Entry 1174, on 2010-03-15 at 21:35:15 (Rating 3, Religion)
I just listened to a Radio New Zealand podcast which discussed the future of teaching religion in New Zealand schools. Its a subject I have mentioned here a couple of times in the past, including in the entry "Bible in Schools" which attracted a record (for this blog) 87 comments!
In that entry I said that I supported the Bible (and other aspects of Christianity) being taught in New Zealand schools because kids tended to be able to see when the material they were being taught wasn't necessarily 100% accurate. I also said I would have liked to have seen other religions being taught as well.
My thoughts on this subject have hardened somewhat. In fact I don't think the Bible should be taught in schools any longer. I do think that religion should be taught and stories from the Bible should be discussed in the context of their literary merit and their possible application to morality but I wouldn't want to see Bible stores being presented as if they really happened (except in the rare case when they are accepted as real history but I can't even think of any that I would put in that category).
According to current legislation New Zealand schools should reflect the wishes and world views of the community they exist in. This may be the law but I don't think its a very good idea because it means that kids could be disadvantaged if they live in a community with a silly world view (such as creationism or other forms of superstition).
Schools should be presenting a view which reflects the values of the country as a whole and should try to avoid world views which are immoral or irrelevant. Of course the opposite view also has some merit: that schools should offer some variety and not just parrot whatever the current form of political correctness dictates. Maybe there's room for a compromise there.
The podcast mentioned the case of Christian propaganda in schools causing great confusion to some pupils. I personally think its immoral to tell young kids that Jesus is the King of the World. That's just stupid but the parent can't tell their kids that without causing conflict between what the teacher and what the parent is saying.
It is usually possible to opt out of religious material being presented at schools. Why is that? Its not possible to opt out of other subjects. Also, religious education is only possible by exploiting a loophole in the law where the school is technically closed while the instruction takes place. Don't these factors indicate that this isn't instruction at all but a form of disinformation?
I do agree that education about Christianity is important because a lot of New Zealand's history, culture, law, art, and politics cannot be understood without that background. But that education should follow the history and politics of Christianity and stay away from unsubstantiated nonsense like Jesus being the King of anything.
And other religions and philosophy in general should also be covered, including the history of Islam. Maybe if other religions were better understood there might be less conflict between the world's belief systems. Or to take a more cynical view: if you see Islam as the enemy its even more important to understand their motivations!
Different groups have wildly different ideas on what form religious education should take but there was one anecdote mentioned in the podcast which we need to do something about. A fairly senior student told his teacher that he didn't know why we celebrate Easter. He had never heard the Christian crucifixion story at all.
I think the crucifixion story is basically fiction but we should still know that it exists. And we should also know that it originally came from pagan fertility celebrations before that. Those are important social historical aspects of our society.
Another issue is morality. Many Christians insist that morality cannot exist without religion. I would disagree and say that it is actually difficult for it to exist with religion, but either way I think morality and ethics are important subjects. So I think more philosophy should be taught and that would naturally branch into theology on occasions.
Its possible to talk about religion sensibly and I have no objection to most of the discussion being about Christianity because I freely admit its the most important religion here by far. But the history and morality of Christianity is one thing, making silly statements like "Jesus is the King of the World" is just totally unacceptable!
Comment 1 (2623) by Anonymous on 2010-03-27 at 22:43:43:
You say "...unsubstantiated nonsense like Jesus being the King of anything"
You are not the only one to question the title. Pilate called him a king and allowed the title INRI to remain on the cross.
The initials, I.N.R.I., are from the Latin phrase, "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm," (The Latin "I" and "V" is the English "J" and "U" respectively) which means, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews."
Ref John Ch 19
Many people did not know what to make of Jesus but to call the crucifixion a cruci-fiction is unwarrented on the historical evidence. On the balance of probabilities you would have to concede Jesus existed.
Comment 2 (2626) by OJB on 2010-03-28 at 21:07:56:
Actually I don't think there is evidence to indicate Jesus existed, at least in the form mentioned in the Bible. The reason I say this is that its only in the Bible that he is mentioned and the Bible is a religious (ie mostly fictional) book. There is no credible evidence outside of that. Also the Bible accounts are inconsistent and contradictory as well as being written 2nd hand and worse.
If any figure really existed associated with half the events listed in the Bible (causing trouble with the Romans, crowds following him, miracles, darkness at crucifixion, bodies rising form the dead) I think others would have thought it worth commenting on but not a single person who met him write about it. A bit suspicious wouldn't you say?
Comment 3 (2629) by Anonymous on 2010-03-29 at 21:59:22:
A web search re extra Biblical references provides further reading:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html
The skeptic refered to in the above site:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus
.. see his conclusion.
Comment 4 (2630) by OJB on 2010-03-30 at 15:45:57:
Regarding reference a: Its very weak and obviously from third or fourth hand information. Hardly very compelling. Reference b is a clear fake and most people agree with that. The others are just hearsay.
Also, the name "Jesus" was very common at the time and I have said on many occasions that I think its likely that the Jesus story might be loosely based on a real person. So I still don't think you have a *credible* reference.
Comment 5 (2650) by Artemis on 2010-04-26 at 11:56:18:
Hi! As the technologically needy theologian you asked questions about, I will add my 2 cents to this debate - I am totally with you that NO, Bible in Schools should NOT be taught - but my reasons for this are entirely to do with WHAT will actually be taught ...
I suspect that the course would include such things as the Noah's Ark story, for example, as if these are FACTS. Add to this the generally conservative nature of the whole project which will also mean that there will be a predominant androcentric focus on stories with male heroes, God will be presented as a Father/King etc then I do NOT want my daughter (whose school is currently debating this idea) to glean that this is what the Bible is all about!!!
Just to clarify, for example, while the Bible IS an androcentric collection of books overall, I can guarantee that the selection of stories by a Bible in Schools outfit will narrow this down even further - while, for example, and amazingly, the Bible DOES describe God as Mother Bear, midwife, bread-maker and clothes-maker, human mother etc I bet these images will NOT be found in Bible in Schools material!!! Let alone stories about women such as Deborah, Lydia, Chloe, Mary Magdalene etc. Just on that point alone I cannot accept my daughter getting this skewed idea of the Bible!
BUT if there was more of a balance AND they also learnt about other faiths, I might be more open to it ... At this stage I would rather see her develop her own ideas about "God" than be TOLD what to believe regarding some stories ...
Comment 6 (2651) by OJB on 2010-04-26 at 12:36:00:
I have always thought of the Bible as being much more than just androcentric. I find it positively misogynistic! If there are stories which present women in a positive light then they must be well buried. Is this because they aren't as important as the stories we know about (Adam and Eve, etc) or is this a deliberate bias? I don't know. On the other hand, if the Bible is being presented as a book of myths its best to present it the way it really is and show the students that a culture of equality didn't exist when it was written.
Comment 7 (2652) by Artemis on 2010-04-26 at 13:11:19:
Yes, I agree ...
I tend to straddle both points ...
Firstly, I think it is of value to show that as a collection of books, the Bible is more various than people think - there are parts that are quite radical and progressive (for its day) - and that often the problem is with the way in which either parts are ignored/overlooked or misinterpreted.
And then secondly, I do agree that there are times when one can't "rescue" the Bible (or certain passages) and one just has to say, well, that is just plainly misogynist and that's not surprising given its origin in ancient cultures (for eg)!!
Comment 8 (2653) by OJB on 2010-04-26 at 22:30:21:
Yes, its easy to forget that the Bible is a collection of stories from many authors, cultures, and time periods so we shouldn't be surprised that there are some parts that we find more acceptable than others. Its really quite a fascinating read in places (although I admit I've never read it all). I recently got my teenage daughter to start reading it and she was very intrigued with the story of Lot, for example!
Comment 9 (2660) by Anonymous on 2010-05-18 at 12:43:16:
Your arguments are typical of the politically correct left. New Zealand is a Christian country and our laws come from the 10 Commandments. Studying a religion of intolerance and violence like Islam is not acceptable to most people here. If you want to study that then go to Iran and do it. See how tolerant they are of your lefty ideas. All that people like you do is to encourage more terrorism.
Comment 10 (2662) by OJB on 2010-05-18 at 21:17:03:
I believe the last survey I saw indicated a majority of people weren't religious so that tends to indicate that this isn't a Christian country. Do you know what the 10 commandments actually are? There's a resemblance between some laws and some of the commandments I know but that's more coincidence than anything else.
I agree that Islam is responsible for a lot of intolerant and violent behaviour but so is Christianity - and it has been a lot worse in the past. Also studying a religion doesn't necessarily mean we support it. Even if we want to fight Islam (but I'm not necessarily saying we should) we need to understand it first.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE