Originally posted by stokerWho's "we"? I don't believe in any gods. I'd like children in British schools to know that Christianity has been one of the main forces shaping British culture, but that could be taught in history lessons. If we are going to have Religious Studies lessons, they should be comparative, unbiased, and include the Greek, Norse and Egyptian pantheons on an equal footing with the Abrahamic and Dharmic creeds practised today.
as in truth as we know it. ... ie that the world is round and has been around billions of years, and that our spiritual belief in the one god.
The post that was quoted here has been removedDo you disagree with these statements? Why?
No. It's naive. In my state in Australia, government had declared that all education had to be secular in order to receive funding. Obviously Catholics rejected this proposal, preferring their children to be taught in a Catholic school. The unfortunate consequence of this was that poor families had to pay exorbitant fees for a second-rate education in run-down schools. The children were ultimately the victims and their poor education only entrenched the sectarian division between the Catholic and Protestant communities. A better system, which is in place now, is simply to subsidise part of the costs of the school, excepting the religious activities of the school.
Furthermore, religious education is in itself a very academically rigorous subject. When I studied at a Catholic school, we looked mostly at biblical studies and church history, which are in fact important areas of knowledge -- irrespective of one's religious commitments. The state curriculum for example completely overlooks huge parts of history like the inquisition, the crusades and the whole reformation -- which ironically a Catholic education here does not. Religious education was never dogmatic (it had to be sensitive to the sizable proportion of those in the class who were not Catholic.)
The post that was quoted here has been removedI disagree.
Religious parents are taxpayers too and have the right to educate their children in the ethos of their choice. Religion isn't a separate academic subject taught in isolation from others; it is a worldview that orients one's entire approach to life in a particular framework.
The post that was quoted here has been removedHere in the U.S., public schools are primarily funded by local property taxes. In very religious areas, your proposal would have the effect of mandating that religious people pay taxes to fund a secular education. Do you also think that religious parents should be able to opt out of funding public schools, or have the option of having their property tax revenue go towards funding parochial schools?
The post that was quoted here has been removedI partially agree.
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, religious education into the history of religion in general and the teachings and belief systems of the major religions should be taught, along with other non-religious philosophies and world views. Religious indoctrination should not be taught in state schools. That can be done outside of school hours in whatever way the parents choose.
I have no problem at all in teaching about religion. I do have a big problem with state schools pushing a specific faith above all the others.
This post by Dr Evan Harris is very apropos: http://bit.ly/cdhz1k
--- Penguin
Originally posted by lucifershammerWow, long time no see, lucifershammer. Welcome back! 🙂
I disagree.
Religious parents are taxpayers too and have the right to educate their children in the ethos of their choice. Religion isn't a separate academic subject taught in isolation from others; it is a worldview that orients one's entire approach to life in a particular framework.
Originally posted by bbarrWhat do you make of education vouchers given to parents or legal guardians to "spend" at an educational institution of their choice (possibly topped up with their own funds)? There has been some talk about that here in the UK.
Here in the U.S., public schools are primarily funded by local property taxes. In very religious areas, your proposal would have the effect of mandating that religious people pay taxes to fund a secular education. Do you also think that religious parents should be able to opt out of funding public schools, or have the option of having their property tax revenue go towards funding parochial schools?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think the state has a vested interest in ensuring that children are well educated, and this requires the imposition of some basic standards for curricula. But if a charter school, parochial school, or whatever meets such standards, I think parents should be able to send their kids to the school that is most consistent with their values and outlook. So, I have no real problem with a voucher system, unless the resultant lack of available funding for secular public schools prevents such schools from meeting those basic standards. I would have a problem if, for instance, a local population was overwhelmingly religious and their use of vouchers simply prevented there from being enough money for a local public school to provide a decent education to some secular minority.
What do you make of education vouchers given to parents or legal guardians to "spend" at an educational institution of their choice (possibly topped up with their own funds)? There has been some talk about that here in the UK.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrSurely, if the government has already vetted academic standards at private schools, then education there would be decent enough for a "secular minority" (the term is slightly ambiguous; I interpret it somewhere along the lines of "religion neutral" )?
I think the state has a vested interest in ensuring that children are well educated, and this requires the imposition of some basic standards for curricula. But if a charter school, parochial school, or whatever meets such standards, I think parents should be able to send their kids to the school that is most consistent with their values and outlook. So, I h ...[text shortened]... g enough money for a local public school to provide a decent education to some secular minority.
Is the government always obliged to provide a secular alternative in education? Does the government's principle of separation of Church and State mean more than just a negative position against actively promoting a particular religion, or religion in general, in government institutions? Why protect the secular view in particular and not other belief/value-system minorities like, say, Scientologists or Muslims?
Slightly tangential: why would there even be a distinction between private and public schools in such a system? The government is just another player in the education-management market; they get paid from the vouchers just like everyone else.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSure, if the educational standards decent are uniformly applied, then the quality of education at any institution would, by definition, be decent enough. But I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether there will be children who will have to sit through religious education that may alienate them, offend them or their parent's sensibilities, impose religiously-based norms on them that they explicitly reject, or subject them to judgment and pressure from their peers or adults in positions of authority. Here, in the U.S., we think children shouldn't face these additional burdens, and hence opt for secular education.
Surely, if the government has already vetted academic standards at private schools, then education there would be decent enough for a "secular minority" (the term is slightly ambiguous; I interpret it somewhere along the lines of "religion neutral" )?
Is the government always obliged to provide a secular alternative in education? Does the governmen ...[text shortened]... n the education-management market; they get paid from the vouchers just like everyone else.
I'm not sure whether, in the abstract, governments are obliged to provide a secular educational option. Some perfectly fine governments have state religions and nobody seems much to mind. But some governments, like ours here in the U.S., have norms that prohibit the establishment of religion. Moreover, there is now a real cultural commitment to separation of church and state more generally. Since the state provides free primary education in the U.S., the question is whether primary schools should be secular in your sense (ie., religion neutral). I think the answer is clearly 'yes' for our culture, but different cultures will have to work this out for themselves.
I also think that it is very misleading to characterize secular educational institutions as embodying some belief/value system. In my experience as a student and educator within the public school system, there is no comprehensive doctrine or evaluative framework even implicit in our work. There are, of course, types of inquiry that are taught, and types of reasoning that are trained and used as bases of evaluation of student performances. If some religious minority were to object to a science course because the instructor didn't countenance the reading to tea-leaves or chicken entrails, then that's too bad. Some religious doctrines are crazy, and that is that.
It seems that the christians have inadvertently gotten spirituality into the school curriculum.
They will open a can of worms if children are allowed to practice any religon. lol.
They get mad here if you put down "jedi" as your religon.
I just reckon they're scared of how many actually put that down 🙂
I was talking to a home schooler who uses public curriculem the other day. The public school gives lessons on line to this mother who has a "special needs" child whom she homes schools. One of the lessons was teaching the pledge of allegiance. In case some don't know it, it goes like this,
"I pledge allegiance to the flag,'
Of the United States of America,
And to the Republic for which it stands,
One nation, under God
Indivisible with liberty and justice for all"
In the lesson they went line by line and word by word......until they got to "One nation under God". When they got to that line they quickly said, "A nation is a country" and jumped to the next line. LMAO. These people are sick. I don't even know why they didn't just nix the God part and change the pledge.
3 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedReligion is the responsibility of parents. There is no question about that, however, what of the children who have none?
One of the most troubling aspects of public education that I can think of is the inability of teachers to effectively discipline and instill morality in children at times.
I will give you two stories as an example of what I am talking about.
In Florida a grade schooler went into a rage and refused to listen to her teachers and was disrupting class. The principle was notified and the teachers had a little cabal to decide what to do with the youngster. They all decided that to forcebly remove the child or discipline the child might evoke a law suit, so they decided to call the police. When the police arrived they hand cuffed the child and called the mother who, you guessed it, later filed a law suit and sued them.
The second example comes from Ohio. In study hall a young girl was raped when a teacher left the room. The parent was then somehow notified by another student and he came down to the school demanding answers. One of the first responses to the parent was to calm down and not let the media draw attention to the matter. Of course, this caused him to go into a futher rage. One of the lines that stuck in my mind was that the teacher said someething to the effect that it was not her responsibility to teach children the morals to not do such things. To make a long story short, the teacher was eventually removed even though it was like pulling teeth, but probably never would have happened if the story had not gained national exposure. After all, it costs the school board dearly in legal fees to do such a thing.
In my mind morality is part of the instruction of children. Arguably it is the most important aspect of ones education. After all, do we want to raise and empower a bunch of amoral individuals? What will this do to society?