Think for a moment... if the government was payingpeople to force your children to sing Muslim religious songs and recite the prayers of those beliefs every morning the public and the papers would be up in arms about such brainwashing...
And what if they preached to your children every morning whether you liked it or not?
The thing is a lot of parents don;t really think about it... they rely on their kids brains overcoming this silliness as a matter of course, but I'll share a little experience from my childhood, maybe it'll ring a bell.
I once got given an essay or lines or something because I refused to sing hymns or recite the lords prayer in assembly. At our lovely school every assembly consisted of hyms, lords prayer the occasional reading of some nonsense meant to be a pointer to our lives and then onto actually relevant stuff like house cricket scores (Hooray for me!). See, the people from other religions didn't have to be in the room when the christian stuff was going on, but being an atheist was, and may well still be, considered tantamount to "dodging out" of part of assembly.
This concept of Atheism being somehow lesser a belief system than, say, Jews who didn't want to say the lords prayer, makes my blood boil even now when I think back. What gives some jumped up German teacher the right to assume relative value of your religious views?
It's probably a result of the authority parents give teachers - you basically say "you teach him" every time you send your kid in. Why wouldn't they think they have the right to teach you your worth, as well as how to say "Ich verstehe nicht"? I will take this opportunity to say "Screw you" to that particular teacher.
Course, I am putting my own beliefs above his. The irony is not lost, believe me.
I will say in my defence I am truly of the opinion that Atheism is the basic state of humanity. No one is born religious, no one. Religion is a result of teaching. There are few who would argue against that. So why was I treated as abnormal when simply displaying lack of successful teaching?
That particular tale of punishment was from secondary school, but almost exactly the same thing occured at my primary schools as well, children being encouraged to join in with Christian ceremonies by people in positions of not just authority but in a position of knowledge and of the teacher. Why would a lot of kids not take this as a lesson, not just a weird ritual?
It went, I recall, as far as a several day lesson in the "meaning" of the Lords prayer, line by line, presented in the same way as the blooming green cross code man!
It's a tricky area I know, because at what stage do we consider those kids capable of making a decision for themselves about this belief system they are being indoctrinated into?
Actually, lets ask that in a slightly different way; At what stage does teaching become indoctrination and at what stage does indoctrination become brainwashing?
Most theistic religions seem to display a couple of similarities
- Our God is the only one OR Our way of worshipping god is the only one.
- Everyone else is wrong.
- We must change their minds
What better time to indoctrinate people than the early years, when they are learning at a ridiculous rate... and what better way to create belief than to present it as so normal you observe it as your first thing EVERY DAY! I recall I went to Sunday school a few times to be with friends, but it didn't work out, probably because I was coming away with more questions than answers.
So when are the gaps... I'd say teaching is showing people things as they are.. natural occurences, laws of physics, languages. Indoctrination is when we are talking about "beliefs" or other constructs like Laws, agreed social niceties etc. Now, this is where it gets tricky... but my personal brainwashing threshold is at the point where "faith" enters into things, frequently contradicting the teaching...
To paraphrase an old saying, a little faith is a dangerous thing - it has provided countless years of camoflage for all sorts of atrocities and wars. Often these fly in the face of reason and sense, but who cares? We'll all go to heaven!
So what is the point of my little rant?
I believe (oops - I make no apologies for using this word) is that religions can only continue to exist through teaching. They always have done so and they always will. Who teaches them this? Usually the parents have the first shot at goal - problem is, teaching is taken out of the parents hands at an early age and placed in the hands of others whose beliefs may not be the same as the teachers. Furthermore I believe that without religious teaching being introduced only a small minority would be religious in todays society. All the questions the world posed now simply have better answers than an all powerful deity. In fact, mankinds understanding of the universe has reached a stage where we can ask questions RELIGION cannot answer, like what made God, in a scientific sense etc.
My main point can be summarised like this:
Noone is born religious. Because of young childrens vulnerability to such religious indoctrination and their desire to be "normal", the state should not allow religious teaching of any faith in primary schools. I am personally against any religious teaching for children anywhere until they are able to make their own decisions, but this is unfortunately far too difficult for one man's blog to succeed at.
I agree with Richard Dawkins' outrage at such labels as "a muslim child" or "a christian child", such titles are meaningless when used in relation to the youngest of us. Most children just want to make their parents happy, or at least stop them being upset - this leads many down the path of conformity to the eventual religious brainwashing I have described. The correct word is "child". Just that. Don't impose the parents beliefs on them as if they have no choice!
I hope when I am eventually a parent I am as open minded and supportive as my parents were.
Lets let children decide for themselves what to believe.
A
But was your school a church school? I went to a Catholic secondary school - hilariously, I called myself a Catholic when I started, since I had been Baptised as one (all down to pressure on my Ma's side of the family - in reality both of my Parents were Agnostic) but by the time I left, having experienced Catholicism in practice for 5 years, with all of its hypocracy and hatred, and the only answer to my questions having been 'you mustn't ask those questions' I had realised that although my head had been given the Papal Stamp, my heart most definitely didn't belong there. Anyhoo, because of the nature of the school I didn't feel offended or brainwashed at the presence of hymns, prayers, even Mass on the odd occasaion. It was their faith and I didn't mind sitting watching them, or occasionally joining in with bits. I don't join in with any church service that I attend these days, BTW... Weddings and funerals, mainly - I sit or stand along with the congregation quietly and do sing Hymns because I feel that hymns are different (I have no qualms about ever singing songs with lyrics that celebrate any Faith), but to join in with a declaration of belief would feel hypocritical to me.
ReplyDeleteI doubt we'll be sending Vi to a Faith School... it's highly doubtful the unchristened child of two ex-Catholic Atheists would get into one anyway. What really annoys me in the whole Faith-In-Education debacle though, is that such special treatment is given to those who fall into certain religious brackets that they can have special (often better funded than normal State) schools. Children with learning or behavioural difficulties are expected to integrate in an ordinary school, but those whose parents have a certain belief system only have to integrate with those who agree with them until they're 18. Hmm.
I remember the Tabloids getting their knickers in a twist because apparently RE lessons have to cover Atheism as well, yet it's usually those same people who smugly declare that Atheism's just another religious doctrine... in which case, surely it *should* be taught in RE! In any case, I'm not particularly looking forward to the day when Vi asks 'What Religion are we?' since we might be up all night trying to explain it.
Nope.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't a church school. I doubt it would have made a lot of difference to how I turned out, but would have seen a lot more struggle from me, methinks.
Those funky catholics eh, what larks!
Hymns are only cool in Gospel style churches.. now thats music! Most hymns I've heard elsewhere are very very dire and boring.
There'll be plenty more on this theme, so hope you stick with me through it all.
I failed my 11+ and did not make it to grammar school. I failed the selection and went to what was then called a secondary school. I did OK in all respects, but never academically.
ReplyDeleteThanks to a then supportive employer and encouraging life-partner (girlfriend through wife of 38 years, so far)I did pretty well through to completing my professional exams.
Conversely my wife did pass her 11+. We both came from working class backgrounds.
Things have worked out OK, we are blessed with three lovely boys who we still dote on with all it entails with attendant worries and joys.
All of the boys passed the 11+ and
their lives have developed in different ways. Hopefully they haven't been constrained from either "believing" or "not believing" on the basis of any view we may, or may not, have had.
A key freedom to my mind has to be the right to decide of a value system whether based on faith or humanistic values.
Resisting an institution (in this case formal religion) is as challenging as arguing against the received wisdom in scientific and other fields.
We develop as people in our ways and it goes on for as long as we live.
So then what is my beef? Well, it's to do with education selection. Parents are keen to do their best for their offspring.
Success at 11+ is one way, but not the only way for children to develop. Why then is considered to be undesirable to select through ability but not by faith?
I know someone who has been going to Mass on Saturday nights with his family for years. He openly admits that he not in any way religious. It is what he has to do to get his children, eventually, into a Catholic school to secure the best education he can for them.
...meanwhile many of our leaders preach inclusivity and fairness in education whilst sending their own children to overtly or covertly selective schools. Sending their children to Independent Schools is another popular expression of the confidence of their own educational policies.
Amongst other benefits Grammar Schools were a good to route for some children to break out of their social background.
Sadly social mobility has barely changed in the last 40 years and it looks like the next Government will be dominated by public school/Oxbridge toffs.
Where did this rant start and where does it finish?
My main point is that any system that leads to an individual challenges the norm is a good thing. Algo seems to have survived his exposure to the rituals of "faith" during his school days.
What chance for those that now feel they have to play the system to get into a faith school in the abscence of a grammar school to go for?
How tolerant will their teachers be and what support will come from their (at heart) non believing parents if their offspring challenge the accepted norms of their (selective through faith) school?
I know someone who has been going to Mass on Saturday nights with his family for years. He openly admits that he not in any way religious. It is what he has to do to get his children, eventually, into a Catholic school to secure the best education he can for them.
ReplyDeleteThis story is horrifying...
I hadn't made the comparison you make between selection by faith and selection by 11+, but it seems a fantastic point to bring up.
The feel of politics at the moment is one of increasing divisions between those who currently hold authority and those who do not and the drive to keep things that way.
In this sense all governemtns are fairly conservative in nature - in America an atheist would never even achieve nomination for the white house, when as we have seen both the female taboo and the racial one has been soundly beaten this time (hooray for that!) but I watched as they courted the Jewish lobbyists in an attempt to win the religious influence over those who cannot question church doctrine.
This is scary, because the candidate who receives the stamp of the Catholic church is effectively getting a large vote without any reference to policy at all. A true catholic will submit to doctrine very easily.