School Prayer

[ebia]

I think you miss my point.
If I understand the situation correctly, the state provides schools that are paid for by the taxpayer.
Let's now say you have two families who both pay taxes to fund the schools. One is a Jewish family who want their child to receive education in the Jewish faith in an environment that adheres to the Kosher laws. The other is an atheist family who wish their child to receive a completely secular education.
Neither can afford to educate their children privately.

The state is willing to provide the education that the atheist family wants for their child, but the Jewish family, despite paying the same taxes, are denied.

It strikes me as odd that secularism in education is the default position.
How did this occur?

Presumably in reaction to the situation in Europe at the time.

Much of the world manages fine without feeling that artificial boundaries need to be created between religion and the rest of life.

Schools have to cater for all their population, but that does not have to exclude all reference to religion - indeed to do that is, as you've noted, implicitly pushing one viewpoint on religion.

Schools in diverse communities need to enable the diverse expression of those communities, not stifle it.

It's worth noting that here, where state schools are not as anti-religous as yours, we have an increasing number of parents choosing to send their children to faith schools even when those faith schools are not of their faith. Catholic schools, for example, are taking an increasing number of Islamic students who's parents would rather they attended a faith school of a different faith than a secular school.

 

[b&wpac4]

It strikes me as odd that secularism in education is the default position.
How did this occur?

The problem is you are equating "secularism" with "atheism" or "non-religious". Not teaching theocracy and trying to teach only that which is factual is an easy way to go. By simply not teaching religion, you are not saying it is wrong or bad, only that it is not proven and doesn't belong in Math, Science, Language classes, or any other class that isn't a comparative religion class, and even there, you aren't taught which is "correct".

 

[ebia]

The problem is you are equating "secularism" with "atheism" or "non-religious". Not teaching theocracy and trying to teach only that which is factual is an easy way to go. By simply not teaching religion, you are not saying it is wrong or bad, only that it is not proven and doesn't belong in Math, Science, Language classes, or any other class that isn't a comparative religion class, and even there, you aren't taught which is "correct".

Schools are not about transmitting facts, but about about learning ways to learn, ways to think, and ways to live. Which is precisely the field that most of the world's religions operate in. By excluding all religions you are effectively promoting one way of learning, thinking and living (secularism) above all others.

The last thing the world needs in the 21st century is schools that try to limit themselves to transmitting facts. Fortunately I doubt you can find a school anywhere that still thinks that way.

 

[b&wpac4]

Schools are not about transmitting facts, but about about learning ways to learn, ways to think, and ways to live. Which is precisely the field that most of the world's religions operate in. By excluding all religions you are effectively promoting one way of learning, thinking and living (secularism) above all others.

The last thing the world needs in the 21st century is schools that try to limit themselves to transmitting facts. Fortunately I doubt you can find a school anywhere that still thinks that way.

I will thank you for completely taking my words out of context.

I am not suggesting only "transmitting facts", but teaching things that are concrete and factual. If you teach a science class, and grab Genesis, you are wrong. If you teach a math class, and try to equate it to "God's perfection" or whatever, you are wrong.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Schools are not about transmitting facts, but about about learning ways to learn, ways to think, and ways to live. Which is precisely the field that most of the world's religions operate in. By excluding all religions you are effectively promoting one way of learning, thinking and living (secularism) above all others.

The last thing the world needs in the 21st century is schools that try to limit themselves to transmitting facts. Fortunately I doubt you can find a school anywhere that still thinks that way.

Secularism is not a way of learning, thinking, or living.

 

[ebia]

I will thank you for completely taking my words out of context.

I am not suggesting only "transmitting facts", but teaching things that are concrete and factual.

I'm sorry, but that's not how life or teaching works. Maths is anything but concrete and factual - it's a way of thinking. Science deals in facts and inferrences, but it's not that one is trying to teach but the ways of thinking that go with that. When one teaches history it's not the facts one is teaching but the ways of thinking about how life is lived, about values, etc. When you teach through a great piece of artwork you aren't trying to extract the facts from it. When you teach through a novel in an English class you aren't trying to extract the facts from it. And hopefully if you teach through Genesis it's not to extract facts from it.

On top of that an awful lot of the teaching/learning going on is not directly about the curriculum material at all, but about living and working in community and in relationship with others - and that is precisely where good religion can play to it's strengths. For that reason I have referred to Genesis and other religious texts in my maths classroom occasionally.

If you teach a science class, and grab Genesis, you are wrong. If you teach a math class, and try to equate it to "God's perfection" or whatever, you are wrong.

If I were teaching a class that might get the elegance of mathematics I might well make some sort of comparison, or get a suffiently senior class to consider the question of whether it's meaningful to describe mathematics as part of creation or whether it's something that just is. What I wouldn't force them to do is answer that in terms of the specifically Judeo/Christian understanding of God. I have taught Islamic Art in Maths class - there's a section on it in at least one of the mainstream maths textbooks here.

 

[ebia]

Secularism is not a way of learning, thinking, or living.

To a fair extent it is just that, masquading as something else.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

I think the problem the problem some have here is that secular has come to have two rather different definitions and people get confused as to which is meant. In the US, when it is said that education is secular, what is meant is the definition "Not specifically relating to religion". What it doesn't mean is that some type of secular religion is taught or that some type of agnosticism/atheism is taught.

Much of the reason for this is that the US is a multicultural society. Do you really want the government deciding what religious education your children receive? I mean, even if they find a Catholic teacher, how do you know the government wouldn't hire a liberal Catholic who teaches kids that the Vatican is wrong on its positions on Birth Control and other issues? Yet the government would be doing exactly what you are asking for here, providing Catholic instruction.

Even worse, suppose you live somewhere like Texas and the majority are Fundamentalist Christians and as such their version of Christianity is taught. Would you not have a problem when the teachers teach Fundamentalist Christianity -- particularly when the teach that Catholics aren't really Christians and why? When they try to "save" your child (both save in the Baptist tradition of declaring oneself to Christ and save from Catholocism)? And it would happen in some areas of Texas, you can't expect them to have a school simply for the handful of Catholics that exist in some towns, can you?

In fact, this was the basis for the lawsuit Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Granted, this lawsuit was simply over the prayer offered prior to football games but, because of the evangelical nature of the prayers typically offered, it compelled a Catholic and Mormon family to sue.

And this is why education in the US is secular, it isn't to teach against religion -- in fact it is to try to ensure religion is not taught against. The idea is that parents will teach their children religion in the home and will do it much better than the government would be capable of doing.

Let me explain a bit how it works here. Say for example there is a state funded Jewish school as there is in my city. My brother-in-law works there so I know a fair bit of how it functions. Also I know a few people who attended there.
The government provides the funding, but does not appoint the teachers. This is done by the school, which means in practicality the governors who are made up of parents, teachers, the local rabbis and various other people from the Jewish community. They obviously know who they are appointing and make a decision on who best to fill the position.
There is a national curriculum which all schools (including private schools) have to adhere to as the core of what is taught. Other than that there is a fair amount of fluidity.

Now lets take the hypothetical Texas situation. If you had a situation where the state funded religious schools, the Catholic parents in question could decide to send their kids to the Baptist school or the local secular school if one was available. If they felt strongly enough about it they could move nearer the border and send their kids to a Catholic school with all the little Mexican kids.

The idea that here the government teaches its version of Catholicism through the locally state funded Catholic schools is quite laughable. (I mean no offence here. I'm obviously ignorant about your system too). The parents and the parish priest and the teachers decide how this is done.

It still strikes me as odd still in the USA, that if you want you child to be educated in a completely secular environment, this is catered for by the state; but any other form of education is not.

 

[b&wpac4]

Let me explain a bit how it works here. Say for example there is a state funded Jewish school as there is in my city. My brother-in-law works there so I know a fair bit of how it functions. Also I know a few people who attended there.
The government provides the funding, but does not appoint the teachers. This is done by the school, which means in practicality the governors who are made up of parents, teachers, the local rabbis and various other people from the Jewish community. They obviously know who they are appointing and make a decision on who best to fill the position.
There is a national curriculum which all schools (including private schools) have to adhere to as the core of what is taught. Other than that there is a fair amount of fluidity.

Now lets take the hypothetical Texas situation. If you had a situation where the state funded religious schools, the Catholic parents in question could decide to send their kids to the Baptist school or the local secular school if one was available. If they felt strongly enough about it they could move nearer the border and send their kids to a Catholic school with all the little Mexican kids.

The idea that here the government teaches its version of Catholicism through the locally state funded Catholic schools is quite laughable. (I mean no offence here. I'm obviously ignorant about your system too). The parents and the parish priest and the teachers decide how this is done.

It still strikes me as odd still in the USA, that if you want you child to be educated in a completely secular environment, this is catered for by the state; but any other form of education is not.

See, here in the US, the couple would just sue until the school system was forced to provide a Catholic school for that area so that they would have "Equal protection" under the law. US laws are different than the UK laws.

 

[Maren]

Let me explain a bit how it works here. Say for example there is a state funded Jewish school as there is in my city. My brother-in-law works there so I know a fair bit of how it functions. Also I know a few people who attended there.
The government provides the funding, but does not appoint the teachers. This is done by the school, which means in practicality the governors who are made up of parents, teachers, the local rabbis and various other people from the Jewish community. They obviously know who they are appointing and make a decision on who best to fill the position.
There is a national curriculum which all schools (including private schools) have to adhere to as the core of what is taught. Other than that there is a fair amount of fluidity.

Now lets take the hypothetical Texas situation. If you had a situation where the state funded religious schools, the Catholic parents in question could decide to send their kids to the Baptist school or the local secular school if one was available. If they felt strongly enough about it they could move nearer the border and send their kids to a Catholic school with all the little Mexican kids.

The idea that here the government teaches its version of Catholicism through the locally state funded Catholic schools is quite laughable. (I mean no offence here. I'm obviously ignorant about your system too). The parents and the parish priest and the teachers decide how this is done.

It still strikes me as odd still in the USA, that if you want you child to be educated in a completely secular environment, this is catered for by the state; but any other form of education is not.

I believe you have two problems with that type of system in the United States. The first would be the First Amendment issue, not "promoting" any religion -- by the fact that only the majority religion(s) would have their own schools while other religions would not have equivalent schools could be claimed to be "promotion" of religion. Now, while some might claim that would balance out nationally, to a large degree, such as Catholic schools in the Northeast, Baptist/Fundamentalist schools in the South, Mormon schools in Utah, Jewish schools in New York and New Jersey, etc.; the fact is there still would likely still be no Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim schools. In essence, it would be promoting Judeo-Christian religion.

Secondly, there is the problem of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, equality under the law. The law would not be treating all citizens equally per religion. And then there are the questions about the legality (again per the US Constitution) of the government giving a religion money to educate students in a particular religion.

What has been discussed in the US and may eventually be supported is the idea of vouchers, where parents have the option of sending their child to a public school or getting a voucher that could be used at a private school of their choice. Of course, much of the complaint of a voucher system is that it disadvantages low income families; both in that their children would be less likely to be accepted into a private school and that they often cannot pay the difference between the voucher amount and the private school's tuition. Another issue is the planning problems it places on public schools, having the facilities/books/teachers for those students who will opt for the public school (since they cannot refuse students) without wasting money on facilities/books/teaching contracts which aren't needed (or not having enough). Last is the idea that public schools are at a disadvantage since they are forced to take those children with discipline problems and learning disabilities that private schools will refuse to accept.

Perhaps the best option for the US is that used by the Mormons (and that has subsequently been adopted by other churches). The Mormons, rather than creating their own schools has created a "class" that Mormon students may take. Mormons then take this class prior to their normal school day or, in Utah and eight other western states, get the public schools to release the students for one period to attend this class off-campus (typically in place of a study hall or an elective class). Then, additionally, they also offer classes for university students located near campus as well as classes for adults.

Last, though, is why should the government be responsible for supplying religious education, even just the money for religious education? Again, secular in this case does not mean discouraging religion, rather it is merely not teaching religious doctrine. This doesn't mean not teaching religion as a historical force, as the Puritans coming to America and the Mormons migration to Utah have religious motivations (or, if you will, the Thirty and Eighty Years' Wars and the Crusades).

 

[Warren Clark]

Prayer is always allowed for a person to do.
It cannot be forced by the government.
As implied by the first amendment.

(Setting that aside)

Prayer along with any other religious practice should never be forced by the government.
That would destroy our nation as being free.

 

[ebia]

See, here in the US, the couple would just sue until the school system was forced to provide a Catholic school for that area so that they would have "Equal protection" under the law. US laws are different than the UK laws.

That's not quite how it works in the UK. The government doesn't provide the church schools. Rather it negotiates with the various church bodies for them to do so. The funding provided is per student - so unless the you have a suffient threshold the church concerned won't be able to make a viable school. It also requires the church concerned to be in a position of being willing and able to open a school, provide the necessary extra funding of the bits that are government funded etc. The initiative comes mostly from the churches - only in a few instances where the governement is desparate to sort out an area with failing schools does the initiative come from the government.

The reason the government likes the model so much at the moment is that on average church schools are significantly more successful than government ones, even after effects such as selection are factored in.

Another model worth considering is what is found in Australia. Here the government agrees to fund x-much per pupil to any private school. The amount is less than the state schools get - not quite enough to run a school without fees but enough to keep the fees low (about $2,000 Au) for a modestly run school. Again, then, the government has no obligation to provide a school - rather it provides funding to the schools that organisations find are sustainable. If Catholics (say) in an area want a school it's up to them to set one up and apply for the funding.

In neither system does the government put itself in the position of trying to cater for everyone.

 

[b&wpac4]

That's not quite how it works in the UK. The government doesn't provide the church schools. Rather it negotiates with the various church bodies for them to do so. The funding provided is per student - so unless the you have a suffient threshold the church concerned won't be able to make a viable school. It also requires the church concerned to be in a position of being willing and able to open a school, provide the necessary extra funding of the bits that are government funded etc. The initiative comes mostly from the churches - only in a few instances where the governement is desparate to sort out an area with failing schools does the initiative come from the government.

The reason the government likes the model so much at the moment is that on average church schools are significantly more successful than government ones, even after effects such as selection are factored in.

Another model worth considering is what is found in Australia. Here the government agrees to fund x-much per pupil to any private school. The amount is less than the state schools get - not quite enough to run a school without fees but enough to keep the fees low (about $2,000 Au) for a modestly run school. Again, then, the government has no obligation to provide a school - rather it provides funding to the schools that organisations find are sustainable. If Catholics (say) in an area want a school it's up to them to set one up and apply for the funding.

In neither system does the government put itself in the position of trying to cater for everyone.

But that's one of those huge differences between the US and UK. It just would not work under the Constitution, people would fight it, and ultimately we'd be left with the same situation we have now.

 

[ebia]

I believe you have two problems with that type of system in the United States. The first would be the First Amendment issue, not "promoting" any religion -- by the fact that only the majority religion(s) would have their own schools while other religions would not have equivalent schools could be claimed to be "promotion" of religion.

And what you have to ask yourself is whether promoting lack-of-religion is within the spirit of your constitution or not. What you have isn't a religiously neutral system but a system that promotes secular, non-religion. Is that what America as a nation wants - whatever the consistution might or might not say?

Now, while some might claim that would balance out nationally, to a large degree, such as Catholic schools in the Northeast, Baptist/Fundamentalist schools in the South, Mormon schools in Utah, Jewish schools in New York and New Jersey, etc.; the fact is there still would likely still be no Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim schools. In essence, it would be promoting Judeo-Christian religion.

What we find here is that an increasing number of people of faith would rather send their children to the school of another faith rather than to a secular school. An increasing number of Muslim parents (for instance) are choosing to send their students to a Catholic school when no suitable Islamic school is available.

Secondly, there is the problem of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, equality under the law. The law would not be treating all citizens equally per religion.

It's not at the moment - it is privedging non-religious citizens over others.

And then there are the questions about the legality (again per the US Constitution) of the government giving a religion money to educate students in a particular religion.

If your consitution doesn't allow you do do what your citizens need you to do either you need to find ways of working around it or consider amending it. Constitutions aren't meant to be something to hide behind as an excuse for not doing things.

What has been discussed in the US and may eventually be supported is the idea of vouchers, where parents have the option of sending their child to a public school or getting a voucher that could be used at a private school of their choice. Of course, much of the complaint of a voucher system is that it disadvantages low income families; both in that their children would be less likely to be accepted into a private school and that they often cannot pay the difference between the voucher amount and the private school's tuition.

If your vouchers are worth enough then schools can appear that don't need extra on top, providing the red-tape is not excessive.

Another issue is the planning problems it places on public schools, having the facilities/books/teachers for those students who will opt for the public school (since they cannot refuse students) without wasting money on facilities/books/teaching contracts which aren't needed (or not having enough).

's not a problem here - statistically it will quickly become predictable.

Last is the idea that public schools are at a disadvantage since they are forced to take those children with discipline problems and learning disabilities that private schools will refuse to accept.

You already have that between public schools in different areas, and (if australia is anything to go by) you will have schools emerge that will take those kids. Most Catholic schools here are less keen to expell problem kids than the state schools. Some small Christian schools make it a part of their speciality.

Last, though, is why should the government be responsible for supplying religious education,

For one, because it's a very good forum for getting kids to think about values, behaviours, relationships, citizenship, living in community,...

Teachers coming into a Catholic school who have taught in the state system here often comment on how much more effective it is to be able to talk about those kinds of vital skills within a school with a clear framework of values.

even just the money for religious education? Again, secular in this case does not mean discouraging religion, rather it is merely not teaching religious doctrine.

If secular means excluding religious discussion from the general classroom environment then it does mean discouraging religion.

 

[ebia]

But that's one of those huge differences between the US and UK. It just would not work under the Constitution, people would fight it, and ultimately we'd be left with the same situation we have now.

To an outside that looks like "we've dug ourselves a hole and we are damn well going to sit in it".

 

[b&wpac4]

To an outside that looks like "we've dug ourselves a hole and we are damn well going to sit in it".

ONLY if you assume that secular education somehow is anti-religious. I went to school not all that long ago, religion just wasn't discussed in a "this is correct" sense. In History class, the rise of Christianity and the impact on the world was discussed, as was the rise of Islam. The beliefs of religions were discussed in a very clinical fashion, with none of them being labeled "correct". I really don't understand where people are coming from when they say it is "anti-religious". It's not like there's a "WHY THE CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG" class, or anything of the like.

Yes, evolution is taught, but for right now is the science. If you don't like it, find a way to disprove it occurred and scientifically prove God created the world just like Genesis.

 

[ebia]

ONLY if you assume that secular education somehow is anti-religious. I went to school not all that long ago, religion just wasn't discussed in a "this is correct" sense. In History class, the rise of Christianity and the impact on the world was discussed, as was the rise of Islam. The beliefs of religions were discussed in a very clinical fashion, with none of them being labeled "correct". I really don't understand where people are coming from when they say it is "anti-religious". It's not like there's a "WHY THE CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG" class, or anything of the like.

I would hope not.
Surely whether or not a secular approach is acceptable to all people isn't for the secularists to decide.

Yes, evolution is taught, but for right now is the science. If you don't like it, find a way to disprove it occurred and scientifically prove God created the world just like Genesis.

Just to be clear, I'm quite happy for evolution to be taught just like any other similar scientific theory. It is in this (Catholic) school.

 

[Maren]

And what you have to ask yourself is whether promoting lack-of-religion is within the spirit of your constitution or not. What you have isn't a religiously neutral system but a system that promotes secular, non-religion. Is that what America as a nation wants - whatever the consistution might or might not say?


What we find here is that an increasing number of people of faith would rather send their children to the school of another faith rather than to a secular school. An increasing number of Muslim parents (for instance) are choosing to send their students to a Catholic school when no suitable Islamic school is available.


It's not at the moment - it is privedging non-religious citizens over others.



If your consitution doesn't allow you do do what your citizens need you to do either you need to find ways of working around it or consider amending it. Constitutions aren't meant to be something to hide behind as an excuse for not doing things.


If your vouchers are worth enough then schools can appear that don't need extra on top, providing the red-tape is not excessive.



's not a problem here - statistically it will quickly become predictable.


You already have that between public schools in different areas, and (if australia is anything to go by) you will have schools emerge that will take those kids. Most Catholic schools here are less keen to expell problem kids than the state schools. Some small Christian schools make it a part of their speciality.


For one, because it's a very good forum for getting kids to think about values, behaviours, relationships, citizenship, living in community,...

Teachers coming into a Catholic school who have taught in the state system here often comment on how much more effective it is to be able to talk about those kinds of vital skills within a school with a clear framework of values.



If secular means excluding religious discussion from the general classroom environment then it does mean discouraging religion.

And all of your comments go back to the idea that secular means anti-religion, which you have been told multiple times is not what it means when it comes to American schools. And again, you have not stated why the government should be promoting religious education.

 

[ebia]

And all of your comments go back to the idea that secular means anti-religion, which you have been told multiple times is not what it means when it comes to American schools.

That secular people claim secularism is not anti-religon doesn't make it so.
While it isn't necessarly explicitly anti-religion, it is implicitly. When many of the world faiths are incompatible with separating religion for other aspects of life it cannot be. Islam is a whole of life thing, Christianity is a whole of life thing.

And again, you have not stated why the government should be promoting religious education.

What do you think the purpose(s) of state funded education are?

 

[TeddyKGB]

To a fair extent it is just that, masquading as something else.

Well, no. One can be both secular and religious, if at different times.