Is "secular" education possible?

[rowan-tree]

I'm throwing this question out there as sort of a spin-off of "Time-Palin." Would appreciate any directions on how to make a "spin-off" thread.

 

I personally don't think "secular" (i.e., = absence of religious) can exist in a government, and especially not in education. But I guess that depends on what constitutes the "religious." Given our American disparaging of institutionalized religion, I suppose what we're really opposed to is any particular religious institution having authority to conduct the affairs of the state. While I agree with this, - because I adhere to sphere sovereignty (see previous posts, and here) - I don't think it means church and state have 'nothing' to do with each other. But since part of our education system has been subsumed under the auspices of the state, the state's disposition re: religion inevitably becomes manifest in its schools' curriculum. So, is an opposition to "religion" not somehow a "religious" position? After all, a state is an institution with moral principles. Does that not make it somehow religious? If this is true, then what I'm really perplexed by is the seemingly paradoxical claim that a "religion-free" education is its modus operandi.

 

Welcome any thoughts.

[Mama Lynx]

Are you defining "religion" as "any set of moral principles?"

[Jennifer3141]

It's absolutlely possible but I wouldn't even begin trying to explain how to a Xtian in our country. There are many of us doing it at home right now.

 

Jen

[Phred]

Having moral principles does not make one religious. Religion itself is a word that comes from the Latin, religio, ligo, "to bind together". It's a way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?... and then what do we/you do as a community to recognize mutual bonds? More usually religion recognizes the answers to these questions as supernatural and codifies the worship due the supernatural being(s) responsible.

 

You can easily have education without religion in the same way you can have education without computers even though computers are in the building. While they're there and people might even be using them while class is going on we just aren't teaching about them today.

[nmoira]

I disagree with the assertion that moral systems are necessarily religious in nature.

 

So, is an opposition to "religion" not somehow a "religious" position?

By "opposition" are you inquiring as to whether secular education is anti-religion or if it simply uses religion as a means of orientation (away from that which is religious)? We're are secular homeschoolers, and certainly don't use Christianity or any other religion as a default frame of reference. We do, however, talk about different belief and moral systems.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I personally don't think "secular" (i.e., = absence of religious) can exist in a government, and especially not in education. But I guess that depends on what constitutes the "religious." <snip> So, is an opposition to "religion" not somehow a "religious" position? After all, a state is an institution with moral principles. Does that not make it somehow religious?

 

 

Religion: the belief in or worship of a superhuman controlling power; details of belief as taught or discussed; a particular system of faith or worship

 

Secular: denoting attitudes, activities or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

 

Our government is secular because it derives it's morality from consensus, not from a system of faith or worship.

 

Morality overlaps religion when your gods tell you what is right or you base your ethics on something which cannot be proven (a faith). The two are not always the same; someone, or a group, being moral, is definitely NOT necessarily being religious. In a secular group, individuals may be religious via morality, but they may all be of different religions, and they may not cite their religion against someone else's behavior.

[rowan-tree]

Are you defining "religion" as "any set of moral principles?"

 

I guess my starting point would be James 1.27: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." He seems to be pointing to moral principles and resulting actions. However, there are other places that seem to indicate something more formal or even institutionalized, like Acts 25.19 and 26.5, where the Jewish religion is referred to. Institutionalized religion of course implies moral/religious application. But that suggests the question - "Is any moral application the necessary outworking of a 'religion' or a 'religious disposition?'"

[Mama Lynx]

Religion: the belief in or worship of a superhuman controlling power; details of belief as taught or discussed; a particular system of faith or worship

 

Secular: denoting attitudes, activities or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

 

Our government is secular because it derives it's morality from consensus, not from a system of faith or worship.

 

Morality overlaps religion when your gods tell you what is right or you base your ethics on something which cannot be proven (a faith). The two are not always the same; someone, or a group, being moral, is definitely NOT necessarily being religious. In a secular group, individuals may be religious via morality, but they may all be of different religions, and they may not cite their religion against someone else's behavior.

 

This is very close to my definition of religion, and my understanding of the difference between religion and secular.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I guess my starting point would be James 1.27: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

 

The word in Greek is threskeia, "ceremonial observances." What the man (or the god) is saying is that a kosher ritual for a Christian to do is any act of kindness. You're flipping the sentence clear on it's head when you say that that any act of kindness, and therefore every act of kindness, is a kosher ritual.

 

Also, the whole world doesn't define stuff out of their Bible. Most of us use the Oxford.

[dragons in the flower bed]

This is very close to my definition of religion, and my understanding of the difference between religion and secular.

 

I copied it verbatim from my handy dandy American Heritage.

[rowan-tree]

Having moral principles does not make one religious. Religion itself is a word that comes from the Latin, religio, ligo, "to bind together". It's a way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?... and then what do we/you do as a community to recognize mutual bonds? More usually religion recognizes the answers to these questions as supernatural and codifies the worship due the supernatural being(s) responsible.

 

So, does that mean that if someone does not adhere to a religion, they have no thoughts on where we come from, what our destiny ies, what is true or what is false, etc? An education from such a limiting angle seems to be rather truncated. And if, according to your suggested definition, someone does address these questions in their endeavor to educate, does it not, therefore, make their education religious?

 

Also, I don't understand how one can have moral principles and not be religious. You seem to be saying, rather, that they don't derive their moral principles from some outside source,whether natural or supernatural, but from their own, autonomously derived, religion.

 

 

 

You can easily have education without religion in the same way you can have education without computers even though computers are in the building. While they're there and people might even be using them while class is going on we just aren't teaching about them today.

 

That seems difficult to demonstrate. E.g., when you teach, you teach what you "believe" to be true. To know anything at all requires faith - that is a basic epistemological tenet. If I don't "believe" something to be true (i.e., have faith that it's true), then how can it be said that I "know" it. And education is, at least, about imparting "knowledge." Right?

[nmoira]

I guess my starting point would be James 1.27: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." He seems to be pointing to moral principles and resulting actions.

You do realize that James wouldn't be the first stop for non-Christian, right? If you wanted discussion about whether moral systems are necessarily religious from a Christian viewpoint, you should have been more clear in the OP. It's a perfectly valid question, just not the one you asked.

[rowan-tree]

The word in Greek is threskeia, "ceremonial observances." What the man (or the god) is saying is that a kosher ritual for a Christian to do is any act of kindness. You're flipping the sentence clear on it's head when you say that that any act of kindness, and therefore every act of kindness, is a kosher ritual.

 

Also, the whole world doesn't define stuff out of their Bible. Most of us use the Oxford.

 

Sure. But isn't the choice of Oxford over the Christian Scripture's use of a term an epistemological choice based on a preference for one source of authority as a more credible warrant than another? Thus a "religious" decision(?... need some help here).

[Mama Lynx]

Perhaps the word you are looking for is "philosophy."

 

But yes, there are people who derive their morality from a careful application of thought, logic, experience, compassion, and the study of other humans. I don't consider this to be a "religion" unless it involves some form of worship, or faith in a controlling power. You can have a philosophy without it being a religion.

 

You are also asking us to debate, in a multifaith arena, the nature of secular education, by starting from a Biblical definition. That's going to be tricky :)

[rowan-tree]

The word in Greek is threskeia, "ceremonial observances." What the man (or the god) is saying is that a kosher ritual for a Christian to do is any act of kindness. You're flipping the sentence clear on it's head when you say that that any act of kindness, and therefore every act of kindness, is a kosher ritual.

 

But deisidaimoni, is also translated "religion" which implies a fear for divinity.

[Mama Lynx]

Sure. But isn't the choice of Oxford over the Christian Scripture's use of a term an epistemological choice based on a preference for one source of authority as a more credible warrant than another? Thus a "religious" decision(?... need some help here).

 

No, because although the choice of Oxford *might* be a rejection of the Christian God (though not necessarily, many good Christians turn to Oxford or Webster for their defining needs), that's a lot to read into the choice ... and if the choice of Oxford *does* imply a rejection of the Christian God, it does not imply a worship of Oxford. Or any other dictionary. Or dictionary writers in general.

[dragons in the flower bed]

But deisidaimoni, is also translated "religion" which implies a fear for divinity.

 

Yeah, but that's not the word used in James 1:27, the passage you quoted.

[fshinkevich]

So, does that mean that if someone does not adhere to a religion, they have no thoughts on where we come from, what our destiny ies, what is true or what is false, etc? An education from such a limiting angle seems to be rather truncated. And if, according to your suggested definition, someone does address these questions in their endeavor to education, does it not, therefore, make their education religious?

 

Also, I don't understand how one can have moral principles and not be religious. You seem to be saying, rather, that they don't derive their moral principles from some outside source,whether natural or supernatural, but from their own, autonomously derived, religion.

 

 

I personally would call these questions philosophical and human nature (for some, anyway!), not so much religion. Or rather it does not have to stem from religion.

[nmoira]

Or dictionary writers in general.

Speak for yourself. :)

[dragons in the flower bed]

Sure. But isn't the choice of Oxford over the Christian Scripture's use of a term an epistemological choice based on a preference for one source of authority as a more credible warrant than another? Thus a "religious" decision(?... need some help here).

 

Epistemology is not religion. It's philosophy. Neither religion nor philosophy are linguistics. The purpose of a dictionary isn't to tell people the truth. It's to tell people what other people mean when they use a word.

[melissel]

So, does that mean that if someone does not adhere to a religion, they have no thoughts on where we come from, what our destiny ies, what is true or what is false, etc? An education from such a limiting angle seems to be rather truncated. And if, according to your suggested definition, someone does address these questions in their endeavor to education, does it not, therefore, make their education religious?

 

Hmm, I can't speak for others, but I have plenty of ideas about where we come from, where we're going, what is true, and what is false. They mostly have nothing to do with God as you know him, though. I don't think it's truncated at all, it simply has nothing to do with what I consider to be a grand mythology. (Sorry! It's what I believe.) And we address plenty of thoughts that have to do with many world religions. I don't espouse them as our own; I portray them as what adherents of these religions believe. I can teach my kids plenty about Judaism without believing or practicing, or teaching them to do so.

 

Also, I don't understand how one can have moral principles and not be religious.

 

I guess I'm not understanding this point. Are you saying that simply having a set of principles one considers to be "moral" makes one religious? That that belief set is equivalent to a religion?

 

That seems difficult to demonstrate. E.g., when you teach, you teach what you "believe" to be true. To know anything at all requires faith - that is a basic epistemological tenet. If I don't "believe" something to be true (i.e., have faith that it's true), then how can it be said that I "know" it. And education is, at least, about imparting "knowledge." Right?

 

Sure, but it doesn't have to be faith in a "supernatural" entity. I have faith in science, and I have faith in my husband, and I have faith in humanity (usually ;)). Of course we're all taking a leap. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's a God, and I'll prove to you we evolved from apes.

 

Either I'm not understanding this conversation (which is entirely possible, my head has been muddled lately, it seems) or you're yanking our chains here.

[rowan-tree]

Perhaps the word you are looking for is "philosophy."

 

 

Maybe so. But I still have to get at the question somehow. If philosophy is "love of wisdom," then that's weighted, too. After all, what is "love?" Why should we care to do it? Who gets to define what wisdom is? Are the answers to these questions not somehow principled choices stemming from one's faith-system? I.e., if "faith" is implicit in the very idea of knowledge.

 

 

But yes, there are people who derive their morality from a careful application of thought, logic, experience, compassion, and the study of other humans. I don't consider this to be a "religion" unless it involves some form of worship, or faith in a controlling power. You can have a philosophy without it being a religion.

 

 

Ok. Are you saying, then, that according to your definition of religion, it necessarily implies worship to a higher, authoritative Being? If so, then (and I hate to keep struggling with semantics and word-meanings) isn't "worship"="attributing worth." If so, that seems to imply that, when you attribute worth to any "fact," by saying it's "true," and therefore, "valuable," you are engaging in a religious activity - i.e., worshipping (attributing worth to) a "higher" (or something from another source than your own brain) authority. Right?

 

 

 

You are also asking us to debate, in a multifaith arena, the nature of secular education, by starting from a Biblical definition. That's going to be tricky :)

 

I agree. I'm not really trying to debate (in the bad sense) as much as attempting to flesh out my approach using the good minds of those who disagree with my position (and agree) in this forum as a sounding board.

[Book Crazy]

So, does that mean that if someone does not adhere to a religion, they have no thoughts on where we come from, what our destiny ies, what is true or what is false, etc? An education from such a limiting angle seems to be rather truncated. And if, according to your suggested definition, someone does address these questions in their endeavor to education, does it not, therefore, make their education religious?

 

 

I follow no religion and I have many thoughts on how and where we come from. I do know the difference between right and wrong, true and false. I do not need to follow a religion or a book in order for my life and that of my family to be a happy and joyful one.

 

You may see my view of the of the world as limiting and truncated, but then I see your view of the world in the same way. My son knows about the bible and some of the stories that are in it. Do your children know about the Big Bang and Evolution? Have you really presented both sides of the argument to them, in a clear and scientific manner and let them decide if they wish to follow your religion? We as a family have presented both sides to our son and have let him make up his own mind as to what he wants to believe. Not letting children choose there own path in life, is very limiting and truncated.

[rowan-tree]

Yeah, but that's not the word used in James 1:27, the passage you quoted.

 

I also referenced passages in Acts.

[rowan-tree]

Epistemology is not religion. It's philosophy. Neither religion nor philosophy are linguistics. The purpose of a dictionary isn't to tell people the truth. It's to tell people what other people mean when they use a word.

 

That's an interesting take, which itself requires a certain faith-choice (forgive my limited vocabulary, having to make up hyphenated words). Is that indeed the purpose of a dictionary? Does a word's original meaning not derive from something more objective than a collective people's intent? although those definitions certainly change with the use. But the thing the word is getting at doesn't change, even if the words used for it change.

[rowan-tree]

I follow no religion and I have many thoughts on how and where we come from. I do know the difference between right and wrong, true and false. I do not need to follow a religion or a book in order for my life and that of my family to be a happy and joyful one.

 

You may see my view of the of the world as limiting and truncated, but then I see your view of the world in the same way. My son knows about the bible and some of the stories that are in it. Do your children know about the Big Bang and Evolution? Have you really presented both sides of the argument to them, in a clear and scientific manner and let them decide if they wish to follow your religion? We as a family have presented both sides to our son and have let him make up his own mind as to what he wants to believe. Not letting children choose there own path in life, is very limiting and truncated.

 

We probably don't need to get into a discussion on creationism vs. evolution here, which I see your question headed to. But be comforted, I graduated in Biology/Pre-med and took a required course (the only one offered in the whole state) called "Morphogenesis of the Vertebrates," which was touted to be the most difficult course at the university. Did more than just pass. And then taught evolution (and creation) in several schools. So, yes, my teaching is balanced and scientific.

[kalanamak]

Yes.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I also references passages in Acts.

 

Ah. Yes. I ignored those because I couldn't figure out how they argue your point. Feel free to elaborate on that.

[rowan-tree]

Hmm, I can't speak for others, but I have plenty of ideas about where we come from, where we're going, what is true, and what is false. They mostly have nothing to do with God as you know him, though. I don't think it's truncated at all, it simply has nothing to do with what I consider to be a grand mythology. (Sorry! It's what I believe.) And we address plenty of thoughts that have to do with many world religions. I don't espouse them as our own; I portray them as what adherents of these religions believe. I can teach my kids plenty about Judaism without believing or practicing, or teaching them to do so.

 

No apologies necessary. I like your use of the word "mythology." Tolkien had some interesting things to say about Christian myth, namely, "myth" does not = "untrue." In fact, the great collective of myths amongst all peoples throughout history all seem to indicate a source further upstream... or a "true" myth.

 

 

I guess I'm not understanding this point. Are you saying that simply having a set of principles one considers to be "moral" makes one religious? That that belief set is equivalent to a religion?

 

Hmmm. On the first question, I'm not sure. I suppose yes, according. But I'm not saying having a religion is bad, just that everyone's got one, whether it is informed from another authority (faith in an outside source) or according to their own authority (faith in one's own reason). Second question... I guess, again, that it has to do with the submission to authority, and so, essentially, I guess I'd agree with that.

 

 

Of course we're all taking a leap. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there's a God, and I'll prove to you we evolved from apes.

 

 

That's sort of what I'm getting at, i.e., if "faith" means "taking a leap" - every fact has to be believed in to be known, and therefore, knowing something itself is an act of faith. The choice to believe one thing over another implies submitting to the authority of the sources warrant, which is seems to indicate "attributing worth" or "worship," which would imply it is a religious choice. That question really helped me formulate this. Thanks!

 

As far as ev v. cr., maybe we'll have a go at it sometime.

 

Either I'm not understanding this conversation (which is entirely possible, my head has been muddled lately, it seems) or you're yanking our chains here.

 

No (intentional) chain-yanking here. I think we're tracking.

[Mama Lynx]

That's an interesting take, which itself requires a certain faith-choice (forgive my limited vocabulary, having to make up hyphenated words). Is that indeed the purpose of a dictionary? Does a word's original meaning not derive from something more objective than a collective people's intent? although those definitions certainly change with the use. But the thing the word is getting at doesn't change, even if the words used for it change.

 

 

Yes, that is indeed the purpose of a dictionary. A table is a table is a table. The THING does not change, despite what we call it, despite what language we speak. It's still a table.

 

So yes, the dictionary is a practical manual to let us know which words have been agreed upon by consensus to mean which things.

 

Our society has, by consensus, agreed upon a practical definition of religion. And for the rest of this conversation to have any meaning, we must agree on such a definition.

 

This is not a faith choice. This is a very practical choice. This is a choice necessary for human communication to happen.

[Mama Lynx]

So, is everything a faith choice? Can you have no thought outside a religion? Do you mean that if you choose a "secular" education, you are actually choosing a religious education, because it is impossible to do anything but?

[melissel]

So, is everything a faith choice? Can you have no thought outside a religion? Do you mean that if you choose a "secular" education, you are actually choosing a religious education, because it is impossible to do anything but?

 

I'm thinking that she's saying that every belief set constitutes a religion of some sort, regardless of whether it's founded on faith in a supernatural entity (e.g., God, Zeus, Buddha, etc.). Along those lines, our political and/or legal system, for example, would be some kind of religion, no?

 

If this is the way you're thinking, we're talking past each other here. I consider religion to be spiritual/worshipful in nature. However, as noted above, secular education is education that is that has no religious or spiritual basis. If you're extending the definition of religion to any belief set, even one I made up for myself right now, this minute, we're not having the same discussion.

[dragons in the flower bed]

deleted -- decided to be done with this conversation

[dragons in the flower bed]

So, is everything a faith choice? Can you have no thought outside a religion? Do you mean that if you choose a "secular" education, you are actually choosing a religious education, because it is impossible to do anything but?

 

Yeah, I'm thinking she's leading us towards the "consensus in language is logic and logic is science and science is secular humanism and secular humanism is religion" argument.

[rowan-tree]

So, is everything a faith choice?

 

Rapid fire, man! I feel like I'm in high speed catechism class here. :001_smile:

 

Let's see. Yes, everything is necessarily a "faith" choice. But I don't mean, by that, that the choice is necessarily informed by institutionalized doctrinal tenets. I simply mean that "faith" or "believe" is necessary for knowing anything at all. That to know something, one has to choose to know it. that they choose to know it based on whether or not they deem it credible (i.e., "believe" -able). I'm not just playing with words here. I'm approaching it from my understanding of epistemology. Knowledge = proposition + faith + warrant. Take, for example, any old proposition. You tell me, "My dog's name is 'Sue'" (proposition). Immediately, I deem you to be credible (warrant) and I believe what you say (faith) and, therefore, it can be said that now I "know" your dog's name is "Sue." See what I mean?

 

Can you have no thought outside a religion?

 

That's more difficult. I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. If we hold something to be true, then we have attributed worth (worship) to the authority of its source. I don't think that means we worship everything that serves as a source for knowledge. But when everything which concerns education is considered, I think the collection of our choices for authoritative information indicates what we value. We know the vast majority of the things we know based on other peoples' (sources) testimony. It can only be said that we "know" those things to be true when we deem those sources (attribute worth) to be credible. That's what I understand the essence of religion (uh... at least partly) to be - submitting to another's testimony as your authoritative source for truth.

 

Do you mean that if you choose a "secular" education, you are actually choosing a religious education, because it is impossible to do anything but?

 

In a round-about-way, yes. According to my (admittedly broad) definition of "religion," it seems to me that the choice of any particular source for knowledge requires faith and is therefore religious.

 

And that makes me think that, e.g., in our government schools, the real issue isn't "religion" or "no religion," but rather, "who's religion," i.e., what is our source of authority (assuming no one knows everything and can be the sole source). Am I making any sense? (not asking if you agree with my conclusion, :tongue_smilie: just whether you see any holes in my thought-process).

[rowan-tree]

I'm thinking that she's saying that every belief set constitutes a religion of some sort, regardless of whether it's founded on faith in a supernatural entity (e.g., God, Zeus, Buddha, etc.). Along those lines, our political and/or legal system, for example, would be some kind of religion, no?

 

Maybe it'd be better if I said, rather, that every belief set is 'religious in nature' than that it 'constitutes a religion.' On the other hand, if believing anything at all (in order to therefore know it) implies attributing worth to its derivative authority (I'm having trouble here!), then, yes, perhaps it is a religion (again, broadly defined).

 

 

If this is the way you're thinking, we're talking past each other here. I consider religion to be spiritual/worshipful in nature. However, as noted above, secular education is education that is that has no religious or spiritual basis. If you're extending the definition of religion to any belief set, even one I made up for myself right now, this minute, we're not having the same discussion.

 

I guess talking past one another is just part of this kind of process. Sorry.

[melissel]

I really don't equate attributing worth to something and worshiping something, at all.

[rowan-tree]

Yeah, I'm thinking she's leading us towards the "consensus in language is logic and logic is science and science is secular humanism and secular humanism is religion" argument.

 

Wow. No, I'm not trying to be an obscurantist just to make a point. I think a word has to have a precise and distinct definition for it to have any meaning at all. But, I admit that I'm struggling with definitions in this discussion.

[melissel]

I guess talking past one another is just part of this kind of process. Sorry.

 

No, don't be sorry, I didn't mean it snarkily, just matter-of-factly :D

[rowan-tree]

I really don't equate attributing worth to something and worshiping something, at all.

 

"worship" comes from the Middle English "worshipe" which means "worthiness."

from weorth (worth) + scipe (ship).

 

Hey! I used a dictionary! :D

[rowan-tree]

Do I think secular education is possible?

 

 

More and more, because of my understanding of epistemology, I'm thinking that there's no clear division between the secular and the sacred when it comes to education.

 

 

 

Take "thou shall not kill". Is this an absolute moral truth, or a religious construct? I think it is very likely a religious construct. So we are taught "do not kill". Not necessarily because it is an absolute truth that it is wrong to kill, but because per the dominate religion it is wrong to kill. That is probably an outrageous example. There was likely a time when killing other humans around us was not considered unacceptable.

 

 

! I guess, then, it's a good thing Christians don't believe that, or else this nation wouldn't be nearly so much fun. :D

 

And being that I am not a Christian, I notice the influences of Christianity quite often. Many Christians probably do not notice it.

 

You're probably right on that. Many Christians think the world is "going to h** in a handbasket," so to speak. That's not my perspective, though.

[rowan-tree]

No, don't be sorry, I didn't mean it snarkily, just matter-of-factly :D

 

Hey, we're cool.:001_smile:

[melissel]

"worship" comes from the Middle English "worshipe" which means "worthiness."

from weorth (worth) + scipe (ship).

 

Hey! I used a dictionary! :D

 

Yes, I agree that if I worship something, it means I assign worth to it. But it doesn't necessarily follow that I because I assign worth to something, I worship it. I assign worth to my husband. I don't worship him (unfortunately for him :D).

[Mom to Aly]

I feel like this is basically a manipulation of the meaning of the word "religion", to what end, I don't know. You can pick any word, and attribute whatever meaning you like to it, it doesn't mean it is accurate.

 

In my opinion, by the real definition of "secular", of course you can have a secular education, conversation, government, household, whatever you like, if you want. People bring religion in of their own volition, as you are doing here.

[Carrie12345]

I'm throwing this question out there as sort of a spin-off of "Time-Palin." Would appreciate any directions on how to make a "spin-off" thread.

 

I personally don't think "secular" (i.e., = absence of religious) can exist in a government, and especially not in education. But I guess that depends on what constitutes the "religious." Given our American disparaging of institutionalized religion, I suppose what we're really opposed to is any particular religious institution having authority to conduct the affairs of the state. While I agree with this, - because I adhere to sphere sovereignty (see previous posts, and here) - I don't think it means church and state have 'nothing' to do with each other. But since part of our education system has been subsumed under the auspices of the state, the state's disposition re: religion inevitably becomes manifest in its schools' curriculum. So, is an opposition to "religion" not somehow a "religious" position? After all, a state is an institution with moral principles. Does that not make it somehow religious? If this is true, then what I'm really perplexed by is the seemingly paradoxical claim that a "religion-free" education is its modus operandi.

 

Welcome any thoughts.

 

Without having read ahead, I consider my kids' education to be secular. That is, we don't teach any religion as fact. It has nothing to do with *opposing religion, or considering our own morals and values to be some sort of religion (we don't.)

 

We do teach our personal morals and values as based in fact, in as much as that can be done. We're also tip toeing into comparitive religion. Now, if someone could get on writing an elementary curriculum for that, I would be eternally grateful!

[Mom to Aly]

! I guess, then, it's a good thing Christians don't believe that, or else this nation wouldn't be nearly so much fun. :D

 

 

Above, referring to "Thou shalt not kill", sorry to disappoint, but this was established long before Christianity and the Ten Commandments (if nothing else, Hinduism was here a long time before Christianity was thought of, and this was set forth within it as well).

[Laura K (NC)]

Not letting children choose there own path in life, is very limiting and truncated.

 

Nope. I have a hard time believing that.

 

You want your children to be "open" minded, I'm guessing, so you are raising them in a particular way that you think will benefit them later on. Maybe you are raising them to be kind, or generous, or honest, but you are doing more than just feeding them objective facts. Maybe you unschool to a degree that you don't even think they need to know certain objective facts -- maybe you let them completely design their own course of study and whether they will read or know the multiplication table, or not. You would advise them not to murder, I would wager, and probably teach them tolerance, and not to disparage another's religious beliefs. :leaving: Or then, maybe you really would let your kids do their own thing morally, educationally, and physically, and let the chips fall where they may. That seems like chaos to me.

 

I would be surprised if you gave your children complete freedom to choose their own path in life. If their own path meant running out into traffic from between parked cars, I would expect you do do a little directing.

 

Those of us who are Christian have a very strong belief that unless our chiidren know the salvific power of Christ, their fate will be worse than just being run over by a car. "Limiting" to a Christian means dying without hope of there being any joy afterward. To a Christian, this "limiting" is more like "liberating." What you call "truncated" is what a Christian would call just the opposite. We would say that a deliberate and specific Christian education has the potential to lengthens one's life.

[rowan-tree]

Above, referring to "Thou shalt not kill", sorry to disappoint, but this was established long before Christianity and the Ten Commandments (if nothing else, Hinduism was here a long time before Christianity was thought of, and this was set forth within it as well).

 

No disappointment here. I believe it was established before all those things, including Hinduism, as well.

[Carrie12345]

"worship" comes from the Middle English "worshipe" which means "worthiness."

from weorth (worth) + scipe (ship).

 

Hey! I used a dictionary! :D

 

I assign worth to my cat, and to my new kitchen faucet. I do not consider my feelings for either to be religious.

[rowan-tree]

I assign worth to my cat, and to my new kitchen faucet. I do not consider my feelings for either to be religious.

 

Hindus assign worth to cows. And they'd consider such attributing to be a religious act. Maybe you're a Hindu and just don't know it. :)