Print
Onward Christian teachers?
by AC Grayling, Guardian
Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2007/11/onward_christian_teachers.html
A new report exposes the influence of Christianity in our schools and universities and the consequent religious skew in education
Facts do not always speak for themselves, but they can sometimes shout. In a speech not long ago the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted the saying, "teaching children is like engraving in stone", meaning that what is learned early is what sticks. It is therefore relevant to note that 33% of all primary school teachers in England, and nearly one in five of all secondary school teachers, receive their teacher training in Church of England colleges. There are 4,470 Church of England primary schools - 80% of the country's Church of England schools are primary schools. There are 2,300 Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales. In Scotland, Catholic schools are wholly funded by the government. There are 16 "faith led" institutions of higher education (is this not an oxymoron?) in England and Wales, between them admitting over 100,000 students a year. (Most of these institutions are now called "universities" according to the new definition of what counts as such, viz that it has more than 4,000 students and awards "degrees" - this latter word being a homonym of a term that used to denote something rather different in quality and status. If you think this a tendentious remark, consider the following fact: that 0.28% of students who take the international baccalaureate achieve the highest marks possible in that examination, whereas over 25% of students who take A-levels achieve three A grades. Something spectacularly fishy there; and the fishiness feeds all the way through the system into the newly-described universities and the degrees they award.)
The facts about Church of England institutions of higher education are reported in the absorbing and troubling "Christian Universities: A report into the Higher Education Institutions founded by the Church of England" prepared by Joe Gladstone for the National Secular Society. He tells us that in these institutions more than half the governing body is appointed by the church, that the chancellor of each has to be a communicant member of the church, and that each has to have a Church of England chaplain. All the mission statements of these institutions make reference to their "Christian foundation" and state their aim as "service, worship and the serious study of Christianity". Gladstone adds: "All the institutions have committed to the Engaging the Curriculum project which has aimed to make available ideologies of Christian faith into subjects where there was none before." And he further adds, quoting a Church of England publication entitled The Way Ahead (pdf), "Although there are many statements of inclusivity found in the universities' literature, they also make sure their chaplaincies ensure that worshipping Christian communities lie at the heart of the colleges, and that all institutions offer a Christian influence to all staff and students".
Apart from the intrinsic objectionability of religious skewing of education - and, to add deep insult to injury, education funded by the taxpayer at that - there is yet another concern: "by [the church's] own admission the student intake [of the Anglican universities] has now broadened due to wider course choice so that practising Christians [are] probably in the minority (The Way Ahead, p68)" - which means that the church has the opportunity to use a largely state-funded institution to proselytise people of other faiths and none into its own version of the fairy story.
Only imagine if the educational institutions were "Conservative party primary schools" or "Labour party universities" for propagating the outlook and beliefs of each in the young. And what do we think about those madrasas that teach hate and jihad - not just in Pakistan, but here in our midst? If such are not acceptable, why is C of E or RC inculcation of religious superstition in three-year-olds - or 18-year-olds - any more acceptable? Surely not because neither has ever burned anyone at the stake when they were in a position to do so.
Much more might be said. But two other quotations included in Gladstone's report should suffice: "We consider it essential that all those appointed to senior positions in the colleges should be in sympathy with, and willing and able to support, the mission of the colleges as Christian institutions" (The Way Ahead, p70); and "We would go further and so we recommend to the colleges that as a long term policy, the head of the teacher training should be a practicing Christian." (ibid).
Remember that all this Christian teacher training is aimed at religious brainwashing of the young, not least the very young. Without brainwashing of the young, religion would wither and die of its own absurdity. The religions - all of them - depend crucially on recruitment by capturing the minds of children. As a result of it you either have the person for life - Islam's grip is almost always totalising: its votaries are taught that abandoning the faith is punishable by death - or if they rebel for a time in adolescence it will only take divorce, a spell in prison, the death of a loved one, failure or illness, to make some reach for the comfort and support of the tales once told. Odd, isn't it, that someone in psychological need who was indoctrinated with Christianity in primary school rarely becomes a Zoroastrian or a worshipper of the Japanese emperor (nor vice versa): which is proof, were it needed, that it is not the religion but the brainwashing which is at work.
Children should be taught about religion and the various religions as sociological and historical phenomena, and left to make their own minds up, when they have reached maturity, on the merits (such as they are) of the claims made by each. That this simple and indisputable suggestion is anathema to the religions themselves speaks - shouts, screams - volumes about them and what they are doing. And we with our tax money are allowing them to get away with it.
Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2007/11/onward_christian_teachers.html
A new report exposes the influence of Christianity in our schools and universities and the consequent religious skew in educationFacts do not always speak for themselves, but they can sometimes shout. In a speech not long ago the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted the saying, "teaching children is like engraving in stone", meaning that what is learned early is what sticks. It is therefore relevant to note that 33% of all primary school teachers in England, and nearly one in five of all secondary school teachers, receive their teacher training in Church of England colleges. There are 4,470 Church of England primary schools - 80% of the country's Church of England schools are primary schools. There are 2,300 Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales. In Scotland, Catholic schools are wholly funded by the government. There are 16 "faith led" institutions of higher education (is this not an oxymoron?) in England and Wales, between them admitting over 100,000 students a year. (Most of these institutions are now called "universities" according to the new definition of what counts as such, viz that it has more than 4,000 students and awards "degrees" - this latter word being a homonym of a term that used to denote something rather different in quality and status. If you think this a tendentious remark, consider the following fact: that 0.28% of students who take the international baccalaureate achieve the highest marks possible in that examination, whereas over 25% of students who take A-levels achieve three A grades. Something spectacularly fishy there; and the fishiness feeds all the way through the system into the newly-described universities and the degrees they award.)
The facts about Church of England institutions of higher education are reported in the absorbing and troubling "Christian Universities: A report into the Higher Education Institutions founded by the Church of England" prepared by Joe Gladstone for the National Secular Society. He tells us that in these institutions more than half the governing body is appointed by the church, that the chancellor of each has to be a communicant member of the church, and that each has to have a Church of England chaplain. All the mission statements of these institutions make reference to their "Christian foundation" and state their aim as "service, worship and the serious study of Christianity". Gladstone adds: "All the institutions have committed to the Engaging the Curriculum project which has aimed to make available ideologies of Christian faith into subjects where there was none before." And he further adds, quoting a Church of England publication entitled The Way Ahead (pdf), "Although there are many statements of inclusivity found in the universities' literature, they also make sure their chaplaincies ensure that worshipping Christian communities lie at the heart of the colleges, and that all institutions offer a Christian influence to all staff and students".
Apart from the intrinsic objectionability of religious skewing of education - and, to add deep insult to injury, education funded by the taxpayer at that - there is yet another concern: "by [the church's] own admission the student intake [of the Anglican universities] has now broadened due to wider course choice so that practising Christians [are] probably in the minority (The Way Ahead, p68)" - which means that the church has the opportunity to use a largely state-funded institution to proselytise people of other faiths and none into its own version of the fairy story.
Only imagine if the educational institutions were "Conservative party primary schools" or "Labour party universities" for propagating the outlook and beliefs of each in the young. And what do we think about those madrasas that teach hate and jihad - not just in Pakistan, but here in our midst? If such are not acceptable, why is C of E or RC inculcation of religious superstition in three-year-olds - or 18-year-olds - any more acceptable? Surely not because neither has ever burned anyone at the stake when they were in a position to do so.
Much more might be said. But two other quotations included in Gladstone's report should suffice: "We consider it essential that all those appointed to senior positions in the colleges should be in sympathy with, and willing and able to support, the mission of the colleges as Christian institutions" (The Way Ahead, p70); and "We would go further and so we recommend to the colleges that as a long term policy, the head of the teacher training should be a practicing Christian." (ibid).
Remember that all this Christian teacher training is aimed at religious brainwashing of the young, not least the very young. Without brainwashing of the young, religion would wither and die of its own absurdity. The religions - all of them - depend crucially on recruitment by capturing the minds of children. As a result of it you either have the person for life - Islam's grip is almost always totalising: its votaries are taught that abandoning the faith is punishable by death - or if they rebel for a time in adolescence it will only take divorce, a spell in prison, the death of a loved one, failure or illness, to make some reach for the comfort and support of the tales once told. Odd, isn't it, that someone in psychological need who was indoctrinated with Christianity in primary school rarely becomes a Zoroastrian or a worshipper of the Japanese emperor (nor vice versa): which is proof, were it needed, that it is not the religion but the brainwashing which is at work.
Children should be taught about religion and the various religions as sociological and historical phenomena, and left to make their own minds up, when they have reached maturity, on the merits (such as they are) of the claims made by each. That this simple and indisputable suggestion is anathema to the religions themselves speaks - shouts, screams - volumes about them and what they are doing. And we with our tax money are allowing them to get away with it.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 45 of 45 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #87540 by maton100 on November 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Yep. Fear of being admonished keeps many children from leaving the fables. If there was any validity to the bible, you wouldn't have to reinforce it to such an extent. Other Comments by maton100
3. Comment #87544 by BicycleRepairMan on November 12, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Religion : Mind Genocide. Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
4. Comment #87556 by dazzjazz on November 12, 2007 at 12:54 pm
For a brief time, I taught at a so called "Christian College" which offered "degrees" but I couldn't stand the lack of standards (incredibly low entrance requirements) and had to quit. I felt like I was teaching in a sheltered workshop (no disrespect intended). The students were not of Bachelor standard or intelligence and had been admitted because they were deemed to have potential by people who held similarly worthless degrees from other pathetic institutions. THe students were incredibly unmotivated, presumably spending their time praying to jesus for help!Other Comments by dazzjazz
5. Comment #87565 by quill on November 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I doubt ridding British schools of indoctrination would do much to cleanse the population of religious belief. There is no religious indoctrination in American schools (legally, anyway), and yet religion still holds a firm grip on our population.I have long suspected that a revival of religion in the UK would follow swiftly if the British government were to legislate an actual separation of church and state. It seems that one of the reasons the Anglican Church is so relatively complacent compared to American denominations is that they are assured of always having some degree of influence over society via the government. If that were taken away, I think they would be waging a full-scale culture war within a year.
Other Comments by quill
6. Comment #87571 by fides_et_ratio on November 12, 2007 at 1:42 pm
As a Catholic teacher, I couldn't resist. I detected some fishiness in trying to say that degrees are weak because A levels are weak. Degrees may be weaker but not for that reason. More fishiness in the figures about how many teachers receive their training at faith-based institutions, the figures are presumably quoted to prove a point, they prove nothing and are evidence only of their own existence. In a previous school of mine the entire PE dept had received their training at a faith-based college. They used to spend their free-periods trying to knock the crucifix off the gym wall with footballs.Interesting also that the author has chosen to ignore the longstanding Christian tradition of valuing and providing education for its own worth. Some who have benefited from this being Newton, Darwin, Dawkins, Hawkins and anyone else who has walked through the doors of Oxford, Cambridge and many other places.
A disappointing article that makes a mockery of what little evidence it presents, and consequently only succeeds in showing the author's bias in carefully avoiding any earnest search for the truth.
Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
7. Comment #87575 by Mr DArcy on November 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm
In a speech not long ago the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted the saying, "teaching children is like engraving in stone", meaning that what is learned early is what sticks.
Our venerable archbishop is not as dim as he looks. I think it was the Jesuits who claimed something like: "Give us a child until he is seven, and he will be ours for life". The so-called "God gene" is obviously for the survival of young children who HAVE to trust what adults tell them. Without adults around, young humans would just perish. A young antelope develops to maturity much quicker and can run faster in its second day than I ever could.
Humans survive because they are social animals and with co-operation comes strength. The relatively long maturity period of humans allows more time for social interactions and the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next. The fact that a lot of nonsense is also passed on, in no way invalidates the process.
Other Comments by Mr DArcy
8. Comment #87578 by USA_Limey on November 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I am not concerned about the church of bloody england or C of E schools and teachers. I and millions of others went through that system and came out the other side with no faith whatsoever.I am concerned about the Wahhabi Mosques preaching all kinds of hate up and down the land.
Let's focus on the real threat.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
9. Comment #87580 by L.Minnik on November 12, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I see no need for having religious schools in religious societies; there is no justification for having religious schools in societies which are partially secular or of mixed religions.Other Comments by L.Minnik
10. Comment #87587 by BAEOZ on November 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I think the point is religion shouldn't be sponsored by the state. The state has nothing to do with a particular viewpoint. Other Comments by BAEOZ
11. Comment #87590 by Monosilabbiq on November 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Mr fides-et-ratio I hope you are not a christian because that fairy belief says that not being truthful is naughty. What is a catholic teacher anyway? I understand what a Chemistry teacher is !Oxford and Cambridge have a very poor history of open discussion and unbiased discussion of life the universe and everything. In particular they kicked out a student who was sincere enough to write a pamphlet about the importance of being an atheist despite the consequences. Lets not start on their reluctance to admit female students.
The honest view would be that they were both started by benefactors who were convinced by the tooth fairies that endowing a religious college would get them a better seat at the table in the next life. A bit of extra money and they would even employ a bloke to do their praying for them. Education for educations sake - don't make me laugh !
Any person in Britain who wishes to have the very best education should no longer be put off by the exceptionally dubious reasons why the oldest universities were funded. Go to Oxford and Cambridge and follow in the student body's history of applying skeptiscism and original thought to the subjects that matter - i.e. not theology
Other Comments by Monosilabbiq
12. Comment #87602 by John Frum on November 12, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Youre right on it there USA-Limey. Islam is a bigger threat to free thought. Its horrible.They get em VERY young indeeed and there's not many make it through.
Other Comments by John Frum
13. Comment #87619 by notsobad on November 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm
"Children should be taught about religion and the various religions as sociological and historical phenomena, and left to make their own minds up, when they have reached maturity, on the merits (such as they are) of the claims made by each."Indeed, but it's a long line of indoctrination, which is sometimes hard to stop.
Other Comments by notsobad
14. Comment #87622 by Elcristoph on November 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Children should be taught about religion and the various religions as sociological and historical phenomena, and left to make their own minds upEXACTLY, couldn't have put it better myself..
chris
Other Comments by Elcristoph
15. Comment #87626 by Teratornis on November 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm
In reply to comment #87539 by Silent.Bomber:
I really think that once the element of religious indoctrination is removed from schools, religions will lose the power that they hold over so many of us.
I think eliminating religion will take a bit more than that. For example, what about the similarly large formative influences of parents, churches, and peers? From what I vaguely recall of my earliest education, it was largely secular, but I was easily brainwashed to believe in Biblical literalism, Pentecostalism, Young Earth Creationism, etc., from the extracurricular church culture I was exposed to for years. (I later rejected my brainwashing after learning to read and think independently of my earlier peers and authority figures.) Making school secularly neutral by no means makes the students who attend it secularly neutral. But I do agree that making school secularly neutral is a useful first step.
I think it's important, however, not merely to teach children to recite atheism as fact, because what children really need to learn is critical thinking. Children need to understand the importance of knowing why you believe what you believe, and knowing when to be cautious about forming hasty conclusions before all the evidence is in.
Children need to learn that belief is one of the nastiest tricks our minds can play on us. Illustrating this with examples of optical illusions can be revealing. Children should see that something can seem to be overwhelmingly true, yet turn out to be completely false, and thus the intensity with which we believe something tells us nothing about whether it is true.
Other Comments by Teratornis
16. Comment #87630 by Theocrapcy on November 12, 2007 at 4:14 pm
"Interesting also that the author has chosen to ignore the longstanding Christian tradition of valuing and providing education for its own worth."But that is NOT the whole truth, is it fides-et-ratio? Christian groups, churches, faith schools, etc, don't do something just for the sake of it, there is always a driving motivation - to spread the word. If it wasn't for wanting to convert, preach, proselytise, morality-bash, or attempt to mind-fuck anyone vulnerable enough to receive it, very little would be done by the church at all.
If you want talk about the truth and honesty, then start to admit some basic facts about your religious institutions.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
17. Comment #87636 by Bonzai on November 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Christian groups, churches, faith schools, etc, don't do something just for the sake of it, there is always a driving motivation - to spread the word
Many do use good work as a cover to recruit, but not *always*. I know Christians who do charity work without string attached. In my city there are Church run soup kitchens which just feed the homeless, no preaching.
While religion is not necessary for human goodness, they are not mutually exclusive either. It is simply not true that all religious people are motivated by the desire to go to heaven and avoid hell to do good. This is a caricature based on the crassest evangelicals, it doesn't generalize. Give people some credits.
Atheists should not try to score cheap points with overgeneralized stereotypes which mirror the "what about Stalin" argument used by religious apologists against them. It only makes atheists look dogmatic and uninformed.
Other Comments by Bonzai
18. Comment #87639 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm
fides et ratio: Interesting also that the author has chosen to ignore the longstanding Christian tradition of valuing and providing education for its own worth.What you need is "Bathwater No Mo!" Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water. It's guaranteed to remove useless and sometimes harmful things like "Christian tradition" while retaining worthwhile items like "education."
Send check or money order for $19.95 to Doc Benway's Emporium. Ask for "Bathwater No Mo!" You'll be glad you did.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
19. Comment #87640 by eccles on November 12, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I have just finished reading Dan Dennett "Breaking the Spell". Like Richard Dawkins whom he often quotes he is against brainwashing kids into religion before they are old enough to know what it is all about. Kids early education should not have any religion until they are taught simple science so they will know that there is no God, no Creation. Then they can be taught about the different religions in a way that does not claim that any of them is based any any facts, that they are no different from any fictional stories. I am horrified when parents give their kids bible story books and claim they are true. They are no different from "Harry Potter".
Other Comments by eccles
20. Comment #87643 by Cartomancer on November 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Please don't get me started on the origins of the Universities Oxford and Cambridge... Other Comments by Cartomancer
21. Comment #87652 by Dr Benway on November 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Ooo sounds interesting Cartomancer. Other Comments by Dr Benway
22. Comment #87675 by Cartomancer on November 12, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Just another version of my usual spiel about the state of learning in the Middle Ages. Nothing worth missing a cup of tea for... Other Comments by Cartomancer
23. Comment #87676 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm
the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted the saying, "teaching children is like engraving in stone"what a terrible description of how children learn to think!
Oh.
Wait a minute.
I guess that's not what they have in mind......
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
24. Comment #87698 by SMART on November 12, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Indoctrinating children into a religion is child abuse and it must be ended. http://www.smartsociety.org/religiousschoolschildabuse.htmlOther Comments by SMART
25. Comment #87709 by flying goose on November 12, 2007 at 11:29 pm
In the God Delusion RD writes about the secular but very religious US. So does Jonathan Miller on another part of this site. RD compares it with the not very religious UK with its eatablished church. Law of unintended consequences, be careful what you wish for. I can't help noting that Grayling is a Public School Boy. Then Oxbridge. Me, I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth, C of E Infant and Junior and a bog standard comprenhensive. My point I think that snobbery can also be incalcated in the young at a very early age. Ban all private education now. It gives the rich the right to buy 'better' education where their children are taught to look down on everybody else.( I am sort of joking.)
Other Comments by flying goose
26. Comment #87739 by gcdavis on November 13, 2007 at 2:18 am
fides_et_ratio
A disappointing article that makes a mockery of what little evidence it presents, and consequently only succeeds in showing the author's bias in carefully avoiding any earnest search for the truth.
Your moniker says it all Faith and Reason, try as you will they will never be reconciled. There is only one way to search for the truth and that is by assembling evidence, when you invoke faith you are lost to reason.
Other Comments by gcdavis
27. Comment #87776 by elfinabout on November 13, 2007 at 4:46 am
Monosilabbiq - fides_et_ratio is indeed a christian apologist forum troll. Click the link under his post to see his other postings - all the usual unsubstantiated waffle, accusations of others being illogical/unscientific, etc. - all with the usual failure to recognise the irony in what he says. I really wouldn't bother. Other Comments by elfinabout
28. Comment #87777 by Luthien on November 13, 2007 at 4:47 am
25. Comment #87709 by flying goose on November 12, 2007 at 11:29 pm
...I think that snobbery can also be incalcated in the young at a very early age. Ban all private education now. It gives the rich the right to buy 'better' education where their children are taught to look down on everybody else.( I am sort of joking.)
Joking or not, I think you are right. The only way to ensure that all "public services" are maintained to the highest standard is to make sure that those responsible for maintaining them actually have to use them. The 2 most important ones being Health and Education.
Other Comments by Luthien
29. Comment #87781 by epeeist on November 13, 2007 at 5:03 am
Comment #87639 by Dr Benway
What you need is "Bathwater No Mo!" Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water. It's guaranteed to remove useless and sometimes harmful things like "Christian tradition" while retaining worthwhile items like "education."
Send check or money order for $19.95 to Doc Benway's Emporium. Ask for "Bathwater No Mo!" You'll be glad you did.
The wee flea isn't about is he? He castigated me for making this remark before.
Dr. Benway is right - its a pyramid selling scheme.
Other Comments by epeeist
30. Comment #87783 by epeeist on November 13, 2007 at 5:18 am
Comment #87709 by flying gooseBan all private education now. It gives the rich the right to buy 'better' education where their children are taught to look down on everybody else.( I am sort of joking.)
I will get the declaration out first - my two daughters went to Withington Girls' School (http://www.withington.manchester.sch.uk/), my wife is a teacher, an examiner and sits on syllabus panels for the QCA.
I have mixed feelings about your statement, mainly because I don't think the state (in the UK) does a particularly good job when it comes to education. It is centralist and tries to micromanage all aspects of the school system. Where it does appear to give some choice it does it without regard to local communities but with a good bit of cosying up to sectional interests (such as the Vardy group in the worst case).
I don't know what the solution is (or more likely - solutions are), I would like to see central government setting standards but leaving implementation much closer to the people who are involved directly.
Get the quality up and many independent schools would disappear, especially those that cater to what a friend of mine refers to the "suet crust" set, i.e. rich and slightly thick. Note - I used to live in the next village to the Beckhams, always referred to as "thick and thin".
Other Comments by epeeist
31. Comment #87830 by flying goose on November 13, 2007 at 9:28 am
I take it back about AC Grayling being a public school boy, Wiki leaves that bit of his education out.However would he be for banning privately funded religious schools? Failure to do so would surely privilege the religious and rich.
On faith schools, I speak with some experiential knowledge, pupil, parent and governor. C of E schools are not really faith schools in the sense that Catholic and Islamic schools are. Indeed the latter two seem to have set up in reaction to the former.
The C of E set up schools during the 19th century with a bit if RI thrown in. But that wasn't their reason for being. It was philanthropic, to provide an education for the poor of the parish.
Other Comments by flying goose
32. Comment #87832 by Silent.Bomber on November 13, 2007 at 9:50 am
Well it was more of an off-the-cuff remark than anything, Teratornis. No it's not as simple as getting rid of the teaching of religous delusions as scientific facts,(regardless of the arguments for a supreme being, that's not relevant) but to aim for that will be a step in the right direction. RD's point about the religious labelling is also very important, a child is no more a Christian than it is a Cartesian. If you think of religion as a thing that is trying to survive, then you can think of what it needs to be here. It needs blind acceptance, it needs the fear of an eternal punishment to make up for its absurdity, it needs the idea that everyone who is not a believer in your brand of religious bullshit is a sinner who needs to be saved, it needs indoctrination through parents, but a crucial part for me (in my opinion) is the spread of religious bull through the education system.
Just listen to McGrath talking about why he is Christian rather than eg. a Buddhist or a Hindu: the amount of crap he spews is incredible. Rather than the fact that he is Christian because that is the major religion of Northern Ireland, as he would be a Muslim if he was born in the Middle East, he genuinely actually thinks that 'Christianity is a culmination of all other faiths' and if he met someone of another equally deeply ingrained religion he would try to persuade them that 'Christianity is a better faith'. It's astonishing really that he could be so clever and yet he cannot spot the stupidity of his own religious belief and ends up sounding like the world's biggest most pretentious tosser when he tries to justify it with rubbish he has invented. That really suggests something of an indoctrination through education to me
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber
33. Comment #87833 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 13, 2007 at 10:00 am
I agree with the general idea of Grayling's last paragraph but would like to point out something I find incongruent in it: On the one hand he suggests that religions should be taught at school as sociological and historical phenomena and on the other hand he suggests that children should make up their own minds about the claims made by each. But sociological and historical phenomena do not make claims; such phenomena are facts of human history. Religions make ontological claims (i.e. claims about how reality fundamentally is) as does atheism, but in order to understand these claims they should be taught as ontological theories. I full heartedly agree then that the ontological claims of both atheism and of the various major religions should be taught at school when children have the sufficient maturity to be able to think critically about them, and that they should be left alone to make their own choices. At the very least the formal teaching of the most important ontological ideas would help people avoid a naive understanding of the issues, and also help people move away from any kind of extremism.Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
34. Comment #87837 by Bonzai on November 13, 2007 at 10:19 am
Ontological theory = verbal masturbation if Dianelos' long winded spams on other threads offer any clue.Other Comments by Bonzai
35. Comment #87838 by thirdchimpanzee on November 13, 2007 at 10:20 am
Danielos wrote:
Religions make ontological claims (i.e. claims about how reality fundamentally is) as does atheism, but in order to understand these claims they should be taught as ontological theories.
How many times do atheists have to point out that having no evidence for god(s) is not the same as stating a particular world view. For example, being atheist does not automatically assign you to being a proponent of "big-bang" cosmology, or multiverses. If Danielos really wants to assert that religion is making ontological claims, then the correct atheistic counterpart is science, which does make ontological claims that explicitly exclude the supernatural.
Leave atheism out of this.
Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee
36. Comment #87841 by epeeist on November 13, 2007 at 10:26 am
Comment #87838 by thirdchimpanzee
If Danielos really wants to assert that religion is making ontological claims, then the correct atheistic counterpart is science, which does make ontological claims that explicitly exclude the supernatural.
Are but science and naturalism can't make ontological claims don't you know ;-)
Other Comments by epeeist
37. Comment #87846 by Cartomancer on November 13, 2007 at 10:37 am
Religion makes ontological claims you say? Really? Wow, the things you learn on here. I must note that down. One moment while I go and get a pen...Obviously it is vitally important that we teach children this wonderful and hard to discern fact of reality. Otherwise they might go through life completely ignorant of the notion that the religious claim that their mumbo-jumbo is true. Children are completely unable to tell when people are making ontological claims otherwise, surely? It's all one long round of sophisticated postmodern meta-discourse with them isn't it? The little tykes come out with some gems eh, like "Henry might have misappropriated the integral context of my self-definition through reclamation of my counter-evidential simulacra of familial inclusivity". Clearly their underdeveloped minds are incapable of seeing the obvious ontological point that dolly is mine, give it back?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
38. Comment #87847 by flying goose on November 13, 2007 at 10:47 am
There may be an unintended consequence of the campaign against faith schools. Many small rural schools are under threat because of the mean mindedness of the government. They want to bus children as young as four, for up to two hours a day, to be schooled in larger towns.Many of the schools under threat are C of E primary schools that are about as indoctrinating as Richard Dawkins' school chaplain.
Closing schools hurts the children and the communities they live in. Please don't give our local authorities any more reasons to close our schools.
Other Comments by flying goose
39. Comment #87920 by philosowizer on November 13, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Agrees with USA Limey and John Frum. I enjoy AC Grayling's articles lambasting Christianity as much as anybody but right now the situation would be best served for everyone to pool their efforts and launch an all out intellectual attack on Islam. In comparison with public stonings, beheadings, floggings, amputations and judicially sanctioned rape; (meaning sharia law) the church of england is almost a straw man argument. Hitch said at one of his talks if you haven't criticized Jihad you haven't criticized religion. The most basic of basic rights are at stake.Other Comments by philosowizer
40. Comment #88003 by kabaman on November 14, 2007 at 5:05 am
philosowizer, I am not sure that the "best served" situations equal the most obviously uncivilised. It is reasonable to assume (I think) that bearing in mind the levels of indoctrination - to the point where people willingly die for a belief, it might be wiser to pick groups of people who's levels of indoctrincation are lower and get some swell/movement. Effectively all levels of indoctrination are not equal and persuading the weakest targets may be a better start than attacking the hardest head on...Just a thought.Other Comments by kabaman
41. Comment #88194 by padster1976 on November 15, 2007 at 7:07 am
Check out -The War for Children's Minds by Stephen Law.http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Childrens-Minds-Stephen-Law/dp/0415427681/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195138978&sr=8-5
Other Comments by padster1976
42. Comment #88361 by Alan B on November 16, 2007 at 7:31 am
It should be noted that, as far the education of children is concerned, none of the Spiritually Illuminated Teachers that are known, appeared to deliberately teach (some would say 'brainwash') young children as part of their Teaching. There seems to be no scriptural authority that religions could call upon to give credence to religious indoctrination of the young. To establish that this is so, one must examine the original teachings of the Spiritually Illuminated Teacher after whom the religion has been named. All other additions to the scriptures that do not originate from this Spiritually Illuminated Teacher are suspect unless they are made by another Spiritually Illuminated Teacher.Other Comments by Alan B
43. Comment #88726 by DavidJMH on November 18, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,Quill's comment is most apropriate, however, in the US, school education in general is of such a low quality that ignorance has become the breeding ground for religious bigotry. This is a deliberate policy not just a simple act of neglect.
Those countries (Britain used to be one of them) where the standard of education was high, religion takes on a more benign approach. The antithesis of this is to be seen in it's extreme in the Middle East and Asia Minor, hence the radical Islamic and Judaic problem today. Britain is headed in this direction and to let this go without serious objection, will turn it's population into a religious orientated ignorant mass in another generation.
Yours sincerely, David J. Millea-Hunt.
Other Comments by DavidJMH
44. Comment #89849 by bored on November 22, 2007 at 12:30 am
Well firstly it may be noted that the CofE basically started the education system as a philanthropy. It started with 'sunday school' where adults could come and learn literacy and numeracy on a sunday because they worked the other 6 days of the week, thus enabling them to get better jobs and better pay for their families. This then progressed into teaching children... We wouldn't be where we are now without this forward thinking.Secondly both my wife and myself are teachers, she primary, i secondary. We both received our teacher training in CofE colleges and there was nothing religious about the course whatsoever!
CofE schools remain CofE schools because the diocese contributes a % of money, which the government, i.e. tax payers would have to contribute otherwise. This is no different from the string of schools that have been recently built using subsidies from wealthy philanthropists who make certain stipulations about how things should be done...
Other Comments by bored
45. Comment #94279 by Louise on December 5, 2007 at 6:39 am
The main reason why Church primary schools are popular in the UK is that tend to deliver better results, children educated at such schools do better in exams, and are more likely (in areas that still have grammer schools, like the one I live in) to pass the 11 plus. That is the reason why many parents prefer them, not because they want to have their children 'brainwashed' into being religious (there is very little religious education in such schools actually), but because they give their children a better education.I doubt the author of this article has to worry about such matters, no doubt he can afford to send his kiddies to Eton or Roedean. For those of us who can't, we don't give a damn about the mild amount of religious education in such schools, we care about the factg that our children are getting a decent education, and have better propsects of a decent secondary education too.
Other Comments by Louise
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"I think it is not helpful to apply Darwinian language too widely. Conquest of nation by nation is too distant for Darwinian explanations to be helpful."
Richard Dawkins
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson
"Group selection of any kind is not Darwinism as Darwin understood it nor as I understand it."
Richard Dawkins
"I want science to be taken seriously, because, after all, it's less ephemeral--it has a more eternal aspect than whatever the politics of the day might be, which, of course, gets the lead in the news."
Richard Dawkins
"...the likelihood is that, in 100,000 years time, we shall either have reverted to wild barbarism, or else civilisation will have advanced beyond all recognition--into colonies in outer space..."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
Kluge
Gary Marcus
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #87539 by Silent.Bomber on November 12, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Absolutely. I really think that once the element of religious indoctrination is removed from schools, religions will lose the power that they hold over so many of us.
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber