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!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Schools and Churches
Message-ID: <5884@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 12:40:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.5884
Posted: Thu Sep 12 12:40:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 04:02:31 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP>
Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 161
Xref: linus net.politics:10239 net.religion:7197

In article <623@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) writes:
>>>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")

If there is some question as to whether or not the school is teaching
facts or is inculcating a moral philosophy, who decides what to do?
Who decides what changes?  Schools teach many things that are not considered
reproducible and empirical (Art, literature, history and the theory
of evolution).  They also give advice in moral areas (Sex, drugs, attitudes
and mannerisms).  It is very questionable whether any teaching can
be neutral in the manner that you suppose.  They do impact belief and
morality.  The distinction between belief and science is actually much
fuzzier that you suppose.

>>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.

I have never seen any moral code that could be supported appart from
some transcendant framework (religion).  Shure, religion may not be
necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to
do what others expect of them without question) but I doubt very much
that morality can be said to mean anything (supported rather than just
learned) apart from religion.  

Anyway, even if this assumption were true it still is not a good reason
of excluding a moral perspective simply because it is religious.  Why
is one that is "non-religious" inherently better?

>>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.

The problem is not with just my child.  I care about society also.  I
would like to have as much input into the public institutions that
effect the future of our society as those who have their views represented
in compulsory education.  Saying, "send your child to church if you
don't like the schools" is just a way of ghettoizing those with a differing
perspective.

I think the distinction you make between "values" and "ideas" is trivial.
Certainly they are very closely related, if not interchangeable, when
dealing with kids. 

>>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.

But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting
on not?  Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins.  Students
who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will
only learn one side of the issue.  Also, public schools are NOT the
only place to leard evolution.  There are universities and private schools
as well.

>>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?

You mean where to WE draw the line.  That's the way I would like it with
regard to the public schools.  Some people aren't even allowed into the
debate because of religious bias.  What public does the public school serve
anyway?  Your right in that this isn't a clear cut issue.  That's exactly
why certain perspective should not be excluded by religious bias when
deciding these issues.  There are those who agree with you who see
nothing wrong with the status quo.  There are others of a differing opinion.
My objection is to that attitude that says those others haven't a voice
because their ideas are "religiously" based.  When you exclude these
others from the forum you don't even give *compromise* a chance.

>>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."

What the church teaches is not compulsory or supported by tax money.

>...
>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.

OK, you have learned them.  But how do you support them.  How do you
compel another to treat others as he would be treated?  On what basis
must she accept that maxim?

>>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.

The problem lies in that some see fit for the public schools to teach
what they believe in to the exclusion of conflicting points of view.
Others pay just as much to support the public schools but aren't allowed
that kind of representation.  They are forced to go to extra expense
to get it privately (where it can safely be ignored).
-- 

Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd