The 7th Curriculum Revision and Teaching Religion

ABSTRACT

This article deals with the various issues of teaching religion, particularly with the newly revised the 7th Curriculum. Actually the author participated in the process of making revision of 7th Curriculum. However, the dr aft was modified gravely at the last stage of final review. This study has attempted to adumbrate the rationale, direction, and contents of revision, In terms of rationale, it is clear that there are contradictions and even dilemmas evident in the legitimacy and practice of teaching religion in the secondary school. Therefore it is a necessity to revise religion-curriculum to make it legitimate. How ever, it is impossible to reform the regulation of education itself, because it is founded on the constitution which defined the separation of religion and state. What, then, is to redefine the concept of teaching religion, that is religion as a course of study. Even though the religion class is situated only in the religion-founded schools, there are conflicts in between school and students who has no religion or different belief. And even though religion is recognized one of the most important cultual phenomena, no public school has practical concern to teach religion except in the other courses that raises religion sporadic. The result is an unbalance of education itself. The urgent question is nothing but to redefine the concept and contents of teaching religion. And it should be the education about religion rather than the education of religion. It is important that the 7th Curriculum recognize this that it tried to redefine the concept of the teaching religion and reformulate the contents of religion-curriculum. However, recognizing that this is the most crucial for the revision of teaching religion, especially for the student who would live in the future, the curriculum is represented rather dogmatic and religious maintaining one particular section in the text for a particular religion that founded the school. And the understanding that the needs and desir es of students must be taken into account in formulating the contents of curriculum. But the curriculum is laden heavily with the history of thought and doctrines of world religions as w ell as Korean traditional religions rather than the practical issues of students, for instance, human destiny, suffering, death, social justice and so on. The author of this article clearly pays attention to the limit and possibility of teaching religion at school. It should be noted that it would be unrealistic either to expect the disappearance of teaching religion at religion-founded school, or to hope the teaching religion should be an instituted class at the public school. However, if the concept and contents of teaching religion could be altered far beyond the conventional assumptions, it would not be impossible to expect teaching religion at school in general. It is suspicious that the 7th Curriculum revision would realize the authors ideal to make the teaching religion as an education about religion so as to overcome dilemmas emerged from legal conflict to class room situations. The contents of curriculum is partly overlapped and redundant. In spite of this, the 7th Curriculum revision, particularly, of teaching religion has not only added attraction but also savory exit, if it could be carefully measured and applied in practical class situation. Therefore, the author has confidence because there is unanimity among the people that there can be no healthy religiosity without religious reform, includes together with the reformulation of teaching religion at school. Here again, among professionals over a wide spectrum of world opinion, one would find considerable conviction that teaching religion must be the education about religion in the age of religious pluralism and secularism. Fortunately the 7th Curriculum r evision is, the author evaluates it, timely and appropriate.