Secular schools and religious schools
Tech Central Station has an interesting column on a UK debate over a push by British Muslims for religious schools. The columnist, Josie Appleton, is fairly hostile to the claim that religious schools teach values better:
This seems like a typical secular critique of religion: religious people do right only because they are afraid of God, secular people are superior because they do right as a result of rational enquiry. This misses an important point - religious people do right nto out of fear but because they want to please God. Doing the right thing is one way to thank Him for His love. Moreover, doing right is what we were made to do. Fulfilling our nature is what getting our relationship with God correct is about.
Now, I don't know that this requires religious schools to accomplish it. I send my kids to a private, nonreligious school and I think they are getting a fine (albeit very expensive) education. But I didn't send them there because I thought the school taught morality - indeed, when it attempts to do so, it generally fails - but because it teaches math, science, writing, etc. well. I do think they are learning some morals there - because they are reading and discussing authors who raise moral questions (Shakespeare, Flannery O'Connor, etc.) but I hope that the moral learning comes more from the presentation of those works to them as a means for my kids to apply what they learn at church and at home.
Appleton concludes by saying
This also seems illogical - the fact that one religious person went to a nonreligious school and had a good outcome because it informed his choice between religion and secularism is not data, it is a single data point. How many people have his experience and how many have negative experiences? How much do we weight the negative experiences? Would a 1:1 ratio make forced secularization worthwhile? 10:1? 100:1?
Moreover, the logical extension of Appleton's argument would seem to be that religious people's children should be packed off to secular schools to give them a chance to experience secularism and decide for themselves what they think is right, while secular parents' children should be hustled off to religious schools to get the same exposure in reverse. Of course, that raises interesting questions about which religion runs the school. Or whether Muslim children should go to Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Confucian schools for a few years each as well (and all those faiths' children to the others) to get exposure. And should Catholic children live an Amish lifestyle for a few years too? And so on. Which makes me think that leaving it to the parents might be the best guide - after all, parents are far more likely to love their children than bureaucrats are.
We need to put the spirit back into secular education. This means being proud to teach science and rational enquiry, rather than presenting it as a dodgy business. And we could also use a new secular morality: kids can be taught right from wrong without the fear of God hanging over them.
This seems like a typical secular critique of religion: religious people do right only because they are afraid of God, secular people are superior because they do right as a result of rational enquiry. This misses an important point - religious people do right nto out of fear but because they want to please God. Doing the right thing is one way to thank Him for His love. Moreover, doing right is what we were made to do. Fulfilling our nature is what getting our relationship with God correct is about.
Now, I don't know that this requires religious schools to accomplish it. I send my kids to a private, nonreligious school and I think they are getting a fine (albeit very expensive) education. But I didn't send them there because I thought the school taught morality - indeed, when it attempts to do so, it generally fails - but because it teaches math, science, writing, etc. well. I do think they are learning some morals there - because they are reading and discussing authors who raise moral questions (Shakespeare, Flannery O'Connor, etc.) but I hope that the moral learning comes more from the presentation of those works to them as a means for my kids to apply what they learn at church and at home.
Appleton concludes by saying
The best advert for secular education came not from the panel, but from a young Muslim man in the audience, who plotted a lone course away from his peers. “I went to a secular school, and I think it was a good education. It made me think about what I believe, and decide for myself what I think is right.” Amen to that.
This also seems illogical - the fact that one religious person went to a nonreligious school and had a good outcome because it informed his choice between religion and secularism is not data, it is a single data point. How many people have his experience and how many have negative experiences? How much do we weight the negative experiences? Would a 1:1 ratio make forced secularization worthwhile? 10:1? 100:1?
Moreover, the logical extension of Appleton's argument would seem to be that religious people's children should be packed off to secular schools to give them a chance to experience secularism and decide for themselves what they think is right, while secular parents' children should be hustled off to religious schools to get the same exposure in reverse. Of course, that raises interesting questions about which religion runs the school. Or whether Muslim children should go to Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Confucian schools for a few years each as well (and all those faiths' children to the others) to get exposure. And should Catholic children live an Amish lifestyle for a few years too? And so on. Which makes me think that leaving it to the parents might be the best guide - after all, parents are far more likely to love their children than bureaucrats are.
Posted by Andy Morriss on
Friday December 16, 2005 at 1:02pm