|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Humanism/ists
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
I have been challenged by these lovely people who are coming to a local (Christian) coffee shop to tellus why there should be no unelected members of education boards here in Scotland.
However on looking at their website the majority of their campaigns, present and past, are aimed at attacking religion. Although they would probably deny it they seem to be a subversive atheist group but trying not to look it as they seem to ask AC Grayling, Law, Baggini and others to be their poster boys/girls for their campaigns as supporters.
I know that there are religious humanists and some humanists across the pond want to be legally seen as a religion, and the Amsterdam Declaration hints at it, but I wonder if they actually are? Does anyone have a humanist friend and know what their thoughts are on it? What are your thoughts on it generally?
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
It would be helpful to have the link to look at what they are saying?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
What's the 'it' in 'their thoughts on it'? Being seen as a religion?
[ 15. June 2016, 13:39: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I can't see anything on that page or any of the links that I would disagree with.
I don't think you can really characterise wanting to promote fair representation on committees via democratic election as 'an attack on religion' any more so than wanting a democratically elected House of Lords would be 'an attack on the wealthy'.
I would suggest you might be reading into their statements what you want to see. They state fairly clearly that they want to promote values and practices that are backed up by scientific knowledge and are open to revision based on new knowledge. They state they are explicitly against fixed or dogmatic codes.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
We might need a little more background, like how people are appointed to educational boards etc. Is it only religious people they are against being appointed without election? What kind of 'election' are they talking about and who gets to vote? Are there any other representatives that are appointed rather than elected?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't know about the Scottish system, but in England none of them are directly elected. If it is at the level of general responsibility for schools, the local authority responsible for providing schools chooses some of them from among their councillors, i.e. they have been elected to be councillors but not directly elected to any committee or anything that runs schools. The church representatives are there to represent the providers of the church schools that are part of the local authority school system, not the electorate or the parents. If it is the governors of the actual schools themselves, they aren't elected either. So I'm not sure I can see what the basis is of their argument.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
Enoch - That was my first thoughts on them, but scratching the surface reveals that they supported the atheist bus campaign and "Good without God" campaign. If I were going to get a bee in my bonnet about unelected representatives I would have started with the HoL.
quetz - Yes
Macrina - I see what you are saying about reading too much into it, I`m not the brghtest button in the box, but the Amsterdam Declaration says "Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to." and that "personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility." To me that and calling their members "Adherents" seems to be moving toward a belief system(?)
Fletcher - They are against anyone who is unelected and the majority seem to be from ch. backgrounds. On further investigation I checked my local education board which had more than 3 (6 or 7 iirc) unelected members but I cannot find who is or is not from a faith background.
The HSS website is not easy to navigate and sometimes you end up back at the same page, but I did find that they had listed a few council members and listed things about them that they had found, presumably on the internet, and used it as a straw man.
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I did look up humanism recently because we went to a humanist wedding.
In reality, the only thing I would have a problem with is their claim that there is no God, which they are quite strong on (the British Humanist Society site makes it clear that they reject the supernatural). They are rationalist, which is definitively not where I sit.
Are they are religion? I suppose it depends on what you mean by a religion. They have a set of beliefs, and they are passionate about promoting these beliefs, and challenging those who disagree. So they sound rather like a religion to me. Of course, because they reject the idea of "religion" because that is seen as anti-rational, they have all of the attributes of a religion, if not a faith.
Of course, this is in danger of merging with the Proof of God thread, because there is a lot of debate there about whether it is possible to be rationalist without any faith.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
While Humanists (in the generally accepted meaning of the word nowadays)claim that they are seeking a level playing field for all, their real aim is to banish all forms of religion from the public sphere.
Public schools in Scotland are controlled by local education boards made up of elected councillors. There are , however, also nominees from Churches who sit on the Board, usually at least one from the Church of Scotland and one from the Roman Catholic Church.
Humanists object strongly to the presence of these representatives of the Churches. It is true that the Church representatives are not elected, but rather nominated to represent a religious point of view and in the view of the Humanists to give an unfair advantage to the proponents of outdated religious views.
They further object to the teaching of religion in public schools unless there is absolutely no faith element in the teaching. Their objections extend also to faith based schools which have been freely chosen by parents. Approximately 20% of public schools in Scotland are Catholic schools and there are a few Episcopalian and Jewish schools also.
Humanists object to the celebration of any religious festivals, particularly Christian ones, in public schools.
At weddings or funerals conducted by Humanist celebrants there is always a statement about the fact that there is no religious content to the ceremony.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I did look up humanism recently because we went to a humanist wedding.
In reality, the only thing I would have a problem with is their claim that there is no God, which they are quite strong on (the British Humanist Society site makes it clear that they reject the supernatural). They are rationalist, which is definitively not where I sit.
Yes, in my curious youth, I was a regular reader of the Humanist Magazine and its Canadian sister publication The Humanist In Canada, and they would definitely qualify as anti-religion, at least in the way the word "religion" is commonly understood.
One thing that made them somewhat distinct among anti-religion types was their neo-malthusianism: They were pretty obsessed with population control. Not just the right of individuals to use birth control and limit family size, but the imperative of governments and other organizations to limit the number of people living on the Earth.
I wasn't diametrically opposed to all of their beliefs(though pretty dubious about malthusianism), but I would say that they have an agenda that goes somewhat beyond mere "rationalism" or "valuing the dignity and worth of all human beings"(or whatever lingo they use in their publications.) Personally, they are not a group I'd ally with on a given issue, if there were other options on the same side.
And yeah, judging by the terminology and symbolism of the links posted here, the group in Scotland are part of the same tendency.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
While Humanists (in the generally accepted meaning of the word nowadays)claim that they are seeking a level playing field for all, their real aim is to banish all forms of religion from the public sphere.
Public schools in Scotland are controlled by local education boards made up of elected councillors. There are , however, also nominees from Churches who sit on the Board, usually at least one from the Church of Scotland and one from the Roman Catholic Church.
Humanists object strongly to the presence of these representatives of the Churches. It is true that the Church representatives are not elected, but rather nominated to represent a religious point of view and in the view of the Humanists to give an unfair advantage to the proponents of outdated religious views.
They further object to the teaching of religion in public schools unless there is absolutely no faith element in the teaching. Their objections extend also to faith based schools which have been freely chosen by parents. Approximately 20% of public schools in Scotland are Catholic schools and there are a few Episcopalian and Jewish schools also.
Humanists object to the celebration of any religious festivals, particularly Christian ones, in public schools.
At weddings or funerals conducted by Humanist celebrants there is always a statement about the fact that there is no religious content to the ceremony.
I actually agree with the Humanists on a lot of this stuff. But like I say, if there were other groups taking the same position in the debate, I'd probably check them out first before hooking up with the Humanists.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
While Humanists (in the generally accepted meaning of the word nowadays)claim that they are seeking a level playing field for all, their real aim is to banish all forms of religion from the public sphere.
Public schools in Scotland are controlled by local education boards made up of elected councillors. There are , however, also nominees from Churches who sit on the Board, usually at least one from the Church of Scotland and one from the Roman Catholic Church.
Humanists object strongly to the presence of these representatives of the Churches. It is true that the Church representatives are not elected, but rather nominated to represent a religious point of view and in the view of the Humanists to give an unfair advantage to the proponents of outdated religious views.
They further object to the teaching of religion in public schools unless there is absolutely no faith element in the teaching. Their objections extend also to faith based schools which have been freely chosen by parents. Approximately 20% of public schools in Scotland are Catholic schools and there are a few Episcopalian and Jewish schools also.
Humanists object to the celebration of any religious festivals, particularly Christian ones, in public schools.
At weddings or funerals conducted by Humanist celebrants there is always a statement about the fact that there is no religious content to the ceremony.
I actually agree with the Humanists on a lot of this stuff. But like I say, if there were other groups taking the same position in the debate, I'd probably check them out first before hooking up with the Humanists.
Of course things are very different in the States inasmuch as we (a) do not have an established church, and (b) supposedly have a wall of separation between church and state. I wholeheartedly approve of this state of affairs. I do not want "the church" (which will inevitably mean some strain of conservative evangelical) pushing its agenda in the schools. Not least because I belong to a rather minority (in this country) sect, with whom the religious heavy hitters in this country do not exactly see eye to eye.
But in general I think that when the church and the state get in bed together, eventually it's the church that ends up getting fucked. I think our children should be taught ABOUT religion in publicly-funded schools. I do not think they should be TAUGHT religion.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Stetson - that is interesting - I did not see any evidence of this malthusianism when I checked (briefly - and only for the purposes of understanding where they stood), but it makes sense as part of a rationalist argument.
Going back to their original position, there is a real danger (in the modern political environment that we have) of removing unelected people so that they can be replaced by bought people. What they actually want to do is replace Christian influence with Humanist influence. I doubt that they would admit is as such, but that is what they are really after. They would be as opposed to a strongly religious elected person as an appointed person. And they would, undoubtedly, find equally non-personal reasons.
I suppose it is a little like that other political question in the UK at the moment. I find myself sharing a view with Cameron and Osborne, which grates immensely. But we share this position for totally different reasons. It doesn't mean I would consider aligning myself with then in any greater sense.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
While Humanists (in the generally accepted meaning of the word nowadays)claim that they are seeking a level playing field for all, their real aim is to banish all forms of religion from the public sphere
........snipped........
At weddings or funerals conducted by Humanist celebrants there is always a statement about the fact that there is no religious content to the ceremony.
Apart from the first paragraph, that is pretty much what was said last night. Were you there ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ?
There was an admission, not by Gordon MacRae, that the majority of HSS are atheists, yet GM did not want to admit that. This leads me to wonder why they would need to avoid being labelled as atheistic?
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[QB] Stetson - that is interesting - I did not see any evidence of this malthusianism when I checked (briefly - and only for the purposes of understanding where they stood), but it makes sense as part of a rationalist argument.
I realize you weren't challenging my recollections, but just for the record, here is a more recent example of their support for population control.
There is a bit more emphasis on rejecting coercion and respecting individual rights than I remember from earlier manifestations of the neo-malthusianism. But the underlying analysis is still the same.
And whether or not it qualifies as "rational" might depend on what you think about things like this.
[ 16. June 2016, 08:59: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I haven't had a lot of exchanges with humanists, but from what I have they seemed to fall into one of two camps:
i) people who were not believers but who valued being members of an organisation which had stated values and provided a community
ii) militant atheists who saw it as the best vehicle for themselves to work within
I think the historical formularies of Humanism reflect group i). Maybe you could even say they were drawing on renaissance humanism thought, though as that was strongly Christian in origin some may not like that comparison.
But anyway, just to say that there seems to be a range of opinions within humanism in the UK at least - I have no idea how it goes elsewhere.
Actually, Mrs. B was the executor for an uncle of hers who asked for his funeral to be non-religious (he fell in category i) above) and she used a humanist celebrant. In fact it went well, and he seemed a respectful sort of person, talking to him afterwards. Contra forthview above, no mention was made that there would be no religious content in the funeral ceremony, but I suppose nobody was expecting it anyway.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
They further object to the teaching of religion in public schools unless there is absolutely no faith element in the teaching. Their objections extend also to faith based schools which have been freely chosen by parents. Approximately 20% of public schools in Scotland are Catholic schools and there are a few Episcopalian and Jewish schools also.
Quite right - why should taxpayers pay for children to be indoctrinated?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Is education indoctrination?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is education indoctrination?
Of course. Doctrine is "that which is taught". It's simply a question of determining what you want taught and what you don't want taught.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Yes. The question was somewhat rhetorical to make the point. So the next natural question on from that is do we want to educate our children about something that holds great significance for the vast number of the world's population and their cultures and civilisations?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is education indoctrination?
Only if the information being given as factual truth cannot be independently verified, or if those being educated are not told that the answer to such and such information is 'we don't know', when objectivity is not available.
(Not a good sentence, but I don't think I've doubled the negatives.)
substantiaed by sicnce or by ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And it teaches ABOUT the 6 major world religions plus Humanism
Agreed, particularly with the word 'about'.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
There were some there that were convinced that any taught religious content, in faith schools, was free from reflection and challenge
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
There were some there that were convinced that any taught religious content, in faith schools, was free from reflection and challenge
Self-deluded humanists are as thick on the ground as self-deluded theists. Just about different things.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Strictly speaking, "Religious Humanism" is a religio-philosophical movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th century out of liberal Christianity, liberal Judaism, and academia, and that as originally conceived celebrated human worth and human potential. A typical Humanist motto is "deeds, not creeds." Although it is skeptical of and does not rely on supernatural truth claims, it generally regards religious traditions respectfully as at least a figurative expression of enduring human social and ethical ideals. Over the last century it has been especially influential among Unitarians, and has also spawned its own denomination, the Ethical Culture Society.
More recently, Religious Humanism has tended to become conflated with "secular" humanism, which shares a similar value system, but is more of a socio-political movement, and is generally indifferent to spirituality or religion of any sort. Many atheists who are overtly hostile to religion consider themselves secular humanists.
As a result, there are now some humanist groups whose primary orientation is not so much social ethics as hostility to Christianity and other religions; for them, humanism and atheism are synonyms. However, there are also Religious Humanists who find more that unites them with traditional Christians and Jews than separates them. Some of them, instead of describing Jesus as a human "incarnation of God" or "Second Adam", describe him as the first Humanist, the first human being to exemplify the fullness of human potential. If you can look past the difference in vocabulary (which admittedly might not be easy), the underlying concepts are not that different.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
There were some there that were convinced that any taught religious content, in faith schools, was free from reflection and challenge
Self-deluded humanists are as thick on the ground as self-deluded theists. Just about different things.
Well, having gone to a Catholic "faith school"(called "separate schools" in my home province), I can attest that, indeed, there is a lot of reflection and challenge that goes on in religious instruction, and it's not all just unquestioning absorption of church dogma.
That said, it would be pretty naive to assume that our religion classes taught about Catholicism with the same unflinching objectivity that you'd expect from a truly neutral curricculum. Catholic doctrine on any number of issues was given pride of place, even if we were allowed to raise questions and doubts as to certain details.
And my school was actually one of the more subdued ones. My mother worked at a Catholic school where the students were sent to the gymnasium to watch graphic anti-abortion films, guest speakers came in to talk about the evils of rock music, and one teacher of particularly traditionalist tendencies would deliver lengthy harangues to his class about nuns being raped by republicans during the Spanish Civil War.
(Granted, that teacher was apparently considered a bit of a freak even at that school, and eventually told to knock it off. But still. The fact that he felt at liberty to deliver those tirades in the first place probably tells you something about the environment at the school.)
[ 16. June 2016, 23:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
@ Stetson - Thankfully the Catholic school that I will be working with soon seem to be in the former camp, they are challenging their students to come to the youth group at the church I attend to participate as volunteer leaders and observe/reflect how a different branch of christianity works with young people from both christian and secular backgrounds
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I asked the questions above (admittedly in a rhetorical sense and in the hope it might lead to reflection on the issue) because I've seen this debated a lot here in Ireland. If I can give a concrete example it will hopefully make it easier. It concerns two different areas.
Area One
Area One has an Islamic run school half funded by the Mosque and half by the State. It has an Episcopalian and Roman Catholic and Presbyterian school, also in the same boat. It has two non-denominationally run State schools completely funded by the State. A number of the Christian Orthodox in the area clubbed together to request support for an Orthodox school. The State said 'no' because there were more schools in the area than there were children to fill all the places. In the future it might be a possibility and in the meantime the Orthodox clergy have been invited to take a role in the other faith schools. Despite this, some parents still complain that their children are being indoctrinated and often appear on radio, television and newspapers alongside representation from small atheist and humanist groups to make their point. But their point doesn't stand up in these circumstances which makes many suspicious that there is another agenda at work.
Area Two
This area has one Episcopalian school, two Catholic schools and one State school. There are more children than there are school places. The State has made it clear that the area is too costly for the building of another school. The faith schools have offered a number of solutions; the expansion of all schools (which would lead to partial loss of recreational grounds), a new faith school (half funded by the church so as to offset cost) or a new joint faith school venture (fully funded by both churches). All have been rejected and the faith schools have thus campaigned for another additional State school. Parents meanwhile have complained loudly in the media - especially when it comes to how faith schools select students for admission, complaining that the selection procedure is unfair. They have lobbied the faith schools to become State schools alongside the same small atheist and humanist groups (but I don't really understand how this would make more spaces, which is actually what is needed). There is a very obvious agenda at work that doesn't actually have to do with the realm of education at all
In these two situations outlined and in fact in all similar, there are a whole host of factors at work. If a faith group half funds (or partially funds - I'm not sure how it might work in Scotland) a school, should they not have the right to have a particular ethos? Obviously if this is the case, then a town or village that only has a faith school is a problem, but it's a problem that I believe the State should address in providing choice. Both faith schools and State schools are required to teach religious education that is all encompassing, open to discussion and criticism and with no single religious view presented as 'right' above all others. In a State school assemblies and some events can take place through the auspices of a particular faith. None are discriminated against unless there are very serious concerns about child welfare and indoctrination. Generally speaking, most State schools will have representatives of the faiths available in a particular area.
I would be surprised if anywhere in the UK is much different from this approach, so I fail to see the issue of what the atheist and humanist groups so quickly call 'indoctrination'. I strongly suspect it is little more than the result of a society that loves complaining about anything; especially in areas where there is nothing to complain about and when they do find something valid, they unfortunately complain about the wrong person, with the wrong facts and the wrong assumptions.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Across England in rural areas there will be many communities where the only available school is a Church of England school. This a legacy of the Church's pioneering commitment to education. In many of these schools the church attendance of parents or child will not be an admission criterion which is ever applied. These schools are expected to be distinctively Christian.
In practice this may mean that actual Church attendance may be a requirement for the headteacher. Very commonly she/he and his/her staff will only be expected to be in sympathy to with the ethos of the school.
In terms of ethos, 'distinctively Christian' will probably mean that the school is expected to show how its core values connect with Christian faith (though the values themselves are likely to be similar to those of non-Church schools). The RE curriculum will place most emphasis on understanding Christian faith, but will include one or two other faiths as well.
The school will be expected to demonstrate that its values are embedded across the curriculum, and that the children are helped to understand how the values relate to the Christian story. Collective worship (aka assemblies) will very probably be exclusively Christian, but schools will be expected to show respect for other faiths and no faith.
Evangelism/proselytisation will be very much out of place. The expectation will be that if Christian faith commends itself at all it will be through its inherent value.
Humanists are likely to find it objectionable because it operates on the basis that the religious dimension is an important part of life, rather than a kind of mental clutter which impedes clear thinking, and gets in the way of a genuine search for truth.
IME Church schools work hard to encourage children to think about what values they hold and why they hold them, and to understand why the particular values the school emphasise are important from a Christian POV.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I wonder whether this could be extended to any kind of spirituality, particularly if the current target, religion, were excluded altogether from any teaching, other than in an historic sense (which from conversation seems to be the only acceptable possibility to campaigning humanists).
Is there any proof that there is such a thing as spiritual welfare?
Might schools teach such practices as meditation, for example, without accusations of indoctrination?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
BroJames wrote:
quote:
IME Church schools work hard to encourage children to think about what values they hold and why they hold them, and to understand why the particular values the school emphasise are important from a Christian POV.
Yes, but...
quote:
Area One has an Islamic run school half funded by the Mosque and half by the State. It has an Episcopalian and Roman Catholic and Presbyterian school, also in the same boat. It has two non-denominationally run State schools completely funded by the State. A number of the Christian Orthodox in the area clubbed together to request support for an Orthodox school. The State said 'no' because there were more schools in the area than there were children to fill all the places.
(^Fletcher Christian)
Were I an Orthodox person in that area, I might find it a bit of an affront that my faith was deliberately excluded from being able to present its own version of the "Christian POV" in schools, while Episcopalians, Catholics, and Presbyterians got ushered into the club. Regardless of how thoughtful and accomadating those latter POVs were.
[ 17. June 2016, 19:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Ah, but the State was clever. They said; 'No' and 'Not yet'!!
I supported them in their campaign for the school, but it didn't make a lot of sense geographically. All of the children it would have catered for lived well outside the area. The fact that they didm;t have to buy a city centre site was a major factor initially. There would have been a major issue in respect of transport links for a start though. As time went on the Russians threw their weight about and decided that the Indian Orthodox didn't quite cut the mustard on the Orthodox level and the Romanian Orthodox Patriarch seemed to smile too much and be far too jolly for Russian sensibilities; but that's a whole other story.
Thanks BroJames for the explanation of UK schools.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
BroJames - excellent summary ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
I have only just spotted this post – probably ought to peek in more frequently.
Also – I haven’t read all posts so hope I’m not duplicating too much.
Full Disclosure – I represent the British Humanist Association (BHA) on our county Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education (SACRE). As this is an English county the following does not necessarily apply to Scottish practice.
1 - From the –BHA website Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same
2. For me atheism is the absence, due to our perception that there is neither need nor evidence to confound us, of belief in god(s).
Clearly that can be taken further, many of us are unable to overcome our, as we see it, rational objections to the specific god(s) that we are assured really, really do exist. That is not atheism; it is the belief that a particular god(s) concept is not rationally possible. Humanism, as described above, is a further, positive, step beyond atheism, it is concisely described as a non-faith world view.
Many Humanists, like many religious people, volunteer in local hospitals/hospices, help out at foodbanks, financially support organizations whose work they cherish, keep charity shops operating and go on international trips with relief that improves the lives of others. Humanists do these things because they think it is “right” that they should, reward and/or punishment is not relevant, any sense of obligation is that of an obligation to humanity rather than to a “higher power”
3 - The SACRE makes it clear in published documents that RE is about developing pupils’ skills, understanding and knowledge – that it should encourage them to learn from the materials which they encounter. This is specifically in opposition to the idea that pupils should be taught about a particular religious ideology.
4 – The SACRE consists of four voting blocks
a) people invited by the County Council (CC) as representatives of religious groups active within the county
b) people representing the CofE as approved by the local Bishop
c) representatives of recognised teaching unions
d) elected members of the County Council
Within each group each individual has a vote, the group’s vote is cast in line with the majority of individual votes.
We have full group members representing, for example, LDS and Baha’i – they have the same vote as the lovely catholic nun. As a co-opted member I have no vote, in fact I am not supposed to speak in the run up to a vote. Based on the almost unanimous opinions of the SACRE’s members attending a recent meeting it may be that the CC will invite the BHA to suggest a representative to be admitted to group a above. Some dozen or so SACREs already include Humanist reps as full members – some indeed have acted as chair and/or vice-chair – whilst others determinedly rule the majority of parents’ non-observance as irrelevant to their children’s education.
5 – There appears to have been a backlash against humanism recently. Government went back on its plans to allow humanist celebrants to conduct weddings without the need for a registrar – this may a response to the obvious waning of religious involvement in marriage in Scotland where more people are being married in humanist celebrations than in RC churches.
6 – It is possible to make an excellent case against any involvement of religious considerations in education other than as an academic “comparative” subject. The place for the teaching of religious preferences is in the home and/or non-state funded (though state controlled in terms of suitability of staff, premises etc.) additional (weekend?) schools. A lot of people who are sanguine about the CofE’s determined assault on the control of English education (We can use the opportunities that church schools provide more effectively for the mission of the Church, and in particular the contribution that our church schools can make to spiritual and numerical growth". Bishop of St Albans, at Church of England Synod) might change their attitude if the majority faith were to change.
[ 28. June 2016, 00:16: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
"From the –BHA website Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who: trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)..."
"Has come to mean" if you're an atheist/agnostic member of the BHA,perhaps, but that is by no means a full or accurate definition of humanism. It is, perhaps, a reasonable definition of Secular Humanism and I can't help but feel that the Secular Humanists have a bit of a cheek appropriating the word for their own use and denying it to all others!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"From the –BHA website Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who: trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)..."
"Has come to mean" if you're an atheist/agnostic member of the BHA,perhaps, but that is by no means a full or accurate definition of humanism. It is, perhaps, a reasonable definition of Secular Humanism and I can't help but feel that the Secular Humanists have a bit of a cheek appropriating the word for their own use and denying it to all others!
Prefer the Oxford Dictionary?
Definition of humanism in English:
humanism
Pronunciation: /ˈhjuːmənɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
1A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
or how about Chambers paperback
humanism noun a set of ideas about or interest in ethics and mankind, not including religious belief.
Like many words an occasional variation is recorded - I suggest that common usage supports the BHA's interpretation.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I trust to the scientific method to tell me how the world works. Clearly this criterion is not sufficient, if perhaps necessary.
Are there people who reject the supernatural yet don't trust the scientific method to tell them how the world works? Who would they be, then?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Prefer the Oxford Dictionary?
<snip miscoding>
1A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
"Attaching prime importance to X rather than Y"
and
"Rejecting Y"
Aren't even close. The OED does not support your definition.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I trust to the scientific method to tell me how the world works. Clearly this criterion is not sufficient, if perhaps necessary.
Are there people who reject the supernatural yet don't trust the scientific method to tell them how the world works? Who would they be, then?
Well, for a while in the '90s, there was a feminist tendency that rejected the scientific method as patriarchal(or something), and advocated that it be replaced by some other form of inquiry.
I read a newspaper article by a woman advocating this position. She tried to outline what the new and improved feminist science would be like, but it was kind of vague. Something to do with relying more on subjective experiences, but even then, it wasn't very clear.
I would think most of the people who took this position would be the kind who also rejected the supernatural. Though I'd imagine some of them were into goddess-worship and whatnot.
[ 29. June 2016, 18:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
[QB]Prefer the Oxford Dictionary?
Although the fuller entry from the Oxford Dictionary it to be preferred, and that from Chambeers too come to that, not to mention some understanding of historical and cultural context.
Although secular humanism has taken centre stage in current usage, the existence and importance of both religious and renaissance humanism as part of the same movement of thought should not be lost. Not all humanisms are ant-theistic.
[ 29. June 2016, 19:08: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, for a while in the '90s, there was a feminist tendency that rejected the scientific method as patriarchal(or something), and advocated that it be replaced by some other form of inquiry.
I read a newspaper article by a woman advocating this position. She tried to outline what the new and improved feminist science would be like, but it was kind of vague. Something to do with relying more on subjective experiences, but even then, it wasn't very clear.
I would think most of the people who took this position would be the kind who also rejected the supernatural. Though I'd imagine some of them were into goddess-worship and whatnot.
I had quite forgotten about them. I hope they got better.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"From the –BHA website Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who: trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)..."
"Has come to mean" if you're an atheist/agnostic member of the BHA,perhaps, but that is by no means a full or accurate definition of humanism. It is, perhaps, a reasonable definition of Secular Humanism and I can't help but feel that the Secular Humanists have a bit of a cheek appropriating the word for their own use and denying it to all others!
Prefer the Oxford Dictionary?
Definition of humanism in English:
humanism
Pronunciation: /ˈhjuːmənɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
1A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
or how about Chambers paperback
humanism noun a set of ideas about or interest in ethics and mankind, not including religious belief.
Like many words an occasional variation is recorded - I suggest that common usage supports the BHA's interpretation.
I think that is probably true, as far as common usage is concerned. History students need to know that when Erasmus and co. self identified as humanist they meant something else.
Of course, some eminent atheists have been 'anti-humanist' but it's fair to say that this is also one for the academy, as well.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
