Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Message-ID: <5867@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 11:55:09 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5867 Posted: Tue Sep 10 11:55:09 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 08:26:24 EDT References: <11384@rochester.UUCP>, <615@hou2g.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 130 Xref: watmath net.politics:10895 net.religion:7585 >>You are over looking the fundamental difference between a church and a school. >>The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private >>organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning >>public education. > >I have no qualms about this, although I would say the church is a private >organization because it teaches whatever it wants, not the other way around. >That's what the separation of church and state is all about. Could you explain this a little more? Granting the distinction you make about the church, why then is the school considered a public organization? Because it doesn't teach whatever it wants? If so, who is able to decide what is taught? The public? Who is included in that? >>The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization >>set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or >>religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to >>ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should >>include the concept of creationism. >> > >WRONG! The public school system is NOT the place for religion of any kind. >I can't believe schools were set up to teach THE SUM TOTAL OF MAN's >ENDEAVORS. Schools (public) are there to teach the minimum necessary >for a person to survive in our society. That's why it's compulsory. >Sometimes they fail even at that. I think you'll find that the systematic exclusion of religious values (and even religious practices) from the public schools to be fairly recent. One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary" for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values? As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand, the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory. When something that is being taught in the public schools contradicts certain values held by those who must send their children to these schools and support them, those people ought to be allowed to have a say in what's going on. Who decides what is the minimum necessary content of an education? Is the teaching of evolutionary theory absolutely necessary? I think not. One can teach biology, chemistry, and physics (the understanding of how things work) quite apart from any speculations about their ultimate origins. These can be reserved for future studies in the school of the students own choosing. There are areas of conflict in what the public schools teach and what many people believe. As I see it these conflicts are most pronounced in the areas of personal morality (e.g. the moral content of some sex education programs and "values clarification") and origins (have we evolved or were we created). In these areas, I would think that there should be a minimum of exposure to the various points of view. Some have said that this will only confuse students. Maybe it will. I don't think we can say for certain, however, that it would be wrong. Many things in life are confusing. With such things I think it is better to be a little confused than to be decieved or infused with bias. Confusion, if it really is part of the subject, should not be avoided by giving neat answers consonant with only one view. By the time students are old enough to grapple with the subjects themselves, they ought to also be exposed to some of the diversity of opinion that exists in society on those issues. To argue that some points of view ought to be excluded to avoid confusion seems silly in principle. I think this is clearer when we apply that same principle to other areas. Could we justify not teaching that some countries don't value democracy or an open economy to avoid confusion? What about differing views on war and peace? Should students be exposed to only one view of the Vietnam War to avoid confusion? There is probably a place for avoiding too much confusion, but we ought not to use it as a pretext for giving one point of view a monopoly in public education. To do so helps insure that students will close their minds to further inquiry or persue such inquiry along a predetermined path. If the public schools are public, then the public ought to have some say where there are real points of conflict. (Dredging up imagined or remote ones along with them, as some have done, does little but muddy the waters). One solution, might be to cut back on the control the state has over education and remove some of the financial and administrative barriers to private education in competition with public. This solution seems to have some merit, but I haven't thought out all the implications very thoroughly. (Maybe someone else can expand on the possibilities). Too much control in this area opens the door to tyranny equally well whether the controlers are religious or secular. >Religion is NOT necessary to survive >in our society. I've survived quite nicely without, thank you. You have survived in a society that is full of religion and which is infused with many religious values. It's part of the air you breathe. Why do we routinely go to great expense and inconvenience to save individual human lives? Why must hundreds of people pull their cars to the side of the road to let emergency vehicles through? I think it's greatly due to the fact that traditional religious values have placed great value on the worth of the individual. There are a lot of things we take for granted that have religious roots. Many hospitals and major universities (consider Harvard and Yale; read their original charters) were founded by the church. Our present emphasis on education, and advances in medicine has definite religious roots. If you personally get along fine without religion, good for you. But your own perception can't be extended to say that society itself (in which you've survived quite nicely) gets along fine without it. That would be a fatuous claim indeed. One which many seem to take for granted, however, in justifying the exclusion of certain values from public domain (e.g. the public schools and government). >What people ARE taught is the ability to *gather and analyze* all knowledge, >so as to make informed CHOICES about which religion, if any, to follow. >That's why we are taught to read and to use a library, and why we, as a >nation, value free speech. Free speech doesn't mean compulsory speech. >Neither does freedom of religion mean compulsory religion. > > End of "sermon", > > Scott J. Berry If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable. Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of religious values from public space. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd