But what, exactly?

[footprints]

You really don’t seem to know my view on this matter. Here is an opportunity for you: provide a summary what you think my argument is, and why you think I’m making it?

Unless you were lying,I would say this gives some insight into your belief:

[/quote]Well, excuse me! And what, exactly, may I ask is this deeper spiritual understanding that presumes to know what enriches the lives of our young people? This example is one of the more insidious aspects of organised religion where it seeks to influence young minds by exposing them to dogma and teaching it as if it were truth. It is this cynical indoctrination of children at an age where it is most likely to be influential, instead of letting them come to it of their own volition, should they be so inclined in their later years, which is downright manipulative and sinister. Why can the religious not keep their mystical beliefs to themselves and their own kind, instead of wanting to invade the minds of our children with superstition and illusion?[/quote]

The above quoted statement is bigoted, malicious, ignorant of scientific knowledge, and by its very nature speaking about indoctrination in a particular way is indoctrination itself which makes it very hypocritical.

 

[footprints]

Your responses are becoming ever more incoherent. ‘…trying to kill unbelievers to your beliefs with your words?’ is a nonsensical statement. Also, to say: 'Why would you be trying to kill off religious teaching in schools?' demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purposes and meaning of debate.

Better try explaining the power of words to Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

Abu dawud -Book 11, Number 2135: Narrated Qays ibn Sa'd:

......'When I came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Apostle of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.'

This is supposed to mean something?

 

[footprints]

I shall answer the above when I’ve seen your reply to my other post, where I ask what is it you understand from my general argument on this matter. Remind me of this when you've done so.

My answer will not change, any person who would deny the rights of others, is not tolerant and doesn't live up to Hoffers philosophy.

Of course you would see it as bigoted, because you still don’t understand (or pretend not to) the concept of self-respect. The concept, very simply, is that one needs to have values in order to see and respect those values in others.

I understand self respect from a scientific perspective. A child learns values from others, they are not born with this. A child respects their parents, well before they learn to respect themselves. However in your belief you are telling me this isn't so, each to their own belief.

Rubbish! Of course I respect that! All people have the right to their religious, political or ideological beliefs, and I respect that right. I don’t of course have to agree with them, just as I don’t expect them to agree with my views.

So you would agree with their right to teach their religious beliefs in schools then?

I have never said or implied that children are ‘stupid’, and the fact that you make such an outrageous comment shows either that you don’t understand my argument or that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. So I challenge you to back up that accusation with a quote.

You keep saying children are easily lead and words to that effect. That children cannot make up their minds on things till they are older. Very rediculous and unsupported statements. Not only that, it condemns every atheist who made up their minds to be atheist as a child.

When they are no longer in general or state education, of course, as I've been saying all along.

That is a magical line which has no bearing on human intelligence.

 

[cottage]

You use the word intoctrination there in your quote, it could just as well read education and still have the same value and meaning. Education is a process of learning by indoctrination.

By all means apply any definition you like to the term ‘indoctrination’. But I’m saying to you that part of my objection to the teaching of religious knowledge, as I outlined in my OP, is that it is being taught as a truth and not a matter for discussion or critical appraisal.

Any person who would put a person down in any way shape or form.

So there’s another point where we differ profoundly. I condemn utterly those who commit so-called honour killings, and those who beat their women for choosing lovers of their own choice. And I ridicule, mock and lampoon those who proselytise and tell unbelievers they will burn in hell for all eternity.

Even by denying the rights of religious bodies to teach their studies in a school, or putting their beliefs down by calling them mythical or superstitious, believing in fairytales et al.

Religious bodies don’t have rights to teach children mystical beliefs anymore than political parties have the right to teach children their ideological beliefs.

What that means is cause and effect.

You are completely confused in your arguments. First you are saying teaching religion makes no difference (‘doesn’t have a bearing on anything’). Next you’re saying teaching faith ‘turned people away from religion’, as if that were a good thing. Then you’re saying if people are denied knowledge they ‘find it anyhow’, which totally contradicts everything you’ve been saying elsewhere, which is that people must be taught religious faith. And then after defending all beliefs, which you been telling me must be respected, you then decide that some are ‘ridiculous.’

With religious beliefs there are people with negative beliefs and people with positive beliefs, all knowledge must be known.

Can I now have an answer, please? I asked what is ‘the full extent of knowledge’ is, as it applies to religious beliefs?

LOL.

Yes, that was my reaction, too, when I read the passage you wrote, beginning with: ‘I can see no reason…’ Check it out.

Denying a group of people their natural rights isn't respecting them.

Then explain to me exactly what those ‘natural rights’ are and what is being denied to them? And please give some proper examples, not just platitudes.

 

[LittleNipper]

Wow...a law that requires a daily act of collective worship...

Here in the U.S. we can't seem to people like this out of congress.

Reminds me of the daily pledge that was followed along with a prayer.
I really never gave the uniformed words of the pledge or the prayer much thought. I think it was around that time I became fearful of most authority figures. Use to get into a lot of trouble for forgetting words that had little meaning to me.

So what exactly holds any meaning for you? There is a reality that if you are not willing to look for meaning where you may find it, that other's may not be very considerate of those things you consider meaningful... It's all part of maturity.

 

[cottage]

My answer will not change, any person who would deny the rights of others, is not tolerant and doesn't live up to Hoffers philosophy.

There is no universal or absolute right for individuals to carry on as they please, and with rights go responsibilities - tolerance is a two way street.
First you were condemning Hoffer, and now I see you are holding him up as a moral exemplar! You don’t seem to know your own argument.

I understand self respect from a scientific perspective. A child learns values from others, they are not born with this. A child respects their parents, well before they learn to respect themselves. However in your belief you are telling me this isn't so, each to their own belief.

The first three sentences make perfect sense, and I agree with them absolutely. The last sentence is wrong and it is not my belief.

So you would agree with their right to teach their religious beliefs in schools then?

No! I most certainly do not! Does the Communist Workers’ Party have the right to teach their Marxist views in schools? No, and neither should the church have the right to impose its mystical ideology on children.

You keep saying children are easily lead and words to that effect. That children cannot make up their minds on things till they are older. Very rediculous and unsupported statements. [/quote

I’m saying to you children have the right to be free from government subsidised and enforced proselytisation.

Not only that, it condemns every atheist who made up their minds to be atheist as a child.

What nonsense! What it condemns is teaching beliefs in the supernatural as if they were truths.

 

[cottage]

Unless you were lying,I would say this gives some insight into your belief:

Well, excuse me! And what, exactly, may I ask is this deeper spiritual understanding that presumes to know what enriches the lives of our young people? This example is one of the more insidious aspects of organised religion where it seeks to influence young minds by exposing them to dogma and teaching it as if it were truth. It is this cynical indoctrination of children at an age where it is most likely to be influential, instead of letting them come to it of their own volition, should they be so inclined in their later years, which is downright manipulative and sinister. Why can the religious not keep their mystical beliefs to themselves and their own kind, instead of wanting to invade the minds of our children with superstition and illusion?[/quote]

The above quoted statement is bigoted, malicious, ignorant of scientific knowledge, and by its very nature speaking about indoctrination in a particular way is indoctrination itself which makes it very hypocritical.[/quote]

Exactly as I suspected, you have no real understanding of my argument. You’ve even had to go back and look at my opening post to try and grasp what it’s all about - and it would seem you still you don’t get it! And for your information, the underlined passage is unintelligent nonsense. Just explain how questioning a practice can be indoctrination, when it has the very opposite meaning?

Below are the omitted parts of my OP.

“In today's Sunday Telegraph a correspondent writes in response to the fact that a number of British schools are not enforcing the law that requires 'a daily act of collective worship' (which must be 'broadly Christian in character', as another correspondent aptly explained it).”

'No one denies the debate between creationism and evolution, but that is no excuse for failing to provide scope for a deeper spiritual understanding, which should enrich the lives of our young people.'


My argument comprises several strands, which all tie in together.
First of all, religion is just another metaphysical system, but one that make unjustified claims to the truth. In no other school subject is dogmatism sold as a virtue, so the question is why are mystical beliefs the exception? In education children are encouraged to understand the differences between empirical truths, which are contingent (science), demonstrable truths (mathematics and logic), and aesthetics (the arts). But religion wants to teach that some things cannot be questioned and must be held to be true as an article of faith. And as for the mandatory act of worship, this carries the object of the assumed truth to the very limit of reverence, where the children are forced to take part in an act of supplication. This is intellectually and morally outrageous. Secondly, the early learning years are the most critical in a child’s life, in which many habits of a lifetime have their inception. During this period a child has the right to be free from the imposition of all dogmatic beliefs and ideologies, and the state especially has no right to nominate a preferred mystical or ideological belief that the child should adopt. None of this infringes anyone’s entitlement to believe as they wish. If a child comes to the school as a Christian or a Muslim, then so be it. But if a child comes to school with no mystical beliefs, by what argument can it be said he must be exposed to such beliefs if he not to suffer a privation? In short, what is the ‘deeper spiritual understanding’ of which he will be deprived? And finally the advocates of state sponsored religious instruction need to explain just how they presume to know it will ‘enrich his life?

 

[footprints]

By all means apply any definition you like to the term ‘indoctrination’. But I’m saying to you that part of my objection to the teaching of religious knowledge, as I outlined in my OP, is that it is being taught as a truth and not a matter for discussion or critical appraisal.

Indoctination means indoctrination.

I already know what your objection is, you have an opinion and want to exercise it.

So there’s another point where we differ profoundly. I condemn utterly those who commit so-called honour killings, and those who beat their women for choosing lovers of their own choice. And I ridicule, mock and lampoon those who proselytise and tell unbelievers they will burn in hell for all eternity.

I do not condemn anybody, albeit I feel sorrow, pity, sympathy for the people who you would condemn, for this is what their brain tells them is the right thing to do. I however extend my sorrow, my pity and my sympathy to people who would ridicule and demean anybody else because of their own opinion of belief I know this is the way their brain tells them is the right thing to do also.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Religious bodies don’t have rights to teach children mystical beliefs anymore than political parties have the right to teach children their ideological beliefs.

You are right, this right has been taken away from them in many cases. What can I say, in many cases bigotry and prejudice prevailed.

You are entitled to your opinion of mystical beliefs. I would not want to take your mystical beliefs away from you.

You are completely confused in your arguments. First you are saying teaching religion makes no difference (‘doesn’t have a bearing on anything’). Next you’re saying teaching faith ‘turned people away from religion’, as if that were a good thing. Then you’re saying if people are denied knowledge they ‘find it anyhow’, which totally contradicts everything you’ve been saying elsewhere, which is that people must be taught religious faith. And then after defending all beliefs, which you been telling me must be respected, you then decide that some are ‘ridiculous.’

The teaching of religion doesn't make any difference to a logical and rational, free thinking mind. Some people will accept it, some people will reject it, some people will fall in-between these two extremes to a greater or lesser degree. Such is human nature and human intelligence for you. Keep the facts away from people, and those who want to know the facts will seek it and find it anyway.

I cannot help facts of reality, religion is not taught in many public schools these days, those who carried a bigotry and prejudice against it, forced their right of way.

Can I now have an answer, please? I asked what is ‘the full extent of knowledge’ is, as it applies to religious beliefs?

This answer was previously given. However since you have asked so nicely I will give it to you again, albeit if you didn't understand the first time, there is very little probability you will understand it the second time.

All knowledge means all knowledge, every child should be taught what every different belief says from the perception of the belief and not one that opposes it. A religious class shouldn't just be what a Catholic or Muslim thinks, they should be exposed to every religious belief even atheism and agnoticism. Only then, can any person reach a logical or rational conclusion. Your children might get different answers to you, they might accept what your brain rejects, then again they might gain the same conclusion as you, it is up to their intelligence to work it out for themselves, not yours, not mine, not anybody else but theirs. They cannot work it out for themselves if you or anybody else want to deny them of knowledge.

Yes, that was my reaction, too, when I read the passage you wrote, beginning with: ‘I can see no reason…’ Check it out.

Due to human nature I already know your reactions.

Then explain to me exactly what those ‘natural rights’ are and what is being denied to them? And please give some proper examples, not just platitudes.

Nothing I could give you would be a proper answer, you already have everything figured out in your own head. Belief patterns are above rationality and logic in the human brain, and simple because you believe your own belief patterns makes your belief rational and logical to you.

Tough I will try. Everybody has a right to speak their own belief, just as you are speaking your belief now. Not everybody in this life agrees with your belief, in fact many people in this world oppose your belief. Denying a persons right to speak their belief whilst pressing forth with the ideals and beliefs of others in society is denying a persons right to speak their belief and as I have said before is doing a China.

 

[footprints]

Well, excuse me! And what, exactly, may I ask is this deeper spiritual understanding that presumes to know what enriches the lives of our young people? This example is one of the more insidious aspects of organised religion where it seeks to influence young minds by exposing them to dogma and teaching it as if it were truth. It is this cynical indoctrination of children at an age where it is most likely to be influential, instead of letting them come to it of their own volition, should they be so inclined in their later years, which is downright manipulative and sinister. Why can the religious not keep their mystical beliefs to themselves and their own kind, instead of wanting to invade the minds of our children with superstition and illusion?

The above quoted statement is bigoted, malicious, ignorant of scientific knowledge, and by its very nature speaking about indoctrination in a particular way is indoctrination itself which makes it very hypocritical.[/quote]

Exactly as I suspected, you have no real understanding of my argument. You’ve even had to go back and look at my opening post to try and grasp what it’s all about - and it would seem you still you don’t get it! And for your information, the underlined passage is unintelligent nonsense. Just explain how questioning a practice can be indoctrination, when it has the very opposite meaning?

Below are the omitted parts of my OP.

“In today's Sunday Telegraph a correspondent writes in response to the fact that a number of British schools are not enforcing the law that requires 'a daily act of collective worship' (which must be 'broadly Christian in character', as another correspondent aptly explained it).”

'No one denies the debate between creationism and evolution, but that is no excuse for failing to provide scope for a deeper spiritual understanding, which should enrich the lives of our young people.'


My argument comprises several strands, which all tie in together.
First of all, religion is just another metaphysical system, but one that make unjustified claims to the truth. In no other school subject is dogmatism sold as a virtue, so the question is why are mystical beliefs the exception? In education children are encouraged to understand the differences between empirical truths, which are contingent (science), demonstrable truths (mathematics and logic), and aesthetics (the arts). But religion wants to teach that some things cannot be questioned and must be held to be true as an article of faith. And as for the mandatory act of worship, this carries the object of the assumed truth to the very limit of reverence, where the children are forced to take part in an act of supplication. This is intellectually and morally outrageous. Secondly, the early learning years are the most critical in a child’s life, in which many habits of a lifetime have their inception. During this period a child has the right to be free from the imposition of all dogmatic beliefs and ideologies, and the state especially has no right to nominate a preferred mystical or ideological belief that the child should adopt. None of this infringes anyone’s entitlement to believe as they wish. If a child comes to the school as a Christian or a Muslim, then so be it. But if a child comes to school with no mystical beliefs, by what argument can it be said he must be exposed to such beliefs if he not to suffer a privation? In short, what is the ‘deeper spiritual understanding’ of which he will be deprived? And finally the advocates of state sponsored religious instruction need to explain just how they presume to know it will ‘enrich his life? [/quote]

That is just another perception in your head, I never lost sight of your original post it has been in my mind from the first time I read it.

I did take into consideration what the whole post said, those which were your words and those which were the words of others. Further to this I took into account the punctuation which you used and the implications which you implied which followed.

Yes I do understand you believe you are protecting children from something which you personally believe will do them harm. That when they are older and when they reach your magical line drawn in your sand, then and only then can they decide what they can choose for themselves, until that time it has to be your rules. Yes I get all that.

Indoctrination is Indoctrination, whether it is by the religious or it is by you or it is by the education system, it doesn't change its value or its perspective just because you want to conclude it is somehow different when it is applied to one thing and not another.

If a person wants to find out information about anything, nothing you nor I nor anybody else can do to stop this. Some people accept religions, some people reject religions and others fall in-between these two extremes to a greater or lesser degree.

We are just going over the same ground.

Have a wonderful and happy new year.

 

[Willamena]

Religious bodies don’t have rights to teach children mystical beliefs anymore than political parties have the right to teach children their ideological beliefs.

They do in Canada, where we respect religious beliefs, as I believe they do in the UK.

 

[Willamena]

Well, excuse me! And what, exactly, may I ask is this deeper spiritual understanding that presumes to know what enriches the lives of our young people?

Excuse me, but what would you presume to know about young people?

This example is one of the more insidious aspects of organised religion where it seeks to influence young minds by exposing them to dogma and teaching it as if it were truth. It is this cynical indoctrination of children at an age where it is most likely to be influential, instead of letting them come to it of their own volition, should they be so inclined in their later years, which is downright manipulative and sinister.

Kinda like Capitalism? eh?

Why can the religious not keep their mystical beliefs to themselves and their own kind, instead of wanting to invade the minds of our children with superstition and illusion?

If I can see my eyes, then my hair is too short.

(*flashback, 60's ... thanks, that was fun.)

 

[cottage]

Excuse me, but what would you presume to know about young people?

Well, I used to be one!

Kinda like Capitalism? eh?

Yes! Exactly!

 

[cottage]

They do in Canada, where we respect religious beliefs, as I believe they do in the UK.

First point: religious beliefs are respected in the UK. Second point: religious bodies, whether in Canada or the UK, do not have the right to teach religious beliefs, there is only a dispensation given by their respective governments and that is very point I'm disputing, in case you hadn't noticed!

 

[cottage]

]
First of all, religion is just another metaphysical system, but one that make unjustified claims to the truth. In no other school subject is dogmatism sold as a virtue, so the question is why are mystical beliefs the exception? In education children are encouraged to understand the differences between empirical truths, which are contingent (science), demonstrable truths (mathematics and logic), and aesthetics (the arts). But religion wants to teach that some things cannot be questioned and must be held to be true as an article of faith. And as for the mandatory act of worship, this carries the object of the assumed truth to the very limit of reverence, where the children are forced to take part in an act of supplication. This is intellectually and morally outrageous. Secondly, the early learning years are the most critical in a child’s life, in which many habits of a lifetime have their inception. During this period a child has the right to be free from the imposition of all dogmatic beliefs and ideologies, and the state especially has no right to nominate a preferred mystical or ideological belief that the child should adopt. None of this infringes anyone’s entitlement to believe as they wish. If a child comes to the school as a Christian or a Muslim, then so be it. But if a child comes to school with no mystical beliefs, by what argument can it be said he must be exposed to such beliefs if he not to suffer a privation? In short, what is the ‘deeper spiritual understanding’ of which he will be deprived? And finally the advocates of state sponsored religious instruction need to explain just how they presume to know it will ‘enrich his life?

That is just another perception in your head, I never lost sight of your original post it has been in my mind from the first time I read it.

Then perhaps you would care to answer the three questions, begining with: 'But if a child...'

I did take into consideration what the whole post said, those which were your words and those which were the words of others. Further to this I took into account the punctuation which you used and the implications which you implied which followed.

If you’re going to engage in discussion with me please don’t just allude to things. Say what you mean and I’ll give you my response by return.

Yes I do understand you believe you are protecting children from something which you personally believe will do them harm. That when they are older and when they reach your magical line drawn in your sand, then and only then can they decide what they can choose for themselves, until that time it has to be your rules. Yes I get all that.

You've got things completely upside down. Can I remind you that it isn’t ‘my rules’ that we’re debating, but those of the UK Government that are being applied as a statutory instrument. And can’t you understand that there is no 'magical line', it’s simply by being out of the education system the child becomes free of state dogma in matters of mysticism.

Indoctrination is Indoctrination, whether it is by the religious or it is by you or it is by the education system, it doesn't change its value or its perspective just because you want to conclude it is somehow different when it is applied to one thing and not another.

That doesn’t even make sense. Just forget the term ‘indoctrination’, seeing as you want to apply it to everything. I’m talking about the teaching of a subject, mystical beliefs, in a manner that brooks no dissent, question or criticism.

If a person wants to find out information about anything, nothing you nor I nor anybody else can do to stop this. Some people accept religions, some people reject religions and others fall in-between these two extremes to a greater or lesser degree.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. But it is not for schools to impose a particular mystical belief on its students. And it is not for schools to introduce the subject as if it were some kind of truth.

We are just going over the same ground.

That’s only because you’re being highly selective in what you want to understand from my argument.

Have a wonderful and happy new year.

Thank you. And you, too!

 

[cottage]

I do not condemn anybody, albeit I feel sorrow, pity, sympathy for the people who you would condemn, for this is what their brain tells them is the right thing to do. I however extend my sorrow, my pity and my sympathy to people who would ridicule and demean anybody else because of their own opinion of belief I know this is the way their brain tells them is the right thing to do also.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Wishy-washy, platitudinous, nonsense. People need the moral courage to stand up for what is right for society at large, and not pity or sympathise with those who kill for their beliefs or threaten their fellows for their unbelief. If you don’t condemn such by speaking out then you are effectively condoning their actions.

You are right, this right has been taken away from them in many cases. What can I say, in many cases bigotry and prejudice prevailed.

So what are you saying now, that political parties and religious bodies do have the right, Soviet style, to teach children their ideologies? You have a perverse understanding of the terms ‘bigoted’ and ‘prejudiced.’

You are entitled to your opinion of mystical beliefs. I would not want to take your mystical beliefs away from you.

And what mystical beliefs would they be? Just answer me that?

The teaching of religion doesn't make any difference to a logical and rational, free thinking mind. Some people will accept it, some people will reject it, some people will fall in-between these two extremes to a greater or lesser degree. Such is human nature and human intelligence for you. Keep the facts away from people, and those who want to know the facts will seek it and find it anyway.

What are the facts of religious doctrines and worship that must not be kept away from children?

I cannot help facts of reality, religion is not taught in many public schools these days, those who carried a bigotry and prejudice against it, forced their right of way.

Excuse me! Religion is being taught in schools in the UK – because of a law that is prejudiced in favour of the Christian faith.

This answer was previously given. However since you have asked so nicely I will give it to you again, albeit if you didn't understand the first time, there is very little probability you will understand it the second time.

That’s extremely patronising. I understood it. In fact I showed that it was you who misunderstood the controversy.

All knowledge means all knowledge, every child should be taught what every different belief says from the perception of the belief and not one that opposes it. A religious class shouldn't just be what a Catholic or Muslim thinks, they should be exposed to every religious belief even atheism and agnoticism. Only then, can any person reach a logical or rational conclusion. Your children might get different answers to you, they might accept what your brain rejects, then again they might gain the same conclusion as you, it is up to their intelligence to work it out for themselves, not yours, not mine, not anybody else but theirs. They cannot work it out for themselves if you or anybody else want to deny them of knowledge.

Now don’t be daft! You can’t teach all knowledge. The school curriculum is a balance between what must be taught, such as numeracy and literacy, for example, with other subjects taking their place behind those crucial elements, according to the number of teaching hours available. And I’ve already explained that students are taught to distinguish between hypothesises, scientific truths (probable) and logical (necessary) truths. Mystical beliefs cannot in one sense even be considered metaphysical, since they allow no argument to count against them. So how would you propose to teach mysticism and atheism? If you allow arguments from reason and logic that a mystical belief is false or unsound, how can it be also held that mystical beliefs are true? And this leads us straight into another problem: what about the students who may already have profound beliefs, must they see their religions denigrated in front of their peers? You haven’t thought this through at all. What you propose is just a confused mishmash of conflicting ideas that wants to trespass in an area that should remain personal to the individual. Religion, other than an element of sociology, has no place in general education. And governments have no right to prescribe what must be believed or worshipped.

Due to human nature I already know your reactions.

Don’t be so presumptuous.

Nothing I could give you would be a proper answer, you already have everything figured out in your own head. Belief patterns are above rationality and logic in the human brain, and simple because you believe your own belief patterns makes your belief rational and logical to you.

Tough I will try. Everybody has a right to speak their own belief, just as you are speaking your belief now. Not everybody in this life agrees with your belief, in fact many people in this world oppose your belief. Denying a persons right to speak their belief whilst pressing forth with the ideals and beliefs of others in society is denying a persons right to speak their belief and as I have said before is doing a China. [/quote]

None of this is addressing the matter I brought up in my OP, and it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with infringing people’s rights to religious or mystical beliefs. People can quite rightly believe what they want providing it doesn’t impact on society in a negative or harmful way. My argument concerns state sponsored proselytization and mandatory worship in British schools.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

In my view there are very, very serious problems with schools attempting to teach mystical beliefs in an inclusive way, one of which must be the principle that all metaphysical and ideological beliefs are valid.

Even some of the mainstream religion's principles are extremely contentious, open to interpretation and are likely to invoke highly charged passions in those who may have been taught differently at home. We're not dealing with facts or abstract concepts, but with profound and deeply held beliefs in many cases. I would like to think I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine too many Muslim parents being happy for their children to be compulsorily instructed in Christian beliefs, or the opposite in the case of devout or fundamentalist Christians. An awareness of different faiths may be acceptable but teaching beliefs is divisive in my view.

I agree that the parents may be upset at what is being taught and in theory I'd say teach a diverse set of beliefs but in practice I know this is probably going to fail as some parents may object for the reasons you mentioned. To be quite honest, I'm not sure how it should be taught while still keeping the parents content with their child's education as each option I think of I know the issue is still there.

Education isn't a passive thing, with children just being being talked at; it also about discussion and thinking matters through. How is a teacher expected to deal with contrary views concerning homosexuality, abortion, and the status of women, not to mention the more extreme aspects of that may include martyrdom and the punishment for apostasy? But more to the point, just what is it that the children are to be taught and expected to learn?

I've been saying all along that the students are to discuss and engage in the teaching so I'm not sure why you're making it seem like I'm ignoring this. Issues such as homosexuality and abortion should be discussed and the students should learn both sides of the coin AND still be able to have their own opinion on the matter.

In the case of religion it simply isn't up for discussion that the deity doesn't exist, or that Moses or the Prophet didn't do such and such. By defintion, no religious believer says 'There may be no God'. And therefore those arguments are off limits.

You misunderstand, I have been suggesting the opposite of this all along. During the discussions, it isn't meant to be about whether one deity exists or not but rather about learning about the belief and for the purposes of that discussion, assume the deity exists. This isn't to say the goal is to teach that the deity exists but rather to learn about the belief and formulate opinions about a deity's existence elsewhere. As you mentioned though, it probably will not be well-received by many parents.

So what is it that children are to learn in religious classes? It seems to me that they are being told there are some things they cannot dispute or argue against, but must unquestioningly accept what they are taught! By comparison, science is founded in empiricism and can never be necessarily true, and no teacher would presume to inform children otherwise. That to me is the difference.

The students would learn what various common religions are about but not to go about and say that a certain deity does or doesn't exist relative to another. That to me would be off-limits as it'd create a massive mess. It seems there's immense confusion between what I'm saying and what you're responding with so it seems my communication skills are insufficient thus far but I'll try to make them better.

 

[cottage]

I've been saying all along that the students are to discuss and engage in the teaching so I'm not sure why you're making it seem like I'm ignoring this. Issues such as homosexuality and abortion should be discussed and the students should learn both sides of the coin AND still be able to have their own opinion on the matter.

I believe it may be a good thing for students to discuss homosexuality and abortion, but not in the explosive context of religious beliefs. And I fail to see, and nobody has yet explained why, religious beliefs must be taught at all. What is the knowledge gain?

You misunderstand, I have been suggesting the opposite of this all along. During the discussions, it isn't meant to be about whether one deity exists or not but rather about learning about the belief and for the purposes of that discussion, assume the deity exists. This isn't to say the goal is to teach that the deity exists but rather to learn about the belief and formulate opinions about a deity's existence elsewhere. As you mentioned though, it probably will not be well-received by many parents.

To what purpose, then, and on what terms, are mystical beliefs to be compared? What are the supposed educational benefits in studying them? What is admissible or appropriate in the way of a mystical belief, and what is not? Who is to decide?

The students would learn what various common religions are about but not to go about and say that a certain deity does or doesn't exist relative to another. That to me would be off-limits as it'd create a massive mess. It seems there's immense confusion between what I'm saying and what you're responding with so it seems my communication skills are insufficient thus far but I'll try to make them better.

Actually, I think we do understand one another. You feel there is a benefit in teaching religion, whereas I think it has no business at all being taught as a compulsory subject in schools. I shudder to imagine some poor teacher trying to introduce balance and fairness in a classroom discussion of Islamic beliefs or Christian fundamentalism. The philosophy of religion is a valid subject, when offered as a choice, as it teaches students how to think, but even that can be controversial as it is mainly a critique of religious propositions. I'm sure your position is well intended, but in my view the very idea is confused and potentially divisive.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I believe it may be a good thing for students to discuss homosexuality and abortion, but not in the explosive context of religious beliefs. And I fail to see, and nobody has yet explained why, religious beliefs must be taught at all. What is the knowledge gain?

Throughout history religion has been a prominent factor and still is to this very day. It seems rather unusual to not teach something that has had and still does have and will have such a profound effect world-wide. Although the children themselves may not adhere to the religions later on in life, they can at least understand what these common religions are (i.e. Christianity, Islam) that have such drastic effects.

To what purpose, then, and on what terms, are mystical beliefs to be compared? What are the supposed educational benefits in studying them? What is admissible or appropriate in the way of a mystical belief, and what is not? Who is to decide?

Who is to decide? Simple, the educational board. The beliefs can be compared on various levels, such as how they view issues such as homosexuality, evolution, abortion, divorce, etc... . What is appropriate is a hard question to answer because I'd like to say nothing is inappropriate but I know that's not an answer that will be received well by parents, citizens and possibly also the students.

Actually, I think we do understand one another. You feel there is a benefit in teaching religion, whereas I think it has no business at all being taught as a compulsory subject in schools. I shudder to imagine some poor teacher trying to introduce balance and fairness in a classroom discussion of Islamic beliefs or Christian fundamentalism. The philosophy of religion is a valid subject, when offered as a choice, as it teaches students how to think, but even that can be controversial as it is mainly a critique of religious propositions. I'm sure your position is well intended, but in my view the very idea is confused and potentially divisive.

I mentioned earlier that students should be given the option to take the subject, not to be forced to take it as compulsory. I agree, it would be very strenuous on some teachers and unfortunately I see no way to avoid that if comparative religious studies are to be taught. You're right, it is a confused idea because I'm having trouble thinking of how it can be taught in such a way that doesn't create an absolute mess.

 

[Willamena]

First point: religious beliefs are respected in the UK. Second point: religious bodies, whether in Canada or the UK, do not have the right to teach religious beliefs, there is only a dispensation given by their respective governments and that is very point I'm disputing, in case you hadn't noticed!

They do in Canada. It is a part of our constitution. We have a separate school board set up specifically to guarantee that right.

 

[cottage]

They do in Canada. It is a part of our constitution. We have a separate school board set up specifically to guarantee that right.

I don't know how it works in Canada, but if it is similar to the UK, with an act of worship being mandatory in all schools, then my argument applies.