From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:26:34 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Paul Neubauer writes:

>
>I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, but I am one who does
>strongly advocate diversity of thought and, particularly, exposure to
>diversity of thought.  This is, in fact the principle reason why I
>favor the concept of public education.  
>
>While I am personally aware of a number of children attending schools
>run by religious groups to which neither they nor their parents
>belong, I am also aware that these individuals are the exception
>rather than the rule.  That is, in my (admittedly limited) experience,
>religious or other special-interest schools tend to promote
>homogeneity rather than diversity *within* the school.  That is, it
>tends to be the case that virtually all of the students in such a
>school are Catholic, or evangelical Protestant, or white, or wealthy,
>or whatever.  I do not consider that desirable.
>
>-- 


Your observations are well taken.  I have nothing against public schools as
such, or even schools that present a diversity of views.  Unfortunately,
public schools do not present a diversity of views.  You will not learn any-
thing there about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Quakerism, the Bible,
the Koran, or the Tao te Ching.  The only references are of an historical
or anthropological point of view.  This is not necessarily a wrong approach
for some people, perhaps the majority of them.  But it should not be called
diversity.

I believe that you are wrong about the majority of religious schools -- to say
nothing about the large number of no-religious private schools, of course --
that they teach a narrowminded view of the world.  There are exceptions, but
bye and large I think concrete examination of what is really going on in the
private religious schools will not reveal that to be the case.

But more important, I believe that the smorgasboard approach to exposing children
to a variety of value systems and opinions too soon leads to emptiness and
a weak capacity for objective judgement when the child grows up.  This goes
beyond religious values and moral codes into other areas of values, even to
matters of aesthetic and purely intellectual judgement.  The parents and
teachers of a child, whoever they may be, cannot help but impose values on
the soul of a growing child.  By averaging everything out into a globally
acceptable compromise acceptable to all, you impose a dull greyness over
everyone uniformly.

The culture of our times is very much in the image of what is taught in our
public schools.  Given choice, I would not demand or expect that the curri-
culums there would change that much in substance or content.  A system of
choice would strengthen and vitalize them and their curriculum as well.

Perhaps more important than the religious issue is that of pedagogical method.
What is dismaying to me about public education today is not its agnosticism
but its philistinism.  These forums (atheism/religion) deal with the question
of religion, so I won't go into it further.  But have a look at Waldorf
education sometime.  Go to a Waldorf school and see what they do there.  I
think you will find there the kind of diversity you are talking about. You
might read "Education Towards Freedom" (by Franz Carlgren or Karlgren, I 
believe).  Waldorf education thrives in an environment of freedom -- to the
extent that there is not even a headmaster in a Waldorf school.  And 
the Waldorf School Association does not dictate what is taught there or
how.  And yet the character and genius of the pedagogy and its results are 
evident everywhere.  They are neither doctrinaire nor chaotic.  On the
other hand, Waldorf pedagogy does not claim to be a system that is best
for every child, and while many public school teachers are becoming 
interested in some of its techniques and are learning them, there is
no lobbying in Waldorf circles to make Waldorf the pedagogical method
for public schools.  If you really look into it you will get a feeling 
for why this is true.

As to your last statement, about religious or special interest schools 
promoting homogeneity *within* the school and that you "do not consider 
that desirable", this again raises the fundamental question of just who
decides what is desirable for the individual and for society.  The 
argument goes on forever, with each side believing the other is missing
the obvious and simple truth.  It is worth continuing to discuss it, but
I would say to you at this point that your fears about the resulting
onsideness are unfounded, so long as the uniformity is not universally
applied, whether in a state religious school system or a state atheistic
school system.  

Anyway, look into Waldorf and see what you find (maybe you won't like it.
You might even find it undesirable, in which case it would have to be
kept out of public education).  Also recommended: "Discussions with
Teachers" by Rudolf Steiner (the founder of Waldorf pedagogy). That is
if diversity and openmindedness are an important pedagogical objective.
They are with me.

One last remark, instead of several paragraphs on one point:  That a child
exhibits a certain narrowness of values during childhood is not in itself
indicative of the open or closed mindedness it will demonstrate as an adult.
The child with no values or who is always having to decide for himself too
early will often manifest the least open and balanced judgement as an adult.
This is a very critical point that would have to be discussed elsewhere in
detail.

Best regards,
Gerry Palo   gerrypalo@aol.com   73237.2006@compuserve.com
--
Newsgroups: alt.atheism