Does faith have a place in education?

OK, this is going to be a contentious post so please bear with me. As ever, I am attempting to look at the question without necessarily coming up with an answer.

So, does faith have a place in education? For the sake of this blog, I'm going to lay down a few definitions. First of all, we're talking faith as in major, organised religions, mostly to save me lots of ifs, buts and maybes about the exceptions to the rules that are out there. Secondly, by education, we're talking what the British would call "primary" education, basically until about age 11. That's mostly a figure I've pulled out of my head and a convenient place to draw a line about when children are most influenced in matters of faith and philosophy, but I think it's a pretty reasonable one.

So, a little background firstly. I began pondering on this particular question a little while ago after seeing the (in)famous Mr. Dawking talking about faith schools in the UK. I can't recall if he used the term "child abuse," but frankly the argument he was making seemed tantamount to claiming that raising a child in a religious setting is harmful to them in some fashion, which does not gel well with my personal experiences.

That said, I juxtapose this with the counterargument and you see what happens in Northern Ireland, with the separation of education on sectarian grounds for decades, and the tribalism that results from it, and suddenly it seems like he's making a sensible point.

Do children have a right to grow up without having religion crammed down their impressionable young throats, as the anti-theists would have it? Or do parents have the right to see their children educated in the details of their faith, usually a long, well established system for living one's life in a fashion that is deemed "moral"?

I should confess at this point, I do not have children of my own, so my viewpoint is biased insofar as I have no vested interest in any potential answer to the questions I'm raising. That said, both faith and education are powerful tools, and I feel it is important to wonder about this particular issue. Not for the benefit of those being educated now, but for the benefit of those to be educated in years to come.

It's a curiosity to me. I know that, if I did hypothetically have children, I would probably want them educated in a secular environment. That's largely because I, while not completely what you'd call an atheist, I do not subscribe to any major religion nor do I particularly endorse religious views.

What it seems to boil down to is two inter-related issues, one of rights, and one of access.

To address the latter first, because it is probably the more straightforward of the two. Parents do not always have the choice of exactly how religious the education their children receive is. While that may change in the near future with free schools and the likes, as the situation stands currently parents cannot always get their children into the best school without professing some faith they do not actually hold, or, have to pick between R.C. and C. of E. schools because that is all that is available in their area.

While this isn't so much an issue in larger towns and cities, it is more an issue in smaller communities. How can we ensure that parents have access to schools that have an appropriate ethos or faith for their children? Insofar as I am aware we don't have any "atheist" schools in the UK, and I suspect that we're unlikely to see one in the near future. So what should we do? Have a school for every faith in every area? That is both absurd and expensive, given the limited nature of public finance. It might be the ideal, I suppose, but is unlikely to ever happen.

There is of course, home schooling, but I am intentionally leaving that out for one primary reason, and that is the vast majority of parents do not have the resources to home school their children, be those financial or intellecual resources.

So how do we solve the problem of access? Do some people have to "like it or lump it" or is there some better alternative we haven't yet considered?

Now, to perhaps the more philisophically thorny issue of rights. Whenever this subject is discussed, two phrases seem to pop up again and again. The first is "I [the parent] have the right to see my child educated in whatever faith I so choose." The other is "Children have the right to be brought up in an environment that enables them to make an informed, unbiased choice about their faith."



[Whenever the concept of rights comes up, I hark back to my A level Philosophy tutor's words. He said, and I am inclined to agree, that a right can only be a "right" as we understand it when there is a responsibility to uphold that right for others. That is the broad definition I am using here, insofar as it is useful.]

Now this is a real difficulty. Mostly because our educational setting in early childhood is one of the formative factors for many adult's faith, be that loosely Anglican or devoutly Catholic. (The home setting is just as influential of course, but that is for a different blog.)

To take the second point first, the "anti-theist" view that children should have the right to unbiased and informed choices. I don't think I can find a flaw or fault with this concept. My natural bias is towards this point of view. I encourage anyone to post a counter-argument to the principle, or find a practical example of why this ought not to be the case.

Now to the first, and while I certainly agree in principle, I think the difficulty with the statement is that is assumes the education is about the parent, and not the child. This said, if parents were utterly dispassionate about their children's education, I very much doubt we would see the education system we have today. It is an odd contradiction, that somehow my natural point of view seems to suggest that parents should take an interest in their children's upbringing, but not too much. Actually it's absurd, in so many ways. Asking parents to dispassionately disregard their children's spiritual education seems both impractical and immoral.

I still haven't quite figured out how to reconcile these points of view, hence the blog post. I challenge the webizens out there to answer the arguments presented here. Can you reconcile the rights of all involved in a fashion that doesn't result in conflict, cultural, philsophical or otherwise?

Privacy and the Free Press

Question: Where does privacy end and the free press begin?

I started to consider this particularly difficult question reading about so-called "superinjunctions," and the apparently increasing number being granted in UK courts.

For those unfamiliar a superinjunction is a legal document that not only gags any details of any particular issue coming out, but also gags any person from disclosing that such an injunction even exists.

So, with a regular injunction regarding a private matter, the press (and everyone else, but that wanders outside the scope of the original question) is not allowed to discuss the details of a particular situation, but could report that an injunction had be acquired by someone, and state in broad terms who was involved and let the public draw their own conclusions.

Superinjunctions have basically taken away the possibility of the latter. No-one is allowed to discuss the details of the injunction, nor even the fact that an injunction exists.

So far, it is speculated that such injunctions have been obtained by celebrities or professional sports people, basically to ensure that sordid details of personal indiscretions can remain personal. However, the non-celebrity involved has often been named as been linked to a "footballer" or "TV personality" as the press desperately tries to stir interest from the reading public. The much publicised relationship of one Imogen Thomas with a "professional footballer who cannot be named" is a good example.

Now the question becomes, where do you draw the line? Where does "privacy" become "secrecy?" When does "public interest" trump the right of an individual to keep their personal affairs private?

At first glance the subject may not look all that complex. If it doesn't affect the public, then it should be allowed to remain private, seems to be the obvious response to the question, and in the days before 24 hour rolling news and the Internet, that may have been a relatively straightforward distinction.

Consider, however, the MPs' expenses scandal in the UK. Nothing is more personal than one's financial affairs, and MPs (not unexpectedly) wanted to keep them private, but because the "public" pay the taxes, and therefore pay MPs expenses, they ultimately lost.

Then consider someone like Katie Price, who is often subject to unfounded or otherwise misleading media portrayal. One can argue that the public, as the consumers of her entertainment, perfume, and so forth, have a right to know what she does with her money and the details of her personal tax receipts.

The line between the two appears fallacious at first, because MPs are directly paid by the public, from HM Treasury, and Katie Price is paid indirectly through marketing firms and so forth. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what channel the money takes to reach an MP or Katie Price, just because one is direct from HM Treasury doesn't make it any less "the public" that keep both employed and well paid.

Furthermore, consider the details of the aforementioned groups' personal lives. MPs often make large on their family credentials, or otherwise tout their personal circumstances of birth or other very personal details to become elected, but get incredibly defensive when, post election, their extra-marital scandals are revealed. However, the consuming public don't seem to have a problem lapping up every details of Ms. Price's personal life, no matter how much or little she markets it. The question appears unasked if she has a right to privacy, but if it is an MP, people will start clucking about how it's a "personal matter" and about "MPs having a right to privacy."

True, not all MPs prostitute their personal backgrounds for political gains, and equally Ms. Price has never shied from airing her laundry in public so to speak, but the reaction from "the public" is much less harsh on our elected representatives, as though they do not use their personality (or lack thereof) to make a living, much as Ms. Price does.

It's an interesting dichotomy to me. As I have said this blog isn't about providing answers, it's about asking an interesting question.

Where does the right to privacy end? It's hard to say. Part of the problem for me is defining that ever-elusive "public interest" that is so often touted as the reason for intrusive reporting.

The argument goes that the press can print anything that is "in the public interest," assuming it is true, legally speaking, they can print whatever they like. The existence of injunction to prevent the publishing of specific details is supposed to be a safety net to protect those in danger of real harm, such as violence, or threats of other serious consequences.

But the question becomes, what about a footballer's career, which is worth a modest fortune to him, is losing that not a "real danger" to someone? If you lost your job tomorrow, would you consider that a "real threat" to your happiness and wellbeing?

My biggest problem is that "public interest" does not equal "what the public finds interesting," which often seems to confuse. Can one truly argue that publishing the details of a celebrity's latest fling is genuinely going to enrich the public in some fundamental way? Equally, can we say that the harm outweights the potential benefits?

The public lap up such stories as evidenced by the massive sales of the publications that print them. Does that mean that it is in the "public interest?"

I don't think so, but if we get bogged down in defining "public interest" we run into a whole new set of problems. Firstly, what exactly is important to the public? What do they need to know? Some would argue that the public have the right to know the truth, but if that is the case then why don't we all just publish our medical records online and say "it's alright, I have nothing to hide."? Secondly, how does one measure the "good" of a story, or the "harm" of a story for that matter.

These things are all relative. Losing your job is devastating, but is it more devastating because you lost it after the details of your life were published in the press? And, what public "good" is served by it? How is anyone better off for knowing these details?

So absolute truthfulness all the time doesn't seem to offer much, but equally if you allow the press to be gagged by the court too easily, you find yourself in a police state with censorship like that of China or North Korea. Politicians, and/or the judiciary, have ultimate control over access to information, and therefore have total power to influence opinion.

So both extreme poles seem to offer less than ideal solutions, so where do you draw that line? Do you leave it to judges to decide, case by case? If that is so, then how to you ensure that judges are represnting the will of the people accurately? They are unelected and unaccountable by definition.

However, if you hand the power to politicians, how can you be sure they will not use it for their own ends, gagging the press to quash harmful stories about government ministers? Even if they accurately represnt the will of the people, which is arguable, such a gaping loophole should not be allowed to exist, even if every politician was a saint right now, and would never abuse such privelege, we cannot say that will be true in a decade.

So, who else? Who else gets to decide where the line is drawn? It's an interesting question, I hope. Please, feel free to leave responses. I cannot promise I will respond (on the basis that I am not inclined to opine on answers to these questions, although in some cases I do have an answer, that isn't what this blog is intended for,) but all constructive commentary/criticism is welcome. I am not a great philosopher, so you may spot flaws in my argument I have not. Further, you may have an answer you think that other readers may enjoy. Please do share all of these. Just no flames, no trolling, and we should all be good. Does that count as censorship?

Inaugural Post: A brief welcome

Hello blogosphere and webizens.

I am setting up this blog to establish a place for me to consider topics that interest me. I hope that they shall interest some of you. It isn't my intention to answer questions completely, it's more about asking the question and finding something interesting to say about it.

This blog will mostly be used to consider politics, philosophy or similar matters, and will probably appear a great deal in my twitter and facebook feeds when appropriate.

I intend to post my first full discussion later this evening. It ought to be an interesting journey.

Asking questions is probably the single most important philisophical task we are charged with. I hope you all enjoy the exploration.