against them, resulting in what some have described, particularly in the American context, as the culture wars. In these wars ‘name-calling, insult, ridicule, guilt by association, caricature, innuendo, accusation, denunciation, negative ads, and deceptive and manipulative videos have replaced deliberation and debate’ (Guinness 2008: 84). More serious still, in terms of retaliation, is religiously inspired intimidation and violence as a response to secularism. This book is a response to the dominance of secularism in the field of educational discourses around citizenship and civic education that eschews both retreat and retaliation. We intend to push back firmly against those who would exclude religious ideas and people of faith from civic life, setting the record straight where we believe it has been distorted. With Neuhaus (1976: 138), we are ‘calling a halt to retreat’ in both senses used above. In our response we are also committed to civility, which means much more than simply being nice or polite. It includes a commitment to deliberation, even through very tough issues, and to persuasion. As Guinness (2008: 151) points out, ‘genuine civility is more than decorous public manners, or squeamishness about differences, or a form of freshman sensitivity training. It is substantive before it is formal … It is a style of public discourse shaped by respect for the humanity and dignity of individuals, as well as for truth and the common good’. This book is divided into three parts, each addressing particular aspects of the issue of the role of religion in discourses about citizenship and citizenship education, but there are some overriding themes that permeate the book. These include:
1 A firm belief that the Secularization Thesis has proven to be false. For better or worse (and it has been both) religion is, has been, and will be an important factor not only in the lives of individuals but in the common life of societies, nations and the world. Despite challenges raised by modernity and postmodernity, religion remains a core element of the identity of many people around the world – including in the most ‘advanced’ societies – and if we expect students to come to understand the world in a deep sense, they will have to wrestle with understanding their own and others’ identities. A number of scholars around the world are calling for citizenship education that fosters a sense of cosmopolitanism, including an understanding of the animating role that faith plays in the civic engagement of individuals and communities (Hébert 2010; Osler 2010). Osler and Starkey (2003) demonstrate that young people have both multiple identities and can come to understand the identities of others in quite sophisticated ways. We believe it is a mistake not to acknowledge the power of religion in people’s lives as part of civic education.
