We agree wholly with Robert Minor and Robert Baird's initial point in the lead article in the June 1983 issue of the CSR Bulletin: “Because of the public and tax-supported nature of the state university, it is inappropriate to teach religion there” (69). Furthermore, in such a setting, and given the real and perceived “power differential” between faculty and students occasioned principally by the giving and receiving of grades, to teach religion rather than teaching about it is an assault on the students' integrity and personhood. The distinction between these two approaches to the subject is the central topic of the first two lectures in both Comparative Religion and Religion in American Culture; we consider it extremely important.

However, Minor and Baird's first, virtually non-contestable premise does not entail the myriad conclusions they draw from it.

LEGITIMATE VERSUS ILLEGITIMATE GOALS

They first give three reasons why it is difficult to teach about religion. First, “advocating practical religious methods, worldviews, or affective matters are the issues with which religions deal; and therefore, to advocate one alternative over another is to take a religious stance” (Minor & Baird 1983: 69). This is an invalid argument. Various religions take stances on nuclear war, human rights, etc. Let X be their position on these topics. If I accept X it does not follow that I am taking a religious stance. Religions may deal with a topic, T, as may political groups, etc.