I pointed out the silliness of this pic in the last entry. I will now extend my point to the absurdness of claiming it is possible to leave out religion in publicly funded schools.
Welcome to the planet Skittles. We want you to weigh in on the religiously charged education war.
Meet Ted. Ted is an active member of the Wax-Waz religion. Ted believes that all children need 40 lashes for every test they fail in school. This is so children will learn to do well in school, which is a critical element of pleasing "Hum-Ho"…the god of education. Ted is furious. Despite 75% of the nation agreeing (from the Country Skittles) with the Wax-Waz religion and it's practices, there is a strong movement in the Skittles Education system to abolish all lashings for children who fail tests (1 government system for entire country).
Meet Lucy. Lucy is an active member of the ListerBlue religion a clear minority in the land of Skittles (20% subscribe to this religion). Lucy believes that lashing children is evil and advocates a zero tolerance lashing policy. The ListerBlue's god of education condemns violence to children for failing tests and any violence on children brings the curse of the god upon the farmlands of the nation. Lucy is protesting the existing education laws and leading the charge to abolish lashings.
Finally, meet Samantha. Samantha is the leader of the atheist movement (the remaining 5% of Skittles). She believes that religion should be separated from education and plans to solve the 'religious squabbling'.
It seems like Samantha has problem: how do you keep religion out of school when:
1. Children are in school representing all 3 belief systems of Skittles.
2. Children are either lashed or not lashed (True by definition)
3. Either religion A (lash children) or Religion B (no lash children) is 'held up' in school. (True from 1 and 2)
4. Samantha cannot say, 'don't lash children, and I am saying this for non-religious reasons', because 75% believe it's anti-Wax-Waz and pro ListerBlue
5. Samantha cannot say, 'lash children, and I am saying this for non-religious reasons', because 20% believe it's anti ListerBlue and pro Wax-Waz.
6. The atheists 'motives' is well and good, but clearly impossible to separate from the very grain of thought from either the Wax-Waz or ListerBlue clans. (from 5 and 6)
7. There is no 'middle road'. Either one religion gets their way, or the other one does. Playing the 'religiously natural' card is logically impossible. (1-6)
It seems logically impossible to 'keep religion out of (taxpayer funded, 1 brand fits all) school' where we know the following:
Two different religions claim truth in an area that impacts their children's education and those views are in direct conflict…(case in point above). Therefore, in so much as issues arise and competing religions have views on such issues, there will always be religious involvement in education both on Skittles, and in Canada: necessarily.
Therefore, the question is not, 'how do we separate religion and education', but rather, what are we going to attempt to call 'neutral' and how do we play out the balancing act of a 1 brand fits all education when we know full well, we are actually choosing one religion over another?
Since none of these superstitions can prove their claims, but public money is used to operate a public service like education, the ONLY fair thing to do is to keep all superstitions out of the publicly-funded arena. That goes for yours as much as it does for the "Waz-Waxians", or the Muslims, or the Mormons, or the Jews, or anyone else. If you absolutely insist on brainwashing your kids into your superstitious nonsense, you have an option called "private schools".
ReplyDeletethanks for comment, I just explained how what you say is not possible...please explain how 2 competing views can possibly co-exist? The tree is red. The tree is green. The tree is either red or green, but not both. You either lash (religion a), or do not lash (religion b). You cannot do both or niether. 1 religion wins, necessarily.
DeleteIt seems possible to me. Focus schools on education, not religion. Remove religion from the schools, let religion be taught elsewhere.
DeleteI don't think you've explained how this is impossible. Instead, you framed atheism (a lack of religion) as a religion itself.
Agreed. However, the real solution is to end the government's monopoly on schools/curriculum/education. Instead, let people decide which schools to support financially, which will result in a diverse set of schools and education styles.
Deletegood call Noris.
Delete"'how doe we separate religion and education', but rather, what are we going to attempt to call 'nutreal'"
ReplyDeleteHow doe we spell nutreal? You have some spelling mistakes in there, and I think some logic mistakes too. For instance, how do you determine there are 2 religions in a given area? You can't.
thanks for spelling correction :)
DeleteI created Skittles and determined such. I can and I did. We know there are much more than 2 in Canada, the above commenter pointed out several.
All I have to show is 2 competing religions take 2 opposing positions on a key position...I can find many examples in Canada...but for simplicity, created Skittles.
I shall be less charitable than saskboy. Yes, more corrections.
Delete"I created Skittles and determined such."
You determined such what? This sentence makes no sense. Try as I might, I truly cannot figure out what you are trying to say.
"We know there are **many** more than 2 in Canada [many more what, Skittles? People who believe that they invented Skittles?]**.** [Comma splice] **The** the above commenter pointed out several.
All I have to show is **that** **two** competing religions take **two** opposing positions on a key position. [No ellipses here.] I can find many examples in Canada**,** but for simplicity, **I** created Skittles.
I won't even go into the logical and rhetorical fallacies you engage in. But really, you ought to practice a bit more and get yourself an editor before attempting to communicate with the wider public.
It's churlish and annoying.
Look at all those religions you rhymes off...that must mean you are smart. How many more can you list?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLashing or not lashing are not religions, a religion is a belief not an act.. therefore your hypothetical above is logically flawed!!!
ReplyDeleteYou, like most who don't study religion, also operate under the misconception that all religions have a god... that's realistically untrue, furthermore not all religions have a single god... Hindus, Wiccans, and Neo-Pagans for example have two or more gods/goddesses...
Wow, lashing and not lashing is a belief within a religion. It is not flawed.
DeleteIt is flawed, it is a belief among Catholics that it's ok to sexually abuse boys... that doesn't mean that Catholic Parents send their children to Catholic Schools to be molested!!!
DeleteIn your bizzar form of logic that's what Catholic Schools would be for!
My point I was making is that all acts are subjective, not relative, to a groups beliefs... for example...
ReplyDeleteALL racists are Christians, but NOT all Christians are Racists...
Most Christians are homophobic, others are not, and still others are actually homosexuals!!!
The question then reverts back to the separation of religion and education...
ReplyDeleteAs an Ordained Priest in an anti-theistic religion, and a single father of a child whose mother is forcing our child into Christianity, I can say with great confidence that there are only two options for PUBLIC schools...
1) allow/celebrate the diversity of ALL religions (including Neo-Paganism, Wicca, & Satanism along side the more accepted religions) and only allow prayer in groups of children of their religion behind closed doors, not allowing children of differing religions in during such prayers unless given permission by the parents/legal guardians (and in cases of separated/divorced parents, permission from both)...
OR...
2) have a zero tolerance on any religious influence at all, no wearing of symbols or ornamentation of any religion, no prayer on or in any school property at any time, and no discussions about god or gods...
Both possibilities will have issues, people on both sides will find things to complain about in any case...
But, what you are suggesting is that no two religions can co-exist and that there should be no separation... how is that suggestion even logically possible? If two differing religions can't co-exist and they are both allowed in the same room with no established rules there would be fights and other disruptions of regular school activities (like learning)!
Scott, thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI am not suggesting 2 religions can't co-exist: sure they can. I am suggesting 2 religions both cannot have their way when there is an inherent conflict. A circle cannot also be a square.
Then are you saying that you're open to schools having ALL religions present (as described in my above suggestion #1)?
DeleteEven if that were to include Satanism, Wicca, Neo-Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrians, B'hai(sp?), atheism, agnosticism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc... as well as every sect of each religion?
The point of the poster isn't anti-religious, it's making an attempt to demonstrated the potential consequences of permitting the intrusion of religious ritual and observance into a nominally public space, like a publicly funded school.
ReplyDeleteThe religious right in America is predominantly made up of evangelical Christians, Methodists, Baptists etc. These groups are often extremely fearful of the presence of Witches, Satanists, Neopagans and other religious minority groups in their communities. They invariably raise many objections when a Witch high priestess is invited to intone the invocation at the opening of a city council meeting, but raise no objection when a Christian priest is invited to do likewise. This is a double-standard. Either everyone's belief is acceptable, or none of it is.
The religious right in America often argues that a lack of prayer in public schools is causing a plethora of social ills. But, as a taxpayer funded institution, it is unjust to tolerate the religious ritual and observance of a single group being projected into public space, while not allowing other groups equal, or at least proportionate access. So, if a school in the United States allowed say, a Christian Bible study group to use their gym after school hours, but banned a Satanist group from school grounds, the Satanist group would have grounds to seek redress through the court system, which could impose upon the school a duty to allow them to exercise their religion on school grounds, because of the establishment clause of the constitution. In other words, either, it's all okay, or it's all not-okay. The poster is drawing attention to the high probability that if Christian prayer was restored in public schoos in the United States, that schools would also consequently be required to give equal treatment to public observances practiced by different group, and it is the religious right that would object most strenuously to a great many of these public observances - the observances and rituals would quickly be labeled "demonic," "Satanic," "dark" and "evil." The subtext implied by the photo is that the religious doesn't really want prayer in public schools, rather, that the religious right wants its interpretation of religion to be the dominant interpretation, something which is expressly prohibited by the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Well said.
DeleteThat is well said!!
DeleteJust one nitpicking point, though, if I may...
Satanists and Wiccans are both witches as both are practitioners of "magick".. to expel another misconception, the term "Warlock" to refer to a male witch was a creation of hollywood to differentiate between male and female witches, the fact is "witch" is a unisex term equally used in reference to both males and females...
You may ask how I know this, quite simply because I am a Satanic Priest...
To put this in Canadian context, how do you think that Muslims using the cafeteria for Friday prayers in that one school would respond if say, a practicing student Witch requested permission to use the same space for third-degree Gardenarian initiations? Do you think that Muslims would be comfortable with that? I can say with authority that they'd raise the biggest stink you can possibly imagine! Not convinced? Fine. A third-degree Gardenarian initiation includes as an essential component of the ritual, a ritualized sex-act. You can find the text of the ritual here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos35.htm. Obviously, a third-degree Gardenarian intiation is inappropriate for public school, but there are many other rituals that could be deemed appropriate or made appropriate, but, that many conservative monotheistic groups, like Christians and Muslims would find highly objectionable, so while I deliberately chose a rare example, the point should be no less salient.
ReplyDeleteSkittles as described, having two mutually exclusive religious obligations that must be performed in schools is a false-dichotomy. It is false, because as near as I can recall there's no religious obligation or duty for Christians to perform prayer in schools. Under the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States, the only option that schools have is strictly a hands-off, purely neutral approach, and to errode the so-called wall separating Church and State can have many implications that the religious right, the group most in favor of tearing down the wall between Church and State, will find most objectionable.
That is the issue. The schools are making a non-choice, because they don't really have a choice.
Are you a fellow Canadian?! And your knowledge of Wicca, perhaps a witch yourself? It would be interesting to comparing notes...
DeleteI am Canadian, yes. Am I a witch? That's... complicated. Suffice it to say that at one time, I practiced Wicca. At the moment, I'm wrestling with my personal understanding, and don't really fall neatly into a religious category.
Delete1. Children are in school representing all 3 belief systems of Skittles.
ReplyDeleteNo children go to school for education not to represent any religious belief.
4. Samantha cannot say, 'don't lash children, and I am saying this for non-religious reasons', because 75% believe it's anti-Wax-Waz and pro ListerBlue
and
5. Samantha cannot say, 'lash children, and I am saying this for non-religious reasons', because 20% believe it's anti ListerBlue and pro Wax-Waz.
and
6. The atheists 'motives' is well and good, but clearly impossible to separate from the very grain of thought from either the Wax-Waz or ListerBlue clans. (from 5 and 6)
Unless research undertaken has shown that regardless of what any faith declares to be so, lashing children doesn't work. In much the same way as torture doesn't work and only gets information that stops the torture; usually what the torturer wants to hear.
Now Samantha can point to impartial replicable evidence that shows one course of action doesn't work and the other produces better results. The fact that these align with a religious belief is coincidence rather than a validation of a belief based on wishful thinking.
7. There is no 'middle road'. Either one religion gets their way, or the other one does. Playing the 'religiously natural' card is logically impossible. (1-6)
Getting your way because it happens to coincide with what is true is not the same as understanding the truth. A broken clock is right twice a day, but a fine clock keeps time all the time. Religion is a busted clock occasionally and fortunately it will agree with what is the truth but not for the correct reasons. To actually be correct more than twice a day the belief structure needs to understand how things work. A lucky guess isn't the same as a valid prediction.
One more thing. In the Skittles example, it is falsely asserted that one religious obligation will be upheld. This is because in the religion of ListerBlue, the obligation of not lashing children is in effect a non-obligation. Not-lashing children requires no action, but lashing children does. The only way that the obligation could be said to be upheld would be if it was expressly done out of religious conviction. Conversely,0 if schools in Skittles abolished the lashing, they could easily make the argument that they're not upholding anything at all, because the lashing obligation is active, while the not-lashing obligation is not, and in so doing, argue quite rightly that they are remaining neutral. The obligation of ListerBlue is purely incidental to the matter of lashing, because the obligation is in effect a non-obligation.
ReplyDeleteThe same would be true if you modified the obligations slightly. Say for instance, that instead of lashing, to please the Gods the religion of Wax-Waz required that one child be sacrificed as a burnt offering if any child in the school failed the test, and ListerBlue simply contained an prohibition against killing. One can fulfill ones obligations under ListerBlue by doing nothing at all. So unless schools in Skittles expressly banned sacrifices out of religious obligation, it cannot be demonstrated that banning sacrifices is being done out of religious obligation. The schools can argue neutrality because the obligation is entirely passive.
Further, is there a constitutional separation of Church and State in Skittles? That has not been specified, and the real world, unlike Skittles, has an explicit separation of Church and State in the United States, and a slightly weaker kind of separation of Church and State in Canada.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers cautioned so strongly against the establishment of a state religion in the United States, that if ever it had to be tested, the establishment clause would likely be deemed stronger than the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.