Bay Times published this on Thursday, 14 December 2006.
If Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 1 November) advocates teaching children about the Bible and the other diverse beliefs that people hold in our pluralist society then I have no problem with this. However if “Bible in Schools” means religious indoctrination which sets out to convert children to the beliefs of the teacher, then he is dishonest in pretending that this is done “so that our children can at least be aware of our spiritual history.”
Nor does Bill tell the whole truth when he says that teaching the Bible in schools is voluntary. Religious instruction and observance are illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. They happen when schools are declared “closed” and the children are handed over to Christian evangelists. Children have to opt out of this indoctrination and are usually supervised in the school library. Opting out requires some intervention from the parents and makes the “opt out” children feel different, the last thing any young child wants. Evangelists know this and kick up a fuss against any attempt to switch to “opt in”.
The issue here is not about Bill waivering in his Christian faith. It is about him respecting the rights of others to their own beliefs.
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school. Show all posts
17 December 2006
04 December 2006
Religious Abuse
Bay Times published on Friday, 24 November 2006.
Margaret Muirhead (Bay Times 31 October) ignores my objections to religion in schools. Instead she chooses to answer what was clearly a rhetorical question designed to highlight the diversity of opinion in this area. According to the 2001 census that diversity includes 30% of New Zealanders who profess to have no religion at all. Given that many Christian parents will choose to send their children to religious schools, one can assume that the non-religious make up an even greater proportion of the state school population. It is surely arrogant and intolerant for State School Chaplaincy to seek to impose their worldview on this group, who have already chosen to reject religion. In fact some non-religious parents may well share the view of Richard Dawkins when he recently described religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
Margaret Muirhead (Bay Times 31 October) ignores my objections to religion in schools. Instead she chooses to answer what was clearly a rhetorical question designed to highlight the diversity of opinion in this area. According to the 2001 census that diversity includes 30% of New Zealanders who profess to have no religion at all. Given that many Christian parents will choose to send their children to religious schools, one can assume that the non-religious make up an even greater proportion of the state school population. It is surely arrogant and intolerant for State School Chaplaincy to seek to impose their worldview on this group, who have already chosen to reject religion. In fact some non-religious parents may well share the view of Richard Dawkins when he recently described religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
18 October 2006
Which god for schools?
Bay of Plenty Times published this on 16 October 2006.
Margaret Muirhead’s sales pitch for religion in schools (Letters, 7 October) demands a response. The main problem with religion is that it closes children’s minds when they should be opened. It teaches as absolute truths ideas that are not believed by large numbers of people of different worldviews. These ideas can be irrational and in direct conflict with what children are being taught in other disciplines such as science. Religion is morally conservative, promoting the idea that the last word in ethics was written 2,000 years ago. It also encourages children to think of themselves as “chosen” while those of other faiths are not only wrong, but wicked.
Margaret does not tell us which god is needed in schools. The god of Islam or Al Qaeda? The god of Brian Tamaki or Graham Capill? The god of the Exclusive Brethren or the Latter Day Saints? The list of gods could go on. None of these gods or religions has the monopoly on virtue. In fact the news is full of stories about religious teachers who have been convicted of crimes of fraud, child abuse, etc. On the other hand there are many who live ethically without god or religion.
Margaret Muirhead’s sales pitch for religion in schools (Letters, 7 October) demands a response. The main problem with religion is that it closes children’s minds when they should be opened. It teaches as absolute truths ideas that are not believed by large numbers of people of different worldviews. These ideas can be irrational and in direct conflict with what children are being taught in other disciplines such as science. Religion is morally conservative, promoting the idea that the last word in ethics was written 2,000 years ago. It also encourages children to think of themselves as “chosen” while those of other faiths are not only wrong, but wicked.
Margaret does not tell us which god is needed in schools. The god of Islam or Al Qaeda? The god of Brian Tamaki or Graham Capill? The god of the Exclusive Brethren or the Latter Day Saints? The list of gods could go on. None of these gods or religions has the monopoly on virtue. In fact the news is full of stories about religious teachers who have been convicted of crimes of fraud, child abuse, etc. On the other hand there are many who live ethically without god or religion.
Which version of Christianity?
Like many jeremiahs Ken Salt (Bay Times 14 September) laments the passing of an imaginary golden age. He goes on to lay the blame for today’s problems in schools at the feet of atheists. He offers no causal connection between atheism and these problems. For him it is self-evident that those who believe in his god are good, and those who do not are, not only wrong, but wicked. Finally he comes to his point – he has something to sell – a plug for Christianity in schools, presumably state schools since most private schools are religious in nature.
When New Zealand’s state schools were established as secular in 1877, this was in no small part due to the fact that the various denominations of Christians could not agree to teach one particular brand of Christianity. Ken Salt should come clean and tell us which brand he has in mind. Is it the liberal Christianity that acknowledges the limitations of the Bible, that tolerates other worldviews, that welcomes gays into the clergy, that accepts the fact of evolution? Or is it the fundamentalist kind that takes the Bible literally, that teaches creationism, that vilifies gays, atheists and anyone else who dares to have a different philosophy of life?
When New Zealand’s state schools were established as secular in 1877, this was in no small part due to the fact that the various denominations of Christians could not agree to teach one particular brand of Christianity. Ken Salt should come clean and tell us which brand he has in mind. Is it the liberal Christianity that acknowledges the limitations of the Bible, that tolerates other worldviews, that welcomes gays into the clergy, that accepts the fact of evolution? Or is it the fundamentalist kind that takes the Bible literally, that teaches creationism, that vilifies gays, atheists and anyone else who dares to have a different philosophy of life?
Religion in schools
A couple of items in the Bay Times report that New Zealand law is being flouted by Christian groups. Firstly at least three Christian schools refuse to rule out the use of corporal punishment even though the Education Act makes it illegal. Secondly another group of state schools allows religious instruction and observance although this is also illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. In both cases Christian extremists are displaying arrogance in thinking themselves above the law. Their disregard for the law also sets an appallingly bad example to the children in their care. Fortunately Green MP Sue Bradford is calling for an investigation into the illegal corporal punishment and the Ministry of education addressing the illegal religious indoctrination. I expect that the National Party will jump in to support both Sue Bradford and the Ministry. After all, this is consistent with their slogan: One law for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
