• carbon dioxide
• third-world “kleptocrats” trying to usher in a “New International Economic Order”
• cow farts
• Marxism
• meat-eating
• Swiss prayers
• sunspots
• the earth’s increasingly-hot molten core
• nothing
• the Industrial Revolution
• government funding for studying global warming
• power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might, looking to disguise their influence

And now, noted climatologist Benedict XVI has proposed a new theory: religious disbelief:

In fact, “when ‘human ecology’ is respected in society, environmental ecology also benefits.” Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the “final authority,” and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.

Of course, this theory is as nonsensical as all the previous ones. If anything, the non-religious are more environmentally responsible, because they don’t have to participate in earth-destroying religious rituals!

How many greenhouse gases do traditional open-air Hindu funeral pyres emit? Where is Greenpeace standing up against ritual animal sacrifice? Why haven’t Catholics retooled the sacrament of Anointing in order to lessen our dependence on oil? How many resources could be saved if the Hajj was held via teleconference? What about Zoroastrian Fire Temples? All the trees that are chopped down to make Shinto Ema? The precious fertile topsoil eaten by Juche practitioners. The paper wasted by Scientologists to artificially keep Dianetics on the bestseller list?

Not to mention the filthy polluting smoke used as part of every papal election? If that’s not an “inconsiderate use of creation,” I don’t know what is!

But Hemant managed to push my buttons this morning with his post on the topic:

Comments for or against religion — outside the context of the class — have no place in a public school classroom. I don’t know why Corbett was talking about religion… maybe he was provoked. But it doesn’t matter. He can’t let himself get off-topic like that.

Despite the fact that I agree with Corbett’s statement on Creationism (and several of his other comments), it’s hard for me to say he was correct to say them in class.

I know if this were a Christian teacher saying pro-Christian comments, we’d be furious. Why is it ok for this teacher to give his opinions against religion (even if you agree with them)?

I attended public schools, and I had teachers who got “off-topic” all the time. Should a chemistry teacher only be allowed to talk about chemistry? A Spanish teacher only about Spanish? A trigonometry teacher only about trigonometry? This represents a sadly narrow view of education. The most valuable lessons are often off-topic, like when the shop teacher gave us tips on how to pick up women and when our American history teacher showed us how to use credit cards to open locked doors and when our seventh-grade civics teacher taught us how to drive (or at least left her keys unattended at lunch).

The other assertion implicit here is that “there are certain topics that public school teachers should not discuss, even if they are true.” Now, I’d be with you if you’d left out the word “public.” In general, teachers probably shouldn’t be telling students about their sexual fetishes (although I once knew a fifth-grade Catholic-school teacher who did), regardless of where they teach. You can probably think up other examples.

But “is it religious or not” is a horrific litmus test to apply to our syllabi. We should be applying litmus tests like “is it true or not,” “is it useful or not,” and “is it funny or not.”

(Unless you’re equally zealous about amendments 2-10, I’m going to ignore the first amendment objection you’re already formulating.)

How can you teach World History without mentioning religion? How can you teach evolutionary theory with mentioning religion? How can you teach Dianetics without mentioning religion? You can’t, you can’t, and you can’t. And how can you effectively teach anything without injecting your opinion into it?

Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Joel wants Your Religion Is False to become part of the standard curriculum, and this sort of attitude makes it all the tougher for that to happen. He’s just talking his book, no pun intended.” Well, Joel’s got to eat!