Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:16:17 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         TJPUGH@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      religion

John Wong frames these important questions better
than I could hope to.
   As for teaching theviews of Jefferson, Franklin,
et al, book bannings have been attempted in this
country for stories more benign to Christianity than
the stories these fellows have told.  In fact, although
I do not agree with Frank, I am entirely supportive of
providing our children with as much familiarity as
possible to these people's thoughts on religion, and other
subjects.  I would particularly include Roger Williams
and his arguments for the "good heartedness" and morality
of those who aren't professing Christians. (Funny, we
are still arguing about this.  It seemed a powerful
empirical proof to old RW.)
  As for pragmatists, Hamilton, Washington, and John
Adams had to be some of the more staunch adherents
to such a worldview (?).  Franklin, of course,
compared Christians unfavorably to Iroquois in terms
of kindness, civility, and respect for others.
  As for Mr. Jefferson, he always maintained a strong
interest in the development of strong moral character
in the population.  But he thought of that character,
in keeping, I think, with his French influences in the
form of Montesquieu and Rousseau, as primarily social
and civic.  His continual attempts to establish a
system of public instruction focussed on practical
education (law, surveying, accounting) within a context
of developing civic virtues.  The source of virtue was
not the Bible or any religious creed, but rather the
extension of attachment for one's family to broader
social responsibility, engagement, and self-identification.
In his later years, when his term of active public
service was at an end and he could more fully indulge
his reflective bent, he focussed on moral theory.

 In attacking the self-interest or egoistic base of moral
theory that he thought was prevalent among his influential
contemporaries, particularly, but certainly not restricted
to the Hamiltonians, he did not reach out to Christian
doctrine.  Instead he developed arguments concerning the
essentially social nature of morality.  He grounded his
arguments in some vague "moral sense" that he said was
inherent in humans, though capable of suppression and
perversion (this is almost direct Rousseau).  The source
of that moral sense is unknown and probably unknowable.
Certainly, he invoked no deity (this type of argument
is exactly analogous to pragmatist thoughts, such as
John Dewey's).  Mr. Jefferson's solution to problems
of a "weak moral sense" was to:
  "endeavor to supply the defect by education, by
   appeals to reason and calculation.[..or] the love,
   hatred, or rejection of those among whom he lives."
   (letter to Thomas Law, Esq. June 13, 1814)

This moral argument of Mr. Jefferson's is social and normative,
not biblical, religious, or doctrinal (not that these
are mutaully incompatible things).  I refer you to Emile
Durkheim's *Moral Education* for further explication of such
ideas.
   In the context of this debate, the moral
problem of the education of the public, in private
or public schools, in home or out, is not how to make
everyone a good Christian, or whether children are learning
secular humanism, or Buddhism, or what have you.  The
problem is how to provide a good eduation in *civic*
morality.  Frank says this cannot be done aside from
indoctrination within some religious context; i.e
there is no civitas apart from or distinct from
religion.  No polity apart from theology.  The promise
of the Enlightenment, and the liberal basis of our
system of government, is that Frank is wrong.  I
welcome an education for our children that presents and
explores just such questions through critical inquiry
into original documents that provide the textual clues to
the ferment that preceded, created, and is developing
as  the United States.

p.s. Re the amount of time a child spends in school, and
therefore a rough measure of influence:
   1) total hours age 5-18:
             13 yrs x 8,760 hrs = 113,880 hrs.
   2) total hours sleeping:
             1/3 x 113,880 = 37,580
   3) total time awake:
             113,880 - 37,580 = 76,300
   4) total time in school:
             1 sch day = 6 hrs.
             180 x 6 =1,080 hrs per yr.
             1,080 x 13 yrs = 14,040
   A child spends 12% 0f total time in school and
   18% of awake time.  88% and 82% of his/her time
   is spent elsewhere.

I realize, of course, that my little mathematical demonstration
doesn't really tell us anything about the impact of time spent
in school, other than it is a relatively small portion of
a child's life.  I do agree with Frank that this time, small
as it is, does form part of the community ethos in which
the child grows and can be antagonistic to the beliefs
of the parents.  Such a conclusion does not lead
necessarily, however, to the claim that there exists
an unfavorable balance between the public and the private
in favor of the public (the reverse is a more likely
argument).  Nor does it address the claim that that
there is no such thing as civic morality distinct from
religious doctrine which it is the legitmate interest
of the state to foster.
   Anyway, there are far richer arguments here than I

have been able to explicate.
Peace,
tom m-p
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Tom Mauhs-Pugh
Cultural Foundations of Education

259 Huntington Hall         TJPUGH@SUVM.BITNET
Syracuse University       TJPUGH@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU
Syracuse, New York
             13244        (315) 443-3343
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU