We don’t need your…
So there are times when I look at countries with written constitutions with a wry smile. Look at you United States, with your archaic second amendment, or you Fiji, with your vote-for-your-own-race electoral system. And then there are times when I long for New Zealand to just enshrine a few things, say, freedom of speech, or the right-to-life of blue-eyed babies everywhere. This either makes my opinion confused or nuanced – I’m going to give myself the benefit of the doubt and claim the latter, though you’re welcome to disagree.
That’s just a roundabout way of me getting to my point – that I’d be much happier if New Zealand had some sort of Constitutional protection against the kind of Religious Instruction that appears to be prolific in our state schools (maybe we could call it “separation of church and state). This isn’t just a case of a few well-meaning Christians offering to take sessions in school, the Secular Education Network estimates that “approximately 40% of public primary schools conduct religious instruction classes run by outside volunteers from churches.”
Now before we head off down the all-too-predictable rabbit hole, I am personally in favour of religious education. I wish I’d had more of it when I was younger. Because Religious Education is not the same as Religious Instruction.
The Human Rights Commission (in its handy guide to Religion in New Zealand Schools, 2009) describes the difference:
Religious instruction means teaching aspects of a faith in its own right. Religious instruction carries an implicit or explicit endorsement of a particular faith and/or encourages students to engage with and make decisions about accepting it on a personal level. An example is optional classes run by voluntary groups.
Religious education, also commonly called religious studies, refers to teaching about religion(s) as part of a broader context. An example is the role religion has played in politics, culture, art, history or literature. Religious education does not require students to engage with the religions being studied at a personal level or make choices about accepting those beliefs. Religious education can take place as part of the school curriculum.
But perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps these well-meaning Christians are simply trying to educate children about comparative religion? Turns out I’m not being unfair. In the words of the Churches Education Commission, which delivers these programmes in schools:
While acknowledging that there are other views about life that could have a place in religious programs, it is appropriate in New Zealand to give particular emphasis to the Christian faith, the Bible and the life and teachings of Jesus, because of their pervasive influence through our cultural heritage and history, and their continuing relevance.
Now I’m the first to acknowledge that the question of whether or not New Zealand is a secular nation is muddy at best, but I can’t share common cause with the above. In fact, I think our cultural heritage makes it even more important to emphasise where we differ, rather than accepting that because we once were a Christian nation, so we should always be.
Religious Instruction belongs in Homes, Churches, Mosques, Synagogues and Temples, but not in schools. Schools are for learning, not indoctrination. Many would say (including Mike Hosking who describes parental complaints as “hijacking what schools do”), “why does it matter? The children/parents can opt out.” Two key reasons
- Anyone who’s been paying attention to recent social policy developments will have some awareness of Nudge Theory. Sure, it’s easy and free to opt out, but it requires a child/parent to fight inertia. First, the parent needs to know that the religious instruction is happening – in many cases, it isn’t. Secondly, the parents have to separate their child from their classmates and place them in an alternative setting (likely to be quiet reading or something similar). If you’re a child, you’re not going to want to be separated, and most parents are unlikely to want to rock the boat.
- There’s a philosophical concept called the “Veil of Ignorance”. It requires someone to consider the morality (or good) of a given situation, by imagining that they don’t know what “burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted.” Put simply, it encourages us to consider how the system might feel to someone coming from a different perspective (in this case, different from the cultural Christian perspective from which many of us emerged). For instance, one wonders how those who advocate for Religious Instruction might feel if they were to find that their child had been sitting through weeks of Muslim religious instruction.
That, my friends, is why it matters. It’s indoctrination by stealth. We’re taking impressionable young kids, bombarding them with experiences that conflate Christianity with goodness and fun, and then wondering why parents might be upset when they find out what their children have been taught. In truth, who is really “hijacking what schools do”? Australia, Canada, and even the US have banned this type of back-door bible study, why can’t we do the same?
When it comes to religion, we should be teaching our children how to think, not what to think. This is why religious education is so important. May I suggest another approach? Let’s educate our children (and ourselves) that different people hold different beliefs and that there is no plurality of belief, not even within religions. Let’s expose children to as many beliefs as we can and let them decide for themselves. We could even let them know that, heaven forfend, they could choose not to believe the claims of any religion.
Nicely summarised. It is a real shame that Christians who promote these classes can’t put themselves into others’ shoes and see how unreasonable it is for them to push their religious faith into a classroom of kids with diverse backgrounds.
I’ve put together a website to provide information on this issue: http://www.religiouseducation.co.nz