Religion in education - government policy
Steve Hayes
"Religion in education" policy at SACLA this week.
Delegates in the Education Track at SACLA (South African
Christian Leadership Assembly) were bombarded with leaflets from
two organisations (or perhaps one with different names) - Africa
Christian Action and ChristianView - which tried to demonify
Kader Asmal and his proposed policy. One such leaflet, "The Salt
Shaker" (Vol 12, Edition 2) complained that Asmal "had the
audacity to dismiss them as a 'bizarre and orchestrated
campaign'", But Asmal was right -- many delegates did experience
it as a "bizarre and orchestrated campaign" filled with dis-
information, twisted interpretation and downright lies.
It recommended for further reading some American books, which is
also misleading, because the American education system is
different from the South African one, and the American under-
standing of religious freedom is decidedly different.
From reading the literature one gets the impression that the
proposers want to bring back the discredited system of Christian
National Education, which was neither Christian, nor national,
nor education.
The chairman of the Education Track, Vic Brink, had to point out
to delegates that this paper avalanche was not sanctioned by the
SACLA Council, and did not represent its views.
The official speaker presented a more balanced view of the
proposed policy, and also pointed out that while in America
religious freedom is often interpreted as "freedom from
religion", in South Africa it is constitutionally guaranteed
freedom *for* religion.
We need to get behind the rhetoric and propaganda to consider the
issues (and they need to be considered pretty quickly, because
the current draft is open to public comment until 18 July). One
thing that SACLA did do was pass a resolution asking the Minister
to allow more time for comment.
The original draft policy, a 70-page document, was issued in
March, and comments had to be submitted in April. Various
interested parties submitted comments, though there was not much
time for consultation or discussion of many of the issues raised.
The Orthodox Church of South Africa submitted comments, and I was
pleased to see that the revised draft had incorporated some of
the suggestions and dealt with some of the objections. One of
these was that the first draft said that "Religion Education" in
schools was to be done only by "appropriately trained
professional educators" and not by clergy. This has now been
modified.
While I still have some reservations about the policy, I think it
is a fair one. It is not the dire threat to religious freedom
that the right-wing groups like "Africa Christian Action" portray
it as. For example, clause 56 reads:
This policy *encourages* (emphasis mine) the provision of
religious instruction by religious bodies outside the formal
school curriculum upon school premises, provided that such
opportunity be available to all religious bodies represented
in a school, that no denigration or caricaturing of any
other religion takes place, and that attendance at such
instruction be voluntary.
I am sure that is such a provision was made for American public
schools, half the atheists in the country would be taking the
minister (or his equivalent) to court and screaming blue murder.
Groups like "Africa Christian Action", however, make thoroughly
disingenuous comparisons between South Africa and the USA, and
scare people with fictitious threats. One problem with this is
that it makes it easy for the Minister to dismiss all Christian
objections as coming from right-wing reactionary loonys who want
to bring back the "Christian National Education" of the apartheid
era.
To see the draft policy on Religion in Education, go to:
http://education.pwv.gov.za/Policies%20and%20Reports/Policies/pol
icies.htm
Comments should be sent to:
Willi...@doe.gov.za
Fax: 012-323-5855
If anyone wants to discuss this policy with other Christians, I
recommend that they do so in the "Christians and Society"
discussion forum. To join, send an e-mail message to:
with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
For more information about this and other related discussion
forums see:
http://www.geocities.com/missionalia/lists.htm
--
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Joni Rathbun
Well, from simply reading the excerpt above, it sounds as if
religious groups can meet at school beyond the instructional
day and provide religious instruction for those who voluntarily
choose to attend. That's already legal in the US and happens in schools
across the nation.
From reading the policy itself, we also see that what they are
proposing has long been legal in the US. So I'm not sure what
you're getting at here.
What they are proposing is teaching ABOUT religions (plural):
"for teaching and learning about religion, religions, and religious
diversity in South Africa and the world."
Now I do see parts of that would likely disturb a few Christians
since the children could be engaged in learning songs and rituals
from a wide variety of religions. I know more than a few
fundamentalists here in the states who wouldn't sit still for
that and have a very difficult time distinguishing between
learning ABOUT religions and learning religion.
But do note the policy has this to say about religious
instruction:
"1. Religious instruction is understood to include instruction in a
particular faith or belief, with a view to the inculcation of adherence
to that faith or belief.
"2. Religious instruction of this sort is primarily the responsibility of
the home, the family, and the religious community...."
So consequently, they are promoting access as per the paragraph
you posted above which has long been legal.
The main difference I see between the SA policy and US "policy" is that
they are requiring students learn about world religions while in the US
that remains a legal option but is not required. You'll find, however,
that a great many atheists support learning ABOUT world religions and
as the SA policy mentions, "world views." And more than a few
Christians would have some problems and raise a nice little stink about
their child learning about Wiccan or Jewish or Islamic views and
rituals. In fact, they've already made headline news in that regard.
So what was your point?
Steve Hayes
>The main difference I see between the SA policy and US "policy" is that
>they are requiring students learn about world religions while in the US
>that remains a legal option but is not required. You'll find, however,
>that a great many atheists support learning ABOUT world religions and
>as the SA policy mentions, "world views." And more than a few
>Christians would have some problems and raise a nice little stink about
>their child learning about Wiccan or Jewish or Islamic views and
>rituals. In fact, they've already made headline news in that regard.
Thanks very much for the info.
>So what was your point?
What do you mean, "point"?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Joni Rathbun
Well, I see you are not from the US so perhaps your comments were
simple misunderstandings. Often times similar posts are made simply
to stir the pot with the poster knowing fully well, for example,
that it is legal to teach about religion in US schools and that
schools can be used by religious groups beyond the instructional
day. The myth that these things are not allowed seems to have
traveled far and wide. Often perpetuated deliberately....
Steve Hayes
I'm still not sure what you mean by "point" in your question.
The main point of my posting (which you seem to have mised) was to discuss
Asmal's "Religion in Education" policy.
There were several other points, which should have been clear -- for example
that Asmal was not being "audacious" but quite accurate and to the point when
he spoke of a "bizarre and orchestrated campaign".
So I am puzled when you ask what my point is - it should be perfectly obvioous
from what I wrote. Yu may disagree with one or any of them, but asking what it
is implies that you did not understand what I wrote.
So I am asking what it is you did not understand.
Joni Rathbun
At this point, I'm certain I didn't misunderstand anything at all.
But to put it in elementary terms for you, by asking what your point was,
I was asking if you were deliberately posting inaccurate information
to stir the pot and feed the gullible or did you just not know any
better?
I know the answer now. Thank you.
Skokkie
"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03071...@lab.oregonvos.net...
I have spoken to some other people who were there and one of them actually
worked in Steve's group. Their accounts of the interaction were a little
different to Steve's. They seemed to see his assertions about Americans as a
little less triumphant than that presented on this ng. Apparently the author
of one of the offensive American books that he berated was actually present
and was embarrassingly very South African. They also seem to think that the
distribution of literature was done with permission despite Steve's
protests. I have asked them to respond to Steve's post but they have not
done so yet. I was not actually there so I cannot comment. Hopefully there
will be some clarity next week I know that Steve always talks some sense at
least so this departure comes as a surprise to me.
Joni Rathbun
Also note that he chose to crosspost into a US-dominated group that is
accustomed to routine troll posts on US schools and religion. It might
have been wise to do a little research before choosing crosspost
destinations. Most people who come here and make the kind of statements he
made are cranks. Had he done his homework, he'd have realized that
and left this group out or worded his post more carefully. Of course,
if he were prone to doing his homework he wouldn't have repeated
the falsehoods in the first place.
Steve Hayes
>I have spoken to some other people who were there and one of them actually
>worked in Steve's group. Their accounts of the interaction were a little
>different to Steve's. They seemed to see his assertions about Americans as a
>little less triumphant than that presented on this ng. Apparently the author
>of one of the offensive American books that he berated was actually present
>and was embarrassingly very South African. They also seem to think that the
>distribution of literature was done with permission despite Steve's
>protests. I have asked them to respond to Steve's post but they have not
>done so yet. I was not actually there so I cannot comment. Hopefully there
>will be some clarity next week I know that Steve always talks some sense at
>least so this departure comes as a surprise to me.
It would be good if those responsible for distributing the pamphlets were to
participate in the discussion.
I did not object to their distributing pamphlets in itself, nor to suggest
that they did not do so with the permission of the organisers of the event. I
did, however, find some of the content objectionable and one-sided, and that
another viewpoint was needed to counter the false impression that was being
created. The organisers of the event did point out that the pamphlets did not
necessarily represent their views. It was the quantity - and the content, at
several sessions, that made it look like a "bizarre and orchestrated
campaign".
If my statement about the provenance of the recommended books was inaccurate,
I apologise. But the tenor of the "Saltshaker" pamphlet was to compare the
situation in South Africa with that in the USA, and to impute to South African
education authorities motives and beliefs expressed by Americans. The
recommended books were published in the USA, and I assumed, perhaps wrongly,
that they contained more of the same.
I was partly responsible for drafting the Orthodox Church's response to the
April March proposal by the Minister of Education. A new draft has been
circulated and comments have to be in by 18 July and so I may need to draft a
response to the new proposals, and there is not much time to do so.
I posted some comments on the discussions at SACLA in the hope of getting some
discussion and information that would help me in this. I posted it to a number
of newsgroups where I thought gthe topic would be relevant, and none of them
indicates that it is specifically for the USA. Two of them are sdpecifically
South African. I do not believe that the subject is off-topic in any of the
newsgroups I posted it to.
Joni's response was helpful in a limited sort of way, but then threatened to
sidetrack the discussion by some nasty inuendoes bordering on trollery. I am
not looking for a flame war. I am looking for a serious discussion on religion
in education. I know that is probably too much to hope for on Usenet, which
has become the playground of kooks and fanatics of all kinds. But I hope there
may be some wheat to sort from the chaff.
Skokkie
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f121f03....@news.saix.net...
engaged with an intellect like yours there are places to go and things to be
discussed. Any sort of politics relates to a bunch of ideas in tension that
represent the diverse expectations of a broad demographic spread. My
experience is that there is always whet to sort from the chaff and the
discernment process that one has to go through on the Usenet will equip one
for any sort of forum.
Then there is the trollery and suchlike and a non receptive unchallengeable
mind like Mr Bodie makes this all fun, so the trollery has it's uses,
however I would not ever try and engage in that sort of tomfoolery with your
mind. There was a guy called Sabsy who used to post here a few years ago.
You will no doubt remember him. I must say that in between his rantings and
ravings and locking horns with some of the Right-wingers and Liberals, there
was much insight into the things that are agitating demographically
significant numbers of our fellow country men. His arguments were usually
dismissed on racialistic terms and it is clear that he invited this, but
there was much in what he said that was not really taken up and dissected on
a sensible and rational basis. He is as much to blame as anyone else on
this. I think that the problem is that most of the people that post to this
group have not ever participated in a real time person to person
multicultural political workshop. They do not understand the concept of
consensuality but only victory or defeat in arguments that are reduced to
semantic levels in order for them to be analysed by the sort of mentality
that sees nation building as a competition.
I will continue to try and engage in reasonable discussion with yourself and
roll with the punches, but please do not judge me because I am sparring with
Bodie or because that sort of stuff goes on with other people. Meanwhile the
comments by the other attendees at SACLA cannot be taken for truth until all
of the first person people are willing to post into this forum. Anything
else is hearsay and I openly declare it as such. Your response in the face
of this is quite adequate.
The Skokkie
Admittedly the worst Christian since Genghis Khan
Steve Hayes
Yes, I knew Sabsy. Met him in person a couple of times, and he gave me free
tickets to a Bee-Gees concert, which only would have been of interest to old
farts like me.
He wasn't one to suffer fools gladly, hence his somewhat abrasive manner in
this ng. He also had a tendency to assume that everyone was a fool until they
demonstragted otherwise, which I suppose is somkething that Usenet tends to
promote.
The trouble is that one can spend so much time sorting the wheat from the
chaff that all one has is a very small pile of wheat that goes mouldy there is
no time to use it.
I don't generally download postings from racist triolls like Spinner, Paul &
Co in this newsgroup, which saves a bit of time.
There are other newsgroups with fewer trolls, such as alt.usage.english, where
one gets useful information in the first couple of days in the thread, and
then it trickles off into digressions and repetition, and eventually I se the
whole thread to "ignore", so that not even the headers are downloaded.
>
>I will continue to try and engage in reasonable discussion with yourself and
>roll with the punches, but please do not judge me because I am sparring with
>Bodie or because that sort of stuff goes on with other people. Meanwhile the
>comments by the other attendees at SACLA cannot be taken for truth until all
>of the first person people are willing to post into this forum. Anything
>else is hearsay and I openly declare it as such. Your response in the face
>of this is quite adequate.
>
>
>
>The Skokkie
>Admittedly the worst Christian since Genghis Khan
>
>
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
>There was quite a heated discussion on Kader Asmal's proposed
>"Religion in education" policy at SACLA this week.
Here is the SACLA statement -- comments anyone?
SACLA Statement on Religion and Education
With the assembly's renewed appreciation of the youth of our land, it was also
registered that we have met at a time when the government's draft policy on
Religion and Education is receiving considerable attention. On the council of
those in the Education Track, we wish to say with some urgency that:
· While we recognise the need to demonstrate Christian tolerance and respect
in handling this matter with both the state and other faiths, we nevertheless
see the current debate on Religious Education policy as a wonderful
opportunity for the Church to demonstrate unity and to make a contribution to
renewing the moral fibre of our society through making Christian religious
instruction available in our schools to those wanting it.
· We see the need for the State at this moment to allow additional time for
the public to make submissions on this matter. All our constituencies should
note and take advantage of this opportunity.
· Such submissions should make clear that the Christian Church wishes to make
positive contributions as appropriate, within the education and training
processes of our land.
National Curriculum Statement and policy: http://education.pwv.gov.za
Comments to: Willi...@doe.gov.za or fax 012 323 5855 by 20 July
Steve Hayes
Thursday 10th July 2003
Tshwabac Grounds, Pretoria
The Draft Policy on Religion and Education
Introduction
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank the
organisers of SACLA for the invitation to address you. I deem it
an honour, and, at the same time a joy, to render to you this
service.
My task, as I see it, is to help you get a better grip on the
Draft Policy in order to discuss, in an informed way, the focus
question that has been put before us: "What are the
opportunities, constraints and challenges for Churches and
Christian organisations to make their contribution towards youth
development in schools and other educational institutions in the
light of the proposed policy on Religion in Education?"
Before we begin, I would like, with your permission, to share a
favourite prayer:
Lord, open our lips, and our mouth shall declare your praise.
Lord, open our eyes, and our seeing shall behold your glory.
Lord, open our hearts, and our feeling shall know your love.
Lord, open our minds, and our thinking shall discover your
wonders.
Lord, open our hands, and our giving shall show your
generosity.
Lord, open our lives, and our living shall declare your
Presence.1
I shall divide my address into two parts. To begin with, I think
it important to sketch for you some of the historical and
ideological background, or the context in which this policy is
being developed. In the second part, I will deal with the
specifics of the policy.
PART I
Historical Background
In October 1997, the new National Curriculum 2005 became policy.
Under the heading Special Provisions in the policy document, the
following statement was made:
Learners' progress in schools will be interpreted in terms of
their achievement of the compulsory sixty-six Specific Outcomes,
developed within the eight learning areas. These outcomes are
developed to ensure inclusion. Based on this principle, religion
cannot be included into (sic) the learning programmes, because
non-religious learners will not be able to comply. What, must,
however, be acknowledged is that religion is the basis on which
the lives of a very large part of the population rests. Provision
for religious activities in schools, wherever required, should
therefore be made. A separate policy statement in this regard
will be developed and issued by the Minister.
This separate policy statement, promised by Minister Sibusiso
Bengu, is what we are here to discuss.
Of course, in the mean time, we have had the Ministerial
Committee for Religious Education's Report2 in February 1999,
followed by the Review Committee to consider public comment. The
policy appeared close to finalisation in June 1999 when the new
Minister, Kader Asmal, came into office. He chose not to follow
the recommendations of that committee. Ironically perhaps, what
we have on the table today is very close to what a member of the
Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Education recently dubbed
'the Bengu Bill'.
I would like to draw your attention to two things in the above
statement. Firstly, we need to bear in mind that the question of
a policy for Religion in Education has been framed, from the
beginning, in terms of the newly developed National Curriculum.
Religion Education, particularly, needs to be understood in this
light, as it tries to spell out programmatic and methodological
aspects necessary to the achievement of the second Learning Out-
come of Life Orientation.
There is, of course, an apparent contradiction in the original
Curriculum 2005, because religion could, in fact, be included
with ease across the learning areas, as the February 1999
Ministerial Report indicated. However, the above curriculum
statement understood 'religion' in the sense of religious
activities, like observances and instruction.
The very term, Religion in Education, illustrates the tension
that the policy makers have been trying to resolve: Religion, on
the one hand, seen, by its very nature, as tending to exclude,
and Education, on the other, seeking to be inclusive in all its
dimensions. This tension is the second thing I want to draw your
attention to in the quoted statement. The transformation of
Education has followed a number of general principles, like
equitable treatment for all, equal access, redress of past
imbalances, and ensuring professional quality, while upholding
freedom of conscience, and outlawing indoctrination of learners
and denigration of any religion. While the Ministry has tried to
give expression to these principles in the policy, religious
bodies, to varying degrees, have seen this expression as
unnecessary limitations on the right to religious freedom.
In retrospect, it seems wise that the 'Bengu Bill' was not
adopted. We had not really had sufficient time to reflect deeply
on these issues. Our opportunity has come through the somewhat
tortuous process - sometimes open, sometimes, closed - of coming
to a consensus among religious communities, in the first place,
and then, with the Ministry of Education. (How near are we to the
end of either of these roads?) The policy process is like
climbing a mountain. It clarifies our vision and eventually gives
us a view from the top. The Religion in Education debate has
served a wider purpose, too, as a test case for our Constitution.
We are only now beginning to understand in practice what it is we
said when we drafted it.
From a practical point of view, too, the 'Bengu Bill' became, in
part, redundant on the completion of the Revised National
Curriculum, where the articulation and number of outcomes
changed, and the concept of flexi-time, wherein Religious
Instruction programmes would be offered, fell away.
Policy for Religion in Education
The draft policy, Religion and Education, is the outcome of a
vigorous engagement between the Department of Education and the
religious sector of South African society. In my view, it
reflects a significant shift from entrenched and polarised
positions to a negotiated agreement that will serve our nation
well in giving a meaningful place to religion in our schools. The
document describes the policy as 'a broad framework within which
people of goodwill will work out their own approaches'. (Page 5,
& Paragraph 2) I agree with the draft policy in principle, though
there are areas that need some development to ensure a tighter
consistency in the document, and a clearer expression of key
concepts that will make intentions totally transparent. There is
still a tendency for the left hand to take away what the right
hand has given in the areas of Religious Observances and
Religious Instruction. But this reflects, I think, that the two
poles of the debate are not yet harmonised.
The Department's main struggle, I think, has been to discern the
practical implication of being a public organ within a secular
state. One notices in the policy a tension between the inter-
pretations of the concept 'freedom of religion' as 'freedom from
religion', as in the United States of America, and 'freedom for
religion'. In the final analysis I think the emphasis has come
down on the latter with a much clearer expression of support for
the promotion of religion and religions in schools. (Paragraphs 1
& 2) Though not consistently, the policy moves away from an ear-
lier 'positive neutrality' to 'impartiality' in its stance
regarding religion. The latter term, to my ears, sounds more like
an even-handed engagement with religion, rather than a distancing
from it.
Another difficulty encountered in the document arises from the
draft policy's attempts to apply rights and principles to an
ideal national context. But does it account for local reality in
an agreeable way?
The policy affirms the right to religious freedom, but a freedom
to be practised in a responsible way that ensures the equitable
treatment of all religions in the school, while recognising
different spheres of competence for the school and for the
religious community with respect to religion. Note the subtle
change in the title of the policy draft. Religion in Education
might carry the connotation that Education bears total respon-
sibility for Religion in the school context. Religion and
Education, by contrast, carries the understanding that there are
two fields of human enterprise that seek a right and fruitful
relationship.
But, in the end, do we need a policy? "Without a vision the
people perish," says the writer of the Book of Proverbs [29:18].
South Africa has changed, and is changing. Where do we find the
direction to guide this change? Policy provides the guidelines we
need for living out the vision we have for our country. This
vision is contained, in part, in the Constitution, and in our
religious traditions as well. The Religion and Education policy
tries to spell out in practice what the Constitution and other
legislation makes provision for.
More important than the policy document, I think, is the process
through which it has been arrived at. It has helped us to clarify
our thinking, and has provided a call to embark on a journey of
attitudinal and practical change. For those unsure of the merits
of religion, the policy, at least, ensures a place for it in the
school. There are some who would have none of it. For those
unsure of the way, it guides consistent practice, and sensitises
us to issues of practical justice.
PART II
The Draft Policy
Religion Education
Coming to the details of the policy, I would like first to
clarify the component Religion Education. I think in many
respects it is misunderstood. The term was coined at least as far
back as 1993 when the Institute for Comparative Religion at the
University of Cape Town published a booklet, The End of the Tun-
nel, which advocated Religion Education as an approach that would
"serve the educational aim of teaching students about religion
and religions"3. It was written for a time of transition, and
tried to give a practical answer to the question of inclusive and
equitable treatment of religion in the curriculum.
Religion Education is formally designed to contribute to the sec-
ond learning outcome of the National Curriculum in the learning
area Life Orientation. This outcome is an ability to show an
understanding of diverse cultures and religions - nothing more,
nothing less. As such it is part of the compulsory curriculum for
all schools, whether public or independent. This means that all
schools will have to come to terms with the reality of religious
plurality in constructive ways. Religion Education, however, is
not an advocacy of relativism or syncretism, or an attempt to
create a new religion. It is a curricular component roughly
analogous to Linguistics, the study of languages, which does not
lead to a confusion of tongues, but rather to an appreciation of
difference and commonality. From a Christian perspective, this
component of the curriculum can be seen as an answer to the
injunction of Jesus to love our neighbours as ourselves [Luke
10:27], and even our enemies [Matthew 5:44], if we do regard any
religion as such.
While the formal requirement for Religion Education is quite
restricted - Paragraph 48 describes it as a small component - in
practice it can have an influence in many areas of the curriculum
as it aims to enable learners, in the words of the document, "to
engage with a variety of religious traditions in a way that
encourages them to grow in their inner spiritual and moral
dimensions, affirming their own identity, while leading them to
an informed understanding of the religious identities of others".
(Paragraph 19) This creates scope for innovative methodologies
that will help learners to grow in a holistic manner through
engagement with their own religion and the religions of their
neighbours. It would give effect to the fuller injunction of
Jesus to love God and our neighbour. Such a view of Religion
Education, as I see it, is optional, as it goes beyond the set
outcome and assessment standards for which it is designed.
Paragraph 27 refers to two possible definitions of 'religion'
with a view to identifying "the fundamental structure of
knowledge in the subject field", but it does not adopt one or the
other. If we are dealing with Religion Education, does it confuse
the field to mention worldviews, non-religious sources of moral
values, and other value systems? (Paragraphs 19,22,31) Adopting a
definition of 'religion' does seems necessary in order to
clarify the field. Perhaps the best strategy might be to define
'religion' as follows:
Everyone develops ways of making sense of life, however
inadequate, and everyone possesses the same range of faculties
for doing so. In a broad sense, this is religion - even if only
some are conditioned to call it this - and any assistance given
to awakening the faculties concerned is religious education -
even if only some recognise it as such.4
In practice this would mean dealing with the religious realities
of particular learner groups. Religion Education then, might, or
might not include worldviews, non-religious sources of moral
values, and other value systems.
The draft policy mentions the inclusion of Religious Studies for
matriculation purposes (Paragraph 33), but is silent regarding
other options for Religion in the Further Education and Training
Band (FET). In paragraph 4.7 of the Draft Overview of the
National Curriculum Statement, Grades 10-12 (Schools), four
categories of subject are identified. Among these are subjects
that are obsolete, and subjects that have an unclear future. Who
determines what is obsolete, and how will the future of subjects
not listed be determined? If subjects are being cut back
primarily for financial reasons, then independent bodies could
offer their resources to develop them. Academic and religious
bodies, for instance, will be keen to have the opportunity to
develop other electives such as Biblical (or Christian) Studies,
Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies and the like in the field of
Human and Social Studies. We should recommend that this draft
policy, Religion and Education, make mention of such pos-
sibilities.
Religious Observances
We should be happy to note the recognition of the right of
governing bodies to determine rules within which religious
observances can take place at public schools. (Paragraph 60) How-
ever, certain aspects of the policy in this regard need revision.
Neither the Constitution (Article 15) nor the South African
Schools Act (Article 7) use the word 'facilities' in their des-
cription of the right to conduct religious observances at public
institutions. This reference should be withdrawn as it serves no
real purpose in the policy document, but rather leads to some
suspicion that the policy is trying to curtail the right in some
way. Paragraph 57 should therefore be rephrased simply to affirm
the Constitution and the Schools Act.
A second dubious interpretation, this time in paragraph 63, also
needs attention. Invoking the 'conscience clause' has nowhere
before been considered as an indication "that the school had
already violated their freedom of conscience". Clearly the right
of withdrawal is intended to protect that freedom. The notion in
this paragraph, I think, comes from a misunderstanding of the
principle of equity, which implies, in practice, fair dis-
crimination and an application of democratic principles. A
democracy cannot function justly if conscientious objectors are
forced to go against their conscience, on the one hand, nor, on
the other hand, if conscientious objectors are allowed to veto
any democratic decision.
Paragraph 22 guards against a public school adopting "a
particular religion or a limited set of religions". In itself,
this statement is clear and appropriate, as the school cannot set
out to be exclusive in any sense. However, in practice, when
governing bodies "determine the nature and content of such
(religious) observances" (Paragraph 60) they will make decisions
based on the actual religious composition of the school. They
would, in this way, "reflect the multi-religious nature of South
African society in an appropriate manner" while "dealing with
local and regional concerns". (Paragraph 49) Paragraph 60 would
gain a greater clarity if the phrase "the multi-religious nature
of South African society" were replaced by " the multi-religious
nature of the school".
The draft policy fails to include a third type of religious
observance, which has important consequences in the life of a
school. I refer to the informal dimensions concerning dress,
festivals, prayer times and diets. Reference to this should be
made in Paragraph 58, and some guidelines be given in a new
paragraph. Such a paragraph might read:
Particular faith practices and sensitivities must be respected
and accommodated in ways mutually agreed upon by the school and
the various faith communities.
Religious Instruction
We should also agree with the affirmation of the need of parents
and local communities for programmes of religious instruction
outside the National Curriculum. (Paragraph 56) What is not clear
in this regard is whether such programmes will be offered during
"the formal school day for teachers" or during "formal teaching
time" as spelt out in the Revised National Curriculum Statement
Grades R-7. It seems to me a fair compromise that a school would
accommodate such programmes within the formal day of 7 hours, but
outside of formal teaching time, which varies between 41/2 and
51/2 hours depending on the grade, remembering that the school
has the responsibility of delivering the National Curriculum in
its entirety.
Provision
The condition that the teaching of Religion Education be done by
"appropriately trained professional educators registered with the
South African Council of Educators (SACE)" (Paragraph 34) is not
really problematical. Since Religion Education is "only a small
component" (Paragraph 48) of the National Curriculum, and likely
to be integrated and not offered as a discrete module, the
question of the engagement of representatives of religious
organisations hardly arises. In any event, the possibility of
using guest facilitators is accommodated.
It goes without saying, however, that religious organisations
would almost exclusively be involved in offering programmes of
Religious Instruction as envisaged in Paragraph 56. There is a
problem here if SACE demands registration for such personnel.
There has been recent discussion in SACE about sectoral
registration which would apply to religious personnel, music
teachers, librarians,and the like, but there is, as yet, no
indication of what this would imply.
Finally, we should welcome the invitation to representatives of
religious organisations to contribute to the development and dis-
tribution of suitable materials. (Paragraph 47)
Our Response
PART I: Constraints
How are we going to respond to the draft policy? And to the
policy once it is declared? Let's first be aware of the con-
straints upon us. Some are negotiable, others are not. Which are
the structures or boundaries that we have to live with? Which can
be moved or altered? I shall itemise some of the constraints.
* The Constitution affirms the right of all to freedom of
religion, belief and opinion. This right is subject to the
limitation that all religions must be treated equitably.
* The draft policy calls public schools to promote core values
- equity, tolerance, diversity, openness, accountability and
social honour. (Are these values at odds with religious
values, or are they, at least in part, some of the treasures
that our religion has hidden like the light under the bushel?
[Matthew 5:15])
* The National Curriculum requires the teaching and learning of
an understanding of diverse cultures and religions.
* Religious Observances and Religious Instruction are not part
of the formal and compulsory National Curriculum.
* Teachers require registration with the South African Council
of Educators.
* Finally, and firstly, there are our religious principles.
What do they require of us, if we are to be faithful?
PART II: Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges and opportunities are two sides of the same coin.
Opportunity is the side we more readily look at. It is like the
sunshine on a winter's day. Challenge is the darker side, not
facing the light, that calls for conversion. I'll not try to dif-
ferentiate between them in the list below, because we will read
them differently according to our present experience. One man's
meat, goes the English proverb, is another man's poison.
Taking up the theme Unity of Purpose in dealing with the issues
in Education and Training that confront our society and in
building a caring, sharing and healthy society, I would like to
share some challenges and opportunities:
* Stewardship of the Christian tradition - though divided, what
do we want to affirm and develop together for future generations?
How can we together follow the advice of Mohammed Iqbal5
To sink into thyself like the pearl,
Then to emerge from thine inward solitude;
To collect sparks beneath the ashes,
And become a flame and dazzle men's eyes.
Here are some practical suggestions:
1. Developing a commonly owned Christian component of Religion
Education
2. Critiquing Christian content in Religion Education developed
by publishers
3. Developing Christian Religious Education materials for
instruction programmes
4. Working towards an ecumenical Christian theology of
religions
5. Using the positive understanding of the secular state as a
space where religions can meet in order to foster under-
standing and appreciation among religious communities
On an individual basis, what are some of the opportunities and
challenges for teachers and schools?
* Practical issues for teachers
1. Teaching values in a religious context.
2. Acting as role models, affirming each learner in his or her
religion, while being open and honest about personal choices
3. Exploring inclusive methodologies for religion
4. Gaining competence in dealing with diverse religions
* Issues for schools
1. Creating effective partnership between family, church,
school and youth organisations
2. Dealing with prejudice and ignorance
3. Integration - issues of race, religion, gender and class
4. Timetabling Religious Education (Instruction) and Religious
Observances other than assemblies
5. Securing the services of personnel for Religious Education
(Instruction) classes
6. Drawing up rules for the conduct of assemblies
7. Maximising Religion Education
8. Raising the status of Religious Education (Instruction)
9. Developing new paradigms for Religious Education
Paul Faller
CATHOLIC INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Notes and references
1 David Adam. 1989. 'Be Opened' from Tides and Seasons. London:
SPCK, p 23
2 Government Gazette 19775, 23 February 1999
3 Mitchell & others. 1993. The End of the Tunnel. Cape Town:
ICRSA, p (ii)
4 Michael Burke. 1996. Abstract from a Master's thesis
(University of Cape Town) Religious Education as a Multi-
Process Curriculum.
5 1897-1938, a Sufi poet-writer
Steve Hayes
>Steve - you get out of Usenet what you put in. I can only say that when
>engaged with an intellect like yours there are places to go and things to be
>discussed. Any sort of politics relates to a bunch of ideas in tension that
>represent the diverse expectations of a broad demographic spread. My
>experience is that there is always whet to sort from the chaff and the
>discernment process that one has to go through on the Usenet will equip one
>for any sort of forum.
Yes indeed, but the deadline is approaching, and so far there have been NO
relevant comments on Kader Asmal's proposed policy, either for or against.
Differing views are welcome -- if we all thought the same life would be dull,
and there would really be no point in discussing anything.
So what do YOU think of Kader Asmal's proposed policy?
Steve Hayes
>"Joni Rathbun" <jrat...@orednet.org> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03071...@lab.oregonvos.net...
>> But to put it in elementary terms for you, by asking what your point was,
>> I was asking if you were deliberately posting inaccurate information
>> to stir the pot and feed the gullible or did you just not know any
>> better?
>>
>> I know the answer now. Thank you.
>I have spoken to some other people who were there and one of them actually
>worked in Steve's group. Their accounts of the interaction were a little
>different to Steve's. They seemed to see his assertions about Americans as a
>little less triumphant than that presented on this ng. Apparently the author
>of one of the offensive American books that he berated was actually present
>and was embarrassingly very South African. They also seem to think that the
>distribution of literature was done with permission despite Steve's
>protests. I have asked them to respond to Steve's post but they have not
>done so yet. I was not actually there so I cannot comment. Hopefully there
>will be some clarity next week I know that Steve always talks some sense at
>least so this departure comes as a surprise to me.
One of them has now responded in another forum.
Here is the relevant bit of that person's comment, and my response, which you
may find interesting.
> 3. It is true that the publication mentions two American books as recommended
> reading. However to argue that these are of no value, considering that the
> person has never read them, is simply not logical. These books - "Weighed in
> the balance and found wanting - the failure of public schools, the need for
> Christian education" and "The safety net plan - developing a Christian
> worldview through family devotions" both by Dr Paul Lindstorm of Christian
> Liberty Academy - are written from a distinctly Christian perspective.
> Christian Liberty Academy is a Christian School Education provider that
> operates in many countries around the world much like Accelerated Christian
> Education (ACE) / School of Tomorrow or Association of Christian Schools
> International (ACSI) do. These publications are a critique of public education
> and the need for Christians to take responsibility for their child's
> education. In fact the second book is an excellent publication for parents
> whose children are in public schools and seeks to expound the Biblical
> worldview in all subject areas. They are well referenced and rely heavily on
> the Bible. I think that these books are very relevant to South Africa (we must
> of course realise that "Religion Education:" is not unique to South Africa, it
> is an educational move pushed at international level and therefore affects
> Christians in many parts of the world. So a Christian Education provider in
> America speaking out against the problems of public education in America is
> applicable to South Africa).
In another forum (more public than this one) someone said that the author of
the books, who was in the audience, was "embarrassingly South African", and I
said that if I was mistaken about the provenance of the books I apologised.
Could you give bibliographical information about them - date, place and
publisher?
My objection to recommending American books to people in South Africa is that
public education in America is different from that in South Africa, and has a
different history. What is wrong with education in the USA is not necessarily
what is wrong with education in South Africa.
I have no first-hand experience of schools in the USA, though I have read
quite a bit about them from people who have, and have also met several people
who have been to school in both the USA and South Africa, and have told me how
they experienced the differences.
I was taken to task by someone (in the more public forum) for misrepresenting
the American school situation as more secular than it really was, but was
unable to discover more as the person seemed to be more interested in personal
attacks than in the exchange of information, so it fizzled out.
What I will say is that a lot of the problems in South African education arise
from the fairly recent experience of Christian National Education (1948-1994),
and the reactions to it. As someone pointed out at SACLA, South African
education was unique in having become a political battleground, and after 1992
we had a lot of young teachers whose entire education was in the period
1976-1992, which was the period of maximum disruption of education.
There has been nothing like this in the recent history of American education.
There was something like Christian National Education in the USA at the end of
the 19th century, but that was over a century ago, and didn't directly affect
anyone alive today. It was far worse than the Christian National Education in
South Africa, in that it tried to force everyone into a single White
Anglo-Saxon Protestant mould, and enforce a single culture, suppressing other
languages and denominations other than Protestant. I believe the man sent to
enforce it in Alaska was called Sheldon Jackson, but I may be wrong.
In America the reaction to that is a kind of "multiculturalism" that strikes
many South Africans as obsessive and nutty. Apartheid was itself a form of
multiculturalism, trying to preserve different cultures by isolating them from
each other. Even the imposition of Afrikaans, which sparked the 1976 Soweto
riots was not at the expense of people's mother tongues, but at the expense of
English. So the South African experience of multiculturalism in education
(multiple single cultures) is very different to the American one, which was a
reaction to the "melting-pot" ideology.
So though there are some parallels, there are also huge differences.
Recommending American books about education is not likely to help very much
with the South African situation, and could be very misleading for anyone who
thinks that a description of the failure of American public schooling is an
accurate portrayal of problems in South African schools.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
Government Gazette No. 25127 - 23rd June 2003 by the
Uniting Christian Students' Association of Southern Africa
Introduction
The Uniting Christian Students' Association (UCSA) has worked in
schools and tertiary institutions in South Africa for the past
107 years. Christian organisations such as Scripture Union,
Youth for Christ, Students' Christian Organisation, African
Enterprise and UCSA enjoy the trust and goodwill of principals,
teachers and governing bodies because of role they play in help-
ing learners to acquire life skills based on positive values and
to live in harmony and respect with others because of their
religious convictions.
UCSA would like to express its appreciation for the opportunities
provided by the draft policy on Religion and Education for faith
based youth organisations to proceed with the contributions they
make towards the healthy development of our youth and would like
to continue their work with the necessary sensitivity and respect
for learners of other faith groups.
We also appreciate the fact that the co-operative model, that
encourages an ongoing dialogue between religious groups and the
state in areas of common interest and concern, was chosen
(paragraph 3).
The invitation to religious organisations to act as "guest
facilitators" in classrooms (paragraph 34), is regarded as an
opportunity for those organisations to continue to be of service
in the fields of their expertise.
The request to religious organisations to be of service in the
training of teachers (paragraph 37) is a challenge which will
enable religious organisations to make a positive contribution in
this area as well.
We welcome the invitation to the representatives of religious
organisations to contribute voluntarily to the development and
distribution of suitable materials for use at all ages (paragraph
47). Various religious organisations have already made a con-
tribution in this field.
Lastly we appreciate the fact that the draft policy encourages
instruction in specific religions and the observance of those
religions outside the formal school programme and that schools'
facilities should be made available for this (paragraph 57-59).
This will give religious organisations the opportunity to
continue their extra-curricular activities at schools.
Comments on the Draft policy
In the light of the positive aspects of the draft policy and
because we have an interest in the balanced education of our
children we would like to make to following comments. We are of
the opinion that clarity on these issues will be helpful for the
process to gain acceptance of the policy in our schools.
In the process of consulting many principals and teachers in the
course of our regular contact with schools and at a recent
workshop with Christian leaders in Education at the South African
Christian Leaders Assembly (SACLA) - more than 4 000 delegates
from a wide spectrum of South African churches attended the
conference - the following reservations about the draft policy
were repeatedly expressed:
1. There is a fear that the policy seeks to promote syncretism.
Though it is clearly stated in paragraph 68 that this is not
the case, the paragraphs where the goals of Religion
Education are elucidated seem to state the opposite. Some
examples are:
Par 20 "The Life Orientation learning area, through
programmes like Life Skills, Religion Education and Social
Responsibility, is well positioned to impact on the ethical
and moral dimensions of learner development. Programmes for
Religion Education should purposefully pursue the moral and
ethical development of children, whilst they learn in a fac-
tual way about the various religions, beliefs, world-views
and philosophies which exist."
Par 25 "Religion Education can provide opportunities for
both a deeper sense of self-realisation and a broader civil
acceptance of others. It can balance the familiar and the
foreign in ways that give learners new insights into both."
Par 26. "Religion Education creates a context in which
learners can increase their understanding of themselves and
others, deepen their capacity for empathy, and, eventually,
develop powers of critical reflection in thinking through
problems of religious or moral concern."
Par 40 "Other teachers may emphasise the more affective
dimensions of the subject, and adopt an interactive approach
to teaching that attempts to involve learners in an
exploration of the meaning and significance of religion."
The choice of words and phrases in these paragraphs seem to
accord a more extensive role to Religion Education than the
present assessment standards in the Revised National
Curriculum Statement suggest.
The fact that Religion Education is a compulsory part of
Life Orientation, while teachers are not allowed to promote
any particular religion, strengthens the fear of syncretism.
2. Many people argue that, as they have the freedom not to
expose their children to the religious observances of
religions different form their own, they should also have
the freedom to choose whether they want their children to be
exposed to Religion Education as they view such instruction
as an infringement on their rights to religious freedom.
Parents feel that they should have the freedom to choose in
this respect as there are many other ways in which South
Africans can celebrate their unity in diversity.
3. Many people are uncomfortable with the inclusion of "world
views" without any qualification as in paragraph 14 under
Social honour. The meaning of this value is given as: "the
overt or covert denigration of any religion or world-view
cannot be allowed". This interpretation can create problems
because religions promote values which are non-neutral.
Where a particular religion for instance encourages and
affirms the value of unselfishness or freedom from the love
of money, a particular world-view (such as capitalism) may
promote exactly the opposite. When one promotes one
viewpoint, one can be seen as denigrating the other opposing
one by implication, especially in the teaching of youngsters
whose parents may be very sensitive to these things.
4. There is appreciation for the fact that the draft policy
allows for religious observance in schools and that
different options are provided for schools to consider. It
will however have to be acknowledged and understood that for
Christians the option of praying a universal prayer is
meaningless, and that to pray such a prayer would for many
imply a betrayal of Christ. This should therefore not be
seen as a commonly accepted option.
Dr Vic Brink
Executive Head, UCSA
17 July 2003
Moira de Swardt
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> 3. Many people are uncomfortable with the inclusion of "world
> views" without any qualification as in paragraph 14 under
> Social honour. The meaning of this value is given as: "the
> overt or covert denigration of any religion or world-view
> cannot be allowed". This interpretation can create problems
> because religions promote values which are non-neutral.
> Where a particular religion for instance encourages and
> affirms the value of unselfishness or freedom from the love
> of money, a particular world-view (such as capitalism) may
> promote exactly the opposite. When one promotes one
> viewpoint, one can be seen as denigrating the other opposing
> one by implication, especially in the teaching of youngsters
> whose parents may be very sensitive to these things.
I'm interested in this clause. Most children that I've met only
begin to understand that people are different when they get to
school, and this understanding grows throughout primary school and
into high school. It is only in high school that one usually starts
to understand that people are both different and the same (in
different spheres, of course). Children of minority groups are
usually aware of the similarities and differences earlier than
children of majority groups. And here I refer to the demographics
of the school rather than the broader population demographics. My
sister, an agnostic from a Christian background, sent her children
to the local Jewish pre-primary school and it certainly didn't
stress the children or the parents as far as I know. What it did
do, however, was provide my nieces with additional references for
determining religious beliefs. One can know about, understand and
even empathise with beliefs one does not choose to adopt. The
earlier children learn that, the more likely we are to raise
tolerant and well balanced (again different concepts) children.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Steve Hayes
<moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote:
>I'm interested in this clause. Most children that I've met only
>begin to understand that people are different when they get to
>school, and this understanding grows throughout primary school and
>into high school. It is only in high school that one usually starts
>to understand that people are both different and the same (in
>different spheres, of course). Children of minority groups are
>usually aware of the similarities and differences earlier than
>children of majority groups. And here I refer to the demographics
>of the school rather than the broader population demographics. My
>sister, an agnostic from a Christian background, sent her children
>to the local Jewish pre-primary school and it certainly didn't
>stress the children or the parents as far as I know. What it did
>do, however, was provide my nieces with additional references for
>determining religious beliefs. One can know about, understand and
>even empathise with beliefs one does not choose to adopt. The
>earlier children learn that, the more likely we are to raise
>tolerant and well balanced (again different concepts) children.
I had friends who sent their children to a Hewish preprimary school. They were
Anglicans, and the husband was working in a Congregational mission hospital.
Their son learnt quite a bit about Jewish rituals and Jewish festivals at the
school.
Where I have reservations is such things being taught in state schools, by
people who do not necesarily share the faith concerned.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> Where I have reservations is such things being taught in state schools, by
> people who do not necesarily share the faith concerned.
>
innoculation. People who haven't been taught religion in school are easy
prey for hucksters from any cult you can imagine - they haven't managed to
develop a proper scepticism towards superstition and mysticism.
An inefficient innoculation, as you say, one performed by people who are
themselves not party to supersition, is worse than none at all. The child
may come to believe that he has been innoculated but, with this partial
prophylaxis be more vulnerable than one brought up with the simplicity of
atheism.
So, if religion is to be taught at schools I'd urge that the schools insist
on having real foam at the mouth fanatics as teachers.
--
"We pride ourselves on our peace and stability" - Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3f20ab8d....@news.saix.net...
>>
>>
>> Where I have reservations is such things being taught in state schools, by
>> people who do not necesarily share the faith concerned.
>>
>I agree. I see religious teaching in schools as an important form of mental
>innoculation. People who haven't been taught religion in school are easy
>prey for hucksters from any cult you can imagine - they haven't managed to
>develop a proper scepticism towards superstition and mysticism.
>
>An inefficient innoculation, as you say, one performed by people who are
>themselves not party to supersition, is worse than none at all. The child
>may come to believe that he has been innoculated but, with this partial
>prophylaxis be more vulnerable than one brought up with the simplicity of
>atheism.
Send your kids to Sunday School then - that's what it's for.
Why rely on the govenrment schools?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
than a secular approach.
As it happens I don't have any children so my concerns are for those that
have them - and for my niece.
--
Yes, Peter was always an anarchist - he was an anarchist from the day he was
born - RCB, Harbour House, Cape Town 12th July 2003
sorites
Or as a teacher acquaintance recently told me, very few teachers are
qualified to teach about a religion that is not theirs. Here in
particular she referred to Jewish and Muslim teachings, which are vastly
different to Christian teachings. She for one could handle the Christian
aspect, as her family are actively involved with their local church,
but she wouldn't dream of trying to tell "learners" what any other
religion practices, and why.
toto
wrote:
>Or as a teacher acquaintance recently told me, very few teachers are
>qualified to teach about a religion that is not theirs. Here in
>particular she referred to Jewish and Muslim teachings, which are vastly
>different to Christian teachings. She for one could handle the Christian
>aspect, as her family are actively involved with their local church,
>but she wouldn't dream of trying to tell "learners" what any other
>religion practices, and why.
>
Since there are many Christian sects that have many different
practices, this particular teacher would not necessarily be handling
all of the Christian faiths and their varieties.
OTOH, a scholar of comparative religions does not have to practice
any faith to teach about them in historical context and in terms of
their general effect on the culture they are embedded in.
If you cannot teach about religions without being embedded in that
faith, you surely can't teach about another civilization without
having lived in it, yet anthropologists study and learn about other
cultures all the time. And historians teach about ancient
civilizations and they have not ever lived in them either. It's a bit
silly to say that one cannot teach about something you have not
experienced personally.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits
Steve Hayes
Religion in schools can be taught as part of history and geography.
It is difficult to study the history of India without knowing something about
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, for example.
It is difficult to study the history of the Near and Middle East without
knowing soemthing about Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the religions
that preceded these.
Asmal's proposed policy, however, goes further than this.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Moira de Swardt
"sorites" <sor...@wwnet.com> wrote in message
> Or as a teacher acquaintance recently told me, very few teachers
are
> qualified to teach about a religion that is not theirs. Here in
> particular she referred to Jewish and Muslim teachings, which are
vastly
> different to Christian teachings. She for one could handle the
Christian
> aspect, as her family are actively involved with their local
church,
> but she wouldn't dream of trying to tell "learners" what any other
> religion practices, and why.
In many ways it is easier to teach about a religion which one
doesn't practice. I have quite a good theoretical knowledge about
both Islam and Judaism in some respects. However, it is those
little details which give meaning to the rest that are lacking. I
can tell you, for example, that orthodox Jewish families have a
series of blessings used on the Sabbath, for the light, for the
bread, for the meat, for the vegetables, for the people etc. but I
am unable to truly appreciate what these blessings mean to the
people asking them. I once shared a meal with a Jewish friend and
suggested that he ask the blessing on our respective meals. He
refused. I was eating a bacon sandwich and he couldn't ask a
blessing on such a meal. I knew he wouldn't eat bacon, and that he
considers bacon to be unclean, but could not appreciate just how he
felt about it.
I suppose he'd find many of the things that I find meaningful in
Christianity to be quite idolatrous, even though he could probably
grasp that there is no concept of idolatry in my mind. Muslims find
Christianity to be horribly idolatrous from their point of view
which doesn't allow the depiction of any living creature whatsoever.
The manner isn which many Christians quite casually place a Bible on
the floor after a Bible study or in the car on the way home etc. is
regarded as very offensive by Muslims.
Providing that one can respect traditions and practices of other
religions there is no need to suppose that one is unable to teach
them as theoretical components. The intimate details, though, can
only be imparted (probably) by intimate practice. I am only
starting to feel comfortable with some of the aspects of traditional
Anglicanism nearly two years after I switched from The Salvation
Army - and that's just a denominational change, not a religious one.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Herman Rubin
One can teach about religions, but not while embedded in
the faiths of other religions. That is why I maintain
that one cannot understand a religion except as too blind
faith without a good secular education first.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
sorites
"toto" <scar...@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:vsn5ivk1u25im7qda...@4ax.com...
There is a difference about teaching history, which no teacher can have
experienced, and religion, which is an ongoing thing. If I was brought
up in a say Methodist environment, I would not feel myself qualified to
teach children at school about the Roman Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or any
religion with which I was unfamiliar. There is a vast difference in
teaching kids about religion, anthropology or history. As Steve wrote,
if you want to ensure that your children are educated in a particular
religion, send them to Sunday School. If children wish to learn about
other religions, let them wait until they are able to go to University,
and study religion for a divinity degree of some kind.
sorites
"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:3f23b95b$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
I agree with your comments, but I quoted what a teacher actually told
me. She is the one that would have to tackle the subject with her
pupils. It' s easy for people outside the profession to state their
views, but a different kettle of fish if one has to stand in front of a
class, and explain what different religions entail. I can well imagine
the number of different questions that would be thrown at a teacher by
inquisitive kids.
I have a very good friend of the Jewish faith, and when his son
celebrated his Barmitzvah, I went to the synagogue. However, I was
rather baffled by the whole ceremony, (and of course not speaking Hebrew
lost a lot of the service) and I asked him numerous questions. I am now
more enlightened, but as a grown up I still found it difficult to grasp
all aspects. Now, if I had to add all the other religions to me general
knowledge.....................Therefore, I find it understandable that a
trained teacher (primary school) would have difficulty in teaching her
pupils on this subject - I will also find it difficult to accept that
these small kids will follow what it's all about.
toto
wrote:
Cultures are also vastly different and ongoing, yet I am sure that you
would not say that someone who lives in Europe cannot teach about
China or Japan. That teacher may never have *lived* in the culture
he is teaching about and his cultural biases are what he lives, yet he
can if he is a good scholar teach about the other culture without
being prejudicial.
I also think you have a faulty perception of teens if you think that
they cannot learn about other religions in high school (I would even
say kids can learn this sort of thing in middle school). While we are
not talking about depth here, we can give children a good sense of
the similarities and differences among religious traditions.
I agree that if you want them to have faith, you will send them to
your particular church, temple or religious services. But that is
not the same as learning *about* the ideas. While you may learn
both about the ideas and how the ideas are practiced in church,
mostly you are being told that you must accept that this is true
through faith, not looking at the ideas with any rational discussion
inside the church you worship in. Adults may discuss these things
in their churches, but even there it is doubtful because those who
already believe accept without questioning the basic tenets of their
faith. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it is a different
perspective. It is very hard to look at something you believe in
from the inside and see both its good points and its flaws.
toto
wrote:
>It' s easy for people outside the profession to state their
>views, but a different kettle of fish if one has to stand in front of a
>class, and explain what different religions entail. I can well imagine
>the number of different questions that would be thrown at a teacher by
>inquisitive kids.
In that case, you say, I don't know but we can find out together. A
good teacher facilitates learning by helping students explore the
ideas even when they are unsure of the answers.
My favorite quote from an honors geometry student to one of the
best math teachers I have ever seen, was *Why should my learning
be limited by your knowledge* He was entirely correct. Sometimes
students are quite capable of going beyond their teachers and
mentors and this should be encouraged and as teachers we must
be willing to admit ignorance and learn with them.
Steve Hayes
>Cultures are also vastly different and ongoing, yet I am sure that you
>would not say that someone who lives in Europe cannot teach about
>China or Japan. That teacher may never have *lived* in the culture
>he is teaching about and his cultural biases are what he lives, yet he
>can if he is a good scholar teach about the other culture without
>being prejudicial.
>
>I also think you have a faulty perception of teens if you think that
>they cannot learn about other religions in high school (I would even
>say kids can learn this sort of thing in middle school). While we are
>not talking about depth here, we can give children a good sense of
>the similarities and differences among religious traditions.
>
>I agree that if you want them to have faith, you will send them to
>your particular church, temple or religious services. But that is
>not the same as learning *about* the ideas. While you may learn
>both about the ideas and how the ideas are practiced in church,
>mostly you are being told that you must accept that this is true
>through faith, not looking at the ideas with any rational discussion
>inside the church you worship in. Adults may discuss these things
>in their churches, but even there it is doubtful because those who
>already believe accept without questioning the basic tenets of their
>faith. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it is a different
>perspective. It is very hard to look at something you believe in
>from the inside and see both its good points and its flaws.
That is one of the most debatable points about the proposed policy.
In a church, or religious school environment, the aim of religious instruction
is not merely to impart information, but formation, and even transformation.
The debate is about whether government schools should go beyond giving
information to formation or transformation.
The proposed policy sees "religion education" as a separate subject, with
specially trained teachers. The national department of education has already
said, however, that priority will be given to science and technology in
education, and the humanities will be scaled back. So where will these
teachers come from? How will it be possible to train all the teachers needed
to teach "religion education" other than in a shallow and ill-informed way,
and probably marked by the personal biases of individual teachers?
When I was in high school I was very interested in learning more about
different religions. I learnt about Buddhism in history classes, and then from
reading Rudyard Kipling's "Kim" (a prescribed book for English, which also had
information about Hinduism, Jains and Muslims). I read the Qu'ran when I was
15. That was in a Christian church school, linked to the Methodist Church.
There were "scripture" classes in which the Christian faith was taught, and
discussions of comparative religion (usually sparked off by questions from the
pupils). There were other study groups after formal school hours for thase who
wanted to learn more. There were chapel services that followed the Methodist
pattern and tradition. Non-Christian religions were taught formally mainly in
history and geography, and from a historical perspective - information, rather
than formation or transformation. My parents were atheist/agnostic, but they
don't seem to have had qualms about sending me to a Methodist school.
But in a government school, pupils may be of various religious backgrounds --
can one then impose a Methodist tradition (or any other religious tradition --
Sunni Muslim, Vaishnavite Hindu, Orthodox Jewish, Advaita Vedanta, Mormon,
Buddhist or Secular Humanist etc)? And if not, who is competent to teach them
all?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Moira de Swardt
"sorites" <sor...@wwnet.com> wrote in message
> There is a difference about teaching history, which no teacher can
have
> experienced, and religion, which is an ongoing thing. If I was
brought
> up in a say Methodist environment, I would not feel myself
qualified to
> teach children at school about the Roman Catholic, Muslim, Jewish
or any
> religion with which I was unfamiliar. There is a vast difference
in
> teaching kids about religion, anthropology or history. As Steve
wrote,
> if you want to ensure that your children are educated in a
particular
> religion, send them to Sunday School. If children wish to learn
about
> other religions, let them wait until they are able to go to
University,
> and study religion for a divinity degree of some kind.
I think that religion is best absorbed by the actual practice of
religion in the home and place of worship - I don't envisage a
separation into "either/or" here.
However, an overview of other religions is best taught in a fairly
neutral environment, and should be designed to promote tolerance and
understanding.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
sorites
"toto" <scar...@wicked.witch> wrote in message
Teaching history, or different cultures in which one lives, is normally
done by teachers that have studied at University for a teaching degree,
and decided during their studies which subjects to specialise in. Very
few ordinary teachers, if any, have studies the different religions of
the world, and the majority therefore feel that they are unqualified to
teach such a subject properly, and in depth.
>
> I also think you have a faulty perception of teens if you think that
they cannot learn about other
> religions in high school (I would even say kids can learn this sort of
thing in middle school). While we
> are not talking about depth here, we can give children a good sense of
the similarities and differences
> among religious traditions.
We were talking about children at primary school (maximum age about 12).
I know when I went to school, religion was not mentioned in primary
school, apart from a morning prayer. In high school, we did have a
teacher that taught religion, and he had studied the subject. As a
result it was an interesting class.
>
> I agree that if you want them to have faith, you will send them to
your particular church, temple or
> religious services. But that is not the same as learning *about* the
ideas.
Most churches have a lot in common. They all believe in God, or Allah,
whatever he may be called. The approach differs from the serene to the
outrageous, depending on what side of the spectrum you stand. The Jewish
religion does not cover the life of Jesus Christ. Protestant churches do
not pray to statues, as the Roman Catholic does. Etc. Etc. I do not
profess to be an expert, and I'm sure someone will shoot me down in
flames, but I mention these few differences, which are only skin deep so
to speak. It is an extremely complex, intricate subject, as any student
in religion will tell you. Explaining to children why Jews wear a
yarmulke, or why Muslims are on hands and knees when they pray does not
cover teaching about religions.
> While you may learn both about the ideas and how the ideas are
practiced in church,
> mostly you are being told that you must accept that this is true
through faith, not looking at the ideas
> with any rational discussion inside the church you worship in.
But that is exactly my point. Unless you have studied different
religions, you are in no position to teach about the different ideas,
and how and why these ideas are practised in different churches.
> Adults may discuss these things in their churches, but even there it
is doubtful because those who
> already believe accept without questioning the basic tenets of their
faith. That doesn't mean it's
> wrong, but it is a different perspective. It is very hard to look at
something you believe in
> from the inside and see both its good points and its flaws.
Exactly! One would assume that a large number of teachers (especially in
South Africa) are involved with a particular religion, and therefore
accept without questioning the basic tenets of their faith. It will make
it nigh impossible therefore for them to discuss meaningfully other
religions
sorites
sorites
"toto" <scar...@wicked.witch> wrote in message
Point taken. Many teachers will teach a subject that they specialise in,
aimed at a pupil who knows nothing. As the pupil absorbs the subject,
and show an interest in this, so his thirst for knowledge will increase,
and he will possibly overtake his teacher. However, I do not think that
religion in S.A. schools will become a subject on which exams are
written, and would therefore be for general information, tolerance
between vastly different beliefs etc. Few teachers therefore will want
to specialise in this subject, and at best, the knowledge passed on will
be so shallow it could be meaningless. And let's face it, a little
education on a subject could be very dangerous. In America it has gone
so far that a handful of atheist parents have taken their schools to
court, asking for religious instructions, including prayers, to be
banned. In certain areas they have succeeded in their quest! So much for
a "free" Nation!
toto
wrote:
>We were talking about children at primary school (maximum age about 12).
>I know when I went to school, religion was not mentioned in primary
>school, apart from a morning prayer.
In the US, we don't have morning prayers in our public school as this
would violate the separation of church and state (whose prayer would
we say - a Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Moslem, Wiccan prayer?)
Are you saying that there was no discussion of Egypt's religion in
your primary schools? Nothing about the Greek myths and gods?
You see, we do learn *about* religion in primary schools here, we
just don't learn about modern faiths. We instead tend to learn about
faiths we think are *wrong* and since they have passed into history,
we figure it is ok to study about them without having to be in those
faiths.
>In high school, we did have a teacher that taught religion, and he
>had studied the subject. As a result it was an interesting class.
I would agree that a class about religion would be an interesting
class and should probably be taught in high school by someone
who studied about religions in college, though it is brought into
the humanities classes in the school my son went to, and it is talked
about in history though in a very general way.
toto
wrote:
> In America it has gone so far that a handful of atheist parents
>have taken their schools to court, asking for religious instructions,
>including prayers, to be banned. In certain areas they have
>succeeded in their quest! So much for a "free" Nation!
It is a free nation. The Constitution of the US separates the church
from the State. Anyone can exercise their own religion including
prayer, but we don't have state led prayers in our classrooms nor
do we have any religious instruction in our public schools though
we provide release time for parents to send there children to a
church school for such instruction.
It is not just atheist parents who object to prayers in our schools,
but many truly religious people who don't want to say some *generic*
form of prayer that does go with someone else's beliefs but not
with theirs. You know, not everyone prays the same way and some
prayers regardless of how inoffensive they may seem to Christians
are offensive to other religions.
Douglas Otis
>
> Providing that one can respect traditions and practices of other
> religions there is no need to suppose that one is unable to teach
> them as theoretical components. The intimate details, though, can
> only be imparted (probably) by intimate practice. I am only
> starting to feel comfortable with some of the aspects of traditional
> Anglicanism nearly two years after I switched from The Salvation
> Army - and that's just a denominational change, not a religious one.
>
> Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Dear Moira,
Only the church shall teach elements of their religion. This includes
definitions of moral code with root concepts of how one is to live.
Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such concepts. A
secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil, and
one's place within society. A suitable alternative to religious
training would be instruction of the legal system and issues of health
as a rational means of allowing a student better judgment.
Rather than codifying moral concepts into laws, education is the
proper means to affect behavior with respect to personal choices.
With expenses of general education at more than $5,000 per year, one
egalitarian method of enabling both public and religious education for
all students would be to use percentages established for Released Time
at 20% or one class out of five being taught by a representative of a
religion. For purely practical reasons, such a class must be
scheduled within the school day rather than one-day-a-week. By
scheduling throughout the day, a religious instructor can administer
to a sufficient population of students without distrupting the
student's other classes.
To overcome the bad 1948 SC ruling, an area adjacent to the public
school would need to be set aside to for purposes of being rented out
to privately funded groups. (A partition.) If done at cost, then
each student's outlay for religious education would be one-fifth of
the total education budget. Public schools could also reduce their
expenses by one-fifth. Everyone wins. If you wish to have your child
taught by Bill Gate's Church of the Windows, that would be the choice
of the parent.
The religious population could then more throughly indoctrinate and
discipline their students. With the parent providing capital for the
class, there would be little doubt as to their involvement in the
child's education. Should their be a behavior problem, a secular
teacher could refer the matter over to the religious instructor who
benefits from a closer relationship with the parent. Unlike a civil
servant, these religious instructors would not be shackled by
bureaucratic restrictions in matters of motivation.
Doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Douglas Otis" <doug...@rigidether.org> wrote in message
news:24289645.03080...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> >
> >
> Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such concepts. A
> secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil, and
> one's place within society.
>
It is true that religions have tried to hijack the above topics and pretend
that they are theirs, but it is simply a lie. Morality is an entirely human
matter and atheists have, in general, a better grasp of the issues of
morality than theists who often have very twisted and irrational views of
what constitute morality.
--
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
news:3f2fc673...@news.mv.net...
> Said "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> :
>
>
> Hence, you contradict yourself: religion DOES have to do with it,
> otherwise the morality that comes from religion wouldn't differ from
> that of an atheist. But reality is, morality and ethics to many of us
> come directly from our religion, and consequently they might not be
> reachable by an atheist, nor even by someone from another religion.
> Unfortunately, these things are all interconnected.
>
That's not actually true. A recent study of many cultures around the world
found that they had the same behaviour in over 200 categories - including
morality. So atheists do have the same morality as theists - though they may
not have fetishes about what food they eat and may have no desire to
mutilate children these are not moral matters.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Alberto Moreira" <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote in message
news:3f2fc673...@news.mv.net...
> Said "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> :
>
>
> irrational as believing in God: there's a world of difference between
> saying "I don't believe" and saying "I don't know whether I believe".
> The first is a statement of belief, the other's an assumption of
> inability to reach a conclusion. The day atheism's motto is "I don't
> know whether there exists a God" as opposed to "I don't believe God
> exists", humanity will have moved one step forward.
>
Like so many people you misunderstand the point completely!
I don't have a belief one way or another about there being green fairies
living on the dark side of the moon - I just invented this idea now, so it
hadn't occured to me before. You could say that I don't believe in them and
therefore have a belief in non-green-fairies.
Just the same with theism. If you have no concern or interest in the matter
you don't disbelieve it - you just aren't bothered one way or another,
theism is irrelevant.
Herman Rubin
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>"Douglas Otis" <doug...@rigidether.org> wrote in message
>news:24289645.03080...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>> Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such concepts. A
>> secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil, and
>> one's place within society.
>Rubbish! None of the above have anything to do with religion.
They might not officially be called religion, but they are
more religion than anything else.
>It is true that religions have tried to hijack the above topics and pretend
>that they are theirs, but it is simply a lie. Morality is an entirely human
>matter and atheists have, in general, a better grasp of the issues of
>morality than theists who often have very twisted and irrational views of
>what constitute morality.
I believe that you are correct, but it is still the case
that attempting to impose one's morality on others is the
height of immorality.
When the humanists claim that their view of morality is
absolute, and even scientifically justified, they are
preaching religion. It is not the theology of a religion
which is the worst part, but the codes of conduct which
the religious leaders claim to follow from them.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Joni Rathbun
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Alberto Moreira wrote:
> Said "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> :
>
> >
> >"Douglas Otis" <doug...@rigidether.org> wrote in message
> >news:24289645.03080...@posting.google.com...
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such concepts. A
> >> secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil, and
> >> one's place within society.
> >>
> >Rubbish! None of the above have anything to do with religion.
> >
> >It is true that religions have tried to hijack the above topics and pretend
> >that they are theirs, but it is simply a lie. Morality is an entirely human
> >matter and atheists have, in general, a better grasp of the issues of
> >morality than theists who often have very twisted and irrational views of
> >what constitute morality.
>
> Hence, you contradict yourself: religion DOES have to do with it,
> otherwise the morality that comes from religion wouldn't differ from
> that of an atheist.
How do they differe?
But reality is, morality and ethics to many of us
> come directly from our religion, and consequently they might not be
> reachable by an atheist, nor even by someone from another religion.
> Unfortunately, these things are all interconnected.
>
> And I would be tempted to say that being an atheist is just as
> irrational as believing in God: there's a world of difference between
> saying "I don't believe"
Except that's not what atheists say. That's what people who don't
understand say that atheists say.
and saying "I don't know whether I believe".
> The first is a statement of belief, the other's an assumption of
> inability to reach a conclusion. The day atheism's motto is "I don't
> know whether there exists a God" as opposed to "I don't believe God
> exists", humanity will have moved one step forward.
And you will have moved one step forward when you better understand
what atheism is.
> And ah, leave your neigbor's religion to him or herself, because your
> atheist views of morality may be just as twisted and irrational to
> their eyes as theirs is to yours.
They're more alike than different. Indeed, the main difference is that
for atheists, morality is intrinsic while for the religious it is more
apt to be extrinsic.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:bggou8$3o...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <bgfpdt$4fv$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> >"Douglas Otis" <doug...@rigidether.org> wrote in message
> >news:24289645.03080...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
>
> >> Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such concepts. A
> >> secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil, and
> >> one's place within society.
>
> >Rubbish! None of the above have anything to do with religion.
>
> They might not officially be called religion, but they are
> more religion than anything else.
>
>
> >It is true that religions have tried to hijack the above topics and
pretend
> >that they are theirs, but it is simply a lie. Morality is an entirely
human
> >matter and atheists have, in general, a better grasp of the issues of
> >morality than theists who often have very twisted and irrational views of
> >what constitute morality.
>
> I believe that you are correct, but it is still the case
> that attempting to impose one's morality on others is the
> height of immorality.
>
and Mr Hitler came pretty close and their sin was their lack of morality,
not their attempt to impose one.
So I can't accept your thesis. This is despite the evil that religions have
perpetrated through forcing their immorality onto people as morality - papal
indulgences, the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are some particular
case in point.
>
> When the humanists claim that their view of morality is
> absolute, and even scientifically justified, they are
> preaching religion. It is not the theology of a religion
> which is the worst part, but the codes of conduct which
> the religious leaders claim to follow from them.
>
Nonsense. Evolved human behaviour involves methods of relating to other
people. Some of these are moral behaviours. These preexist religions.
No humanist has ever claimed that their 'view' of morality is 'absolute'
{whatever that might mean}.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The height of immorality may not have ever been achieved. Pol Pot, Stalin
>and Mr Hitler came pretty close and their sin was their lack of morality,
>not their attempt to impose one.
>
>So I can't accept your thesis. This is despite the evil that religions have
>perpetrated through forcing their immorality onto people as morality - papal
>indulgences, the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are some particular
>case in point.
Stalin, in particular, tried to impose atheism, and insisted that it be taught
in schools.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Douglas Otis" <doug...@rigidether.org> wrote in message
>news:24289645.03080...@posting.google.com...
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >
>> Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such concepts. A
>> secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil, and
>> one's place within society.
>>
>Rubbish! None of the above have anything to do with religion.
>
>It is true that religions have tried to hijack the above topics and pretend
>that they are theirs, but it is simply a lie. Morality is an entirely human
>matter and atheists have, in general, a better grasp of the issues of
>morality than theists who often have very twisted and irrational views of
>what constitute morality.
Anyone whose ideas of what constitutes morrality differ from mine must ipso
facto have a twisted and irrational view of morality :-)
A lot of discussions, debates, arguments and flame-wars on Usenet arise
because people have different ideas about what constitutes morality, and
different ideas about the basis for morality.
The proposed policy says:
--- quote ---
19. Religion Education, with educational outcomes, is the responsibility of
the school. Religion Education shall include teaching and learning about the
religions of the world, with particular attention to the religions of South
Africa, as well as worldviews, and it shall place adequate emphasis on values
and moral education. In this, we re-assert the policy of the Revised National
Curriculum Statement to offer education about religions for the purposes of
achieving "religious literacy". Religion Education is therefore an educational
programme with clearly defined and transferable skills, values and attitudes
as the outcomes. It is a programme for teaching and learning about religion in
its broadest sense, about religions, and about religious diversity in South
Africa and the world. Religion Education should enable learners to engage
with a variety of religious traditions in a way that encourages them to grow
in their inner spiritual and moral dimensions. It must affirm their own
identity, while leading them to an informed understanding of the religious
identities of others.
--- end quote ---
You can see the whole thing here:
http://education.pwv.gov.za/Policies%20and%20Reports/Policies/policies.htm
One of the things that I have a query about is "Religion Education should
enable learners to engage with a variety of religious traditions in a way that
encourages them to grow in their inner spiritual and moral dimensions."
I'm not sure that that is a proper concern for state schools.
I also believe that the proposals in the policy were drawn up, or at least
strongly influenced, by interest groups who have something to gain if it is
implemented, namely the religious studies departments of some South African
universities. It is not exactly disinterested.
In the old pre-democracy days, when the policy was "Christian National
Education" (which was neither Christian, nor national, nor education),
Biblical Insturction was a compulsory subject for student teachers. One could
not get a Higher Education Diploma (and thus a job in a state school) without
it. It was compulsory for all teachers, including Hindu, Muslim and atheist
teachers.
One result of this was that the Departments of Old and New Teatament at the
University of South Africa (to give the biggest example) were far bigger than
the other departments in the Faculty of Theology, because they had a captive
audience of 30000 teachers who were keen to upgrade their qualifications (and
hence their chances of higher salaries and promotion) through distance
education. A great many of these took an African language and Biblical Studies
(perceived as an easy option) as majors in the B.A, or as teaching subjects in
the B.Ed. degree.
For about 10-15 years now departments of Religious Studies have been trying to
get hold of all the lovely lolly and staff points that formerly accrued to the
Old and New Teatament departments by advocating that "Religion Education" be
substituted for "Biblical Instruction" as a compulsory subject, and that
object is reflected in the proposed policy.
Now they, like spammers, have a right to make a living, but I'm not happy
about the rather sneaky way of going about it.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
It was silly of him to drive religion underground - once you make anything
illegal it starts to have an appeal, so he made Marx' statement that
religion is the opium of the people even more true.
Enva Hoxa was the man who really went for theists - he also was very against
people with beards. It was odd to visit Albania with a beard a couple of
years after Enva's death and see what curiosity it caused, I've never been
more stared at ever.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:32:11 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
.
> >
> >It is true that religions have tried to hijack the above topics and
pretend
> >that they are theirs, but it is simply a lie. Morality is an entirely
human
> >matter and atheists have, in general, a better grasp of the issues of
> >morality than theists who often have very twisted and irrational views of
> >what constitute morality.
>
> Anyone whose ideas of what constitutes morrality differ from mine must
ipso
> facto have a twisted and irrational view of morality :-)
>
> A lot of discussions, debates, arguments and flame-wars on Usenet arise
> because people have different ideas about what constitutes morality, and
> different ideas about the basis for morality.
>
philosophy in schools they are shoving philosophical subjects into religion.
A very silly thing to do!
Far better would be if they had philosphy as a subject.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> wrote:
>
>
> I also believe that the proposals in the policy were drawn up, or at least
> strongly influenced, by interest groups who have something to gain if it
is
> implemented, namely the religious studies departments of some South
African
> universities. It is not exactly disinterested.
>
subject at degree level any more than 'media studies' is.
>
>
> One result of this was that the Departments of Old and New Teatament at
the
> University of South Africa (to give the biggest example) were far bigger
than
> the other departments in the Faculty of Theology, because they had a
captive
> audience of 30000 teachers who were keen to upgrade their qualifications
(and
> hence their chances of higher salaries and promotion) through distance
> education. A great many of these took an African language and Biblical
Studies
> (perceived as an easy option) as majors in the B.A, or as teaching
subjects in
> the B.Ed. degree.
>
>
>
> Now they, like spammers, have a right to make a living, but I'm not happy
> about the rather sneaky way of going about it.
>
Douglas Otis
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 05:25:30 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
wrote:
<snip>
Although it would be a concern to have children properly oriented and
indoctrinated with appropriate moral codes suitable for the culture
and religion of parents, the state would be practicing religion in
directly doing so however. Animosity toward some religions whose
individuals attempt to force their views of intolerance toward rights
of others would be met by restrictions within the secular classes
where such matters are not suitable topics and any harassment would
not be tolerated. Religious tolerance becomes the role of the state,
without the state entering the debate of morality. At least the state
would assist parents in seeing this function is accommodated however.
> I also believe that the proposals in the policy were drawn up, or at least
> strongly influenced, by interest groups who have something to gain if it is
> implemented, namely the religious studies departments of some South African
> universities. It is not exactly disinterested.
The state would be helping establish a specific religion in this case.
This must not be the role of the state. How religions affected
history could be viewed as a means of increasing acceptance of other
religions. Details of these religions treads into the realm of
religion unlikely to have unbiased presentations. If there were
private groups providing religious instruction, the state should not
feel any need to fill a void created by the otherwise effective
purging of religion from public schools.
From various civic programs, the public school system is desperately
attempting to fill this void but without the needed tools or
authority. Let it be done effectively and in keeping within the
culture of the parents. This should be done by a private group at the
behest of the parent and not the state.
<snip>
Doug
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>It was silly of him to drive religion underground - once you make anything
>illegal it starts to have an appeal, so he made Marx' statement that
>religion is the opium of the people even more true.
>
>Enva Hoxa was the man who really went for theists - he also was very against
>people with beards. It was odd to visit Albania with a beard a couple of
>years after Enva's death and see what curiosity it caused, I've never been
>more stared at ever.
Hoxha's phobias about religion and beards were probably linked. The few
priests who were not improsoned or killed were ordered to shave off their
beards. I heard of one who was a friend of the mayor in happier days. The
mayor agreed to let him keep his beard, provided he did not leave his house,
so he was under house arrest for 27 years.
And then, strolling through a cemetery, I was told that the Orthodox graves
were on the left and the Muslim graves to the right. We came to the end, and I
asked where the atheist graves were. My Albanian companions looked blank. I
asked, "The country was officially atheist for 27 years -- didn't anyone die
in that time?" Oh yes, the Orthodox atheists were buried on the left, and the
Muslim atheists were buried on the right.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >living on the dark side of the moon - I just invented this idea now, so
it
> >hadn't occured to me before. You could say that I don't believe in them
and
> >therefore have a belief in non-green-fairies.
>
> terms that are more serious than "green fairies in the moon". Your
> very writing shows to me the outline of a belief system.
>
Really? Green fairies on the moon are just as serious as gods, Father
Christmas and so forth - or just as unserious.
>
> >Just the same with theism. If you have no concern or interest in the
matter
> >you don't disbelieve it - you just aren't bothered one way or another,
> >theism is irrelevant.
>
> exist". If theism is irrelevant, so is atheism - and the only rational
> position is that of a doubt, "I don't know".
>
Why should I be in doubt about green fairies living on the dark side of the
moon? The idea is simply silly, so I reject it as nonsense - it doesn't
involve any a-fairy belief system to do that, simply a rational mind.
Exactly as with atheism, it is just a label attached to rational people who
can't be bothered with nonsense - if nobody brought up theism atheists would
never mention it from one year to the next, any more than they'd discuss
moon inhabiting green fairies. There are so many more interesting things to
discuss.
--
"To try to do something which is inherently impossible is always a
corrupting enterprise." - Oakshott
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:29:34 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >It was silly of him to drive religion underground - once you make
anything
> >illegal it starts to have an appeal, so he made Marx' statement that
> >religion is the opium of the people even more true.
> >
> >Enva Hoxa was the man who really went for theists - he also was very
against
> >people with beards. It was odd to visit Albania with a beard a couple of
> >years after Enva's death and see what curiosity it caused, I've never
been
> >more stared at ever.
>
> Hoxha's phobias about religion and beards were probably linked. The few
> priests who were not improsoned or killed were ordered to shave off their
> beards. I heard of one who was a friend of the mayor in happier days. The
> mayor agreed to let him keep his beard, provided he did not leave his
house,
> so he was under house arrest for 27 years.
>
botherers are keen on beards, so, Albania being so close the fashion (like
that for kebabs) is likely to have spread.
>
> And then, strolling through a cemetery, I was told that the Orthodox
graves
> were on the left and the Muslim graves to the right. We came to the end,
and I
> asked where the atheist graves were. My Albanian companions looked blank.
I
> asked, "The country was officially atheist for 27 years -- didn't anyone
die
> in that time?" Oh yes, the Orthodox atheists were buried on the left, and
the
> Muslim atheists were buried on the right.
>
enjoy and am familiar with the rituals, like the church music and listen to
carols from Kings every Christmas Eve. I suppose that I could, just as well,
say that I am an opera atheist too, as I enjoy those rituals too. I rather
like mosques, too, particularly those lovely ones in Istanbul and I'm keen o
n Turkish carpets, but I'm afraid that the call to prayer is an irritation
when I am staying in the Middle East rather than an aesthetic pleasure.
Peter H.M. Brooks
the
> >moon? The idea is simply silly, so I reject it as nonsense - it doesn't
> >involve any a-fairy belief system to do that, simply a rational mind.
>
> silly, hence you reject it as nonsense. That's precisely what I was
> saying, that you live inside your belief system, just like other
> people live inside theirs. Meaning, you're no different from them in
> that respect.
>
Not at all. There are a large number of claims, stories, myths and
crackpottery, that all rational people agree are untrue with a probability
that approaches one. To select one or other and start claiming that treating
it differently from all the others and calling it a belief as a consequence
is simply silly special pleading.
So, no belief requied, only rationality.
>
>
> And you know what ? If there was other more interesting things to
> discuss, you'd not be throwing barbs at me through all this
> crossposting. Mirror, anyone ?
>
Barbs? Barbs? I see no barbs. You are imagining things again.
Yes, there are more interesting things to discuss, and I am discussing them
elsewhere - the important point is that, I, of course, didn't bring up this
nonsense, I'm only helping to supply a little clarity.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:bggou8$3o...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
>> They might not officially be called religion, but they are
>> more religion than anything else.
>>
>No, they are philosphical points, something quite unconnected with religion.
For the purposes of the propose policy, however, religion, philosophy and
worldview are included.
--- quote from proposed policy ---
3. In clarifying the relationship between religion and education, we might
consider four possible models for structuring the relationship between
religion and the state:
A theocratic model identifies the state with one particular religion or
religious grouping. In some cases, this model has resulted in a situation in
which the state and religion become indistinguishable. In a religiously
diverse society such as South Africa, this model clearly would be
inappropriate.
At the other extreme, a repressionist model is based on the premise that the
state should act to suppress religion. In such a model, the state would
operate to marginalise or eliminate religion from public life. In a
religiously active society such as South Africa, any constitutional model
based on state hostility towards religion would be unthinkable. We reject both
the theocratic model of the religious state, such as the 'Christian-National'
state in our own history that tried to impose religion in public institutions,
as well as any repressionist model that would adopt a hostile stance towards
religion.
A modern secular state, which is neither religious nor anti-religious, in
principle adopts a position of impartiality towards all religions and other
worldviews A separationist model for the secular state represents an attempt
to completely divorce the religious and secular spheres of a society, such as
in France or the United States. Drawing strict separation between religion and
the secular state is extremely difficult to implement in practice, since there
is considerable interchange between religion and public life. Furthermore, a
strict separation between the two spheres of religion and state is not
desirable, since without the commitment and engagement of religious bodies it
is difficult to see us improving the quality of life of all our people.
In a co-operative model, both the principle of legal separation and the
possibility of creative interaction are affirmed. Separate spheres for
religion and the state are established by the Constitution, but there is scope
for interaction between the two. While ensuring the protection of citizens
from religious discrimination or coercion, this model encourages an ongoing
dialogue between religious groups and the state in areas of common interest
and concern. Even in such exchanges, however, religious individuals and groups
must be assured of their freedom from any state interference with regard to
freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, and opinion.
--- end quote ---
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Moira de Swardt
"Douglas Otis" <doug...@rigidether.org> wrote in message
> Only the church shall teach elements of their religion. This
includes
> definitions of moral code with root concepts of how one is to
live.
> Nothing would be worse than to have a teacher preach such
concepts. A
> secular teacher must avoid areas defining morality, good and evil,
and
> one's place within society. A suitable alternative to religious
> training would be instruction of the legal system and issues of
health
> as a rational means of allowing a student better judgment.
Religious instruction is much more, and much less, than a system of
ethics, particularly religious instruction as envisaged by most
people for the South African school system. The idea that one
should have a basic knowledge of the tenets of several, if not most,
of the world religions and a sprinkling of those "fringe" religions
with relatively small followings is simply a very basic building
block of education.
Classical literature, for example, makes considerable use of both
Greek and Roman mythology and Christian biblical allusions. It
would be impossible to truly comprehend literature if one avoided
the teaching/learning of the basic religious principles behind the
references. Much of history is only comprehensible if one
understands the religious politics behind it.
> Rather than codifying moral concepts into laws, education is the
> proper means to affect behavior with respect to personal choices.
Much that relates to ethics and behaviour and personal choices is
strongly influenced by religious principles.
> With expenses of general education at more than $5,000 per year,
one
> egalitarian method of enabling both public and religious education
for
> all students would be to use percentages established for Released
Time
> at 20% or one class out of five being taught by a representative
of a
> religion. For purely practical reasons, such a class must be
> scheduled within the school day rather than one-day-a-week. By
> scheduling throughout the day, a religious instructor can
administer
> to a sufficient population of students without distrupting the
> student's other classes.
I gather you are suggesting that people get "schooling" in a
specific religion? I find that concept horrible. The only place
for one to absorb the practice and doctrine of a specific religion
is within a community, usually a family, that practices such
religion. Where the family doesn't emphasise the religion then the
learners won't interpret it as important.
> To overcome the bad 1948 SC ruling, an area adjacent to the public
> school would need to be set aside to for purposes of being rented
out
> to privately funded groups. (A partition.) If done at cost, then
> each student's outlay for religious education would be one-fifth
of
> the total education budget. Public schools could also reduce
their
> expenses by one-fifth. Everyone wins. If you wish to have your
child
> taught by Bill Gate's Church of the Windows, that would be the
choice
> of the parent.
> The religious population could then more throughly indoctrinate
and
> discipline their students.
Many religions don't seek to "indoctrinate" in a negative way. Most
practitioners of religion are sufficiently comfortable with their
own religion to see the inherent superiority thereof over other
religions. What puzzles them/us is that people of other religions
just can't see the "truth". :-)
> With the parent providing capital for the
> class, there would be little doubt as to their involvement in the
> child's education. Should their be a behavior problem, a secular
> teacher could refer the matter over to the religious instructor
who
> benefits from a closer relationship with the parent. Unlike a
civil
> servant, these religious instructors would not be shackled by
> bureaucratic restrictions in matters of motivation.
Religious instructors outside the family and place of worship
*should* be shackled in many cases.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
> Doug
Moira de Swardt
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> Really? Green fairies on the moon are just as serious as gods,
Father
> Christmas and so forth - or just as unserious.
Green fairies don't occur naturally on the moon, although they are
an adventurous lot. The green fairies prefer quiet glades, woodland
clearings, and have a marked affinity for slightly overgrown country
gardens. I think you may actually be referring to the grey moon
fairies that live on the dark side of the moon. They are direct
ancestors of the various ice fairies of the North Pole. The grey
tends to look a little green in the presence of cheese. Everyone
knows that the moon is actually made of the latter and that the
Americans falsified all evidence of moon landings otherwise they
would have discovered the truth.
Please accept my word for this. My credentials in this regard are a
matter of public record over the entire duration of my posting
career. If there is any doubt about my credentials, please refer to
Father Christmas. He knows a thing or two about fairies himself.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:3f2de22b$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:29:46 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bggou8$3o...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> >> They might not officially be called religion, but they are
> >> more religion than anything else.
> >>
> >No, they are philosphical points, something quite unconnected with
religion.
>
> For the purposes of the propose policy, however, religion, philosophy and
> worldview are included.
>
By philosophy, by the way, I don't mean it in the sense of 'my philosophy is
to always pass the port the wrong way', but the study of thought
encompassing logic, ethics, epistemology, and so forth, including fields
like the philosophy of science, mathematics and so forth.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >crackpottery, that all rational people agree are untrue with a
probability
> >that approaches one. To select one or other and start claiming that
treating
> >it differently from all the others and calling it a belief as a
consequence
> >is simply silly special pleading.
>
> position gets. As for rationality, I would be tempted to point out
> that it takes well more than claims to rationality to question a
> belief that has been so pervasive as to have permeated the history of
> mankind to as far back as we can prod.
>
LOL! How charming an argument by popular acclaim. You don't get much less
rational than that - or are you suggesting that Mao was indeed a god since
the majority of the planet were part of his cult of the personality?
>
> So, again, you're inside your belief system, and that's not neutral,
> not by far. The neutral thing to do is the one you didn't: to
> ackowledge, simply, "I don't know" - and drop the adjectives and the
> labels. Until you do that, your position is anything but neutral.
>
Nothing to do with a belief system. Only an application of Occam's razor and
probability to highly improbable claims. Of course it isn't a neutral
position - being neutral between nonsense and sense is to be a fool.
>
> >So, no belief requied, only rationality.
>
> Any rational system is no better than the set of axioms it's built
> upon. And axioms, ah, well, they need belief to be established.
>
Not true. You are talking about a logical system, arithmetic, or geometry
for example. What you are saying about rationality is not true, it is not an
axiom system. Rationality is a pragmatic system of dealing with the world
and is based on precepts that work.
You wish to argue the opposite.
The old joke explains your position well; A person claims that he carries a
fly whisk to keep away unicorns - his companion protests 'but there are no
unicorns', he replies smugly; 'see how well it works'.
The reason it is a joke is precisely because it is irrationality posing as
rationality. There is no need for axioms.
Consider again the case of the black swans. Until they were discovered in
Australia, it was perfectly rational to say that there were no black swans.
That, on examination in a rational person, would have resulted in the point
that, since none had been seen, it was unlikely that there were any -
however, unlike the green fairies and gods, there was nothing intrinsically
impossible about the possibility of black swans so they would be in the
category of unlikely things - not that of highly unlikely, or even that of
the utterly daft.
Steve Hayes
<moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote:
>Religious instruction is much more, and much less, than a system of
>ethics, particularly religious instruction as envisaged by most
>people for the South African school system. The idea that one
>should have a basic knowledge of the tenets of several, if not most,
>of the world religions and a sprinkling of those "fringe" religions
>with relatively small followings is simply a very basic building
>block of education.
>
>Classical literature, for example, makes considerable use of both
>Greek and Roman mythology and Christian biblical allusions. It
>would be impossible to truly comprehend literature if one avoided
>the teaching/learning of the basic religious principles behind the
>references. Much of history is only comprehensible if one
>understands the religious politics behind it.
Thanks very much for that. I think you've hit several nails on the head.
I don't believe that there should be a special subject called "religious
instruction" or "religion education" in government schools -- at least not as
part of the regular syllabus, but that the history of various religions should
be taught as part of history, and other aspects of religion could be taught as
part of human geography, or social studies, or whatever they call it these
days. One would also need to study ideologies and worldviews - trying to
strudy the history of the 20th centry without an undertanding of
Marxism-Leninism could leave huge gaps in understanding.
Such things could also be covered in studies of literature.
Of course with the current emphasis on science and technology the humanities
and liberal education are out. One simply cannot assume knowledge. And that is
where values come in -- but values are not best taught (in school, anyway) by
saying, "This is what you should value highly, and this you should not value."
Such things, however, are learnt through literature and the like. But with the
current emphasis on science, technology and commercial subjects, people learn
the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3f2dba9f....@news.saix.net...
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:29:46 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bggou8$3o...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
>> >> They might not officially be called religion, but they are
>> >> more religion than anything else.
>> >>
>> >No, they are philosphical points, something quite unconnected with
>religion.
>>
>> For the purposes of the propose policy, however, religion, philosophy and
>> worldview are included.
>>
>I see nothing in the quote from the policy about philosophy whatsoever!
>
>By philosophy, by the way, I don't mean it in the sense of 'my philosophy is
>to always pass the port the wrong way', but the study of thought
>encompassing logic, ethics, epistemology, and so forth, including fields
>like the philosophy of science, mathematics and so forth.
Oh, I thought you meant the kind of stuff written by Plato, Hobes, Hume,
Berkeley, Kant & Co.
I don't recollect them saying anything about passing the port, but I'm sure
some of them did.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Moira de Swardt
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> One result of this was that the Departments of Old and New
Teatament at the
> University of South Africa (to give the biggest example) were far
bigger than
> the other departments in the Faculty of Theology, because they had
a captive
> audience of 30000 teachers who were keen to upgrade their
qualifications (and
> hence their chances of higher salaries and promotion) through
distance
> education. A great many of these took an African language and
Biblical Studies
> (perceived as an easy option) as majors in the B.A, or as teaching
subjects in
> the B.Ed. degree.
Biblical Studies was certainly the easiest credit of my own
undergraduate studies.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> I can see why the policy is written as it is - there being no slot
for
> philosophy in schools they are shoving philosophical subjects into
religion.
> A very silly thing to do!
> Far better would be if they had philosphy as a subject.
Yes, I agree there. I've always thought it odd that one isn't given
the basics of philosophy at school.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> You don't expect morality from theists.
I know very few people with integrity and "morality". However some
of these are religious people.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Moira de Swardt
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> And then, strolling through a cemetery, I was told that the
Orthodox graves
> were on the left and the Muslim graves to the right. We came to
the end, and I
> asked where the atheist graves were. My Albanian companions looked
blank. I
> asked, "The country was officially atheist for 27 years -- didn't
anyone die
> in that time?" Oh yes, the Orthodox atheists were buried on the
left, and the
> Muslim atheists were buried on the right.
Steve, this is worthy of adding to one's collection of
illustrations.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:3f2ea5f7$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
>
> > You don't expect morality from theists.
>
> I know very few people with integrity and "morality". However some
> of these are religious people.
>
don't expect morality from theists, or even from followers of non-theistic
religions like Marxism.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 07:40:38 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3f2dba9f....@news.saix.net...
> >> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:29:46 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@new.co.za>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Herman Rubin" <hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bggou8$3o...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> >> >> They might not officially be called religion, but they are
> >> >> more religion than anything else.
> >> >>
> >> >No, they are philosphical points, something quite unconnected with
> >religion.
> >>
> >> For the purposes of the propose policy, however, religion, philosophy
and
> >> worldview are included.
> >>
> >I see nothing in the quote from the policy about philosophy whatsoever!
> >
> >By philosophy, by the way, I don't mean it in the sense of 'my philosophy
is
> >to always pass the port the wrong way', but the study of thought
> >encompassing logic, ethics, epistemology, and so forth, including fields
> >like the philosophy of science, mathematics and so forth.
>
> Oh, I thought you meant the kind of stuff written by Plato, Hobes, Hume,
> Berkeley, Kant & Co.
>
about in the policy either.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >By philosophy, by the way, I don't mean it in the sense of 'my philosophy
>is
>> >to always pass the port the wrong way', but the study of thought
>> >encompassing logic, ethics, epistemology, and so forth, including fields
>> >like the philosophy of science, mathematics and so forth.
>>
>> Oh, I thought you meant the kind of stuff written by Plato, Hobes, Hume,
>> Berkeley, Kant & Co.
>>
>Partly. I don't see anything about anything similar to what they thought
>about in the policy either.
So how would you suggest that they improve the policy in that respect?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
>news:3f2ea5f7$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
>>
>> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
>>
>> > I can see why the policy is written as it is - there being no slot
>> for
>> > philosophy in schools they are shoving philosophical subjects into
>> religion.
>> > A very silly thing to do!
>>
>> > Far better would be if they had philosphy as a subject.
>>
>> Yes, I agree there. I've always thought it odd that one isn't given
>> the basics of philosophy at school.
>>
>Children find it fascinating when you introduce them to some of the ideas.
Perhaps that Sophie's thingy by Jostein Gaarder could be made a setbook for
grade 9.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
be the ideal level.
Peter H.M. Brooks
sylabus for it. Exclude all religion as divisive - apart, of course, as
Moira points out, from where it is relevant to study mythology for
historical or linguistic purposes. I think it is great if, for example,
children are taught the religious etymology of the days of the week - I
think it fascinating that Wednesday is connected to Mercredi as Woden was
the Germanic equivalent of Mercury. This sort of thing fits well in an
English, Latin or French syllabus.
Steve Hayes
I've just seen this one, which I've added to mine:
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it
is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy"
-- Wendell Berry
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >Children find it fascinating when you introduce them to some of the
>ideas.
>>
>> Perhaps that Sophie's thingy by Jostein Gaarder could be made a setbook
>for
>> grade 9.
>>
>'Sopie's Choice', yes, that is a really enjoyable and clever book that would
>be the ideal level.
I think it's Sophie's world, actually, but I can't check because one of my
kids has taken by copy to their room.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:55:30 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >Children find it fascinating when you introduce them to some of the
> >ideas.
> >>
> >> Perhaps that Sophie's thingy by Jostein Gaarder could be made a setbook
> >for
> >> grade 9.
> >>
> >'Sopie's Choice', yes, that is a really enjoyable and clever book that
would
> >be the ideal level.
>
> I think it's Sophie's world, actually, but I can't check because one of my
> kids has taken by copy to their room.
>
right. It was also worth a read, though.
Douglas Otis
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:22:32 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
>news:3f2ea5f7$1$2...@hades.is.co.za...
>>
>> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
>>
>> > You don't expect morality from theists.
>>
>> I know very few people with integrity and "morality". However some
>> of these are religious people.
>>
> I also know very few and indeed some of them are religious too. However, I
> don't expect morality from theists, or even from followers of non-theistic
> religions like Marxism.
Do not paint all religions with the same brush. There is a better
example of a non-theistic or atheistic religion- Buddhism. It is a
widely practiced religion that indeed does delve into morality without
a pretext of god. Your dislike for theistic religions should not
justify a lack of respect with all religions.
The greatest harm from zealous theistic religions happened during
destruction of other culture's text depicting different gods. These
losses were tragic. There was much to be learned from these differing
views. A general hatred of god or in different gods will lead to the
same result.
Doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Dear Peter Brooks,
>
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:22:32 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >"Moira de Swardt" <moira.d...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> >news:3f2ea5f7$1$2...@hades.is.co.za...
> >>
> >> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > You don't expect morality from theists.
> >>
> >> I know very few people with integrity and "morality". However some
> >> of these are religious people.
> >>
> > I also know very few and indeed some of them are religious too. However,
I
> > don't expect morality from theists, or even from followers of
non-theistic
> > religions like Marxism.
>
> Do not paint all religions with the same brush. There is a better
> example of a non-theistic or atheistic religion- Buddhism. It is a
> widely practiced religion that indeed does delve into morality without
> a pretext of god. Your dislike for theistic religions should not
> justify a lack of respect with all religions.
>
very little suffering compared to other religions.
>
> The greatest harm from zealous theistic religions happened during
> destruction of other culture's text depicting different gods. These
> losses were tragic. There was much to be learned from these differing
> views. A general hatred of god or in different gods will lead to the
> same result.
>
religion management policy, being all inclusive and tolerant. This went out
when it was infected with christianity - the problem in the eastern empire
was the same, only islam was the infection. Strangely their source, judaism,
wasn't so dangerous, being non-prothletysing - being fueled by strong
xenophobia.
--
'It's a trifle if twenty millions or so die.' - Lenin on the 1921 Soviet
famine, reported in is Obituary in The Times
Steve Hayes
August 04 2003 at 04:57PM
The proposed new religious policy for South African schools was adopted
unanimously on Monday, Minister of Education Kader Asmal announced in
Bloemfontein.
Asmal, speaking at a media conference after a regular meeting between him and
provincial education MECs, said all nine MECs accepted the final draft.
It was to be released nationally on a date still to be announced.
Asmal said the policy would not be implemented in schools before teachers were
properly trained and the necessary learning materials provided. This was to be
determined by a standing national advisory committee, appointed by his
department.
Policy follows two years of intense discussion. Departmental officials and
MECs were first to fan out across the country to explain the new policy to the
public.
Asmal added that there were public misconceptions regarding the policy. It was
mainly aimed at returning religion as a core value to South African schools,
he said.
Monday's adoption of the policy follows two years of intense discussion.
Many interpreted the draft policy as proposing the limiting of religious
practice at schools.
The Democratic Alliance recently called on Asmal to extend the deadline
allowing the public to comment on the proposed policy. The party said
several stakeholders complained that they had not have sufficient time to
consider it.
Asmal said on Monday no submissions from public were ignored when the
final draft was prepared. - Sapa
Linards Ticmanis
> You are right that Buddhism has a pretty good track record - it has caused
> very little suffering compared to other religions.
You might read up a bit on Japanese and Tibetan history.
--
Linards Ticmanis
The Master said, "The business of laying on the colors follows the
preparation of the plain ground."
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Linards Ticmanis" <ticm...@coli.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
news:bgqcc2$db6a$2...@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de...
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> > You are right that Buddhism has a pretty good track record - it has
caused
> > very little suffering compared to other religions.
>
> You might read up a bit on Japanese and Tibetan history.
>
Buddhist whilst many of the problems in Tibet stem from the Chinese
occupation), my statement is true - compared to other religions it is
miniscule.
Linards Ticmanis
> Even if you blame many of the horrors on Buddhism (and Japan is mainly not
> Buddhist whilst many of the problems in Tibet stem from the Chinese
> occupation), my statement is true - compared to other religions it is
> miniscule.
Actually I was thinking about medieval times, not the 20th century. Of
course blaming Buddhism for the 20th century events would be silly.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> whether religion, or the belief in a God, is sense or nonsense - I'm
> not interested in that debate. What I'm saying is, every label that
> gets thrown in originates in some belief system, and I'm also saying
> that there's no person in this planet who can make any judgement
> that's not rooted on his or her belief system.
>
> And I would daresay you're no exception.
>
It is an important philosphical point, I agree. I don't, however, agree with
the relativism that you espouse.
You appear to be denying the external world, I can't agree with that. It is
not a matter of a belief system unless you are incorribably solipsistic - a
problem of belief that you only have to wrestle with, along, maybe with some
post-modernists.
>
> >Not true. You are talking about a logical system, arithmetic, or geometry
> >for example. What you are saying about rationality is not true, it is not
an
> >axiom system. Rationality is a pragmatic system of dealing with the world
> >and is based on precepts that work.
>
> The defintion of "to work" is one of your axioms here. Not much that's
> considered "working" in America, for example, is accepted as "working"
> in an Arabic country, for example. So, what's "pragmatism", what's "to
> work" ?
>
Not true. The essentials of society are common. Recent research has shown
around 200 commonalities between all societies.
>
> >You wish to argue the opposite.
>
> I'm arguing that there's no such a thing as rationality on a vaccuum.
> Rationality departs from axioms and is based on rules of inference,
> and both of those are rooted on what we find "evident", "reality", and
> other labels we throw in - and those labels are rooted on belief.
>
I have established that this is not true. You are misunderstanding what
rationality is.
>
> >The old joke explains your position well; A person claims that he carries
a
> >fly whisk to keep away unicorns - his companion protests 'but there are
no
> >unicorns', he replies smugly; 'see how well it works'.
>
> Replace "unicorns" with "microbes" and you may be closer to the truth.
> If there was no science around you, you'd spend all your life applying
> as much pragmatics as you would and that mightn't keep you from a
> plague or from dying from tuberculosis in your twenties. There are
> plenty of things that do exist but we can't see them, and our
> rationality is being bent by the advancement of science just about
> every day. You know, the assumption of rationality is one of the main
> obstacles to the advancement of human knowledge and art !
>
Nice post-modernist nonsense. Particularly nice, given your misunderstanding
of what rationality is.
>
> >The reason it is a joke is precisely because it is irrationality posing
as
> >rationality. There is no need for axioms.
>
> There's no such a thing as rationality without axioms. And rationality
> is often more of an obstacle than a help. The world doesn't move
> forward through rationality.
>
Why should the world 'move forward'? The idea is simply silly hegelianism or
marxism - the world doesn't move forward in any sensible way, that is to
misunderstand evolution. There is no directed arrow.
Peter H.M. Brooks
in
> >Australia, it was perfectly rational to say that there were no black
swans.
>
> rationality led us to false conclusions.
>
Nonsense! It doesn't make your point at all. Rationality came to a sensible
provisional conclusion that was easily adjusted given evidence. No problem
there.
>
> >That, on examination in a rational person, would have resulted in the
point
> >that, since none had been seen, it was unlikely that there were any -
> >however, unlike the green fairies and gods, there was nothing
intrinsically
> >impossible about the possibility of black swans so they would be in the
> >category of unlikely things - not that of highly unlikely, or even that
of
> >the utterly daft.
>
> in that hardly has any meaning. Man, what you wrote so far is a
> classic example of that old peeve of mine of model versus reality !
> Reality is what reality is, not what we reason it to be, and much
> reality is not known to us. Rationality belongs in model space, not in
> reality space - there's no inference without a belief system at its
> root.
>
Solipsism, extended, I agree, but that is what you are arguing, nothing more
nor less.
It's a silly point. The fact that solipsism can't be disproven is
entertaining to first year undergraduates, but has no further value.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>> Do not paint all religions with the same brush. There is a better
>> example of a non-theistic or atheistic religion- Buddhism. It is a
>> widely practiced religion that indeed does delve into morality without
>> a pretext of god. Your dislike for theistic religions should not
>> justify a lack of respect with all religions.
>>
>You are right that Buddhism has a pretty good track record - it has caused
>very little suffering compared to other religions.
Just ask the Tamil Tigers.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Douglas Otis
Equating resistance by the Tamul (a population with a common language in
Sri Lanka unified with a previously autonomous region by Britain)
against domination by this different region as a religious trait makes a
poor point. There are bad actors. It would be wrong to draw
conclusions from these actions as resulting from religious orthodoxy.
This is not conquest, imperialism or hegemony resulting from religious
concepts in this case. Just the opposite. The same response from any
group could be expected.
Doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
I am quite prepared to accept that religion makes live ghastly, but, why are
you urging me to find yet more evidence?
Peter H.M. Brooks
is
> >not a matter of a belief system unless you are incorribably solipsistic -
a
> >problem of belief that you only have to wrestle with, along, maybe with
some
> >post-modernists.
>
> minds can be objective. Consequently, we're limited to superimpose the
> virtual realities we create to the objective reality of the world.
>
How does that differ, in any sensible way, from understanding the world?
>
> >Why should the world 'move forward'? The idea is simply silly hegelianism
or
> >marxism - the world doesn't move forward in any sensible way, that is to
> >misunderstand evolution. There is no directed arrow.
>
> reference axis. No more. I can make "forward" point anywhere I want,
> because in the end, "forward" is where my virtual reality says it is.
>
No, you can't. If you put the label on a building, four floors up, you can't
move there unless you have a helicopter, a free climber's ability or a key
to the building. Putting the label on the moon or Alpha Centuari ensures
that you can never get there.
Labels are not just labels, they have meaning.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Three points:
1) You should try to write more clearly and concisely. I'm not sure what you
are saying - what, for example, is the object of "equate" in your first
sentence?
2) The Tamil Tigers are a guerrilla force fighting (as they see it) to
liberate a Hindu minority from the violent oppression of a Buddhist majority.
2) This is not really something I want to discuss in this thread, which
concerns religion in education. If you know something about how religion is
taught, or not taught, in Sri Lankan schools, it would be interesting to hear
it, otherwise I think the "your religion is more violent than mine so I hope
you die" subthread ought to be dropped, or taken up elsewhere.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Douglas Otis
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:39:15 GMT, Douglas Otis <doug...@rigidether.org>
> wrote:
>
>>>> You are right that Buddhism has a pretty good track record - it has caused
>>>> very little suffering compared to other religions.
>>>
>>> Just ask the Tamil Tigers.
>>
>> Equating resistance by the Tamul (a population with a common language in
>> Sri Lanka unified with a previously autonomous region by Britain)
>> against domination by this different region as a religious trait makes a
>> poor point. There are bad actors. It would be wrong to draw
>> conclusions from these actions as resulting from religious orthodoxy.
>> This is not conquest, imperialism or hegemony resulting from religious
>> concepts in this case. Just the opposite. The same response from any
>> group could be expected.
>
>
> Three points:
>
> 1) You should try to write more clearly and concisely. I'm not sure what you
> are saying - what, for example, is the object of "equate" in your first
> sentence?
I'm sorry. I meant to say equating resistance by the Tamul [with a
religious struggle] but became side tracked. I see it as Sinhala nation
versus the Tamil nation in conflict due to forced unification.
> 2) The Tamil Tigers are a guerrilla force fighting (as they see it) to
> liberate a Hindu minority from the violent oppression of a Buddhist majority.
Again, this is less about religion than a political struggle.
> 2) This is not really something I want to discuss in this thread, which
> concerns religion in education. If you know something about how religion is
> taught, or not taught, in Sri Lankan schools, it would be interesting to hear
> it, otherwise I think the "your religion is more violent than mine so I hope
> you die" subthread ought to be dropped, or taken up elsewhere
I objected to use of Marxism as an example of atheistic religions
suggested also devoid of morality. Buddhism does include morality.
Often such discussions seem to exclude concepts of religions not based
upon a pretext of god. Within a struggle in either obtaining or
maintaining autonomy, there will be problems regardless of underlying
religions. This should not be a basis for judgement.
How religion is taught can be easily biased by such comments. A student
would have little trouble discerning such animosity. For religion to be
properly discussed, this should not be done by civil servants with
likely such differing and callous views, but by someone appointed by the
parent sensitive not to undermine indoctrinations of the parent.
Doug
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3f309816....@news.saix.net...
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 05:39:19 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
>> wrote:
>> >You are right that Buddhism has a pretty good track record - it has
>caused
>> >very little suffering compared to other religions.
>>
>> Just ask the Tamil Tigers.
>>
>What should I ask the Tamil Tigers?
>
>I am quite prepared to accept that religion makes live ghastly, but, why are
>you urging me to find yet more evidence?
You said the Buddhists had a pretty good track record. Maybe they do in the
100 metress, but in the violence stakes their record is no better than anyone
else's, religious or non-religious. If you ask the Tamil Tigers they'll tell
you that. Of course Hindutva doesn't have a good record either, and the League
of Militant Atheists in the USSR was even worse.
Human bengs are a fairly violent species. Some religions try to modify this
behaviour, by haven't generally been too successful. Religious differences, as
you have pointed out, often become and excuse for violence. Blaming violence
on ?"religion" doesn't help either, because then people come up with
marvellous solutions like beating up killing all the religious people in order
to end violence.
The point is, can religious education in schools improve the situation, or
will it just exacerbate it?
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
My alternative is religion taught as an innoculation, and that has some
merit, but is a little uncertain.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
So are most allegedly "religious" wars.
People witter on and on about the Spanish Inquisition, but it was just the
King of Spain's Department of Homeland Security, KGB, Gestapo, Security Police
or whatever.
Can "religion education" in schools overcome that kind of ignorance?
>> 2) This is not really something I want to discuss in this thread, which
>> concerns religion in education. If you know something about how religion is
>> taught, or not taught, in Sri Lankan schools, it would be interesting to hear
>> it, otherwise I think the "your religion is more violent than mine so I hope
>> you die" subthread ought to be dropped, or taken up elsewhere
>
>I objected to use of Marxism as an example of atheistic religions
>suggested also devoid of morality. Buddhism does include morality.
>Often such discussions seem to exclude concepts of religions not based
>upon a pretext of god. Within a struggle in either obtaining or
>maintaining autonomy, there will be problems regardless of underlying
>religions. This should not be a basis for judgement.
>
>How religion is taught can be easily biased by such comments. A student
>would have little trouble discerning such animosity. For religion to be
>properly discussed, this should not be done by civil servants with
>likely such differing and callous views, but by someone appointed by the
>parent sensitive not to undermine indoctrinations of the parent.
If you're saying what I think you might I might poissibly agree with you but
I'm not sure if what I hear you saying is what you actually meant.
Steve Hayes
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Bob LeChevalier
>>> You are right that Buddhism has a pretty good track record - it has caused
>>> very little suffering compared to other religions.
Read about Asoka:
http://www.zip.com.au/~lyallg/Asoka.htm
>> Just ask the Tamil Tigers.
>
>Equating resistance by the Tamul (a population with a common language in
>Sri Lanka unified with a previously autonomous region by Britain)
>against domination by this different region as a religious trait makes a
>poor point. There are bad actors. It would be wrong to draw
>conclusions from these actions as resulting from religious orthodoxy.
>This is not conquest, imperialism or hegemony resulting from religious
>concepts in this case. Just the opposite. The same response from any
>group could be expected.
They apparently see things differently, and very much from a religious
point of view:
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/dalitism/dal000/budsinbk.html
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> model the world in ways that work to a certain extent, and even then,
> press it the right way and it ceases to work. At the bottom, it all
> boils down to physics, and physics so far has shown itself to be a
> bottomless pit, therefore, so much for understanding.
>
Physics a 'bottomless pit', eh, I suppose that that goes quite well with the
weightless rods and frictionless pulleys.
>
> >No, you can't. If you put the label on a building, four floors up, you
can't
> >move there unless you have a helicopter, a free climber's ability or a
key
> >to the building. Putting the label on the moon or Alpha Centuari ensures
> >that you can never get there.
>
> one day. And again, "up" is where I point my axis to. Go to a point
> halfway between the earth and the moon, which way is "up" ? Go to
> Sidney, the "up" direction to them is "down" to us.
>
Who is the 'we' that will get 'there'? It seems odd that you deny that the
world can be understood but, at the same time claim to know not only where
'there' is, but that 'we' will get there.
>
> >Labels are not just labels, they have meaning.
>
> our minds. Meaning is the inner structure of the intellectual virtual
> reality we superimpose to the world in our quest to submit it to our
> will. Meaning changes from individual to individual, so do labels.
>
Not quite true. Once you say 'our minds', rather than 'my mind' you force
meaning to have objective existence. You see meaning and you are part of the
external world.
It's funny how each new technology gets pressed into service for metaphor -
calling it 'virtual reality' is an amusing instance of that.
If meaning could change from individual to individual then Wittgenstein's
argument would be wrong and private languages possible. That you have
understood my previous post, that is, taken my meaning, proves clearly that
we have many, many, shared meanings.
Douglas Otis
<snip>
>> Again, this is less about religion than a political struggle.
>
> So are most allegedly "religious" wars.
The US President declared nations evil, embraced god within speeches,
and could lead one to believe US actions were a religious crusade
rather than furthering goals of corporate hegemony. With those
fearing god, there is often a desire to remove of a source of wrath.
Those with differing practices seen offensive to god may lead others
into purges. Such actions lead directly from religion. It would be
easy to confuse nationalism with religion however. Both are
potentially dangerous and easily corrupted.
> People witter on and on about the Spanish Inquisition, but it was just the
> King of Spain's Department of Homeland Security, KGB, Gestapo, Security Police
> or whatever.
>
> Can "religion education" in schools overcome that kind of ignorance?
Can religion transform mankind into being less tribal or
nationalistic? Not likely. Nor can secular schools taught by civil
servants. There is an equal danger in allowing the state complete
dominion over education or the state seen as synonymous with religion.
By having the state play a role in ensuring tolerance among various
groups of differing religions, a balance can be struck between the
state and religion. Children then receive motivation and discipline
afforded by a private class to allow a more productive secular
instruction.
Individuals well founded within their culture benefits the community
as a whole. A civil servant attempting to muddle through the day does
more harm than good in this area. A private class will reduce the
numbers of students failing. Allowing groups a clear voice in the
process of education should be to the benefit of everyone and help
offset the power of the state.
Will it be difficult to ensure tolerance? Yes indeed. The state
will then relinquish its role in defining religion. In a global
market, having groups of many cultures is a valuable asset. They
should each be given their best chance to succeed with the state
focused upon its role of inculcating tolerance.
<snip>
>> I objected to use of Marxism as an example of atheistic religions
>> suggested also devoid of morality. Buddhism does include morality.
>> Often such discussions seem to exclude concepts of religions not based
>> upon a pretext of god. Within a struggle in either obtaining or
>> maintaining autonomy, there will be problems regardless of underlying
>> religions. This should not be a basis for judgement.
>>
>> How religion is taught can be easily biased by such comments. A student
>> would have little trouble discerning such animosity. For religion to be
>> properly discussed, this should not be done by civil servants with
>> likely such differing and callous views, but by someone appointed by the
>> parent sensitive not to undermine indoctrinations of the parent.
>
> If you're saying what I think you might I might poissibly agree with you but
> I'm not sure if what I hear you saying is what you actually meant.
In addition to a few fragmented sentences, I have not posted
consistently to all the groups so I may have been less coherent as a
result.
Doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >meaning to have objective existence. You see meaning and you are part of
the
> >external world.
>
>
>
> >It's funny how each new technology gets pressed into service for
metaphor -
> >calling it 'virtual reality' is an amusing instance of that.
>
> can't fault me for seeing the world through the filters of a computer
> man. I'm on the other side of that fence, you know, types like me
> actually created this whole virtual reality thing !
>
Up to a point, you could claim that Escher invented it.
>
> >If meaning could change from individual to individual then Wittgenstein's
> >argument would be wrong and private languages possible. That you have
> >understood my previous post, that is, taken my meaning, proves clearly
that
> >we have many, many, shared meanings.
>
> own mental capacity, after all acquiring a non-native language is a
> nontrivial activity. Not only meaning can change from individual to
> individual, but I'll be hard pressed to say that there any meaning
> that's not mostly personal. Some of them will have shared components,
> but even then, when we dig deep enough, we may eventually find out
> that the sharing only occurs at a pretty shallow level - and once we
> hit beyond that level, sharing ceases to occur.
>
Have a look at Wittgenstein's argument some time. There is no space for
private language - that is a language peculiar to an individual, though
there can certainly be ideolects.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> reality. Nobody "invented" it, the concept evolved, as many do,
> through the work of many researchers.
>
> >Have a look at Wittgenstein's argument some time. There is no space for
> >private language - that is a language peculiar to an individual, though
> >there can certainly be ideolects.
>
> sure I'm using the term "private language" in the same way you are. I
> don't know if anyone who didn't live in this very century of ours can
> reliably furnish a model that's decent enough to reflect our
> contemporary world, so, I'm not sure I can empathize with recognizing
> any relevance to the concept. Seen from my little computer world,
> however, private languages abound, in fact, it often takes us others
> to wade through someone's private language before we manage to
> understand what that individual is trying to convey.
>
Poor communication is a very different thing from a private language! It
fits with the current feeling that many computer types are sufferring from
mild apberger's syndrome.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >fits with the current feeling that many computer types are sufferring
from
> >mild apberger's syndrome.
>
> not that concerned about talking to anyone, eh ? We're more concerned
> about making the world around us behave in ways we can control.
>
No, I don't wish to control the world around me any more than I do at the
moment.
Yes, we are concerned about talking to people, I am talking to you at the
moment.
The essence of language is communication, what is wrong with a private
language (one privy only to the speaker himself) is that it does not
communicate so has no value as a language.
If you like I can copy out Wittgenstein's argument - it is only a couple of
pages, but I'd rather that you wanted me to do it than to make the effort on
spec..
--
Men don't pay you to sleep with them. They pay you to go home - Philip Roth
'The Human Stain' pg 236
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >language (one privy only to the speaker himself) is that it does not
> >communicate so has no value as a language.
>
> communication. It's a device to describe a set through the demand that
> its members should adhere to that language's syntax. In that
> embodiment, the concept of language far transcends communication !
>
Description is communication.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> I don't think so, unless you include talk to a machine, or creating
> its thinking paradigms, in the realm of "communication". The whole
> point of languages in computer science is what we can do to a machine,
> not to other people; and in that sense, yes, they can be pretty
> private. A computer is, in the end, the embodiment of a language, and
> no two computers are designed the same.
>
I don't see what computer 'languages' have to do with the matter. Variables
are, of course, though, descriptions and they communicate to the compiler
what they ought to be.
>
> The great thing about languages, when looked from the formal side, is
> their ability to codify formal or informal concepts in ways that
> machines can use - and those ways can be vastly different from our
> human ways: for example, few people in the planet can beat a computer
> at chess, yet machines play chess in a very different way than we
> ourselves do. Furthermore, the concept of language allow us to create
> new machine ways of "thought", that is, of handling items of
> information, and leads us to new paradigms of computation.
>
Well, I don't know about new 'paradigms', there haven't been that many new
ideas in computing over the past decade or so, at least not in the
fundamentals (I'm not, of course, talking about hardware here!).
Again, you are describing how descriptions communicate to machines.
>
> To me, the essence of the concept of language is the bit that gives me
> the power to create abstract devices that show artificial
> intelligence. And as we move forward, I have no doubt that we'll make
> our machines better and better, and they'll go on stealing more and
> more intellectual space from people, and that happens in no small part
> because of the way we computer people see language and logic.
>
Natural languages are far more interesting and far more complex.