State versus Church
Sue Cauty, Pacific Harbour
The Methodist Church states that ‘the most fundamental of all human rights is freedom of religion, faith and practice’. This presumption is based on the notion that the most basic of human freedom is the freedom of ‘belief ’.
To the contrary, it can be argued that the most fundamental of all human rights is ‘the right to think’. This is why humanity promotes education, from which come journalism, research, and all forms of enquiry. Our right to think is informed by investigation of the books, journals, newspapers, magazines and electronic media.
Children must learn, above all, to think for themselves – and the best of teachers will ensure that they, themselves, are fully informed of society’s numerous beliefs.
Children should be taught about these beliefs, while at the same time learning about non-belief.
Why should it be assumed that ‘belief’ is a non-negotiable right? Belief is not based upon fact or scientific research. Belief is ‘faith’ in an un-proven ideology.
Religious opinion claims that, ‘where religious freedom is violated, all other human rights are assaulted at their source’. This should be amended to ‘where the right to think is violated, all other human rights are assaulted at their source’.
Religious people insist on the ‘freedom to believe’ while insisting that children should receive a religious education from religious teachers who will reinforce the religious perspectives in their classes: and assume that a non-religious teacher of a certain belief will have no knowledge of other beliefs.
And some Christians advocate ‘creation science’, which, to many people is a contradiction in terms: but to others is a ‘belief ’.
To inculcate or impose any belief into the brains of children is surely a form of child abuse – the mental abuse of a child.
By all means teach the exploration, investigation and intricacies of ‘belief’ to a child, but, at the same time, ensure that every child is aware of the fact that he/she has the right to make up their own mind about what to ‘believe’.
The ‘right to think’ is dependent upon the ability to think critically: above all, to question what we are told – which is becoming increasingly important in these days of so-called ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts.
The terms ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ merely underscore the true fact that far too many people today do not think for themselves – because they are not taught, and frequently not permitted, to think for themselves.
Unfortunately, the ‘special realities’ of particular (i.e. religious) schools referred to in the opinion are simply beliefs. But he is correct in concluding that all teachers should carry an equal workload: and there is no reason why they should or could not if they are, themselves, properly informed in the first place.
It is the teacher who requires the broadest of education and, above all, an enquiring mind: and it insults many of them to assert that they might…’pay lip service [to beliefs] or, worse still, stifle or even make fun of these religious activities’.
A good teacher is an impartial teacher, whatever their belief or non-belief.
Indeed, students do look up to their heads of school and teachers as role models – but why should that exclude uncertainty and doubt, which lead to critical thought and reasoning. Doubt is good – doubt can dispel ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts.
The Government is correct in its insistence on placing teachers according to merit. The point of the argument is that were religious believers truly secure in their doctrines they would have nothing to fear.