Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Coito ergo sum]

There is unacceptable religious involvement in schools and acceptable religious involvement in schools. It is not surprising that there is a lot of unacceptable involvement, but the a six-week programme of visiting speakers from different religions seems to get round the possibility of proselytizing. Even if one or more of the speakers used their half-hour session to preselytize, I hardly think it is going to have much impact, as the overwhelming effect of such a programme would be to educate children that there is an awful lot of conflicting mumbo-jumbo out there.

What is your basis for determining what involvement is acceptable and what involvement is unacceptable?

[Coito ergo sum]

Exi5, you seem to be responding to Pappa's post there with your comment about the six week course.

For me, it doesn't matter what the arrangement is purported to be, proselytisation is not acceptable in schools, imo ... And not just religious proselytisation .. Any other agenda driven ideologist can fuck off too.

In the real world, people proselytise. Why should children be protected from it? Surely the best way to educate them is to present it to them in a controlled way and get them to recognise it, so they're less vulnerable to it when it hits them in the face at election time, or in sales promotions. I think it would be a damn good idea to let marxists, conservatives and existentialists into schools to deliver their messages. Schools are dull places at the moment, and they're not doing very well overall. They seem to be run on the principle that we must anaesthetize children from the real world outside, then we wonder why they get bored.

Why should children be protected from it? I can think of the following reasons:

1. Children are more susceptible to suggestion and indoctrination than adults;
2. The purpose of a school is to educate children, not indoctrinate them, so we should avoid the latter as much as possible;
3. There should be a separation of church and state, so as to preserve the right of individuals to follow whatever religious values or path that they see fit, without interference or encouragement from the state, and without the state becoming entangled in religious issues, as much as possible.
4. Parents have a right to raise their children with the values that the parents think are appropriate, and it is not the function of a school to teach morality or value systems.
5. Schools are already over-stressed, and do not have sufficient time or resources, or expertise, to teach what children need to know in terms of reading, writing and arithmetic, sciences, history, geography, civics, higher mathematics, literature, and the like. To add to that the responsibility to properly teach the basics of a variety of ancient religious systems (each of which is rife with internecine disputes over beliefs and requirements) is simply unfeasible. What would be presented to children would be watered down versions of different religions that can not satisfactorily address the subject matter - not only would you be addressing the "six major religions" but you'd also have to parse out the major denominations within those religions. When you bring in the Muslim Imam to speak - would it be Sunni or Shia? When the Christian comes in, is it a Baptist minister, Presbyterian or Lutheran pastor, or Catholic priest? If a Jewish person is invited, is it a Hasidic or a reformed Jew? How far down the rabbit hole do we go? These distinctions are not important to non-believers, but I assure you they are fundamentally important to many religious people.

[HomerJay]

I wouldn't mind at all if visiting priests/rabbis/sheikhs/etc. came to the school to talk about their religion and beliefs. Potentially, it could be a lot more instructive than leaving it to a teacher (at primary level). However, in order to make it useful and non-indoctrinatory, I think it would need to be done in a way that presented multiple religions together. Perhaps having a representative of each of the world's six largest religions come in to give a half-hour talk each week for six weeks in a row.

If I were a religious person, I am sure I wouldn't want that. Imagine one is a devoutly religious Muslim and one's child is being sent to this school which will have a variety of religions come in and talk about their beliefs? I think what you're suggesting would be acceptable to most of us, because it would tend to undermine faith or conviction in one particular religion. For the same reason, a devoutly religious person who thinks their child's afterlife depends on following the proper religion would not be fond of that.

This is what it is like in the UK, the nutters don't like what they consider to be disrespectful competition for views. Obviously the sects you mention offer diffferent problems too.

An important question for anyone advocating this is the question of compulsion, which is currently the case here in the UK, forcing this shit on children just ain't on for a second.

Also there is the problem of indoctrination and proselytism. I have already said that the indoctrination/ knowledge share dichotomy is wholly false, simplistic and misleading. People tend to think of proselytism as actively seeking converts but it covers much more than that, it includes the emboldening and strengthening of religious belief too.

It is not the job of the State to embolden or strengthen religious communities or individual religious beliefs and exposure to this shit will do both. It is also an enabling part of the indoctrination that children receive from other sources. Tax dollars should not be spent for the benefit of religious groups.

[Exi5tentialist]

I wouldn't mind at all if visiting priests/rabbis/sheikhs/etc. came to the school to talk about their religion and beliefs. Potentially, it could be a lot more instructive than leaving it to a teacher (at primary level). However, in order to make it useful and non-indoctrinatory, I think it would need to be done in a way that presented multiple religions together. Perhaps having a representative of each of the world's six largest religions come in to give a half-hour talk each week for six weeks in a row.

If I were a religious person, I am sure I wouldn't want that. Imagine one is a devoutly religious Muslim and one's child is being sent to this school which will have a variety of religions come in and talk about their beliefs? I think what you're suggesting would be acceptable to most of us, because it would tend to undermine faith or conviction in one particular religion. For the same reason, a devoutly religious person who thinks their child's afterlife depends on following the proper religion would not be fond of that.

This is what it is like in the UK, the nutters don't like what they consider to be disrespectful competition for views. Obviously the sects you mention offer diffferent problems too.

An important question for anyone advocating this is the question of compulsion, which is currently the case here in the UK, forcing this shit on children just ain't on for a second.

Also there is the problem of indoctrination and proselytism. I have already said that the indoctrination/ knowledge share dichotomy is wholly false, simplistic and misleading. People tend to think of proselytism as actively seeking converts but it covers much more than that, it includes the emboldening and strengthening of religious belief too.

It is not the job of the State to embolden or strengthen religious communities or individual religious beliefs and exposure to this shit will do both. It is also an enabling part of the indoctrination that children receive from other sources. Tax dollars should not be spent for the benefit of religious groups.

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

[Exi5tentialist]

I wouldn't mind at all if visiting priests/rabbis/sheikhs/etc. came to the school to talk about their religion and beliefs. Potentially, it could be a lot more instructive than leaving it to a teacher (at primary level). However, in order to make it useful and non-indoctrinatory, I think it would need to be done in a way that presented multiple religions together. Perhaps having a representative of each of the world's six largest religions come in to give a half-hour talk each week for six weeks in a row.

If I were a religious person, I am sure I wouldn't want that. Imagine one is a devoutly religious Muslim and one's child is being sent to this school which will have a variety of religions come in and talk about their beliefs? I think what you're suggesting would be acceptable to most of us, because it would tend to undermine faith or conviction in one particular religion. For the same reason, a devoutly religious person who thinks their child's afterlife depends on following the proper religion would not be fond of that.

This is what it is like in the UK, the nutters don't like what they consider to be disrespectful competition for views. Obviously the sects you mention offer diffferent problems too.

An important question for anyone advocating this is the question of compulsion, which is currently the case here in the UK, forcing this shit on children just ain't on for a second.

Also there is the problem of indoctrination and proselytism. I have already said that the indoctrination/ knowledge share dichotomy is wholly false, simplistic and misleading. People tend to think of proselytism as actively seeking converts but it covers much more than that, it includes the emboldening and strengthening of religious belief too.

It is not the job of the State to embolden or strengthen religious communities or individual religious beliefs and exposure to this shit will do both. It is also an enabling part of the indoctrination that children receive from other sources. Tax dollars should not be spent for the benefit of religious groups.

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

[Coito ergo sum]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

[Bella Fortuna]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

So much for my dissertation about Zeus being sucked off by a moray eel in space...

[charlou]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

So much for my dissertation about Zeus being sucked off by a moray eel in space...

[Exi5tentialist]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

Well that's not very inspiring is it? The position of the Andromeda Galaxy for example could be used as a way of calculating geometric variables. And surely algebra can be used in studying the depths of the oceans or the distance of the Titanic from the surface. The success of homeopathy is something that can be studied statistically, I'd have thought. Is there no role for algebra there?

Anyway these are questions of detail. 'To the extent that' implies that teaching should take place that meets curriculum objectives. I suppose in the absence of an alternative education system I'd agree with that. But what about outside that 'extent'? What if one of the curriculum objectives is to introduce students to concepts around free speech, including concepts that people are free to express any position they like, regardless of how mad or irrational the concept appears to be to middle-class liberals?

Either you are against free speech in schools or you are for it. What space are you prepared to allow for it?

[Robert_S]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

Free speech as in using public money and a captive audience?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

So much for my dissertation about Zeus being sucked off by a moray eel in space...

"Welcome to Algebra class. Please set Google for Safe Search and we'll begin."

[Coito ergo sum]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

So much for my dissertation about Zeus being sucked off by a moray eel in space...

I like the way you think....

...although, can we change Zeus to "Coito" and can we change the moray eel to Scarlett Johanssen and Amanda Seyfried? And, maybe put the three of us on secluded beach, instead of in space... yeah... that's it...

[Coito ergo sum]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

Free speech as in using public money and a captive audience?

Well, all schools funded by the State use public money, and unless you're going to let every student say whatever they want whenever they want, then you're going to have some limits on speech.

[Exi5tentialist]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

Free speech as in using public money and a captive audience?

Free speech as in using public money to help provide a meaningful education and make school life a bit interesting for young students.

[Exi5tentialist]

I get it. You are against free speech in schools.

I am, to the extent that in, for example, Algebra class, the teacher determines what discussion is allowed in class, and that discussion should properly limited to algebra and the particular coursework at hand. Discussions of gods, monsters, fellatio, oceanography, the Andromeda Galaxy and the benefits of homeopathy ought properly be limited in order to allow algebra to be taught in algebra class.

Free speech as in using public money and a captive audience?

Well, all schools funded by the State use public money, and unless you're going to let every student say whatever they want whenever they want, then you're going to have some limits on speech.

I'm not talking about some limits on free speech. I accept that. I was talking about any free speech in schools and to what extent you would allow it.

It sounds to me like you would set the threshold rather low.