Subject: Re: Use of 'Lord's Prayer' in secular settings
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 15:45:14 +0800
From: "Nigel Mitchell" <>
Organization: St George
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:19:31 +0800, Tigger wrote
(in message <>):
> Personally, I would be okay with a group within a school deciding that they 
> wanted to have a religious part of their school life, and the school 
> providing an appropriate room and time for such activities. Much as schools 
> do for the chess club and rugby team. 

That is what happens in a lot of Australian high schools.

> However, I am firmly against any part of any religion (or sports or 
> hobbies, for that matter) being endorsed by the school as official, being 
> forced on those who did not wish to participate, or being done in general 
> class time when learning should be the focus. 

What would you make compulsory, and why?

> This includes such things as 
> saying a prayer before class, even if *100%* of students, parents and staff 
> wanted it! Let them have a 'Christian Club' where they can meet and pray. 

I don't think saying a prayer before class happens in _any_ state
schools in Australia.

>> What I am getting at is this - is what you are expressing (opposition to 
>> religious expression and teaching in public schools) your preference, or 
>> is it what you want to impose on everyone? 

> Good God. This sounds so much like the usual Christian claim that they're 
> being discriminated against because they're not free to discriminate 
> against who they wish. 

Good God indeed!

You cut out the comment I was responding to. I was not claiming any 
discrimination at all. Someone (Julian or Allister) had said that they
opposed 
all religious activity in state schools, and I was merely asking if they
wanted to inpose it as a ban, whether they liked it or not, or whather they
merely wanted to ensure than no-one was forced to particpate in religious
teaching or activity. 

I am against forcing anyone to participate in religious teaching or
activity, but I also think that religous people who want to do religious stuff
should be allowed to do so, even in state schools.

> Nigel, "not doing something" is not a 'thing', it is a 'no-thing'.
> Imposing 
> school prayer is imposing a 'thing' on people, whether they want it or not. 
> Forcing that to be removed, and available only to those that want it, and 
> only in set times and rooms, is not imposing anything on anyone. All people 
> are still free to do whatever it is they wish, as long as it does not 
> interfere with others. 

Yup. That is what I have described, and what I approve of.

> The problem with most Christians, and apparently you judging by this post, 
> is that you want the freedom to impose your beliefs on others, but you also 
> want to be free from others imposing their beliefs on you. Atheists, OTOH, 
> want only for no group to be imposing anything on anybody. 

If you look at this thread I doubt that you will find anywhere that I
have asked for the right to impose my beliefs on others. If I had, you are 
misinterpreting my words or I have not expressed myself well enough,
because that is not what I am asking for.

>> To fully undertstand modern Western society, it's institutions, history, 
>> ethics, etc., a knowledge of Christianity and the psychology and 
>> philosophy of religion is essential. 

> Indeed. And this is where the history course and social studies courses and 
> political history courses come into play. Not theology. Theology is not a 
> subject for public schools. 

Theology could be a very usedful study in public schools. I actually
received my Masters degree from a State university for a thesis in which I argued
that Theology could and should be taught in secondary schools in the same way
that science and mathematics are taught. 

But I have not been talking about theology in this thread. What I have
neen talking about here is courses in comparative religion.
And strangely enough, the kind of attitudes that most of our friends
from NZ exhibit on usenet would be excluded from such a course, because they do
not recognise the legitimacy, nor the right to exist, of views other than
their own. An academic course in comparative religion, such as those taught in
some secondary schools and many universities, cannot adequately deal with
views that "I am right and anyone who disagrees is wrong/diseased/stupid/going to
hell/ a danger to sciety/ etc. - whether those views come from people who belong
to a particular religious tradition, or an atheist worldview.

cheers
-- 

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell