In my classes on campus when religious opinion or religious people come up, often religion is portrayed as something detrimental to society. Religious people and opinions are put down. The defenders of their faith are ridiculed, their defenses refuted, and their reasons for believing ascribed to ignorance, guilt, fear, or low intelligence.

Among too many “educated” people, religion is treated as unnecessary for right living and a threat to people who are not religious.

This bias causes opinions, policies, and ideals with religious roots to be omitted or disdained. This happens in subjects ranging from philosophy and government to art, theater and dance. The result is that non-religious students and teachers cause religious students to be silent for fear of disrespect. Respect is not the absence of debate but concern that in the debate a person’s dignity not be nullified. Respect is injured by the omission of valid information favorable to religious views, and choices that an open debate would call for. This is inconsistent with the duty of education to portray all necessary and relevant information on a subject.

Also, education is supposed to enrich the quality of life of students, a goal shared with religion. A genuine faith in God leads to a life of improved quality from the time of its reception. Thus, in its duty to assist in attaining a high quality of life, education should hold religious and non-religious opinions and ideals in equal esteem.

Some who treat religion and religious opinion as a threat justify their fear or disdain by historical events such as crusades, witch-hunts, and forced conversions of tribal people. These acts of violence and persecution are hypocritical violations of the religion of the perpetrators and its basic law: ” Love your neighbor as yourself.” A religion is not bad just because some of the people who claim to practice it do not actually practice it. Second, to hold people of today accountable for acts of past peoples is the fallacy in all reverse discrimination. In a university sensitive to the issue of discrimination, why is this allowed to go on? It is painfully ironic since education is seen as the most important tool in ending discrimination.

Along with racial and gender identity discrimination, religious discrimination is expressed subtly and difficult to regulate. Odious comparisons or references out of context and dismissive body language are painfully effective. Still, forming a policy forbidding false statements (slander) on religion, religious people, and religious opinion in any educational setting might cause students and teachers to check their level of respect towards religious people, thus making the open forum for debate truly open. A policy to end slanderous religious intolerance, which merely brings the intolerance into the light, is mutually beneficial to religious and non-religious people since the latter also profess the value of non-discrimination.

In short, a policy prohibiting the ridicule of religion and the belittlement of religious people and opinions in educational settings is not a threat to non-religious people and, given a focus on complete truth on issues, expands their education. It would also result in respectful treatment of religious people, and thus be mutually beneficial to the harmony of both groups. It is, therefore, morally required in professional and educational policy.

Rebecca Hall is a student at Sacramento State and can be reached at [email protected]