2 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhat I have described is a school system drowning in litigious poo. It is a school system that is too scared to discipline a child and a school system that is too scared to utter the words "GOD". In fact, children who pray in school or even wear religious symbols such as a cross become controversial figures. I think we can both agree with these problems.
Secondly, I believe we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. All religions I know think that raping and refusing to take responsibility for children etc., is a "bad" thing. In fact, one need not be religious to know these things. Having said that, do we then need moral direction even though we have this inner voice directing us? It has been my experience that those that refuse to listen to the inner voice, for whatever reason, often dulls this inner voice to the point of it being silenced altogether.
Lets face some facts here, those who wish to teach morality must base their morals on something. So in this Godless utopia that we call the public school system, what shall we base our morality upon?
I believe we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. All religions I know think that raping and refusing to take responsibility for children etc., is a "bad" thing. In fact, one need not be religious to know these things.
Exactly. So the school system should teach the bare minimum - the moral precepts that everyone agrees on. It should for instance teach that rape and murder are wrong (uncontroversial), but not that homosexuality is wrong (controversial). It should teach that charity is virtuous (universal) but not that wearing a headscarf is virtuous (specific to a particular creed).
Lets face some facts here, those who wish to teach morality must base their morals on something. So in this Godless utopia that we call the public school system, what shall we base our morality upon?
Common sense? Basic decency? Humanist values? Dawkins-style reciprocal altruism?
Originally posted by whodeySo in this Godless utopia that we call the public school system, what shall we base our morality upon?
What I have described is a school system drowning in litigious poo. It is a school system that is too scared to discipline a child and a school system that is too scared to utter the words "GOD". In fact, children who pray in school or even wear religious symbols such as a cross become controversial figures. I think we can both agree with these problems.
...[text shortened]... Godless utopia that we call the public school system, what shall we base our morality upon?
Secular Humanism.
Originally posted by TeinosukeI suppose it is a start, but do you really think this possible? I say the public school systems should teach a religion/morality class. Why not teach the children what is out there verses avoiding the subject of God/morality altogether? My guess is that their lawyers are adivsing them otherwise.
[b]I believe we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. All religions I know think that raping and refusing to take responsibility for children etc., is a "bad" thing. In fact, one need not be religious to know these things.
Exactly. So the school system should teach the bare minimum - the moral precepts that everyone agrees on. It should for i ...[text shortened]... upon?[/b]
Common sense? Basic decency? Humanist values? Dawkins-style reciprocal altruism?[/b]
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedReligious or non-religious primary school?
EDIT: Assuming you meant religiously-affiliated primary school, I'm not sure what the import of the question is. If, say, the school is a CofE school and the parents in question are Anglican and Catholic, then the Catholic parent either makes do or sends her/his kid to the nearest Catholic school.
Originally posted by whodeyChildren should not be taught the doctrines of any one particular religion in school because no one particular religion has been conclusively proved true. Thus, there's no consensus about "what is out there". On the other hand, there's a fairly universal consensus that murder, rape, theft, are wrong.
I suppose it is a start, but do you really think this possible? I say the public school systems should teach a religion/morality class. Why not teach the children what is out there verses avoiding the subject of God/morality altogether? My guess is that their lawyers are adivsing them otherwise.
The evidence of Western Europe is that the most secular societies have the lowest crime rates, so yes, I think it is possible to teach and inculcate a non-religious morality.
Originally posted by TeinosukeCould you give concrete statistics for that?
The evidence of Western Europe is that the most secular societies have the lowest crime rates, so yes, I think it is possible to teach and inculcate a non-religious morality.
In my experience, Muslim countries have among the lowest crime rates in the world.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhy are parents and, in particular, Church leaders so reluctant to separate religious education and general education? I maintain that religious people are unwilling to separate the two.
Obviously general education has a substantial formative influence over children and parents, I believe, should be legitimately concerned about this. In my state, for example, there is controversy about what age is suitable for sex education or what age a staff nurse should report to parents about the use of contraceptive or access to abortion. Now irrespective of your private convictions on these matters, hopefully you can see that religious parents might not wish their children to receive instructions about the use of contraception. A mother who wants her child to practice abstinence would not want her children to be educated in a place where the school challenges that message. Faith-based schools allow these parents to ensure that their children receive an education consistent with how they want their children raised.
I think Lucifershammers raised a good point earlier. Religious education is not the same as catachesis (indeed, many Catholics in Australia may have religious education at their school but catachesis in their parish church outside of school.) The purpose of religious schools is not particularly about doctrine but about providing an environment suitable for people of a shared faith. There are obvious practical advantages of this too. Muslim schools, for example, will be more supportive for their students who need to pray regularly or indeed fast for a long period.
I think what you overlooked however is the fact that religious education can be intellectually stimulating and robust. In Australia, there are a number of religious subjects offered for final year (grade 12). I remember doing a subject on Scripture, looking at the gospel of Luke in a critical way. The subject also accommodated for Jewish students, who looked at Jeremiah and Muslims students who looked at set passages of the Quran. I think it is commendable if religious schools can offer academically rigorous subjects about religion and can see that as valuable in the long term.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedIn every case, the parents whose religious affiliation does not match that of the nearest school face the same dilemma - send their kids to the nearest school and make do with the mismatch or send their kids further afield where a school with the desired ethos exists (or even move nearer to such a school). How they will decide depends on each concrete situation.
The import of your question is still unclear to me. Of what relevance is the fact that they are neighbours, for instance? In fact, what is the relevance of having a pair of parents (rather than just a single set) in each case?
(If it helps, I do not think children, even of primary school-age, have an automatic right to attend the school nearest to them.)
EDIT: Looking back over your posts, are you making a point for better "integration"?
Originally posted by TeinosukeHas anything been conclusively proven true?
Children should not be taught the doctrines of any one particular religion in school because no one particular religion has been conclusively proved true. Thus, there's no consensus about "what is out there". On the other hand, there's a fairly universal consensus that murder, rape, theft, are wrong.
The evidence of Western Europe is that the most secul ...[text shortened]... crime rates, so yes, I think it is possible to teach and inculcate a non-religious morality.