Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sorry but I still believe it is fundamentally wrong that any state funded school should attempt to teach children religion as a fact. Yes I have actively opposed church schools but it has had no effect.

Ecurb wrote:
Why would you possibly think I was scorning the Constitution when, in fact, I was praising it? In fact, I was agreeing with Xris (Surprise! Surprise!) that teaching religion with public funds is an abuse of public funding, and showing how it is disallowed here in the States.

I will say this -- Americans who revere the Constitution as infallible -- like Fundamentalists who revere the scriptures as infallible -- are dogmatic.

Sorry I misunderstood what you wrote/ Will try harder

Xris wrote:Sorry but I still believe it is fundamentally wrong that any state funded school should attempt to teach children religion as a fact. Yes I have actively opposed church schools but it has had no effect.

Many things (including state-funded schools teaching religion) that are "fundamentally wrong" nonetheless fail to qualify as "child abuse". I agree that state funded schools shouldn't preach religion. However, one component of a liberal education is to UNDERTSTAND the basic precepts of World Religions, and to have some familiarity with their literature and rituals. Are we to avoid teaching The Iliad and the Odyssey because of the divine interventions that occur in them?

In many Universities (both public and private) here in the States, there is a "Religion Department". As an academic subject, “Religion” (sonetimes called "Comparative Religion") is one of the Humanities – like Literature, Philosophy, History, and Languages. Students study it like they study these other seminal works of man. A department for training priests or ministers would be a “Theology” department.

One more thing: I think you’re over-exaggerating the problem, Xris. I’m a father myself. Sit down with your children and say, “We’re sending you to the church school because in many ways it offers you the best available education. Of course, some people – including your teachers – think that the Bible is historically accurate and that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. In the past, most people believed this. Today, many still do – but most educated people think that while there may be some historical truth in some biblical stories, many have been invented or exaggerated, and “God” is a human invention. In fact, that’s what I think. You – as you get older – can decide for yourself. In either case, however, it’s good to learn about Christianity, because it has been so influential to Western thought and culture, and in order to understand ourselves and how we think, we must understand what has influenced us to think that way.”

What’s so hard about that?

A five year old taught that Jesus loves him and god is in heaven is systematic of a culture that encourages we accept religion as essential. How can I confuse a five year old on what he is instructed on at school and what I may believe. Yes as proactive atheist I might be able to give a balanced view, eventually but there are certain parents who through previous indoctrination encourage this system. If a parent wants to instruct their child on their beliefs so be it but society as whole should not encourage this abuse. Schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith. Academic theology is a different issue that I find strange but would not exclude from further education.This early type of brainwashing can and does influence all our lives and I ask why should we tolerate this abuse in the 21C.

You are offering two distinct opinions, Xris. You say, "Schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." This is very different from saying, "Publicly funded schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." (I'm not sure what "faith" is, but I assume Xris means "religious dogma".)

In the first case you are advocating censorship, book burning, and the abridgement of free speech. In the second, you are arguing for a particular governmental policy. Of course if you consider teaching religion to young children “child abuse”, your advocacy of censorship and book-banning makes sense. My opinion, though, is that the censorship and anti-intellectualism you advocate are evil in principle. What gives you the right to “not allow” parents to send their children to church on Sunday for religious instruction?

Ecurb wrote:
Many things (including state-funded schools teaching religion) that are "fundamentally wrong" nonetheless fail to qualify as "child abuse". I agree that state funded schools shouldn't preach religion. However, one component of a liberal education is to UNDERTSTAND the basic precepts of World Religions, and to have some familiarity with their literature and rituals. Are we to avoid teaching The Iliad and the Odyssey because of the divine interventions that occur in them?

In many Universities (both public and private) here in the States, there is a "Religion Department". As an academic subject, “Religion” (sonetimes called "Comparative Religion") is one of the Humanities – like Literature, Philosophy, History, and Languages. Students study it like they study these other seminal works of man. A department for training priests or ministers would be a “Theology” department.

One more thing: I think you’re over-exaggerating the problem, Xris. I’m a father myself. Sit down with your children and say, “We’re sending you to the church school because in many ways it offers you the best available education. Of course, some people – including your teachers – think that the Bible is historically accurate and that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. In the past, most people believed this. Today, many still do – but most educated people think that while there may be some historical truth in some biblical stories, many have been invented or exaggerated, and “God” is a human invention. In fact, that’s what I think. You – as you get older – can decide for yourself. In either case, however, it’s good to learn about Christianity, because it has been so influential to Western thought and culture, and in order to understand ourselves and how we think, we must understand what has influenced us to think that way.”

What’s so hard about that?

Ecurb,

I enjoyed reading your post. Thank you -

Xris wrote:Sorry but I still believe it is fundamentally wrong that any state funded school should attempt to teach children religion as a fact. Yes I have actively opposed church schools but it has had no effect.

The only religious lesson that I remember in the state school I went to, Ewell County Secondary School, she tried to explain to us that this aspect of walking on water could have come from there being a storm and the fishermen unable to distinguish whether he was on solid ground or not.

Ecurb wrote:You are offering two distinct opinions, Xris. You say, "Schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." This is very different from saying, "Publicly funded schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." (I'm not sure what "faith" is, but I assume Xris means "religious dogma".)

In the first case you are advocating censorship, book burning, and the abridgement of free speech. In the second, you are arguing for a particular governmental policy. Of course if you consider teaching religion to young children “child abuse”, your advocacy of censorship and book-banning makes sense. My opinion, though, is that the censorship and anti-intellectualism you advocate are evil in principle. What gives you the right to “not allow” parents to send their children to church on Sunday for religious instruction?

How and when did I advocate book burning or the taking away of free speech? When did I say parents should be stopped from sending their children to church? I may not approve of their actions but I have not advocated the removal of parental responsibility. All I have requested that state funded faith schools should not teach religion as a certainty. When a five year old comes home telling their parents "god loves me" that is abuse. It is not for the parent to counter the insidious nature of religous indoctrination in primary schooling.

Ecurb wrote:You are offering two distinct opinions, Xris. You say, "Schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." This is very different from saying, "Publicly funded schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." (I'm not sure what "faith" is, but I assume Xris means "religious dogma".)

In the first case you are advocating censorship, book burning, and the abridgement of free speech. In the second, you are arguing for a particular governmental policy. Of course if you consider teaching religion to young children “child abuse”, your advocacy of censorship and book-banning makes sense. My opinion, though, is that the censorship and anti-intellectualism you advocate are evil in principle. What gives you the right to “not allow” parents to send their children to church on Sunday for religious instruction?

Where does Xris advocate book burning? I suppose Ecurb means this metaphorically. But does Ecurb then recommend that parents allow a small child to look at anything and everything? Or does Ecurb not rather recommend that parents are careful to exclude harmful material and wrong ideas from a small child?

Xris posted after I wrote. I also agree with Xris that parents should not have to disabuse their children of wrong ideas implanted by the teacher.A teacher can easily not teach specific ideas, but it is not every parent who is able to counter bad ideas in his child once the child has been taught the ideas by a respected authority.

I agree with Xris. Moral education should not be attached to supernaturalism. If morality is firmly attached to supernatural beliefs in the mind of the child, when the child gets old enought to learn English literature and history the teacher will be unable to proceed until she has unlearned him of the supernatural fictions.

Another practical consideration is that the child who has been taught that moral behaviour attaches only to supernaturalism may, when he reaches an age when he can think for himself, may be uncertain about morality when he dispenses with supernatural beliefs. Also, when there are sufficient numbers of free citizens who have decided against medieval supernaturalism the sects that teach it will diminish in strength of numbers. This in my opinion is a pity because churches, mosques and other religious institutions have a lot good about them. It puzzles me why they don't update their teachings, and tweak the rituals slightly, or even change them quite a lot. Already some Christian priests' costumes have become camp.Not that I recommend, God help us, that religious education becomes happy clappy!Nor that religious education be redecorated in Calvinistic minimalism. However the trappings of the rituals are a comparatively minor matter as compared with the iniquity and the impracticality of teaching supernatural doctrines.

What gives you the right to “not allow” parents to send their children to church on Sunday for religious instruction

To begin with, the children possibly might have better things to educate themselves with on Sunday. However, if the children are so deprived that Sunday School is better than petty crime, or being beaten by relatives, or starved of their breakfasts, then by all means let them be sent to Sunday School. I understand that in the poorer parts of West Africa churches and mosques give schools and hospitals that would otherwise be not there. West Africans however are often pragmatic folk who can take or leave what suits them.In America and Britain where religions are not the only providers of essential services the population as a whole including parents should be educated enough to tell nonsense from sense.

Xris wrote: How and when did I advocate book burning or the taking away of free speech? When did I say parents should be stopped from sending their children to church? I may not approve of their actions but I have not advocated the removal of parental responsibility. All I have requested that state funded faith schools should not teach religion as a certainty. When a five year old comes home telling their parents "god loves me" that is abuse. It is not for the parent to counter the insidious nature of religous indoctrination in primary schooling.

Xris said, "Schools for the young should not be allowed to teach faith." Of course it is possible that he didn't mean what he said. But Sunday School ("Church School" in England, Xris) is a school for the young, and if, in fact, it were not allowed to teach faith that would constitute censorship and the elimination of free speech.

I made my position pefectly clear, but Xris and Belinda seem unable to understand it. If young children "should not be allowed to (learn) about faith", that suggests that we should ban or burn books that teach about it (especially those written for young children). I agree, Xris, that publicly funded schools should not preach. That may be all you meant -- but it is clearly NOT all that you said.

Belinda asks, "But does Ecurb then recommend that parents allow a small child to look at anything and everything?" Well -- yes, with a couple of minor exceptions. Young children probably won't have access to snuff porn, and it's reasonable to steer them away from books that might give them nightmares, but other than that, I'm not big on censorship. I read my own son "The Littlest Angel" and "The Selfish Giant" (great stories, by the way, the latter by Oscar Wilde).

Belinda says, "If morality is firmly attached to supernatural beliefs in the mind of the child, when the child gets old enought to learn English literature and history the teacher will be unable to proceed until she has unlearned him of the supernatural fictions." Huh? This is ridiculous. Most people who have read English Literature and History have had a youthful education in supernatural beliefs, including most who WROTE English literature. Where's the problem?

Xris complains that children who say "god loves me" have been abused. Huh? If he used some other example (suppose a child was crying because he thought he might burn in hell) he might have a better case. But "god loves me" seems a benign form of "abuse".

One more point for Belinda: I've made this perfectly clear (so I'm not sure why you don't understand) but there's a difference between CHOOSING not to send a child to Sunday School (as I did), and not being ALLOWED to send your child to Sunday School (as Xris advocates in writing). One is a free choice, the other censorship, totalitarianism, and the moral equivalent of book burning.

You are constantly misquoting me. I have never said a parent should be stopped from sending their child to Sunday school. I have never insinuated that any book should be burnt or destroyed. You appear intent on exaggerating anything I have said. Once more for the record, I oppose faith schools obtaining public funding, if those schools insist on educating the young into a dogmatic belief system. If a child is found crying, to then say god loves them is an even sicker form of abuse. Do you honestly believe I we can not comfort a child without evoking the power of an invented god. Those who request or require their children to be religiously indoctrinated should pay for that privilege and find a private school to their needs.

Xris: were you forced to send your child to a church school? I mean, under the threat of punishment form the state you wre mandated to have to send your child there? You had choices. You could have placed your child in a different school Yet, you placed your child ina church school then cried at the expected results of placing your child ina church school.

In the US, state schools are not allowed to teach religion, but that is based on our constitutional freedom of religious choice and state funded school teaching religion is a way of the state "sponsoring" one religion over another which is not allowed. Obviously, you have different laws there that allows it, but your children were not forced into that single educational school with no other choices. You may have had reasons to not choose another school, maybe even as simply as budget, but you still did not choose to make any sacrifices to get your child to another school, inter alia you chose to send your child to the church school.

Jjpregler wrote:Xris: were you forced to send your child to a church school? I mean, under the threat of punishment form the state you wre mandated to have to send your child there? You had choices. You could have placed your child in a different school Yet, you placed your child ina church school then cried at the expected results of placing your child ina church school.

In the US, state schools are not allowed to teach religion, but that is based on our constitutional freedom of religious choice and state funded school teaching religion is a way of the state "sponsoring" one religion over another which is not allowed. Obviously, you have different laws there that allows it, but your children were not forced into that single educational school with no other choices. You may have had reasons to not choose another school, maybe even as simply as budget, but you still did not choose to make any sacrifices to get your child to another school, inter alia you chose to send your child to the church school.

If the only schools in your area are church schools what choice have we? Many villages only have one primary church school. I have no objections to church schools but i do object to my taxes funding them without my children having an alternative secular education. You in the US may not suffer this disgraceful situation but we are not that fortunate. As for my ability at the time to pay for private education? you are joking ?

I completely agree. In Northern Ireland they have Catholic & Protestant faith schools, both funded by the state. The two sets of children never mix & they even live in their own areas. Although they sometimes meet & become friends, this is far from the norm. Northern Ireland is a community split along religious lines. In the UK we have both of these plus Jewish, Muslim, Sikh & & even a Creationist school, all funded by the state & all promoting segregation because very few of these children ever meet. This is a breeding ground for suspicion & hatred. What does faith have to gain from running a school. I think it's fairly obvious what they hope to gain & it isn't well balanced school leavers. I don't believe it should be a function of the state to promote religion in any way.

Xris wrote:You are constantly misquoting me. I have never said a parent should be stopped from sending their child to Sunday school. I have never insinuated that any book should be burnt or destroyed. You appear intent on exaggerating anything I have said. Once more for the record, I oppose faith schools obtaining public funding, if those schools insist on educating the young into a dogmatic belief system. If a child is found crying, to then say god loves them is an even sicker form of abuse. Do you honestly believe I we can not comfort a child without evoking the power of an invented god. Those who request or require their children to be religiously indoctrinated should pay for that privilege and find a private school to their needs.

You have stated throughout this thread that "indoctrinating" children with religious beliefs constitutes "child abuse". Now you say that you "never said a parent should be stopped from sending their child to Sunday school."

Does this mean that you don't think child abuse should be outlawed?

I am not misquoting you. I have cut and pasted all of the quotes I've used. You have hedged and said that you really meant that publicly funded schools should not be allowed to teach religion. However, IF teaching religion to young children constitutes "child abuse", you are logically left with only two possible positions: 1) Sunday school should be outlawed; or 2) Child abuse should not be illegal. There are no other possibilities.

Why is this unclear? Either teaching religion to the young is child abuse, in which case it should be outlawed, or it is not child abuse, in which case it should not be outlawed (although it is still reasonable to think publicly funded schools should not do it).