News

The Halton (Ontario) Catholic District School Board made headlines recently with its decision to pull Philip Pullman's children's novel The Golden Compass from library shelves at its schools.

The board plans a "review" of the books after receiving a complaint that the author is an avowed atheist.

The decision gave rise to the usual lament of censorship, and a heated debate about what children are taught in schools — only days before a major movie starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig is set to make its debut.

What do you think?

globeandmail.com has invited a panel to debate the issues raised by the book, movie and the school board's decision.

The panelists have all written a short essay addressing these questions:

"What does your religion/faith/creed say about how and when children get their first religious instruction?

"What does your religion/faith/creed teach about other faiths or about people who do not believe in God?

"When should children be allowed to make their own independent decisions about what to believe?"

The essays and the questions and answers appear at the bottom of this page.

The members of our panel are:

Michael W. Higgins is President of St. Thomas University in Fredericton, N.B., and Past President of St. Jerome's University in the University of Waterloo.

Dr. Higgins is a broadcaster, author and co-author of numerous books and CBC Ideas series, including Heretic Blood, The Muted Voice, Power and Peril and Stalking the Holy.

Lorna Dueck, an Evangelical Christian journalist, writes a monthly column for The Globe and Mail.

She also hosts Listen Up TV , a weekly newsmagazine on spiritual perspectives in current events, seen Sundays on Global TV, and Thursdays on CTS, Salt and Light TV and Christian Channel.

Rabbi Ed Elkin has been the spiritual leader of the First Narayever Congregation in downtown Toronto since 2000.

Born in New York, he graduated from Princeton University and has worked or studied in Canada, the U.S. and Israel.

Sheema Khan also writes a monthly column for The Globe. She has a Masters degree in physics and a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Harvard. She has worked in R&D, is an inventor and has worked at law firms in intellectual property law.

Ms. Khan also served as chair of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) from 2000-2005.

Justin Trottier is executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, making him the first full-time paid staff member at the first venue dedicated to humanists and freethinkers in Canada.

He is co-founder of the political advocacy group Canadian Secular Alliance, as well as president of the multimedia outreach group Freethought Association of Canada.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Dr. Michael Higgins: The Roman Catholic tradition values the power of the word and sometimes fears it.

The ambivalence felt within the tradition — treasuring the rich possibilities inherent in the unfettered imagination and yet at the same time recognizing the need to secure the boundaries of orthodoxy — are perfectly captured in the decision made by the Halton District Catholic School Board, a decision that I consider generated more by fear than enlightened solicitude.

Passing on or transmitting the "faith" is a critical part of being a community of faith.

Catholicism understands the deeply familial/tribal dimension of faith and eschews the post-modern obsession with marginality.

To be religious, to "have" faith, implies growth, maturity, discernment.

It means to be in a relationship with Christ that is personal and affective, yet grounded in a larger narrative than the individual, a narrative that is historical, symbolic, organic and transcendent. In short, bigger than oneself.

To that end, precisely because faith is not a private project, Catholicism attaches considerable importance to imparting the tradition to the young, not because it is a form of enslavement, nor because it demands childlike deference, nor because it delimits the freedom of the child, but because it provides a life-giving context, vocabulary, and frame of reference for meaning-infused values and convictions.

To be born into a religious tradition is not to be held captive to parental prejudice but to be set free to believe.

I often marvel at the depressing and myopic argument advanced by colleagues and friends who insist that faith is a private matter and that it is best not to inculcate the particulars of one's own faith for fear that you will impair the free judgement of the young. As if one exists in a vacuum.

This is to miss the point entirely. You share, convey and cultivate that which you value.

Although the essentials of religious faith can be only in part communicated to the next generation, the skittishness that prevents a parent from transmitting that tradition does a profound disservice to the child.

Our children are entitled to know the faith that shapes them. For certain, such a faith will have to be discarded in order to be later re-appropriated at an adult level. That is a natural corollary of maturation.

We need not fear fiction that feeds on the tradition, whether Lewis, Rowling or Pullman, because the word is liberative, faith is fraught with risks, ignorance and not freedom is what truly imperils faith, and imagination speaks to the divinity within us.

Lorna Dueck: My faith (Evangelical Christian from Apostles Creed and Westminster Confession) instructs me to begin early in teaching children about God. The actions of Jesus in welcoming children are the most notable example of this.

My creed's teachings about people who do not believe in God is that at the end of their life, they, like all people, will stand before God to be judged for their actions on Earth. God will then assign them a place in either heaven or hell.

Children are to be allowed to make their own independent decisions about what to believe at all times in their life.

Parents are to guide and instruct constantly about the teachings of God, and to stress that each child must come to a place of decision about what to do with the reality of God.

In our faith, we often hear "God has no grandchildren" and I agree with that. Belief in God is an independent decision of commitment.

This is enforced by the practice of "Believers Baptism."

While children may be dedicated to God by parents, they are not baptized into church membership until they make that decision themselves.

Usually this does not occur before the age of 12, as baptism in my Anabaptist tradition requires me to understand that I am identifying myself with the death and resurrection of Christ.

Our symbol of baptism immerses the entire body in water and means I am literally dying to my old life and being raised in the power of union with Christ.

Few children can understand the depth of that and it is normal to see children of very religious parents delay this decision until their young adult years.

Individually, they must request baptism and request church membership. Baptism is a sign and seal of belief in God that cannot be arranged by parents.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Study of Torah is absolutely central to Jewish life and it begins at a very early age.

From the time they are babies, our children are exposed to Jewish practices such as lighting the Hanuka or Shabbat candles, and celebrating the Passover seder. Families are encouraged to bring their kids to the synagogue from an early age so that they hear and learn the prayers and synagogue begins to feel like a second home to them.

From the time they are small, we use Hebrew words in songs or stories so that they begin to become familiar with our ancient tongue. As soon as they can understand, we teach them about our patriarchs and matriarchs, and about the Exodus from Egypt, and other narratives from the Torah.

When it comes time for formal schooling at age 5 or 6, some Jewish families send their kids to Jewish day school, and some send them to supplementary afternoon school.

However one educates one's children, there is an emphasis on making it a positive experience so that Judaism will become dear to them. There is even one tradition that when a child begins studying a text of the Torah for the first time, a little dab of honey is put on the page so that the child associates learning with sweetness.

Judaism is not a proselytizing religion. Although we do accept sincere converts if people seek us out, we do not seek them out. We don't expect the rest of the world to become Jewish. We understand that just as we have our faith, Gentiles will have theirs, and that's okay.

That's what we teach our children. We do believe that there are some basic standards of morality that all humankind is obligated to live up to.

If someone in our community doesn't live up to those standards, that's obviously bad, and the same applies for non-Jews.

Every human being of any religion or ethnicity was created in God's image, and deserves honour and respect on that basis.

As for atheism, there are many Jews who don't believe in God who are members in good standing of the Jewish community.

We don't have a faith test, or a dogma that members have to subscribe to. All the more so do we not have expectations of Gentiles regarding their belief in God.

All we ask is that, whether they believe in God or not, they act in a kind and respectful and peaceful way toward others.

We can mandate behavioural expectations of our children while they are in our care. For example, we can expect them to keep kosher, or follow the laws of the Sabbath, or share some of what they have with others who are in need.

But belief in God can't be dictated or enforced from the outside. If you force someone to say that they believe, even a child, what have you really achieved?

Rather, it is better for parents or teachers to talk about their own faith, and let the child absorb and consider what they hear from people they trust.

Expose them to texts like the Bible and the Talmud which are suffused with the words of those who believe in God.

Demonstrate through our actions how we as people of faith behave in terms of our ethical and moral standards.

Hopefully, all these things together will lead our children to be positively disposed towards faith.

But we need to let them ask questions freely, and express their doubts, and acknowledge that faith is often hard.

And then we need to let them make up their own minds.

Sheema Khan: In Islam, it is the parents who are responsible for teaching the basics of the faith to their children, who are seen as a trust from God. This is done through both formal instruction, and more importantly, through personal example.

Religious inculcation begins at birth, when the call to prayer (the athan) is whispered in the newborn's ear.

The most important tenet that is passed on to the child is the worship of one and only one God — in Arabic, Allah — and that Muhammad is the final messenger of God.

Children are encouraged to study the wonders of creation, as signs of God. In fact, the Koran describes the story of Prophet Abraham as a young boy. He contemplated upon the stars, the moon, and the sun, and deduced the presence of an omnipotent, merciful Creator.

From the age of seven, children are encouraged to participate in the daily prayers with their parents. Prayer inculcates humility and strengthens the direct relationship between the worshipper and the Divine.

While fasting is not required of children, many wish to emulate their older family members, by trying to fast part of a day during the month of Ramadan. The fast is a means to develop God-consciousness and gratefulness. During this month, children are encouraged to give charity.

Parents provide religious instruction either directly, or send their children to those who are more qualified. Since the Koran is in Arabic, children are also taught basics of the Arabic language, so that they may directly engage with the Koran directly, throughout their lives.

The fast and prayer become obligatory once a child reaches puberty, which is the point of discernment and responsibility.

From this age on, s/he will be judged by God for one's choices and actions — including the choice to believe or not. One must use all of one's faculties, to reflect upon the signs of God. And then make the choice.

Belief is not automatic between generations. The Koran gives the examples of Prophet Noah whose son chose a path different from that of his father, and that of Prophet Abraham, who shunned the idol-worshipping ways of his father.

Justin Trottier: I want to first thank the editors of the Globe and Mail for the all-too rare opportunity to offer an atheist's point of view on issues touching on atheism, free inquiry and the role of religion in a secular society.

It is progressive that the existence of atheists and agnostics — accounting for 18% of Canadians — is finally being acknowledged.

I trust the time has come where it is now clearly unacceptable to discuss issues like religious accommodations, public funding of faith schools and even the meaning of life without the point of view of a nontheist.

The Centre for Inquiry believes schools are places where children should be exposed to the broadest range of debate on any issue, without prejudice or bias.

This is especially true in public schools where the irony of accepting tax money from atheist citizens but insisting on the removal of books written by that same community, is not lost on many people.

We believe that religious indoctrination of any kind does not belong in the schools.

Religious education, on the other hand, as in a "comparative religions" or "world religions" class, on the other hand, definitely belongs in schools, so long as it includes a history of religious criticism and a history of disbelief, both vital to the individual's formation of a mature worldview.

In opposition to most of my fellow panelists, I do not think it right to spend the critical formative years of a child's life indoctrinating them into a single belief system and then, only when they are armed with the tools to defend themselves from other points of view, to allow them to be exposed to other religious or non-religious worldviews.

I think parents and schools have the obligation to teach children how to think — that is, to train them to use their faculties of critical and reasoned thinking — rather than what to think.

It is patently counterproductive to only turn one's faculties of critical thinking upon alien points of view, and not one's own.

The Centre for Inquiry , Canada's first venue for humanists and freethinkers, engages in a plethora of self-critical debates and panels that challenge each of us to reflect upon our own beliefs and assumptions.

We feel that, in the best interests of our pluralistic, multicultural secular society, this is the most productive and meaningful responsibility of parents and educators.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks very much, panelists. Let's move on now to the questions from our readers and the answers from our panel.

Chris Bell, New York: Assuming that the book does promote atheism — a questionable assumption in itself — is that a good reason for banning or refusing to read the books?

If you say yes, isn't it possible that faith can be made stronger through debate and weaker through ignorance?

By the same token, what if Christians and Jews prohibit reading the Koran as well?

Is faith so weak that a children's book will destroy it?

Michael Higgins: I find it difficult to see the threat to religion inherent in literature — save hate literature, wild polemics, and tracts of dubious authority.

Fiction does not constitute a threat. The suppression of fiction does. Is faith so fragile that it will crack when subjected to parody, satire, allegory, or fantasy? We don't "protect" the faith of our children by insulating them.

We nurture their faith by responding to their queries with respect, recognizing their protests as a statement of growing independence, and engaging with them by reading what they read.

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Chris. Faith must be informed by debate and I'm not in favour of banning this book.

There is a need for parental involvement in guiding children as they engage new ideas, but we should instruct in an awareness of what's out there across the belief spectrum.

We can reach our own conclusions about truth, and strengthen them by testing those conclusions against competing ideas.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I completely agree, and would not vote to ban a book on the basis that it promotes atheism.

The only reason I can think of to remove a book from a school reading list would be if it actively promotes hatred or violence against a specific group, and even that instance should be interpreted quite narrowly — i.e., if in doubt, I would err on the side of not banning.

My faith is stronger than a children's book, or any book for that matter.

And if a book causes kids to ask questions, or articulate feelings or conflicts that had not been expressed before, then that, in my opinion, is a good thing because it means that they're engaging with these issues rather than ignoring them.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Chris. Thanks for the question.

Perhaps we can all agree that a public school board should not be banning books hastily, as seemed to have happened in this case.

However, what about individual families, or private schools? Should a parent not have some say as to what material his/her child absorbs?

These are choices that parents make everyday — whether it is TV, the Internet, or video games.

For those for whom faith is central, they will take extra care to equip their children with the tools they feel are best for their development.

If a book promotes views diametrically opposed to one's core beliefs, why encourage it for one's own children, especially if a child is at a formative stage in understanding one's own faith?

When the child is old enough to make independent decisions, then s/he is free to read whatever material s/he chooses.

Debating can either strengthen, or weaken one's faith, depending on the inclination of the individual.

In addition, children may have not reached a level of maturity where they are able to critically analyze arguments and counter-arguments.

On the other hand, once the child reaches an age of discernment, s/he will naturally encounter a diversity of views — some of which may be at odds with one's core beliefs.

These may be rejected outright, adopted, or somewhere in between the two.

Interestingly enough, the Koran repeats the arguments raised by atheists, idolaters, etc., and answers with intellectual counterarguments. As you mentioned, debate can be a means to strengthening one's faith.

Justin Trottier: Thank you, Chris, for getting to the heart of the issue.

The world is a place of diversity and if we as a society truly are committed to fostering diversity, then a real testing ground for us is whether we will allow the fullest range of diversity to be exposed to our own children.

If we ban this book, perhaps Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland will follow, because that book has several passages that can be seen to be critical of religion.

Perhaps also, non-Christian religious schools should ban C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia series for their obviously Christian leanings.

This does not take us to a place where a publicly-funded school — nor any school for that matter — should be going.

Rather than being concerned the book will destroy faith, I would agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, who went so far as to propose that "His Dark Materials" series become part of religious education since, in his opinion, learning about other aspects of belief in god can only lead to a more mature view of faith, even if — and here I'm adding my own remarks — that view may in some cases be one of doubt and disbelief.

The real question is whether some people are so concerned that a mature understanding of faith will in some instances create atheists that they would rather keep their children believers, even if lacking in mature understanding.

Dave Campbell, Edmonton: In your opinion, do Canadian students possess any right of intellectual freedom — a right to access multiple points of view and alternative ideas?

If so, what reasonable limits are placed on it? Does mere criticism of religious doctrine justify a school board in limiting this right?

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Yes, I believe that Canadian students do have a right of intellectual freedom.

As I mentioned in response to the first question, the most important reasonable limit on that freedom has to do with literature which promotes hatred or violence.

Racist works, works which deny aspects of history which all reputable scholars accept as being true, works which glorify murderers — these don't belong on a school reading list.

Criticism of religious doctrine does not, for me, step over that line. Books which promote hatred or violence against a particular religion, however, do.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Dave. Students have the right to explore and learn about the diversity of our world. They should learn about different viewpoints — in a manner that is commensurate with their maturity level.

Critical thinking is important for the development of intellectual curiosity and creativity. The last thing we want is students who don't know how to think for themselves.

Now, criticism per se is not an issue. Rather, it is the manner in which it is carried out. Respectful questioning, with the aim of understanding another viewpoint, should be encouraged. However, dogmatic criticism, or criticism aimed merely to provoke, does not enhance mutual respect or understanding.

Unfortunately, within parts of the Muslim world, there is not much tolerance for criticism.

While there are a myriad of reasons for this state of affairs, insecurity and paranoia are at the root of responses (to criticism) framed by threats, book-burnings and violence.

It is wrong, and needs to be changed. Witness the ridiculous saga of outrage aimed at a teddy bear named 'Muahmmad' (by Muslim schoolchildren) in the Sudan.

On the other hand, a right-wing Dutch politician named Geerts Wilder has vowed to produce a documentary to highlight "fascist" elements of the Koran, with the intent of provoking a backlash.

Is this type of criticism correct?

Justin Trottier: The Centre for Inquiry's very existence is premised on fostering the broadest range of debate and dialogue on any and all issues, even in some cases especially controversial ones like religious, supernatural and paranormal beliefs.

With the exception of speech that calls for immediate violence against an individual or a specific target group, no literature should be off limits, certainly not a book that criticizes any worldview.

What is interesting though is how uncontroversial this point of view has become in any area other than religion. This is great progress.

We use the harshest language in criticizing political parties, economic systems, philosophical worldview (atheism for example), rival scientific theories, and yesterday's clothing fashions.

However, when it comes to religious beliefs, there is still great hesitation towards criticism, though the opinions expressed here give me hope that that is changing.

Though we as a society rightly value multiculturalism, we sometimes raise it to an ideology in which we confuse the fact that religious ideas and concepts are entirely different from an individual's ethnic or racial identity.

This is the difference between criticism of religion and anti-Semitism, as an example. Criticism of religious (or atheistic) ideas and values is as appropriate as criticism of any other set of ideas or beliefs.

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Dave. Criticism of religious viewpoints does not warrant the banning of such views.

From your question, I wonder if you worry that religions try to create a structure that limits intellectual freedom.

That approach is the antithesis of how God relates to people.

Don Michaels: When it first came out several years ago, Philip Pullman's book, The Golden Compass, was recommended by our public library staff as a book to encourage adolescent/youth to become engaged in reading. The book was recommended on its literary merits.

It was the book that started my son and several of his friends, all then in Grades 6/7, on a quest for enjoyable books to read and readable books to enjoy.

It was regarded as fiction and there was never any discussion of a "religious" message.

I think the book should be judged solely on its literary merits. Do you agree?

Sheema Khan: Hi, Don. Literary merit is an important criterion for choosing a book. However, so is the subject matter. It should be appropriate for the age level in question.

I can't comment specifically on The Golden Compass since I have not read it.

Justin Trottier: I do not agree it should be judged solely on literary merit, although that is certainly the most important criterion.

Having won the Carnegie Award in 1995 and then voted the best book of the past 70 years, there is no need to defend this work's literary merits.

However, we need to distinguish between the criterion for keeping a book on a shelf and the criterion for actually choosing it among many options as school reading material.

I think I've already made my point clear as to the fact that there is very little, if anything, that should justify removing a book from the shelf.

I would, though, go further and suggest that The Golden Compass be brought into the classroom because it not only gives another point of view on religious belief, but perhaps also shares some important humanist values.

Pullman has suggested, for example, that The Chronicles of Narnia are guilty of making the children's deaths at the end into a wonderful release.

I would, of course, never call for the banning of those books on account of that, but would suggest that other books, like The Golden Compass may offer critical counterpoints.

Michael Higgins: I agree with Don Michaels that Philip Pullman's The Golden Compass should be judged on its literary merits — although the anti-theological subtext should be seen for what it is (an examination of power's sundering of the genuine religious impulse).

There are many viewers who see in Tom Fontana's violent and brilliant prison series Oz and Denis Leary's ribald firefigther series Rescue Me blasphemous affronts, whereas in fact they do what any authentic art should do: take religion/faith seriously.

So, too, Pullman. I suspect that Nicole Kidman agrees — as she continues to reel from criticism from her co-religionists for starring in the film version of the book.

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Don. The words "literary merit" mean different things to us all, but perhaps we can agree that great books shape culture, attitudes and behaviours.

It was a novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, that presented moral conviction that changed history.

When I choose to read a book, I find myself asking: "Do I want to be challenged in this area of thinking? Do I want to learn about the author's view on this?"

That's the question that devout parents are asking on behalf of their children on Golden Compass.

Sometimes a book is avoided because it tramples on something you hold dear, even sacred, and parents may be choosing to pass that view on to their children by avoiding interaction with Golden Compass.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I confess that I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it in particular.

In general, I think literary merits are key, for a school reading list, with the one caveat that the book — even if it does have literary merit — doesn't promote hatred or violence against an identifiable group.

Free speech purists would likely quarrel with even that limit, and they would rightly argue that ultimately subjective criteria would have to be employed in order to judge what promotes hatred and violence.

In fact, some argue that the Bible itself does just that, although I vehemently disagree with that characterization.

I believe that those charged with making these decisions err on the side of allowing rather than banning in situations of doubt, that they take into account the age of the students involved, and that they provide context.

For example, I am okay with high school kids reading The Merchant of Venice for its literary merits, even though it includes extremely negative stereotypes of my people.

But I would hope that the reading of the play would include discussion of just those stereotypes, about the issue of stereotyping altogether, and about the historical background of Jewish life in England in Shakespeare's time.

I feel the same way about Huck Finn and its stereotypes of blacks and native peoples.

But I just couldn't stomach seeing Mein Kampf on a high school reading list — because it actively promotes genocide as its agenda.

Shawn Gagne, London, Ont.: I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools until university.

Having left the church in my teens and twenties, I found myself recently returning to it with my wife and son.

One of the religion classes I remember best from high school involved the study of world religions. In this class, if I can remember correctly, I studied religions other than Christianity — including Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Islam.

We essentially studied other points of view, other belief systems outside the context of Roman Catholic beliefs.

Why I find this story so strange is that atheism is another point of view, another belief system. Why can't atheism be treated similarly to the study of other religions?

Justin Trottier: That is an excellent question. Neither atheism nor humanism are religions, in my view.

But while atheism is simply one's disbelief in god, humanism is an entire worldview, calling on the use of human reason, scientific thinking and ethics based on the here and now rather than belief in the supernatural or the afterlife.

In that sense, humanism does have lots to say about the so-called big questions like the meaning of life, morality and death.

One cannot keep humanists off panels exploring such issues with the question-begging assertion that they have nothing to say about those issues, and then never learn what they have to say as a result.

As an example of discrimination sanctioned by according privilege only to those defined by faith and religion, take humanist chaplains who perform secular celebrations, yet are denied the same access afforded religious chaplains simply because their lack of "faith" deprives them of participation on the Ontario Multifaith Council.

Atheism is not, as one panelists has said, one option against many.

This is to make the classic mistake of assuming that all religious beliefs are ultimately about the same thing, which atheism is opposed to.

But Hinduism is very different from monotheistic religions and Buddhism's views on god are in some sense closer to atheism than theism, while Confucianism and other eastern religions are often best described as ethical philosophies or life practices than beliefs.

In this sense, atheism is part of a spectrum of thoughts on the divine, not one opposed to many.

The latter way of looking at nontheists has tragically led to the exclusion of atheists and humanists from so-called multifaith discussions.

But in any case, if we as a society value diversity, it can not only be sanctioned diversity, nor can it be limited to diversity as long as we all hold belief in god in common.

Respect for diversity so long as its premised on commonality is not diversity at all.

Lorna Dueck: This is a complicated question and it's hard to give a straight answer here.

On the one hand, it might helpful to give atheism a religious status.

If atheism was presented alongside other religions, it would lose its current elevated status as a scientific approach to life, and it would become one option among many as opposed to the one option against many.

This might give children more freedom to choose amid academic peer pressure in the secular school system.

On the other hand, it's not completely fair to call atheism a religion because it puts its ultimate trust in humanity's strengths, purposes and principles.

In religion, humanity looks towards something infinitely higher, more powerful and wiser than itself.

This gives the study of religion a framework for relationship to the divine, expectations of behaviour outside human standards, supernatural elements, purpose in suffering, a model of redemption and hope for life beyond the grave.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I agree. I have no objection to atheism being talked about openly.

Like all systems of belief, it has its strengths and its weaknesses. Let them all be aired, and discussed.

Learning about something in school doesn't mean that the school is promoting that thing.

I'd personally rather have my kids talk about atheism than pretend it doesn't exist.

Although I disagree with atheism, I know that there are a lot worse things in the world — like war and murder and abuse and rape and all those other ugly things we do to each other.

We can't shield our kids from these things forever. In sensitive and age-appropriate ways, we have to educate them about these aspects of the world.

All the more so for various systems of belief other than one's own, including atheism.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Shawn. This is a very interesting question.

I don't know if atheists themselves would see atheism as a religion unto itself.

The religions that you describe all have sacred texts, rituals and a well-defined framework of belief (or tenets).

Could the same be said of atheism? It is an alternate point of view.

But is it really in the same category as organized religion? What does atheism say about the meaning of life, morality, death, and accountability of the soul?

Perhaps in this sense, we can then set up a comparative analysis with major world religions which address these issues within the framework of belief in the Divine.