Question

[rhartsc]

1) I believe religious expression is "healthier" than it is in Europe and Canada. There are a higher percentage attending all kinds of churches, not just the fundamentalistic churches.

2) Yes, religious beliefs are an important part of politics. That is because religious faith is an important part of the character of our leaders. Religion is indeed in the public sphere. What we constantly fight against is one religious group or another wanting to impose its views on everyone else (like Catholics did for years with the issue of contraception). I agree that the type of political pandering that goes on today is unseemly. However, this is just one aspect of a seriously flawed congress.

3) The US forcing anti-Christian views in Science class? You mean ideas like creationism and that the world is 8000 years old. You mean like making the teaching of evolution illegal? Yes, those are governments trying to instill anti-Christian views. However, it is all in the name of Christianity and trying to instill their views of Christianity. This type of nonsense is quite successful is some of our move Republican states.
============
So, I choose to celebrate the American system where we fight to protect those who disagree with us and especially those who disagree with our religious beliefs. And, we fight to make sure that all have a right to express their religion. Yes, individualism and the competition of religious and other ideas in the marketplace is an American idea.

I celebrate the results, especially with regard to spirituality. In the US, we are post-materialism. ALmost all of of our people believe in God or in a spiritual world or force. We flirted with materialism and rejected it.

And yes, fundamentalism is still around, with its anti-intellectualism. Some see that there is a need for such extremism as long as there are Bishop Spong's out there. But that idea is misplaced. The original fundamentalism is a good idea, stating the fundamentals of Christianity. Unfortunately, then and now, the movement has become anti-intellectual or severely extreme in its social ethos and politics.

Excellent Post!

 

[Cjwinnit]

I think the only "bizarro" world is the black and white one of those who perceive their inability to regulate others' rights as being persecuted.

I quite agree. I find the cries by LGBT groups that they can't regulate the Christians' and churches' right as persecution astonishing.

 

[ebia]

To say that state funded religious schools make no sense in an American perspective is begging the question, when what we are discussing are the problems of trying to have a really secular education system. The problem is that the goal of a secular education makes no sense for anyone - it is impossible. You cannot educate without a worldview. So what happens is that you get an education that depends on secular humanism or materialism to hold it together, or one that just makes no sense. And worse, these things go unmentioned and unreflected, because people do not realize or supress that they are using these philosophies to organize education, which is probably about the worst insult to being really educated one could make.

If there is a Muslim population in Detroit than why not a Muslim school. Other nations do just that kind of thing. Go to Ontario, you have a Catholic school board that runs the Catholic schools. In England, similar bodies run religious schools of various types. CofE schools are the most common, but Catholic schools are widespread, and yes, there are Muslim schools too. There is no reason that the Muslims of Detroit could not form a school board to run their publicly funded school or group of schools.

Indeed. Here we have catholic schools, various other Christian schools, Jewish schools, Muslim schools,... Religious or parent bodies form the schools they want, and providing they follow approved guidelines the government provides a degree of funding.

 

[MKJ]

Indeed. Here we have catholic schools, various other Christian schools, Jewish schools, Muslim schools,... Religious or parent bodies form the schools they want, and providing they follow approved guidelines the government provides a degree of funding.

Yes, i think this is a good system, and I wish it existed in my province.

the complication of course is the bit about the approved guidelines - that can be where there are potential difficulties. For example, the in Ontario there have been issues around whether the catholic school boards must allow a particular sort of club for gay teens.

But I think there is no avoiding that sort of question, and it is still a better system than saying there can be only secular public education.

 

[mark46]

The US has more folks attending churches than other countries. We also have more folks attending parochial schools.

We choose to have the parishes, the denominations and the parents pay for such education. We also choose to have control of such education in the hands of the religious institutions.

In the US, we would never cede such authority and responsibility to the government. I understand that other countries feel differently. Perhaps, your system has helped the various faith communities better than ours does here. Somehow I don't think that's true. I believe that our parochial school system works fine.

It is good to to see the differences in cultural traditions. Each of us get to better appreciate our own systems.

But I think there is no avoiding that sort of question, and it is still a better system than saying there can be only secular public education.

 

[mark46]

I do not accept the characterization of a constitutional system. Curiously, the criticism here in the states is that the courts have been too willing to make changes in our traditions. To suggest that our system has not evolved is to not understand our system. Surely that can seen in any study of the law. Certainly commercial, labor, civil rights, and other aspects of the law have changed dramatically in the last 125 years.

Wow, that seems quite a leap from what he said.

The point is that to create a document that would be up to the task of doing what a constitution, with the lack of flexibility that a constitution has, does might be a task that requires a kind of infallibility we do not have. Public institutions that evolve seem in many cases to be more robust than those that are created whole.

 

[MKJ]

The US has more folks attending churches than other countries. We also have more folks attending parochial schools.

We choose to have the parishes, the denominations and the parents pay for such education. We also choose to have control of such education in the hands of the religious institutions.

In the US, we would never cede such authority and responsibility to the government. I understand that other countries feel differently. Perhaps, your system has helped the various faith communities better than ours does here. Somehow I don't think that's true. I believe that our parochial school system works fine.

It is good to to see the differences in cultural traditions. Each of us get to better appreciate our own systems.

Yes, you keep on with the thing about numbers. I do think in Canada being lukewarm is a real issue with religion. I still would not accept that numbers are the best way to see if a population was really religious. Noble atheism such as secular humanism may actually be better than fundamentalist heterodox religion in some cases - quality is also an important consideration.

You have not really addressed at all the problem of secular education, where the US system seems most notably to be limited. I do not think I am willing to say that the rich - either individually or as a community - should be able to have religious education while the poor should not. That does seem to be in line with American political values in general though (not necessarily individual values), which seem to believe the financial markets are good arbiters of moral value.

I find it hard to see that as a Christian position myself, and hard to see it as a robust basis for designing institutions like a school system.

I do not accept the characterization of a constitutional system. Curiously, the criticism here in the states is that the courts have been too willing to make changes in our traditions. To suggest that our system has not evolved is to not understand our system. Surely that can seen in any study of the law. Certainly commercial, labor, civil rights, and other aspects of the law have changed dramatically in the last 125 years.

Well, I was really arguing the opposite of what you are suggesting. That the inflexibility of the document, which to a certain extent exists apart from concrete instances, leaves it open to being interpreted according to any contemporary whim rather than preserving the intent of the framers (which is a whole different issue, they were after all only particular people living in a particular time with no especial wisdom about how things would change and without knowing if the systems they developed would really work.).)

 

[mark46]

And I find it difficult to see the advantage of segregated the various religious folk isn separate schools at public expense.

BTW, I see no "need" for a Christian school system. Christian education of our young is met through many programs of the Church, including full-time attendance at parochial schools. There are many other methods, and much financial aid in all religious education.

I think at this point we have expressed our views. We simply disagree.

I find it hard to see that as a Christian position myself, and hard to see it as a robust basis for designing institutions like a school system.

 

[rhartsc]

I quite agree. I find the cries by LGBT groups that they can't regulate the Christians' and churches' right as persecution astonishing.

Strange I have never heard those cries from LGBT groups. But I guess there are probably small groups that feel that way. What I have heard is cries and demands that everyone treat all people fairly and follow established laws such as employment law.
I also have heard a never ending barrage of cries from clerics demanding to force their beliefs on society. I have heard one baptist minster that wanted the government to kill yes kill all homosexuals. Disgusting.

 

[Drudgeon]

I quite agree. I find the cries by LGBT groups that they can't regulate the Christians' and churches' right as persecution astonishing.

Laughable and unworthy of thoughtful response.

 

[ebia]

Yes, i think this is a good system, and I wish it existed in my province.

the complication of course is the bit about the approved guidelines - that can be where there are potential difficulties. For example, the in Ontario there have been issues around whether the catholic school boards must allow a particular sort of club for gay teens.

But I think there is no avoiding that sort of question, and it is still a better system than saying there can be only secular public education.

I think we are agreed that perfection isn't attainable. The system here isn't perfect: there will always be some tension between what the school wants to do and what the government allows. And private/catholic schools do not get as much money per child from the governments as the government schools get (something like 60%) , so they do have to top that up with fees. And there is a constant battle over whether/how much funding should go that way. But on the whole it works pretty well.

 

[ebia]

The US has more folks attending churches than other countries. We also have more folks attending parochial schools.

We choose to have the parishes, the denominations and the parents pay for such education. We also choose to have control of such education in the hands of the religious institutions.

In the US, we would never cede such authority and responsibility to the government. I understand that other countries feel differently. Perhaps, your system has helped the various faith communities better than ours does here. Somehow I don't think that's true. I believe that our parochial school system works fine.

It is good to to see the differences in cultural traditions. Each of us get to better appreciate our own systems.

The level of control ceded to the government is slight - little more than schools would have to do anyway. In return faith schools are affordable for most people who want them.

 

[ebia]

BTW, I see no "need" for a Christian school system. Christian education of our young is met through many programs of the Church, including full-time attendance at parochial schools.

Eh? Aren't you contradicting yourself?


What are your parochial schools if not a Christian school system, albeit one reserved to those that can afford it?

 

[MKJ]

And I find it difficult to see the advantage of segregated the various religious folk isn separate schools at public expense.

BTW, I see no "need" for a Christian school system. Christian education of our young is met through many programs of the Church, including full-time attendance at parochial schools. There are many other methods, and much financial aid in all religious education.

I think at this point we have expressed our views. We simply disagree.

I dont know Mark, i have not seen any indication that you have even really thought about how we educate children and how we find an organizing principle for that.

It really has very little to do with wanting a school that includes what you might call explicit catechist or teaching about Christianity.

The question has to do with the organizing principle of the whole of the education system - math, literature, history, the approach to teaching and the students.

You cannot teach without this sort of organizing principle. It tells you what the goal of education is, what the student is and how we should treat him, what subjects to teach in what way, and how they all fit together.

Different worldviews have different ways of answering these questions, and it is the worldview more than anything specific in the curricula that ends up shaping the student over time.

The mistake of so-called secular education is the idea that it can design an education without favouring one worldview. What you see in public schools tends to be one of three or four things. They use a principle like secular humanism or scientific materialism, without really aknowledging it. They use a sort of unexaminied Christian principle. Or they use a mishmash or no principle at all.

What this means is you are educating based on unacknowledged underlying assumptions, which is a rather dangerous approach; or you are educating in a totally incoherent way, which will never produce educated adults.

These are the reasons public education in North America, and particularly the US, is so poor - no one really knows what it is for, what sort of human beings it is supposed to produce, what kind of thing children are.

 

[mark46]

There is no evidence that poor parents in the US cannot send their children to Catholic instruction. The parishes have financial aid.

It is the same situation in our colleges. All of them charge, most much more than parochial high schools. And yet, poor people attend in large numbers.

I simply do not believe that it is the government's function to fund religious institutions, which are by their nature exclusive.

Eh? Aren't you contradicting yourself?


What are your parochial schools if not a Christian school system, albeit one reserved to those that can afford it?

 

[mark46]

Certainly, we don't want the evangelicals choosing science teachers. That is exactly what you'd get in the US if the government funded religious education. There would be lots and lots of so-called Christian schools, continuing and expanding the separation of the evangelicals from the rest of society. Obviously, the public schools would suffer and become even worse than they are.

The crisis in US parochial schools (if there is one), is within the Churches. For decades, Catholic schools were in every city and a majority of Catholics attended (along with others). Now, that we no longer have the discrimination we did 50 years ago, most Catholics do not feel the need to separate themselves from the rest of society. CCD classes and after-school programs work fine to fill the need for religious education.

I am not arguing against parochial schools. They have their place; after all, my godson attends. HOWEVER, the issue we are discussing is the government's role.

To be clear, I do NOT want to see the majority of Americans attending schools, segregated by religion. As I have stated, this is not the American way. And the government will NOT encourage such segregation.

I dont know Mark, i have not seen any indication that you have even really thought about how we educate children and how we find an organizing principle for that.

It really has very little to do with wanting a school that includes what you might call explicit catechist or teaching about Christianity.

The question has to do with the organizing principle of the whole of the education system - math, literature, history, the approach to teaching and the students.

You cannot teach without this sort of organizing principle. It tells you what the goal of education is, what the student is and how we should treat him, what subjects to teach in what way, and how they all fit together.

Different worldviews have different ways of answering these questions, and it is the worldview more than anything specific in the curricula that ends up shaping the student over time.

The mistake of so-called secular education is the idea that it can design an education without favouring one worldview. What you see in public schools tends to be one of three or four things. They use a principle like secular humanism or scientific materialism, without really aknowledging it. They use a sort of unexaminied Christian principle. Or they use a mishmash or no principle at all.

What this means is you are educating based on unacknowledged underlying assumptions, which is a rather dangerous approach; or you are educating in a totally incoherent way, which will never produce educated adults.

These are the reasons public education in North America, and particularly the US, is so poor - no one really knows what it is for, what sort of human beings it is supposed to produce, what kind of thing children are.

 

[ebia]

There is no evidence that poor parents in the US cannot send their children to Catholic instruction. The parishes have financial aid.

It is the same situation in our colleges. All of them charge, most much more than parochial high schools. And yet, poor people attend in large numbers.

I simply do not believe that it is the government's function to fund religious institutions, which are by their nature exclusive.

Who said anything about hem being exclusive?

 

[ebia]

To be clear, I do NOT want to see the majority of Americans attending schools, segregated by religion. As I have stated, this is not the American way. And the government will NOT encourage such segregation.

The whole question we are discussing is whether "the American way" is helpful or harmful.

 

[mark46]

While a Catholic school is not strictly exclusive, the teaching of Catholic doctrine tends to result in a school of mostly Catholics. Certainly, evangelicals would not be found there.

BTW, in the US, Episcopalians are considered "Catholic lite" by most with little distinguishing characteristics other than its definition of the requirements for holy orders. So, strictly speaking, there may be Episcopalians in Catholic schools.

Who said anything about hem being exclusive?

 

[mark46]

I agree.

I think the American system of public monies for public schools is extremely helpful. This is augmented by some publicly funded charter schools, open to all. We also have large numbers attending religious education classes as well as part-time and full time parochial education.

Your and MKJ prefer the Canadian and Australian systems.

The whole question we are discussing is whether "the American way" is helpful or harmful.