@jkenney says the new curriculum offers a balanced perspective on the introduction to religion for K-6. My answer as a historian of religion is: no, no it doesn’t. And, I’ll tell you why.

1)First, there’s no intro or discussion on what the study of religion is, or what it includes. It’s important to give students a conceptual idea of how open the definition of religion is bc a) it shows how the work in this field changes as we gain new knowledge &

b) it shows how all religions & spiritual traditions give us insights to the wider concept of religion. An understanding of basic terms like theistic, a-, heno-, mono-, poly- etc, show the richness of traditions in their own contexts & what they signify to adherents.

It also gives students a framework in which to build knowledge & place details as they learn more about this subject, teaching them to think analytically about religion regardless of whether they choose to be an adherent or not.

2)Historical examples of religious figures & their spiritual experiences, such as Joan of Arc in the history component of the curriculum, are not contextualized as religious figures but rather normalized as political ones.

This is troubling bc it makes no distinction bt the religious & political aspects of these narratives, which can quickly devolve into 'mythologizing' historical ppl or devaluing their spiritual experiences. Rather than looking at the why or how of this person’s context, we’re

directed to look for supernatural answers to the questions. Yet, theological responses to historical questions can’t provide solutions or answers to pragmatic concerns, or respond to the sociological aspects of religious experiences.

3)We also don’t see any historical figures with religious experiences (esp in the historical components) other than Christian ones. This suggests the curriculum authors view only N Eurp Christians as 3-D ppl who can act on their religious motivations legitimately.

4)The concept of religious mythology as a socio-political genre (rooted in events/figures by historical authors, & therefore written for specific social/political reasons), is relegated to the LA section with an incorrect definition of myth.

A religious myth is not a “legendary story.” Legends are about human heroes w exceptional qualities. Myths are about divine figs/forces interacting w other divine figs/forces & human beings. These stories are often origin narratives that encompass creation stories, births/deaths

of gods, cataclysmic events such as flood narratives, or divine interventions into historical timelines. They can also be expanded to include mythologies about the beginnings of civilizations, of religious/spiritual traditions, institutions, kingdoms/states & dynasties

involving in/direct interactions w gods. This difference matters bc rel mythologies are not just about gods, but about the way ppl view the roles of semi/divine figs/forces in the social/political structures of their societies & helps us explain how ppl saw/see their world.

5)Since the socio-political functions of the myth genre in the gr 6 religion component is not defined or explained, then it's assumed. There is some evidence to suggest that an obsolete understanding of myth as narratives from “other” religions is being applied in the

gr 2 component when discussing ancient civs/religions. But the concept of mythology building is entirely absent in the discourse on Christianity. This implies that the concept of “truth” is only being applied to Christian beliefs & doesn't allow for critical analysis.

Under this same gr2 section Islam, Christianity & Judaism are listed as monotheistic (w/o a definition), neglecting several other traditions such as Baha’i & Sikhism. While in the gr6 component the term monotheism isn't even listed.

6) All of these things are troubling. N America today struggles w/ the issue of Christian Nationalism, which carries a backlash of white supremacy & religious superiority that go hand in hand. This includes a backlash against poc in every tradition incl Christianity.

In a pluralistic society this is a dangerous precedent to set. It implies Christianity is not one religious tradition among others, but sets a tone for its primacy & seen as a monolithic faith (which historians/sociologists have shown isn't the case)that is not be analysed.

7)While the gr6 religious component does attempt to embrace an array of faith traditions, the details provided to describe each faith tradition listed are nothing more than random pieces of info. There is no structure to the information provided to help

students process details or understand how religions function/evolve in response to societal changes. No religion/spiritual tradition exists in a vacuum. Yet, the categories appear randomly chosen. But, on a closer look, we can see that they’re dictated by ideas of an East/West

divide, which is a deceptive & inaccurate approach to studying religion, bc there are ppls in each of these traditions spread all over the world. Still, the authors were so disorganized in their approach to this subject that

(aside from incorrect categorizing, lack of appropriate terms, and misinformation) they even listed two separate traditions (Confucianism & Taoism) as interchangeable systems of religious/spiritual practice as tho there were no distinctions bt them.

8)But, if this wasn’t enough, the larger issue in the new curriculum comes up bc the authors relegate the focus of these traditions to the theological/doctrinal aspects of each tradition instead of to their wider historical, anthropological & sociological aspects.

In doing so the curriculum authors are focusing on a theological comparison of “beliefs.” This makes it an exercise in comparing “truth of faiths” rather than an exercise looking to accurately introduce knowledge about each tradition at an age appropriate level.

9)And, last but certainly not least, in a country attempting to heal from religious oppression & wrong doing against Indigenous peoples, there is not a single mention of any First Nations, Métis, or Inuit spiritual traditions found either in AB or across Canada.

I can't express the harm these oversights will cause communities across AB, where racism continues to thrive. Such approaches are dangerous & promote racism rooted in the misunderstanding & fear of unfamiliar religions & spiritual traditions.