PDA

View Full Version : Humanist Classes in Schools



Goughfather
19-12-2008, 05:18 PM
Apparently, Humanist classes will be offered in some schools as an alternative to Scripture lessons. There's been some reaction over at the Sydney Anglican forums (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3770/P0/). I'd suggest that some of the participants might be guilty of creating strawpeople, but unfortunately I got banned from those forums a few years ago. However, I'd be very interested in perspectives on the following from those who consider themselves to be Humanists:

Firstly, if you had the choice, what would you include in the curriculum?

Secondly, would you be prepared to volunteer an hour of your time each week to teach one of these classes?

antichrist
19-12-2008, 05:24 PM
Apparently, Humanist classes will be offered in some schools as an alternative to Scripture lessons. There's been some reaction over at the Sydney Anglican forums (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3770/P0/). I'd suggest that some of the participants might be guilty of creating strawpeople, but unfortunately I got banned from those forums a few years ago. However, I'd be very interested in perspectives on the following from those who consider themselves to be Humanists:

Firstly, if you had the choice, what would you include in the curriculum?

Secondly, would you be prepared to volunteer an hour of your time each week to teach one of these classes?

I would volunteer time as I did for chess lessons in schools. I would include humanist values as opposed to deity deliverance. I would include a history of the conflict between religion and science for a start.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2008, 05:32 PM
Apparently, Humanist classes will be offered in some schools as an alternative to Scripture lessons. There's been some reaction over at the Sydney Anglican forums (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3770/P0/).
CMI wrote about this at Atheists want to teach religious education in schools (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6229).

My main objection is to government schools per se; see a libertarian humanist's perspective (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html).

Space_Dude
19-12-2008, 05:34 PM
Do they teach about the big bang and evolution in Anglican schools??

Rincewind
19-12-2008, 05:41 PM
Do they teach about the big bang and evolution in Anglican schools??

As far as I can tell Dr Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) wouldn't have any problems with it.

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2008, 05:52 PM
Do they teach about the big bang and evolution in Anglican schools??
Probably, since the Anglican church has largely compromised. See my article Church of England apologises to Darwin: Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6048/) which also has links to a video of the brilliant Yes Prime Minister episode "A Bishop's Gambit".

antichrist
19-12-2008, 05:52 PM
As far as I can tell Dr Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) wouldn't have any problems with it.

Gay priests being made bishops is the biggest bang the Anglicans has had for years, the RCC officially "accepted" years ago only the ground troops dont know it - keep it shhhush

Space_Dude
19-12-2008, 08:29 PM
is it true that people get sexually assulted by priests?

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2008, 09:51 PM
However, I'd be very interested in perspectives on the following from those who consider themselves to be Humanists:

I'll pass on serious appraisal of the likely content since I am definitely not a "humanist" and tend towards the views of Stirner, Nietzsche et al that "humanism" is in large part "liberal Christianity" dressed up in atheist clothing.

I note more flippantly that Jono's link says the course will teach "promiscuity, gay rights, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, situation ethics, etc" but I doubt it will actually be anything like that interesting in reality.

I also note Jono writes: "As the more candid atheists admit, atheism means that life is meaningless; it has no ultimate purpose." Actually these are two very different things; the lack of an objective ultimate purpose simply means there is no objective meaning, not that the experience of meaning is impossible and that life is "meaningless".

Ian Murray
19-12-2008, 10:40 PM
As far as I can tell Dr Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) wouldn't have any problems with it.

The Catholic church recognises evolution as rational science - www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30344

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 02:21 AM
The Catholic church recognises evolution as rational science - www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30344
What do you care anyway? Besides, almost all of its doctors and fathers accepted Genesis as straightforward history, including Basil the Great (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/906/) and Thomas Aquinas (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6048/#aquinas). There are some Catholics still faithful to the traditions (http://www.kolbecenter.org/), and haven't appeased secularists (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6105/) in the same way they appeased Aristotelianism in Galileo's day (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/645).

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 02:25 AM
is it true that people get sexually assulted by priests?
A small minority, just as there is a minority of government schoolteachers who sexually assault kids.

Ian Murray
20-12-2008, 09:52 AM
What do you care anyway? ...
I'm a product of the Catholic education system

Current dogma can be encapsulated as:


At this point we should also mention another frequent misunderstanding. It concerns so-called "creationism". Often nowadays in polemics, belief in creation is lumped together with "creationism". Yet believing in God the Creator is not identical with the way that, in some Christian circles, people try to understand the six days of creation spoken of in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis as if this had been literally reported, as six chronological days, and try by all possible arguments, even scientific ones, to prove that the earth is about six thousand years old. Attempts like that to take the Bible literally, as if it were making scientific statements at this point, are what is called "fundamentalism". To be more exact, in American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith has called itself "fundamentalism" from the start. Starting from a belief that every word of the Bible was directly inspired by God--that is, starting from an understanding of literal inspiration--the six days of the creation are also taken to mean what they say, word for word. It is understandable that many people in the U.S.A. are energetically opposed to this view--even so far as going to court and taking legal action against such things being taught in schools. There is, of course, also the legitimate concern with critical questions about teaching "Darwinism"--but that is a different matter.

The Catholic position on "creationism" is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should "not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason". It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old. An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed, it is explicitly to be rejected.

- Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 11:20 AM
I'm a product of the Catholic education system
Proves very little, as you and Miranda show. Churchian schools are often pathetic at defending the faith.


Current dogma can be encapsulated as:
It's not "dogma" unless it is a decree of an official Council or Papal statement speaking ex cathedra. The cardinal below is expressing his own opinion, from which Catholics are free to dissent.

For an example of genuine dogma, here is Pope Leo XIII (incidentally quite a strong chessplayer although a famous game attributed to him was likely bogus (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242887)) in the the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)(1893):


Inspiration Incompatible with Error‘… It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. The system of those who restrict inspiration to things of faith and morals cannot be tolerated. All the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

‘… And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author. Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers.’
This still stands as it has never been overruled by a subsequent encyclical or magisterial teaching.


At this point we should also mention another frequent misunderstanding. It concerns so-called "creationism". Often nowadays in polemics, belief in creation is lumped together with "creationism". Yet believing in God the Creator is not identical with the way that, in some Christian circles, people try to understand the six days of creation spoken of in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis as if this had been literally reported, as six chronological days, and try by all possible arguments, even scientific ones, to prove that the earth is about six thousand years old. Attempts like that to take the Bible literally, as if it were making scientific statements at this point, are what is called "fundamentalism".
He is just wrong there, since this view was that of Catholic saints and doctors centuries before "fundamentalism" was invented. Josephus taught it even before that.


To be more exact, in American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith has called itself "fundamentalism" from the start. Starting from a belief that every word of the Bible was directly inspired by God--that is, starting from an understanding of literal inspiration--the six days of the creation are also taken to mean what they say, word for word.
Just as Catholic saints and doctors taught! This is because that's what the words actually teach, given the fact that the literary genre is historical narrative as shown by the Hebrew verbs (http://www.icr.org/article/24/2/).


The Catholic position on "creationism" is clear. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that one should "not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that make it ridiculous, because they are in obvious contradiction with reason".
Yet he explicitly defended 6-day creation! The "ridiculous" arguments are those that try to marry Christian faith with goo to you via the zoo evolution, and they clearly don't work on bloviators like you or Rincy.


It is nonsense to maintain that the world is only six thousand years old.
What would he know? He wasn't there, but the ultimate Author of Genesis was.


An attempt to prove such a notion scientifically means provoking what Saint Thomas calls the irrisio infidelium, the mockery of unbelievers. Exposing the faith to mockery with false arguments of this kind is not right; indeed, it is explicitly to be rejected.
Yet Aquinas himself believed that the world was "only six thousand years old"! As did Augustine (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2895/#fathers)who is also quoted to this effect.

Space_Dude
20-12-2008, 12:44 PM
A small minority, just as there is a minority of government schoolteachers who sexually assault kids.
I thought they have to obey the 10 comandment... They are not that religious and not dedicaated to God after all.:hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 01:19 PM
I thought they have to obey the 10 comandment... They are not that religious and not dedicaated to God after all.:hmm:
Of course, they are betraying the religion they profess. But this should not be surprising given the misplaced tolerance towards theological "liberals" who deny foundational doctrines of the faith. Denying the moral teachings is a logical next step.

Also, those who want to abuse kids tend to be attracted to professions where they have kids under their authority.

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if.... (http://www.tektonics.org/af/fundyath.html)

You can't remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.
...
You repeatedly state that Catholic priests are child-molesting pedophiles.

Space_Dude
20-12-2008, 01:21 PM
Them Sick Perverts!!:wall: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 01:23 PM
Yet Aquinas himself believed that the world was "only six thousand years old"! As did Augustine (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2895/#fathers)who is also quoted to this effect.

Again irrelevant as the evidence that such views expose the faith to mockery came later.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 04:22 PM
Again irrelevant as the evidence that such views expose the faith to mockery came later.
It's perfectly relevant. One interprets general statements by specific. And we have specific statements about the young earth and foolishness of compromise, so what was "ridiculous" in their eyes can't include taking Genesis as history:


‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’ Augustine, “Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past”, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), 12(10).

Ian Murray
20-12-2008, 04:57 PM
Proves very little, as you and Miranda show. Churchian schools are often pathetic at defending the faith.
I wasn't trying to prove anything - you questioned my right to care about Catholic teachings


It's not "dogma" unless it is a decree of an official Council or Papal statement speaking ex cathedra.
True. However theistic evolution is consistent with Catholic faith and advancements in science. Pope Benedict is a theistic evolutionist - see www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4630 and, for doctrine, www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp


The cardinal below is expressing his own opinion, from which Catholics are free to dissent.
Opinion consistent with doctrine to allow his book to receive nihil obstat and imprimatur from his bishop

With the forum filled with your minority views, it is amusing that you accuse me of bloviation

Kaitlin
20-12-2008, 05:12 PM
with out reading the thread.... all of that stuff should be electives anywho

{edit} cause there is a fine line between education and brainwashing

Ian Murray
20-12-2008, 05:18 PM
with out reading the thread.... all of that stuff should be electives anywho

{edit} cause there is a fine line between education and brainwashing
Not sure about all states, but in some religious education in public schools is an elective - parents' choice

Kevin Bonham
20-12-2008, 05:30 PM
‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.

He may well have been right about those "histories" in existence during his time being unsound though. Would be interesting (to me at least) to know what highly mendacious documents he was referring to and what was in them.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 12:19 PM
I wasn't trying to prove anything — you questioned my right to care about Catholic teachings
I didn't question your right to care, but that a misotheistic lefty like you would care.


True. However theistic evolution is consistent with Catholic faith and advancements in science. Pope Benedict is a theistic evolutionist - see www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4630 and, for doctrine, www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
It contradicts Pope Leo XII and the Fathers and Doctors, but too many modern Catholics have taken the wrong lesson about Galileo and are afraid to challenge the modern "scientific consensus" although that's exactly what Galileo DID.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 12:20 PM
Not sure about all states, but in some religious education in public schools is an elective - parents' choice
Parents' choice about schooling in general would be better.

Goughfather
21-12-2008, 06:55 PM
How would that work and how would such a system be funded?

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 10:20 PM
How would that work and how would such a system be funded?
Simple. Instead of the government funding schools, it funds students with vouchers, as the late Milton Friedman proposed. That way schools would need to perform to attract students.

Goughfather
21-12-2008, 10:41 PM
So I'm assuming that the curriculum is whatever the parents of a school choose? If so, a few questions spring to mind:

Firstly, considering that universities want some standardised basis on which to admit particular students to courses, how would you achieve this?

Secondly, how would you train teachers to teach when there are a hundred and one different curricula around?

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2008, 11:02 PM
So I'm assuming that the curriculum is whatever the parents of a school choose? If so, a few questions spring to mind:
Most parents will want standard maths, reading, writing and science. Maybe history too. But they will not have black armband PC rubbish if they don't want it; and if they do want it, they can choose it. If they want their kids to learn Shakespeare, they can choose schools that teach it. If they want to avoid any dead white European male, they can have that too.

The reason for the curriculum squabbles now is compulsion, where there must be winners and losers, as economist Dr Walter Williams explains in Bitter partisan politics (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams112807.php3).


Firstly, considering that universities want some standardised basis on which to admit particular students to courses, how would you achieve this?
Not all students will go to unis. And they can certify which schools are teaching the curriculum they want so parents can choose from them.

But it's ironic you bring up unis, since many of them now have remedial courses precisely because government schools are producing students who are way below the standard they should be, even in what should be basic.


Secondly, how would you train teachers to teach when there are a hundred and one different curricula around?
The teachers who produce the results that parents most want will be most successful. Far better than the current nonsensical educratic fads like look and guess whole language reading or "new maths" producing kids who don't know their times tables. For example, decades of experience has shown that home-schooled kids do better academically than kids taught by government "experts" (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp). It is also no accident that many Australian parents choose private schooling for their kids.

Kevin Bonham
23-12-2008, 09:01 AM
I moved the homeschooling discussions to a new thread here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=223413#post223413).

There are some older homeschooling discussions on the board I will probably also move there at some stage because it is an issue that comes up quite frequently here + merits a thread of its own.

Rincewind
23-12-2008, 10:02 AM
The Catholic church recognises evolution as rational science - www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30344

Yes I know and the Catholic church perhaps been an even earlier supporter than perhaps the Anglicans. However the question was regarding the teaching in Anglican schools in general.

I don't know if there is an official policy or even if the Anglican organisational structure would make official policy possible globally, but I pointed out that the Archbishop of Canterbury who is a prominent Anglican church leader is on the record as saying there is nothing in evolution, per se, which contradicts scripture. Including the evolution of man and all life on earth from common ancestors.

antichrist
26-12-2008, 02:46 PM
The Pope's Xmas message mentioned protecting children, I screamed at the TV - yeah from some of your ruddy perverted priests

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2008, 10:53 AM
The Pope's Xmas message mentioned protecting children, I screamed at the TV — yeah from some of your ruddy perverted priests
How about from public school teachers, or fascistic "child welfare" officers who tear them away from loving homes on trumped up charges?

MichaelBaron
28-12-2008, 06:45 PM
The Pope's Xmas message mentioned protecting children, I screamed at the TV - yeah from some of your ruddy perverted priests

I am sure the message was aimed at protecting children from ALL the dangerous elements in society.

antichrist
29-12-2008, 05:28 PM
I am sure the message was aimed at protecting children from ALL the dangerous elements in society.

maybe so but priests deserve special attention coz they have access through Catholic schools and they are pretty frustrated due to their celebacy rules. A pretty dangerous mix it must be admitted. That guy who come back to Oz to harrass the Pope re his daughters had a good case. What disturbed me was that the abuse was a pattern during school hours. That is there could have been a conspiracy whereas the nuns released the children during school hours to be molested by that monster in the black frock. I remember a similar case where the priest put a cover over the a stone statue so "she" could not see him buggarising the young boy. what hypocrocisy and perversion. He should buggared the stone statue instead and left the boy alone.

antichrist
29-12-2008, 05:33 PM
with out reading the thread.... all of that stuff should be electives anywho

{edit} cause there is a fine line between education and brainwashing

bravo kid, I was brainwashed and looked how I ended up. I was told by the nuns that stars were holes in the floor of Heaven. And I reasoned that when it rained that God was washing the floor with the hose - as you do

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2008, 05:40 PM
maybe so but priests deserve special attention coz they have access through Catholic schools and they are pretty frustrated due to their celebacy rules.
Tammy Bruce, herself an atheist and lesbian, pointed out in her book The Death of Right and Wrong that many homosexual men want young partners because they are more likely to be free of diseases, so gravitate towards professions that give them a position of authority over young people. This includes dishonouring the Catholic Church by abusing such position, and dishonouring the teaching profession for the same reason, which is more prevalent.

Celibacy rules apply only to the Latin Rite.


I was told by the nuns that stars were holes in the floor of Heaven.
Even if it's true that she said that, it's more likely it was meant poetically.