Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!scott
From: scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Schools and Churches
Message-ID: <623@hou2g.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 10:52:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2g.623
Posted: Wed Sep 11 10:52:04 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 09:22:29 EDT
Organization: The Finish Line
Lines: 168
Xref: watmath net.politics:10911 net.religion:7601



>>>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?  

I'll try.  I'm not sure how successful I'll be.

The churches are private because they teach things the government will not
(and should not) accept as "neutral".  They teach beliefs, not science.

Schools teach facts that are the result of evidence currently held to be 
reproducible and empirical.  If the evidence or interpretation of said
evidence is in error, the teaching changes. (c.f. E-M waves and "ether")

>>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?

Yes.  Religions do not have a monopoly on morality.  I've known plenty
which have what I would consider as questionable morality.  Religions
are not necessary to learn morals, although they can help (and have helped) 
some people.

>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.

No problem here.  Send your child to church!  That's why we have freedom
of religion--so that any person can supplement his public education with
ideas not presented in school.  I can't think of any *VALUES* taught in
school which would contradict church teachings, just *IDEAS* which may
be contradictory.

>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.

Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going
to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever
variety you espouse) in church.  See above.  Very few (I've since been
corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place
to learn the theory.

>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.  

This is perhaps a less clear-cut issue (I see evolution, for instance, as 
having null moral content).  I don't think, however, that sex-ed programs are
saying "Go out and have sex".  They seem to be saying "IF you are considering
sex, here are some of the issues".  What constitutes the biology of human
reproduction, and what constitutes sex-ed?  Where do YOU draw the line?

I don't think a minimum of exposure would be confusing at all.  That's the
problem.  I would rather have my child confused because of TOO MUCH information.
Out of confusion comes enlightenment.  (That sounds like something out
of the Bible, come to think of it.  If so, I apologize :-) )

>                                                                      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.

Fine.  Then you must agree to teach the minimum in church as well.  Since
most teach only one view, kids might develop a bias.  My experience with
religions is that THEY "give neat answers consonant with only one view."

>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.

I agree completely.  My history classes were full of religion.  I learned
much of what I know about Judaism, Christianity, etc. in school.  As well
as Greek and East Asian beliefs, with a smattering of Norse, Egyptian,
and Sumerian mythology included.  I'm not against teaching ABOUT religion
in schools.  As you said, our history is rife with it, and no study of
man would be complete without looking at the impact of religion, especially
on motivations.

>>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.

As I said before, morals can be pretty well divorced from religion.  I
probably have morals consistent with many Christians (the Golden
Rule, which I live by, is a good example).  But I didn't go to church
to learn them.  Nor did I need to.

>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).

Again, send your children to church.  Freedom of worship is there so that
those in society who desire or need religion can have it.  And again, I
see no *values* which are "excluded from the public domain".

>>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.

>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.

Once again, send your kids to church.  This will ensure the knowledge
you say is excluded is made available.  Let ME worry about MY kids.


			Scott J. Berry