AIBU to think we need more ^inclusive^ education?

[LoveFoolMe]

AIBU to think we need more inclusive education? If children in a multicultural society such as the UK are educated together surely this promotes more tolerance and better mutual understanding.

So these proposals worry me:

Call to end limit on religious free schools

Considering how divisive and rigid religious attitudes can be, I think it's time to bring children from faith schools into mainstream schools and to encourage these children to mix with more diverse cultures.

Secular schools can still provide fact-based religious education in the classroom and would probably teach their students about a greater range of religions than a faith school would. Parents could, of course, provide a more personal approach to religion for their children outside of school hours if they wanted to.

Let's not further segregate our children by religion.

AIBU to think that reducing (rather than increasing) the number of faith schools in the UK would be far better for our children and far better for our society?

The findings of the university of Chicago study didn't match those of several other similar studies apparently.

So the evidence base is mixed at best. Can you link to those studies, or give more detail? I'd love to read up further.

Charitable giving is an established practice in many (most) religions.

Yes... and?

I don't know if religions give a unique insight into forgiveness, altruism or kindness but they have an emphasis on them and provide a clear pathway.

All religions? Why don't you also point out that it's a core precept of humanist thought?

Is there a difference between altruism and kindness?

I think they're linked but different. Perhaps one as a subset of another?

What a very good point about humanism. I stand corrected and encouraged. FWIW I looked into joining a local humanist group, briefly, several years ago and was put off by its campaign to have education completely secularised (if there's such a word)..... As I said earlier IMO it's shocking that humanist schools are not allowed.

Does humanism have any devotional rites or practices or anything designed to keep you motivated to behaving 'morally'? These are IMO an obvious strength of religions.

I'll try to link to other studies but I'm technologically inept so not promising anything. I read an article about the UofC study which claimed that several other studies produced different findings....

I've just remembered something - a humanist(?) church in London which give 'services' including collective singing.

Does humanism have any devotional rites or practices or anything designed to keep you motivated to behaving 'morally'? These are IMO an obvious strength of religions

I totally disagree with that. In my view, doing the right thing because it's the right thing, rather than because a cleric told you to, is a much stronger basis for a decent society and lasting moral behaviour. Because as we've seen, 'what God says' according to the clerics' interpretations, has lagged behind popular morality on numerous occasions.

Religions are a very good tool for controlling large groups of people, whether for good or bad.

The British Humanist Association's website is a good source of info on what is quite a broad school of thought. But there are no devotions - it's not a religion! More an approach or group of attitudes. The idea is that you don't need an external motivation or rule book to enable you to behave morally - being human is enough. Which is, incidentally, backed by evidence that co-operative behaviour of the type we might call 'moral' predates organised religion.

The BHA puts it reasonably succinctly:

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence, and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.

The point I've been making is that what are all too often described as 'Christian values' or 'religious values' are by and large simply human values.

thank you jassy, I didn't wish to presume. on humanism, it makes atheism palatable because atheism by itself offers no hope or purpose for the human being. and if secularism is to be the name of the game in schools it should be alongside some type of ideology that fills in the space religion does. Not capitalism, not scrapping Jesus in the manger nativity to replace with Santa only brings presents for good children (read: kids whose parents can afford to buy them nice presents). Not an ideology that brainwashes children that makes a virtue of being rich and materialistic and renders those without as being unworthy and worse, undeserving of goodness.

So secular humanism wants to replace God as the answer to humanity's salvation with salvation through reason and science instead? Maybe that might be an ethos to spur the child on to learn, not just for the sake of consumption but for some wider contribution to human progress. Can it match the ability to have large massive groups of people - unknown from one another- work together and cooperate as the big religions do? The eastern economies I mentioned earlier do all that without any talk of religion but that requires a huge cultural shift-and maybe less to do with china's political communism and more its philosophical Confucianism. Catholicism with its faith and works- maybe annoying in its prescriptiveness but it's teaching that it's not just enough talking about love and tolerance but getting down in the trenches and working amongst the disaffected/alienated/outcasted. In schools that would translate to very good pastoral care and consistently teaching children about altruistic behaviours. That an individual is valuable for and of themselves not just for their grades or results. Likewise: the Protestants made a virtue of literacy historically as a way for the laypeople to actively engage with the Bible. So that The commoner need not just relying upon the words of priests. That ethos still exists in such schools. Are there secular replacements for those that have a way to impact large numbers of people, the less charitably inclined/raised, the macho, the alpha, etc?

t makes atheism palatable because atheism by itself offers no hope or purpose for the human being.

Atheism doesn't need to offer anything. It's simply the state of not believing in any gods.

Humanism is just away of describing the way people think - that you don't need the external reward/threat of salvation/damnation to behave decently; that humans are generally born with empathy and the ability and desire to behave morally. It's a more hopeful way of looking at the world, in my book - that we behave well, in the main, because we're people, not because a book says so. There are people who behave badly, but religion has not historically been a deterrent to this.

The way you are talking about it 'replacing God' is quite arrogant and assumes a particular god is the default (not true for most of human existence).

Where do you think religions derived the virtues you've enumerated? Was the value of education invented by the Protestants? Do you think that only Protestant schools value education for all? Given their track record of excluding the most needy from their schools, their claim to this ethos is on shaky ground.

(Again, a curiously western approach when previously you've talked about religion as a whole.)

Given the record of religions to inspire evil and bad outcomes as well as good, when you look at the overall record, I'm not sure a straight replacement in terms of influence/control is necessarily desirable.

There are huge charities that exist without a religious base. There is an enormous amount of good done without people having to be told to do it by a deity.

I'm curious about the idea that religion has driven human progress. I can think of as many examples where religious institutions have tried to hold back human progress, to be honest. Can you give me some examples of what you mean?

Devotional rites and practices - eg specific prayers, meditation (there is a Buddhist meditation designed to cultivate a mindset of goodwill to all), weekly meetings etc; these can be empty if the individual isn't paying attention, but in general they serve to keep us on track. The discipline itself, of a religious practice such as daily prayers or meditation is usually beneficial - exercising will-power and acts of self-discipline apparently exercises our will-power 'muscles' - it's psychologically good for us. And obviously while meditating/praying/ whatever, you're not doing anything else (ie that might not be 'ethical'). The frequent practices, if nothing else are frequent reminders/encouragement to keep trying to do our best to be ethical. Collective chants/singing etc can be very uplifting/cathartic/calming. Saying grace daily has an obvious function of reminding us to be grateful - happy people are happy because they're grateful, not the other way round - and reminding us about the inequalities of food provision.

Could I remind you that Buddhism is non -theistic? It doesn't invoke any deity. The Buddha made no claims to be anything other than mortal and made no claims to the idea of re-incarnation.

I think I get what you mean about religion having an extrinsic morality - behave 'ethically' because this is what Jesus, or whoever, taught, but Christians believe in the teachings of Christ. They want to be righteous because that is the most moral way to be.

I wonder how much of our present morals are independent of the legacy of a once-predominantly religious society?

Regarding faith schools, I know it's insulting and ignorant to claim that people of no faith are morally inferior. I'm defending them on the grounds of their likelihood of being a 'moral' environment in which to educate children and the rights of parents for whom their religion (or desire to live ethically) to continue to have the choice of sending their children there. I know there are practical problems with this as things stand. Religion is such a huge part of some people - their very identity is hugely bound up with their religion - so it seems right to continue to allow faith schools. (and humanist schools!)

I don't wish to get anyone's back up by saying 'god' but humanism is a western construct post christian, and of Europe. so I mean no disservice by not mentioning the polytheistic eastern faiths. We are talking about faith schools in the UK so I think I have been consistent through all my posts so far about this topic of faith and schooling - the vast majority being christian schools. the organisational aspects of religion that people normally decry are actually what I think makes such schools perform better and also turn out students more able to compete in the wider world. But eastern societies and economies that do not call upon the monotheistic God achieve higher results and have much more competitively placed students. And that is from a cultural construction not religion.

I think that most of the organised religions started when populations grew vastly, especially in cities and money was becoming used instead of other forms of exchange of resources. I suppose the need for organised forms of moral codes and practices became greater.

That's really interesting moon.

I think the eastern schools are beginning to recognise some of the problems of their educational systems though (according to my Chinese friends anyway)

jassy cofe set up lots of free schools! Probably other churches did too.

Debate.org 'Does religion impede human progress'? Has many examples of religions helping human progress.

In general religions encourage education and making the most of your talents. (within a balanced lifestyle)

I think those education systems are turning more towards western style critical analysis. And in western education rote learning and memorisation which used to be decried as an inferior way of learning- which the eastern socieities are especially good at- is also being reconsidered now for its benefits in education. But it's much more time consuming to teach than critical analysis and requiring different methods of teaching. Less resource focused but requiring more attention and concentration from students.

I suppose the need for organised forms of moral codes and practices became greater

Or the need to control the populace.

As I've said numerous times, I don't dispute that religions and people in them have done good things. That's not surprising if you work from the principle that people are by and large fundamentally ok - empathetic and generally programmed to derive happiness and fulfilment by doing things for others. I'm yet to be convinced that religion has been the driving force behind a great many of the things that have advanced human progress, and on issues of morality, religions tend to the conservative rather than the progressive on most issues. That said I think some religions support progress and progressive thought better than others.

But when so much of progress relies on how we build our evidence base on all manner of issues, a belief system that is built on faith and that by its nature is not evidential has the potential to be in conflict with new evidence or ideas that challenge orthodoxies.

Moonstruck - my comments about western centric comments were only in response to statements that 'religions do x, y, or z.' Which is a pretty big claim. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

Thanks for pointing out the debate.org page rogue

It's interesting reading the comments on both sides of that argument.

The one which stands out for me echoes what Jassy has just said
religion is inherently conservative. With every argument where religious reasons are cited for one side, the side that religion falls on is always the more conservative stance and as such it, by definition impedes progress which requires change.

I went to check the statistics Moonstruck and you're right that the vast majority of UK faith schools are Christian.

Church of England schools were the most common type among primary schools (26% of all primaries); Roman Catholic schools the most numerous type of faith school at secondary level (9%). Non-Christian schools were very much in the minority; there were 47 Jewish, 23 Muslim, 10 Sikh and 4 Hindu schools at the start of September 2014. While the number of Christian schools has fallen slightly since 2007 the number of non-Christian schools has increased. Between January 2007 and September 2015 the number of Jewish schools increased by 10, Muslim schools by 14, Sikh schools by 7 and all the Hindu schools have opened since 2008.

(House of Commons briefing paper Number 06972, 14 October 2015)

Plus for the non-faith schools -

collective worship organised by a county or equivalent grant-maintained school is to be 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character'.

but when it comes to the schooling of one's children many people become conservative. former raving socialists will put their children into private school, liberals on about meritocracy will have their children expensively tutored for the 11+, die hard atheists will jump through hoops to get their kids into a faith school. whatever one's ideology children have a way of making people suddenly less risk averse and more amenable to conservatism.

I can remember as a teenager when I began to lose my faith objecting to the biblical sheep/shepherd metaphors. I'll decide for myself thank you very much....... The whole western individualism things is very significant I think. There's obviously a balance to be got between questioning for the sake of it and being a pain in the neck and never daring to question authority figures.

For all we're 'social animals,' living in a community is difficult. The religious leaders clearly recognised that. I sometimes think we have an uneasy combination of state 'interference' the like of which we've never seen before and the 'cult of the individual'. And yet, western individuals seem to suffer from low esteem despite our individualism. The culture of not-bragging, being self-deprecating, over-apologising, feeling guilty about doing things for ourselves. I had a light bulb moment thinking about the Buddhist maxim that we are all equally deserving of happiness. Yet that should go without saying! Through my foray into the 'religion' of Buddhism I've become more assertive, despite the uncomfortable realisation that I'm not as 'nice' as I thought I was.

I share your concern that religions can be behind the times and conservative. And yet religions remind us not to be judgmental.....

x-posted

The English education system in the early 21st century is a pretty small subset of 'human progress', though.

I get depressed when people dismiss religion as having nothing to offer or being wrong therefore having nothing to offer.

It's hard to discuss because people of no faith often don't have a deep understanding of any faith. (not always the case) Whereas people of faith are people of faith so they're biased. It's hard to find a middle ground.

Then there's the divide between those people who seem to worship, without realising it, science and logic or rationality. You can't argue with someone who feels that science is the only arbiter. They themselves dismiss even the idea of spirituality as tosh so there's an insurmountable barrier.

Eg some vegans strongly feel that it's wrong to eat sentient beings. I know someone who says she could no more eat a beef burger than a baby! There's no point trying to argue with her. She has a strong feeling of care for all living beings. Not that she's impeding human progress of course and it's better for the environment to be a vegetarian or vegan.

There's no pleasing you Jassy!

Historically most people were religious! Engineers, scientists, medics.....

"Historically most people were religious! Engineers, scientists, medics....."

What would have happened to them if they had said publicly that they weren't?