Ethics of faith schools

[Dagobahn Eagle]

"Faith schools", or "sectarian education" as Richard Dawkins, among others, put it, are, as we all know, schools that teach with a pro-mythology bias. This in itself is not too bad, although it goes against my thoughts on how children should not be taught religion until they're old enough to question it. What I hold a grudge against is that we've got schools where kids are, quite simply and frankly put, lied to. They're among other things being told the Earth is only a few thousands of years old, that evolution is an unproven hypothesis, that AIDS is punishment for Sin, that homosexuality is an abomination, and that the Ark myth was a real historical event. There was even a case in the news some time ago about a faith school that refused to let a girl enroll there as her parents were lesbians.

 

My question is: Should this be permitted? Should it be legal to outright lie to kids this way? Is it morally justifiable to bar an innocent child from your education facility because her parents' sexual preference doesn't fit your world-view?

 

If I was to start an elementary school and teach the kids from the beginning that Bush and his administration is repulsive, that abortion should be allowed, and that children of Republicans should not be allowed to enroll, how long would the school last?

 

I personally strongly dislike the idea of mis-educating students based on mythological doctrine, and I do not believe anyone, private or communal, secular or mythology-worshiping, should be allowed to turn away students based on such trivialities as their parents' sexual preferences. What do you think?

[Samnmax221]

There was even a case in the news some time ago about a faith school that refused to let a girl enroll there as her parents were lesbians.

Thankfully none of these Schools are operated by the Government(In the western World at least, they are private and should be allowed to bar the door to anyone they want to. She's better off anyway in my opinion.

 

My question is: Should this be permitted? Should it be legal to outright lie to kids this way?

Free Religion is one of the basic Human Rights, I don't think the government should be allowed to shut down "peaceful" religious institutions, if they start torturing or killing anybody thats a whole different matter.

 

I personally strongly dislike the idea of mis-educating students based on mythological doctrine, and I do not believe anyone, private or communal, secular or mythology-worshiping.

If the school doesn't **** them up, their parents who sought to put them in such a School will.Think Prussian Blue. I don't however imply that Home Schooling is inherantly bad, just that abuse of the privilege is.

[Samuel Dravis]

In Texas, private schools and homeschooling is not regulated in any way by the state. The only requirements are that you teach reading, spelling, grammar, math, and good citizenship.

 

If people want to pretend to educate their kids, let 'em. I expect that the kids will get the picture soon enough. If they don't, others will make it quite clear. Like today, when I gave a speech on why Intelligent Design isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science classrooms. This was to a group of people my college, many of whom probably believe it to be true. If they're offended they're either going to see reality or they're not. They might not be able to stop their parents from badly educating them, but they don't have to let it continue when they're old enough to decide for themselves.

[Q]

If I was to start an elementary school and teach the kids from the beginning that Bush and his administration is repulsive, that abortion should be allowed, and that children of Republicans should not be allowed to enroll, how long would the school last?

Aside from not allowing Republicans to enroll, there are thousands of such schools in the US today. They're the ones run by the government. And don't forget about telling the kids that childhood sex is OK, just as long as they use a condom.

 

This in itself is not too bad, although it goes against my thoughts on how children should not be taught religion until they're old enough to question it.

Not an unreasonable view at all. I started questioning religion at quite a young age myself (<10), much to the chagrin of my religious fanatic control freak of a mother. Maybe the public schools could hold off on the brainwashing crap that they teach until the kids are old enough to question it? I didn't think so. They use the same tactics that religion does, don't they? Hmm...

 

@Samnmax: Prussian Blue. Damn, that is some scary sh!t!

[Jae Onasi]

In Texas, private schools and homeschooling is not regulated in any way by the state. The only requirements are that you teach reading, spelling, grammar, math, and good citizenship.

If people want to pretend to educate their kids, let 'em. I expect that the kids will get the picture soon enough.

 

Homeschooling is not an easy undertaking. My stepsisters have both done it because they felt the schools in their towns were awful and/or too violent. My sister homeschooled her daughter through kindergarten because of school transportation issues in a half-day kindergarten situation. One of my friends homeschooled her son for several years because he has ADD and needed more one-on-one time to learn than a public school teacher would be able to provide in a 25-student classroom. A couple of my church friends homeschool because they are uncomfortable with the prevailing philosophies of the principals, teachers, or entire system in which their children would be attending and they want faith to be a part of their childrens' lives. In all their cases, it required a big commitment of time and work.

 

I couldn't do it--I have to work because I have too many student loans still, and I'd probably go a little batty if we were all in each other's hair all day long for school, because I need a certain amount of adult conversation. I can only deal with so much Captain Underpants.

 

There are lots of great homeschool curricula out there, much more than even 5 or 10 years ago, and some do schooling via satellite. Some of the curricula is actually superior to what is being taught in my school system (which is a good system). The A-Beka math materials do a better job than what my kids are getting in school right now--I may pick up one of the modules and do some work with my kiddos over the summer. There are a number of homeschool groups that get together for social activities like sports, music, field trips, and so forth.

 

The biggest advantage to homeschooling is that it's far more personal and can be tailored to that individual child. If I were homeschooling my son, I'd give more time to math than what he's currently getting in school because it's not his strong suit. Because he's so far ahead in reading, he actually doesn't need to spend quite as much time on that as the teacher has to for some of the other kids who aren't as strong in reading as he is. He'd be able to do other things (e.g. the extra math) with the time he'd save not having to do some of the reading busywork that he currently does.

 

The programs are successful--a number of homeschooled kids go on to college, and I believe it's in significantly higher numbers than public/private school kids, but I'd have to look that up for sure to get the right stats.

 

For subject matter in private schools--it's a free country with freedom of religion. The private schools barring the children of lesbians were not receiving any public funding and had a right to set their own standards, including excluding homosexuals, whether or not we agree with those stances or find them distasteful or not. If we want to embrace freedom of religion,, the price is that sometimes we're stuck with tolerating the presence of some flaky religious things in our country, too. I can live with that (providing they aren't doing something violent or destructive) in order to worship the way I want.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If the school doesn't **** them up, their parents who sought to put them in such a School will.

Very likely. Hearing a different opinion at school can go a long way towards negating such things, though.

 

If people want to pretend to educate their kids, let 'em. I expect that the kids will get the picture soon enough. If they don't, others will make it quite clear.

Then why are there so many Creationists, bigots, and young-Earthers out there? When are people going to "make it quite clear" to the Prussian Blue duo?

 

Aside from not allowing Republicans to enroll, there are thousands of such schools in the US today. They're the ones run by the government. And don't forget about telling the kids that childhood sex is OK, just as long as they use a condom.

 

Maybe the public schools could hold off on the brainwashing crap that they teach until the kids are old enough to question it? I didn't think so. They use the same tactics that religion does, don't they? Hmm...

It's OK when we do it:p.

 

Seriously, though: Indeed, and many of the things they teach should be held off until older age. I'm not against teaching ethnical tolerance, for example, to six-year olds. You have to get them before the Nazis and homophobes and whatnot do. But there are certain things out there that could be better left to higher grade levels.

 

For subject matter in private schools--it's a free country with freedom of religion. The private schools barring the children of lesbians were not receiving any public funding and had a right to set their own standards, including excluding homosexuals, whether or not we agree with those stances or find them distasteful or not.

But should they be allowed to?

 

Last time I checked, one was not allowed to discriminate against skin colour, were we? Can I start an office firm and bar Latinos and Arabs from employment?

 

If we want to embrace freedom of religion,, the price is that sometimes we're stuck with tolerating the presence of some flaky religious things in our country, too. I can live with that (providing they aren't doing something violent or destructive) in order to worship the way I want.

With all due respect, there are those of us who find denying a girl the right to go to a certain school due to her parents' sexual preference to be very destructive. Likewise with teaching them things that fly right in the face of such things as fact and logic.

 

Thankfully none of these Schools are operated by the Government(In the western World at least, they are private and should be allowed to bar the door to anyone they want to. She's better off anyway in my opinion.

I'm wondering if the Latinos and Arabs I'm barring in the above metaphor would dislike working for me, too, due to my racist views (just for the sake of arguments, I'm not really racist). Does that mean I'm right to add "Mexicans and Arabs need not apply" to my Help Needed ad'?'

[Spider AL]

With all due respect, there are those of us who find denying a girl the right to go to a certain school due to her parents' sexual preference to be very destructive. Likewise with teaching them things that fly right in the face of such things as fact and logic.

I believe that all schools- faith schools or not- should be forced to at least include in their teachings a secular curriculum set out by the state, ie: even a fundamentalist Christian or Islamic school should be forced to teach scientific concepts like natural selection etc.

 

However, I also believe that a private (not a public) school has an absolute right to select its pupils by any criteria it chooses to. Race, sex, religion, shoe size or sexual preferences of the parents.

 

This is because a private school is a private institution and private beliefs and practices are protected by our inalienable civil rights. If I believe (and I do) that people should be allowed to ridicule wierd faiths and wierd antisocial schooling practices, I also have to accept that- technically speaking- people have the right to ENGAGE in those practices. Be they racist, bigoted, ignorant, cultish or self-deluding.

[Samuel Dravis]

I couldn't do it--I have to work because I have too many student loans still, and I'd probably go a little batty if we were all in each other's hair all day long for school, because I need a certain amount of adult conversation. I can only deal with so much Captain Underpants.

You have no idea what my mom has to deal with.

 

There are lots of great homeschool curricula out there, much more than even 5 or 10 years ago, and some do schooling via satellite. Some of the curricula is actually superior to what is being taught in my school system (which is a good system). The A-Beka math materials do a better job than what my kids are getting in school right now--I may pick up one of the modules and do some work with my kiddos over the summer.

I'd be cautious about Abeka's science stuff, especially the lower level kind of thing. They tend to simplify it in the direction of religion. Hardly seems worth the effort to teach if you've got some sort of religious education already, and not doing so stops eventual confusion on what science is. Still, I agree with you on that some materials are better. I did Saxon math most of the time and it worked okay.

 

There are a number of homeschool groups that get together for social activities like sports, music, field trips, and so forth.

Yes, they do. Though with those you can occasionally see someone making their kids wear pilgrim dresses, tuck their shirts in or something. Poor kids!

 

It hardly has to be said that your chances of meeting a fundie drastically increase... they're ok as long as you don't talk about anything sensitive.

 

The biggest advantage to homeschooling is that it's far more personal and can be tailored to that individual child. If I were homeschooling my son, I'd give more time to math than what he's currently getting in school because it's not his strong suit. Because he's so far ahead in reading, he actually doesn't need to spend quite as much time on that as the teacher has to for some of the other kids who aren't as strong in reading as he is. He'd be able to do other things (e.g. the extra math) with the time he'd save not having to do some of the reading busywork that he currently does.

I think I spent about 2-3 hours a day on school a day, sometimes less. That was really nice... sometimes I think public schools are giant daycares.

 

The programs are successful--a number of homeschooled kids go on to college, and I believe it's in significantly higher numbers than public/private school kids, but I'd have to look that up for sure to get the right stats.

You're talking to a college A student here. I am not supposed to be capable of this kind of thing. I didn't even go to a real school (ever)!

[MasterRoss08]

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I couldn't do it--I have to work because I have too many student loans still, and I'd probably go a little batty if we were all in each other's hair all day long for school, because I need a certain amount of adult conversation. I can only deal with so much Captain Underpants.

lol

I think I spent about 2-3 hours a day on school a day, sometimes less. That was really nice... sometimes I think public schools are giant daycares.

Agreed with that and of course being able to do schoole at any time of the day has

it advantages etc.

You're talking to a college A student here. I am not supposed to be capable of this kind of thing. I didn't even go to a real school (ever)!

Bravo to

you dude.

There are a number of homeschool groups that get together for social activities like sports, music, field trips, and so forth.

Yep there is truth there

because I did some sports etc with fellow homeschoolers in my area.

 

I agree with what Spider has to say on this he hit it right on the spot with

rights to do this etc.

 

"Faith schools", or "sectarian education" as Richard Dawkins, among others, put it, are, as we all know, schools that teach with a pro-mythology bias. This in itself is not too bad, although it goes against my thoughts on how children should not be taught religion until they're old enough to question it. What I hold a grudge against is that we've got schools where kids are, quite simply and frankly put, lied to. They're among other things being told the Earth is only a few thousands of years old, that evolution is an unproven hypothesis, that AIDS is punishment for Sin, that homosexuality is an abomination, and that the Ark myth was a real historical event. There was even a case in the news some time ago about a faith school that refused to let a girl enroll there as her parents were lesbians

This is typical bashing of other peoples believes. The goverment wont do anything

on this is because its privately funded and nor should they. These schools dont

go teaching violence and other things that are wrong now do they? So whats wrong

with it?

I would disagree with

these statements

but we both have are own believes on this matter. Most of these complaints you

have stated I and others view dont got proof on. On how old the earth is this is from what we

view is how the world started etc. Its the same with evolution we dont got proof

when it started how old it is etc. we just go by what we think happend etc.

There is nothing wrong with that now is there?

 

On Evolution. We view it as a hypothosis because we view it has it

hasnt been been proven yet to us.

 

On Ark myth is purely stated from what we believe in.

 

Parents enroll there kids

in these schools for teachers to teach there kids what they want them to grow

up to believe in. if they dont want to go believe in whatever faith they were

brought up to be they dont have to. The parents are filling in there role as parents

to give there kids an education for them to be able to live life when its time for

them to go leave there parents household. I find there is nothing wrong to go

teach kids what there parents and others believes in and on how they want there

kids to go and live there life on. I feel as though you brought this up because

in your views you view this as wrong to teach these believes

but others dont and view it as truth.

Which is why its great that you can have private institutions to teach what you

want as long as it doesnt teach kids to do violence and other atrocities to

people.

[Samuel Dravis]

This is typical bashing of other peoples believes. The goverment wont do anything

on this is because its privately funded and nor should they. These schools dont

go teaching violence and other things that are wrong now do they? So whats wrong

with it?

Well, if they say they're teaching science and they don't, there's a problem. It's not something you can just pick and choose what is right and what is wrong. Not teaching science as it is generally accepted by the scientific community is both a disservice to the kid and creates problems for the state; namely, we lose expertise in scientific fields. Whether you agree with evolution & co or not, it can't be argued that it fails to provide a useful tool for understanding the world. Not teaching it because it doesn't provide every answer you would like is also unwise; it's not like science pretends to provide the universal truth or anything. If you have a viable alternative to evolution that is falsifiable, can predict new discoveries, etc, then you're welcome to use that. If you don't have one, however, there's little use in getting rid of evolution until you do. One of those science books that Abeka published devoted an entire chapter to 'debunking' evolution. What they succeeded in is making the entire book untrustworthy; I mean, they even tried to use the second law of thermodynamics as a reason evolution can't make creatures more complex! That's either an deliberate, intentional lie or the person who wrote the book is so sadly uneducated that it's almost laughable.

 

While you can teach whatever you want to, just make sure you're not lying about what you're actually doing. If you don't want to teach science, then don't say you are. If I tried teaching my hypothetical kids in History class that the US never bought Alaska from Russia, would that be appropriate? No, it wouldn't. That wouldn't be History, would it? "Historical fiction" might be a better term. Similarly, the science that is taught by some people would also qualify as "science fiction." Perhaps that would be interesting as a thought exercise, but it is of little practical usefulness. Why would you intentionally cripple your children like that? It seems downright malicious, and it makes me glad that there are standards of performance and knowledge so that this is generally avoided.

[MasterRoss08]

Well, if they say they're teaching science and they don't, there's a problem.

Yes this holds truth here but a private religious school that I went to for

a few years did teach science. Ok it might not have been on when the earth started etc but it was about other important scientific things. That was when i was in 2nd and 3rd grade though so i didnt get into all the big science stuff but still.

 

While you can teach whatever you want to, just make sure you're not lying about what you're actually doing.

Yes i agree with what your saying here but the problem with evolution and

Creationists is that they both believe there right. So now we can go into whos

right? We dont know and probally wont know in are lifetime for sure. We just go

by what we believe in.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yes this holds truth here but a private religious school that I went to for a few years did teach science. Ok it might not have been on when the earth started etc but it was about other important scientific things. That was when i was in 2nd and 3rd grade though so i didnt get into all the big science stuff but still.

As long as it depicts science correctly, there is no problem with injecting your own reasons for why things are the way they are. That's called philosophy.

 

Yes i agree with what your saying here but the problem with evolution and

Creationists is that they both believe there right. So now we can go into whos

right? We dont know and probally wont know in are lifetime for sure. We just go

by what we believe in.

Science is a system that contains fundamental axioms which are crucial to its working correctly. One of these is naturalism, the system of thought in which all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Another is falsifiability. Anything that is inexplicable with natural causes and/or is not falsifiable is simply not science. Easy. Now, if you say you're teaching science and you do not follow the principles that make it useful, what is it you're actually doing? I'd venture to say you're teaching philosophy. While it is surely your prerogative to teach your view of the world, it isn't science, so don't say it is.

 

I've never understood why people have such a hard time with this. What is wrong with teaching science? It's not like it has the plague or anything... science is not necessarily a philosophy, just a way of looking at things, sort of like "is the cup half full or half empty?" What possible rational reason is there to denounce certain bits of it? I just don't get it at all.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What I do have a problem with is pseudo-science being taught as real science in schools. When you teach that evolution is unproven and failing in popularity amongst scientists, that the Earth is five thousand years old, that it's been proven that the Flood and the Ark really existed, and so on, you're overstepping the line.

 

And yes, we do know which is true of evolution and creationism. Evolution is proven, Creationism is mythology. It's really that simple. It's akin to how we know that when certain metals attract each others it's because of magnetism, not spirits.

 

Schools should not be allowed to lie to their students (and with "lie", I also refer to the passing-on of false material believed to be true by the instructor. It doesn't matter to me whether or not the teacher truly believes evolution is false - if he teaches his students it is, he's guilty of lying). They're places of education, read learning, not false religious propaganda.

[Samuel Dravis]

What I do have a problem with is pseudo-science being taught as real science in schools. When you teach that evolution is unproven and failing in popularity amongst scientists, that the Earth is five thousand years old, that it's been proven that the Flood and the Ark really existed, and so on, you're overstepping the line.

I agree. This kind of thing is the reason people think that ID is actually credible as a scientific theory.

 

And yes, we do know which is true of evolution and creationism. Evolution is proven, Creationism is mythology. It's really that simple. It's akin to how we know that when certain metals attract each others it's because of magnetism, not spirits.

You know it within the axioms of science.

 

Schools should not be allowed to lie to their students (and with "lie", I also refer to the passing-on of false material believed to be true by the instructor. It doesn't matter to me whether or not the teacher truly believes evolution is false - if he teaches his students it is, he's guilty of lying). They're places of education, read learning, not false religious propaganda.

I think they should certainly avoid teaching scientifically false things if they're supposed to be teaching science. However, your statement - "false religious propaganda" - is quite close to borderline as well. The whole reason there are still many religions is that they are inherently unfalsifiable, which makes any positive statement about their 'actual' truth impossible to verify. So saying one/any of them is 'wrong' is incorrect. More accurately, someone working from a naturalistic viewpoint can't make an accurate statement about their truth (which is why they shouldn't be taught as science). Attacking someone's nonscientific beliefs with some of your own probably won't work so well at convincing them you're right. There's no need to delve into the "whose mythology is right" morass. Either it's scientific or it's not, and that can be determined fairly easily.

[Jae Onasi]

Evolution is still theory, not absolute fact (to be picky) because none of us can actually go back in time and see it happening. It appears to mesh best with current scientific knowledge, but there are things it still can't explain. Also, bear in mind we can believe sincerely that something is right and be terribly wrong--medical science (among others) has done some 180's on a number of things. For instance, in the late 1800's we were actually using mercury and arsenic as medicines. So I take care to acknowledge that while something in science may look like The One True Way today, it may look like an idiotic thought in 100 years after more research comes out. A hundred years from now, we may have some new, novel explanation for our origins (though I think it's unlikely). There are some things that make sense and don't make sense in the Christian explanation, especially as one approaches the very literalist interpretation of Genesis, just as there is in evolution.

 

The Christian worldview in regards to creation science/ID/evolution is not an either-or proposition. It's really a continuum going from "God got it started and used evolution" all the way to "God did it in 6 literal Earth days and took a break on the 7th," and there's actually quite a range of of philosophies in between (guided evolution, progressive creationism, etc.).

 

I don't object to God being a part of science (seeing as He created it and all), though I'd like to see decent scholarship and not really whacked stuff being taught in Christian schools. The vast majority of science taught in school doesn't dwell on the creation/evolution issue anyway. In 4 years of public high school science, I think I spent an entire day, maybe 2, on evolution. The rest of the time I was learning chemistry or physics formulas or the basics of cells, tissues, and organ/organ systems in biology.

@S. Dravis--I'm not ignoring the evolution discussion, I just got slammed with a brou-ha-ha in my volunteer group and it was very effective at sucking up enormous amounts of time. I will get back to it at some point in the not too distant future.

[Samuel Dravis]

Evolution is still theory, not absolute fact (to be picky) because none of us can actually go back in time and see it happening. It appears to mesh best with current scientific knowledge, but there are things it still can't explain. Also, bear in mind we can believe sincerely that something is right and be terribly wrong--medical science (among others) has done some 180's on a number of things. For instance, in the late 1800's we were actually using mercury and arsenic as medicines. So I take care to acknowledge that while something in science may look like The One True Way today, it may look like an idiotic thought in 100 years after more research comes out. A hundred years from now, we may have some new, novel explanation for our origins (though I think it's unlikely). There are some things that make sense and don't make sense in the Christian explanation, especially as one approaches the very literalist interpretation of Genesis, just as there is in evolution.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Like I said a few posts ago, science doesn't pretend to be the absolute truth. It'd be well if people realized that. Science is not some god to be worshipped, it's a tool to be used. Just because it's imperfect doesn't legitimize ignoring the best science can offer at the moment, however. If you ripped your jeans a little you don't toss the whole thing away because it's 'imperfect.' Definitely when you don't have a new pair...that'd be embarrassing.

 

I don't object to God being a part of science (seeing as He created it and all), though I'd like to see decent scholarship and not really whacked stuff being taught in Christian schools. The vast majority of science taught in school doesn't dwell on the creation/evolution issue anyway.

I had a good chemistry book in HS that mixed the two quite well. It contained a little commentary on God's purpose regarding particular facts, but didn't try to misrepresent the actual science. It of course had the opinion of the guy who wrote it - he didn't believe in evolution - but it was made clear that it was only an opinion. I liked it; far more honest than the Abeka stuff. That being said, I'd rather have science and religion separate; there's no real need to mix them, and I personally like to just learn something new and not waste time on something irrelevant to the course. If you're religious, it's not like you need to be bashed over the head with it continuously to get the picture.

 

In 4 years of public high school science, I think I spent an entire day, maybe 2, on evolution. The rest of the time I was learning chemistry or physics formulas or the basics of cells, tissues, and organ/organ systems in biology.

Which is part of the reason why I find it so strange that people get upset about it. It seems so pointless. What's different about it than any other science that you learn about basics of cells and tissue? Nope, still don't get it.

 

@S. Dravis--I'm not ignoring the evolution discussion, I just got slammed with a brou-ha-ha in my volunteer group and it was very effective at sucking up enormous amounts of time. I will get back to it at some point in the not too distant future.

Whenever. I guess I should let you do something useful instead of arguing with me.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Evolution is still theory, not absolute fact [...]

In scientific jargon, "theory" is not synonomous with "unproven", neither is it a "grade" below "law". A scientific law describes what happens (ie. "When you drop something, it always falls straight down, and always at the same speed), while scientific theories say why (ie. "things always fall in the same direction and at the same speed because [...]"). In fact, in order to become theories or laws in the first place, hypotheses need to be proven.

 

[...] because none of us can actually go back in time and see it happening.

Nor do we really need to. There's enough evidence to safely claim evolution is an accurate description of how life evolved from the single-cell stage.

 

Also, bear in mind we can believe sincerely that something is right and be terribly wrong--medical science (among others) has done some 180's on a number of things. For instance, in the late 1800's we were actually using mercury and arsenic as medicines. So I take care to acknowledge that while something in science may look like The One True Way today, it may look like an idiotic thought in 100 years after more research comes out. A hundred years from now, we may have some new, novel explanation for our origins (though I think it's unlikely). There are some things that make sense and don't make sense in the Christian explanation, especially as one approaches the very literalist interpretation of Genesis, just as there is in evolution.

True.

 

The Christian worldview in regards to creation science/ID/evolution is not an either-or proposition. It's really a continuum going from "God got it started and used evolution" all the way to "God did it in 6 literal Earth days and took a break on the 7th," and there's actually quite a range of of philosophies in between (guided evolution, progressive creationism, etc.).

 

I don't object to God being a part of science (seeing as He created it and all), though I'd like to see decent scholarship and not really whacked stuff being taught in Christian schools.

And I do object to God included in the sciences, as He's got zilch to do with them other than maybe creating the humans that invented the Scientific Method. If God or gods is to be brought up in science, it should be to point out that there's no current way to test their existance and likely that there never will be.

 

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

I think they should certainly avoid teaching scientifically false things if they're supposed to be teaching science. However, your statement - "false religious propaganda" - is quite close to borderline as well. The whole reason there are still many religions is that they are inherently unfalsifiable, which makes any positive statement about their 'actual' truth impossible to verify. So saying one/any of them is 'wrong' is incorrect.

Sorry. Let me rephrase.

 

I'm referring to propaganda, and with that I mean lies, brought forth to further mythological ideals. Such as the lie that the United States is founded on (Judeo-)Christian beliefs, even though Article 11 of The US Treaty of Tripoli states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". More on the Treaty here.

 

To say that the US is founded on Christian beliefs is deliberate rewriting of US History. I can't call it "lying" in all cases as many of the instructors really believe it to be true and as such are not wilfully seeking to misdirect children, but I do not find it morally defendable in either way.

[Razaki]

Well, I feel that before I give my opinion on this matter, I should introduce myself. Apparently I've been a member of this site since 2004, but I really don't remember ever coming to it. Either way, this is definitely my first post, so hello to all of you. Considering this is about schooling and the ethics of private schooling, specifically, I feel like I have a first-hand opinion on the matter. I am 15 years old, first of all. From birth, I was indoctrinated into a fundamental Baptist view of Christianity and enrolled into a Fundamental Baptist Christian school. For about 12 to 13 years of my life, I blindly accepted everything I was taught, as so many people do. The Creationist theories that I was being taught as "science" were certainly my views, and I defended them to the death with all of the so-called "facts" and "rebuttals" to the theory of evolution. I would later realize just how little I knew about evolution.

 

At 13, I moved from my hometown in North Carolina to a small town in Michigan. Nevertheless, I was still enrolled in a private school, albeit a slightly less fundamental one. The same science textbooks were used, however, so there was little change. What I noticed in my own thoughts, however, was doubt. I began to see through what I was being taught, I suppose, and let an until-then unused philosophy called "logic" take over. We moved from our small apartment into another nearby town, and I campaigned heavily for a switch into the public school of the area. I was allowed to go, and that's when everything began to click into place. I learned things about evolution I had never heard of, and it...*gasp*....made sense. It was mind-blowing and went completely against everything I had been taught. With this newfound wonder, I began to tear through information found online and in our textbooks, looking for everything I could find that discussed evolution vs. creationism. I read forum upon forum of discussion, learning from the well-learned people on both sides of the argument. All of that led to the state I am currently in. To me, it is impossible to say that evolution is false. It is the only logical conclusion I can come to, but I am not ready to say that I am athiest or even agnostic. I still cherish my faith, but I am taking the view of "Well, it doesn't matter if evolution happened. God isn't necessarily ruled out." It is difficult to explain my beliefs on science to my family, but it is simply a matter of willful ignorance on their part. Oh well. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

 

 

Now that I am done hijacking the thread, I'll show how this ties in to the discussion. In the years that I was subjected to an education in a private school, I was misinformed. To lie requires knowledge of the falseness of the information, and the reality is that the teachers just DO NOT know the truthfulness of their information. It's quite sad that there are thousands of people that take these ideas on blind faith and never decide to challenge them. Regardless, I believe that there SHOULD be the private educational options due to the establishment of our freedom of religion, but it is something that really should be addressed, even though its likelihood of happening is slim at best. If schools want to teach religion, I'm all fine with that. I don't want Creation out of their textbooks, I want the lies out of them. So often, ID supporters use the argument of "Well, give the children both classes and let them decide." If they want to use this argument, then why should private schools teach both classes as well, presenting them honestly? It's a double standard.

 

Well, I'm tired, so I'm going to close this out here. I've got more to say, but I'll wait for a response. Lastly, however, I'd like to thank all of you for your opinions. This is quite the civilized center of discussion, and I'm pleasantly surprised that I found it while looking up things about KOTOR 2.

I look forward to the responses.