How Religion Harms Education

[Davros of Skaro]

Atheist Ireland gave me (AronRa) the title of the topic they wanted me to talk about, because this is as important an issue for them as it is for me back home in Texas. This is largely because they have no separation of church and state, and every school is a religious school.

How Religion Harms Education 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Meanwhile, in Australia we integrate region into education by teaching children to look AT it and think about it.

Our Religious and liturgical curriculum is applicable to anyone - even Atheists! - because of how its structured. In simplest terms, we explore what we believe, and why and how to express (and in later grades chsllenge) those beliefs.

[Frank Merton]

Well this is "Communist" Vietnam, so for a couple decades the religious education was formal atheism, with everything else "superstition." This has been downplayed a lot but religion is still not taught -- it is just ignored nowadays.

I don't think it had much effect; those who were Catholics are still Catholics, Buddhists still Buddhists, Caodai still Caodai (although I think this group is aging and not keeping its young people).

It seem to me in the States those who were taught creationism and similar stuff as "science" are at a huge disadvantage in the world, at least if they want to come to be among the elite. They must have a really distorted notion of what scientific knowledge and practice really is about. Still, they can live their lives with this ignorance and for most it won't matter much. Fortunately the religions in Vietnam are not so unscientific.

[eight bits]

This is largely because they have no separation of church and state, ...

That's not legally accurate. The current form of the Republic's constitution is here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/

While this is clearly the fundamental law of a Christian European state, it does have nearly the same foundational protections as the United States:

(44: 2) Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen. The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

(44: 3) The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

As in any Constutional sysrtem of law, how the words are interpreted matters, and that is always and necessarily an evolving situation. Furthermore, all nations inherit their own history, and so even proudly secular France must tolerate public religious expressions that are older than its current constituion, even as it forbids newer ones.

Historically, Eire had anticipated and made legal provision for governing the entire Island of Ireland. Unsurprisingly, its earlier Constitutions emphasized the harmonization of the dominant religions of the Island, Catholicism and the major Protestant denominations (hence the refrence to Trintarian matters in the Preamble, what these specific religions have in common). After the state became more interested in the European Union in the later part of the last century, that emphasis has largely fallen away.

(And while the EU-focused diplomatic strategy effectively ends the possibility that Eire would rule throughout the Island, it has managed to turn the physical border into little more than a discolored patch in the roadways. Half a loaf, and all that.)

As to the penetration of Constitutional principles into the day-to-day relations between a people and their state, we do well to recall that an independent Irish Republic has only been around for about as long as the many decades between the Fourteenth Amendment and the end of Maryland's religious test for public office. Maryland retains that provision to this day, unimplemented but ever at the ready to be reimposed should the federal courts revisit the issue.

Conclude that in a democracy, the state will reflect the opinions of the poeple, including widely shared religious opinions. If you want to change a democratic state, then change its people's opinions.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

That's you?!

And I wondered how you felt about the latest news bit coming from Shrivesport LA about keeping the 'In God We Trust' on the marquee of the school. First I'm thinking, you don't live in the states, but now I know....................

Anyways, this gets me here in the states. Fortunately, growing up in the northeast, I never felt any of the deep religious when dealing with schools, or the state for that matter. It was not done, and I always felt everyone around here was fine about that.

There was a thing years ago here where to put more than one high school for it's graduation and a local church was their ideal local. Of course some people, understandingly, spoke up against that. It was a bit of a controversy. I'm thinking, why have more than one school at the same time at one place? So, like others, wondered at why they were thinking that it's alright to hold this there and why.

If I remember correctly, they ended up going somewhere else.

The LA thing shows how everyone there wanted to keep the 'in god we trust' and I'm thinking fine if everyone is for that, but this is still a whole country where there is separation of church and state. I think it's wrong to try to force children into a belief that they don't and their parents are raising them not in, believe. I agree with Frank, I believe the focus in just teaching things like creation only is stunting them from an accepted scientific thinking, that is a norm in the country. Yes, it is harmful to education when you are showing that you want one line of thinking into a place for learning about everything and everybody. Everyone is free to worship and believe in what they want. They are not free to make everyone else worship and believe in just what you do. Forcing them in schools stunts and hurts when they are young and impressionable.

[+Paranoid Android]

I haven't watched the whole clip (lack of time means I only watched the first six minutes, half of that was introduction to Aron Ra), but to what extent is this question (based on my early viewing) really a question of "how religion harms education" compared to "how indoctrination, particularly creationism, harms education"?

[Rafterman]

I haven't watched the whole clip (lack of time means I only watched the first six minutes, half of that was introduction to Aron Ra), but to what extent is this question (based on my early viewing) really a question of "how religion harms education" compared to "how indoctrination, particularly creationism, harms education"?

Because it's one in the same in many parts of the US - particularly the southern US. You have to realize that in large swaths of the US, almost everyone is a conservative fundamentalist christian and the default assumption is that that form of christianity should be woven through every aspect of people's lives. The idea that someone might believe differently is never considered.

There was a recent case where a christian believer questioned a school about the distribution of bibles to students and she was attacked mercilessly by other parents, teachers, and administrators. It doesn't pay to go against the group think.

[eight bits]

Stubbly

And I wondered how you felt about the latest news bit coming from Shrivesport LA about keeping the 'In God We Trust' on the marquee of the school.

Good sportspersonship requires us to admire inspired play, even when it is the other team being inspired.

For better or worse, In God we trust is the motto of the United States, and Congress' prerogative to make it so has survived court challenge. So, there is arguable secular purpose in a public school displaying the motto (*), since instruction in patriotic information is a traditional objective of tax-supported education. Moreover, the motto appears on the money, which means there is no plausible argument that young children must be protected from this fact. Old enough to read, old enough to know what Ike did.

This one is winnable for the God Squad.

Personally, I love it when the underdog wins a round. As long as they lose the fight. It would be Dawkins-esque not to give them this one, and churlish to withhold a polite clap of the hands.

BTW, my admiration for good play does not extend so far as NOT signing a petition to make "One from many" our national motto again (and let's do it in English this time - not that Uno de muchos sounds so bad to me, either). Once not the national motto, the secular purpose evaporates like the smoke screen it was anyway.

----------------------

(*) I doubt the Atheist All Stars would like it any better if the sign had said

The motto of our great nation is In God We Trust.

That is, a simple declarative sentece stating a teachable fact, unambiguously secular in purpose. The school district might offer that wording as a compromise setllement .

Edited April 26, 2015 by eight bits

[Podo]

In Canada, religion is kept out of schools entirely. We're taught that it exists, but that's basically it. No prayer or religious texts are allowed in schools for any reason, period. The most religion is interacted with is as a subject of history in history classrooms, but only ever in a historical or academic sense.

Private Schools will sometimes have a chapel and religious classes, but they're private and can do what they want.

[Grandpa Greenman]

I got no problem with teaching kid about the various religions of the world as you would history or social studies, that is important. Religion is a part of the world, like it or not, but not teaching a religion. If you want your children to learn about your religion then take them to your church. Otherwise, they might not learn about your religion it might be someone elses.

[Rafterman]

I got no problem with teaching kid about the various religions of the world as you would history or social studies, that is important. Religion is a part of the world, like it or not, but not teaching a religion. If you want your children to learn about your religion then take them to your church. Otherwise, they might not learn about your religion it might be someone elses.

I would gladly welcome a comparative religions class taught in public schools. But if you really want to see the Fundies lose their minds, propose something like that.

[Grandpa Greenman]

I would gladly welcome a comparative religions class taught in public schools. But if you really want to see the Fundies lose their minds, propose something like that.

They don't want you to undo their brainwashing. But they think it is ok for them to brainwash your children, though.

[+Paranoid Android]

Because it's one in the same in many parts of the US - particularly the southern US. You have to realize that in large swaths of the US, almost everyone is a conservative fundamentalist christian and the default assumption is that that form of christianity should be woven through every aspect of people's lives. The idea that someone might believe differently is never considered.

There was a recent case where a christian believer questioned a school about the distribution of bibles to students and she was attacked mercilessly by other parents, teachers, and administrators. It doesn't pay to go against the group think.

Perhaps the video and/or thread should more appropriately be titled "how creationism in the southern US harms some/many Americans' education"? Edited April 27, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Leonardo]

Perhaps the video and/or thread should more appropriately be titled "how creationism in the southern US harms some/many Americans' education"?

"The world" is generally limited to what we experience in the local sense, PA, even as we tend to project those local concerns into larger ones encompassing the actual world. Even the early Jews and Christians did it. That's how they turned a local religion into a world encompassing one.

[aquatus1]

For better or worse, In God we trust is the motto of the United States,

For worse, I think. I like the previous one, E pluribus unum, a lot more. "Out of many, One." strikes me as a far better description of the U.S. than the insecurity that inspired the current one.

[+Paranoid Android]

"The world" is generally limited to what we experience in the local sense, PA, even as we tend to project those local concerns into larger ones encompassing the actual world. Even the early Jews and Christians did it. That's how they turned a local religion into a world encompassing one.

Possibly. My point was that if the video was really about how creationism being taught to children as truth stunts education, then it really is a completely different topic than "how religion harms education"! There are many religions that don't believe in the Abrahamic God at all. And even among the Abrahamics, there are many views on things like creation. Last I checked the single largest denomination of worldwide Christianity (the Roman Catholics, comprising 50% of all census-declaring Christians) are, via the Pope, officially on record as rejecting Young Earth Creationism in favour of Theistic Evolution.

[+Sherapy]

I would gladly welcome a comparative religions class taught in public schools. But if you really want to see the Fundies lose their minds, propose something like that.

California offers comparative religion in 6th grade, we maybe the only state that does, we instituted this after 9/11. Our reason was to teach of religious diversity. Also California is so so sooooo diverse, it's absurd not to have some education on the diversity of religious cultures. It is taught from the perspective that this is what is believed not that one is more true than another. It is typical here to engage in conversations of religion without offending anyone. Even those that identify as fundies ( that I have met) have the social adeptness to be neutral. The majority of my friends are religious ( I love my friends ) of some kind and I am openly Atheist and loved in spite of my lack of God. No one cares and if they did we would talk about it respectfully and civilly.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

Stubbly

Good sportspersonship requires us to admire inspired play, even when it is the other team being inspired.

For better or worse, In God we trust is the motto of the United States, and Congress' prerogative to make it so has survived court challenge. So, there is arguable secular purpose in a public school displaying the motto (*), since instruction in patriotic information is a traditional objective of tax-supported education. Moreover, the motto appears on the money, which means there is no plausible argument that young children must be protected from this fact. Old enough to read, old enough to know what Ike did.

This one is winnable for the God Squad.

Personally, I love it when the underdog wins a round. As long as they lose the fight. It would be Dawkins-esque not to give them this one, and churlish to withhold a polite clap of the hands.

BTW, my admiration for good play does not extend so far as NOT signing a petition to make "One from many" our national motto again (and let's do it in English this time - not that Uno de muchos sounds so bad to me, either). Once not the national motto, the secular purpose evaporates like the smoke screen it was anyway.

----------------------

(*) I doubt the Atheist All Stars would like it any better if the sign had said

The motto of our great nation is In God We Trust.

That is, a simple declarative sentece stating a teachable fact, unambiguously secular in purpose. The school district might offer that wording as a compromise setllement .

How about, "One for all, and all for one." Rather epitomises the preferred relationship between citizens in a true nation state, and with the state itself.

[Frank Merton]

California offers comparative religion in 6th grade, we maybe the only state that does, we instituted this after 9/11. Our reason was to teach of religious diversity. Also California is so so sooooo diverse, it's absurd not to have some education on the diversity of religious cultures. It is taught from the perspective that this is what is believed not that one is more true than another. It is typical here to engage in conversations of religion without offending anyone. Even those that identify as fundies ( that I have met) have the social adeptness to be neutral. The majority of my friends are religious ( I love my friends ) of some kind and I am openly Atheist and loved in spite of my lack of God. No one cares and if they did we would talk about it respectfully and civilly.

I think some sort of comparative religion instruction for secondary school (not an actual class but a topic within the social studies classes) where a world survey is provided, the psychology of cults, basic teachings and governmental structures, and so on, are described, is a good idea. Of course religion should also not be ignored in geography and history and so on classes, as doing so distorts things. This would include things like deism, spiritualism, agnosticism, atheism, materialism, transcendentalism, and other non-organized belief systems, and something about the nature of belief as opposed to opinion.

As I understand it this is done in Thailand, even though most Muslims demand they not have to attend, so it is only the majority Buddhists who know anything about other religions.

[+Sherapy]

I think some sort of comparative religion instruction for secondary school (not an actual class but a topic within the social studies classes) where a world survey is provided, the psychology of cults, basic teachings and governmental structures, and so on, are described, is a good idea. Of course religion should also not be ignored in geography and history and so on classes, as doing so distorts things. This would include things like deism, spiritualism, agnosticism, atheism, materialism, transcendentalism, and other non-organized belief systems, and something about the nature of belief as opposed to opinion.

As I understand it this is done in Thailand, even though most Muslims demand they not have to attend, so it is only the majority Buddhists who know anything about other religions.

I think that is an excellent idea. I don't think one can opt out of this class here, they can out of sexual education though and do.

[eight bits]

a1

For worse, I think. I like the previous one, E pluribus unum, a lot more. "Out of many, One." strikes me as a far better description of the U.S. than the insecurity that inspired the current one.

We seem to be in agreement as to the action recommendation, except for the choice of language.

BTW, my admiration for good play does not extend so far as NOT signing a petition to make "One from many" our national motto again (and let's do it in English this time - not that Uno de muchos sounds so bad to me, either). Once not the national motto, the secular purpose evaporates like the smoke screen it was anyway.

The United States has neither history nor prospect of hosting a Latin language speaking community. English is fine; Spanish is fine, both are fine with me.

For better or for worse? It is hard not to notice that both placement of the phrase on money and its promotion to general motto status were measures adopted during national emergencies. Much is allowed in emergencies that is not otherwise permissible. As the Patriot Act illustrates, the chief problem with emergency measures is that they linger long after the emergency passes. The motto is no different in its lingering, and is conspicuously less intrusive than the Patriot Act.

Mr Walker

..."One for all, and all for one."...

That's the Three Musketeers, not the United States. Our Constitution balances a sphere of privacy with a sphere of public responsibility. Historically, "One from many" (In Latin, E pluribus unum) did not refer to the annihilation of the interests of the individual, whether individual citizens or individual states, but to the coming together of these individuals in limited unison, and so to be both one and also to be many.

Sherapy

I think that is an excellent idea. I don't think one can opt out of this class here, they can out of sexual education though and do.

It is amusing to think in a Darwinian way, that backwards thinkers would thus condemn their kind to extinction. But of course making babies is the kind of thing people work out without formal instruction .

[aquatus1]

We seem to be in agreement as to the action recommendation, except for the choice of language.

Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur

That's the Three Musketeers, not the United States.

Yeah, we don't want none of that Frenchy stuff! Keep it American!

*listens to 1812 overture*

crap.

[eight bits]

a1

Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur

... vel uaniloquentium videtur.

The real-life French national motto translates to "Liberty Equality Fraternity." That's not bad; there is an adequate suggestion of balance there.

France didn't originate in a voluntary union of sovreigns, both popular and formal, as the United States did. "One from many" has a particular aptness to the specific history of the United States that the French motto lacks. To say that is not anti-French (au contraire, j'adore la France), but just the way things are.

"One for all and all for one" is a fine motto for a military unit on active duty, which is the situation of the musketeers in the novel. For a nation state in peacetime, however, the phrase stinks of totalitarianism. Crap indeed.

[aquatus1]

vel uaniloquentium videtur

Not familiar.

One for all and all for one? Totaliarism? Wouldn't it be more like communism?

Totalitarianism would be more alone the lines of "one for all and all for me"

As for the U.S., yeah, time to go back to the Constitutionally correct "out of many, one."

[Stubbly_Dooright]

by PA:

I haven't watched the whole clip (lack of time means I only watched the first six minutes, half of that was introduction to Aron Ra), but to what extent is this question (based on my early viewing) really a question of "how religion harms education" compared to "how indoctrination, particularly creationism, harms education"?

Because it's one in the same in many parts of the US - particularly the southern US. You have to realize that in large swaths of the US, almost everyone is a conservative fundamentalist christian and the default assumption is that that form of christianity should be woven through every aspect of people's lives. The idea that someone might believe differently is never considered.

There was a recent case where a christian believer questioned a school about the distribution of bibles to students and she was attacked mercilessly by other parents, teachers, and administrators. It doesn't pay to go against the group think.

I agree with Rafterman here PA. To me, this is one country yet, sometimes it gets so divided. And it gets me, we are a country celebrated for believing and practicing our beliefs and non-beliefs(yes non-beliefs too) and yet various areas in the states, one could be afraid to be open of their beliefs or non-beliefs. I have lived in both the north and the south of the eastern US. and it gets me how some people gave me hell for my beliefs even in Jersey, the middle of the Atlantic coast, but up here in the North East, prosyterlizers realize their mistake when the go too far with their preaching. We are one country and yet it doesn't feel that way. Why should we have to keep a watch from various belief groups who want to go into our schools and convert other people's children?? They should know better.

Stubbly

Good sportspersonship requires us to admire inspired play, even when it is the other team being inspired.

For better or worse, In God we trust is the motto of the United States, and Congress' prerogative to make it so has survived court challenge. So, there is arguable secular purpose in a public school displaying the motto (*), since instruction in patriotic information is a traditional objective of tax-supported education. Moreover, the motto appears on the money, which means there is no plausible argument that young children must be protected from this fact. Old enough to read, old enough to know what Ike did.

This one is winnable for the God Squad.

Personally, I love it when the underdog wins a round. As long as they lose the fight. It would be Dawkins-esque not to give them this one, and churlish to withhold a polite clap of the hands.

BTW, my admiration for good play does not extend so far as NOT signing a petition to make "One from many" our national motto again (and let's do it in English this time - not that Uno de muchos sounds so bad to me, either). Once not the national motto, the secular purpose evaporates like the smoke screen it was anyway.

----------------------

(*) I doubt the Atheist All Stars would like it any better if the sign had said

The motto of our great nation is In God We Trust.

That is, a simple declarative sentece stating a teachable fact, unambiguously secular in purpose. The school district might offer that wording as a compromise setllement .

I understand, and this country should also defend those who want to practice their belief out in the open as well. Interesting thought though, the idea of not protecting young minds to such things as 'In God we trust' on the school marquis and I think I agree with you. The thing about the La school situation is, despite understanding with the shared group mind there, there must be some closet Atheists there who are afraid to speak up. I wonder how the Atheists are being pushed to practice something they don't believe in. Talk about your underdog, right?

It does get me though, with the reasoning that the 'In God We Trust' was put on our money, and recently if you think of it, and the reason behind it.

http://en.wikipedia....In_God_we_trust

In 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism.^[17] As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States." The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.^[14] (Public Law 84-851)^[18] The United States Code at 36, now states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."

So, in a note, the beginning is probably about defending our right to be ourselves more so than insisting all in the country believe one thing. This kind of gets kind of complicated actually. *shrugs*

For worse, I think. I like the previous one, E pluribus unum, a lot more. "Out of many, One." strikes me as a far better description of the U.S. than the insecurity that inspired the current one.

Bingo.

How about, "One for all, and all for one." Rather epitomises the preferred relationship between citizens in a true nation state, and with the state itself.

Wow goes along with what aquatus said........................... doesn't it?

I think some sort of comparative religion instruction for secondary school (not an actual class but a topic within the social studies classes) where a world survey is provided, the psychology of cults, basic teachings and governmental structures, and so on, are described, is a good idea. Of course religion should also not be ignored in geography and history and so on classes, as doing so distorts things. This would include things like deism, spiritualism, agnosticism, atheism, materialism, transcendentalism, and other non-organized belief systems, and something about the nature of belief as opposed to opinion.

As I understand it this is done in Thailand, even though most Muslims demand they not have to attend, so it is only the majority Buddhists who know anything about other religions.

You know, I think there is a difference to have theology classes taught, as informational as opposed to enforcing one thing on all. Yes, religion plays a big part in varying subjects and everyone should be educated of each of their importance including Atheism. I remember taking a particular world history course in college, in which theology and each religion played in their countries. No preaching, just informing. I was fascinated in it. (Which probably also helped in how it shaped my own belief) Edited April 27, 2015 by Stubbly_Dooright