Faith Schools: Bring Down the Wall

We often hear from religious people that faith teaches acceptance of others, tolerance, social cohesion, community. So then why do we still have faith schools, in a supposedly liberal society, which by definition teach exclusion of others, tolerance only of faith, social disconnection and segregation? What is the defense for such institutions? The answer is there is no legitimate or rational defense, but that doesn't surprise me. When has faith ever been legitimate or rational?

This debate about faith schools once came up on BBC's The Big Debate, and I recall one of the main arguments for them being that they are not as prescriptive as people assume and that they are largely tolerant of a variety of different faiths.

Doesn't this sound rosy? So why the need to identify it as a 'Faith' School. Why not just a school? I'll tell you why. Because what they're really saying is:

'Yea, ok, we'll admit a minority of children who are not of our faith. They're wrong, but we'll tolerate their ignorance. Our way is the right way, and they'll eventually come to see this'.

Another dimension to this is the question of how religion should actually be taught in school. Personally, I don't believe that a certain faith should be enforced upon any child, full stop. Let alone in an institution funded by public money put up by the average taxpayer. Whether you think religious indoctrination is a private matter for the home is a separate point (and obviously one I oppose), the point is that it has absolutely no place in school. Children should be educated about religion, not indoctrinated by it. Religion is inextricably linked with history, philosophy, literature, art etc. and in that sense it cannot be ignored. I'm all for this. As a matter of fact, I think that if children were taught more about the Crusades and the Inquisitions detached from a subjective faith imposed upon them that this would work largely in favour of souring some of the oft-quoted values of religion.

Now, what about the social consequences? Aren't faith schools just a milder manifestation of apartheid? They are absolutely divisive by nature, and strive to separate children in a multi-faith society. The organization of faith schools in fact implies and pretty much endorses an Us versus Them mentality. Children at these schools are often too young to have even started to make up their own mind about religion, whether it is which religion they find most suited to them or whether or not they want religion at all. So what faith schools do is label these children, and in effect make up their own minds for them. They can preach about tolerance of a spectrum of attitudes and opinions all they want, but at the end of the day what they are arguing for is an institution based around one particular belief, and this kind of a system will always be divisive, prescriptive, exclusive, and biased.

So what I say is break down the walls. No more faith schools. Educate, don't indoctrinate. Teach about the diversity of religions, not unilateral faith. Teach children to question, analyse, apply and reason - not adhere.

Religious Sensitivity: Infringing on Civil Rights?

Ok, today was a tough day. An awfully early start for a snoozer like me - 7 a.m - to attend a presentation workshop up in Dublin. Now, I'm usually the type of person who isn't mentally aware enough to even comprehend the newspaper 'funnies' that early in the morning. However, after being handed my free copy of the Metro paper, there were two stories in particular that kick-started my brain into action - and without any caffeine too. Now that says a lot!

Firstly, there was the particularly tragic story of a Muslim Man in Malaysia who has been ordered by a High Court judge to be caned with six lashes and serve a year in prison under Shariah Law. His crime?

Theft? Assault? Vandalism?

No. This man's crime was the consumption of alcohol. Yes, you read that right. Drinking during Ramadan. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Koran specifically calling for punishment for those who drink alcohol. It is considered a deviant activity, disrespectful to religion, yada yada yada. But don't you think imprisoning someone for having a beer or two is taking it a bit too far. So far, in fact, that it infringes on these people's civil rights. Only two months earlier Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, a Muslim woman, was sentenced to six lashes of the cane and a fine for having a beer in a hotel. These events have resulted in strong comndemnations from observers, including Amnesty International, who stress that the use of the cane as a punishment is prohibted by international law.

It just makes me wonder...how devout and abiding would Catholics be if the consumption of alcohol was prohibited by the Vatican? Random thought, but interesting. And in any case, what right do these groundless, Bronze Age ideas have in today's legal frameworks?

Freedom from religion never sounded so good to me....mmmmmm Beeeeeer....sacreligious!

Secondly, there was also the story of a Human Rights Watch analyst who was suspended for collecting Nazi memorabilia. Now, this fact first came to light in a pro-Israel blog, Mere Rhetoric.

What in the world is this all about? So if I buy a Nazi bayonet, I suddenly will become an anti-Semite, neo-Nazi? Historical artifacts are historical artifacts, and they have a very special value to people, which is not always directly related with the values of the original owners. And even so, did the Human Rights Watch completely overlook the fact that the man in question, Marc Garlasco, had a family history that was intertwined with the Second World War, with his German grandfather in fact being conscripted into the Nazi army.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't this just another case of religious oversensitivity trumping rationality?

Oppressing freedom, curbing rational thought, infringing on civil rights.....nice additions to the C.V of the almighty god (sorry,no capital letter for the big man on this blog). Goes along nicely with sexual discrimination, genocide, terrorism...don't you think?

Future Geopolitical Landscape

1897: With control over 25% of the world's population through its various colonies, roughly 400 million people, spanning Canada, India, Burma, Nigeria, South Africa, Iraq, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and many more, Britain stood tall as the world's single superpower. On June 22 1897, Queen Victoria, Britain and the rest of its empire celebrated this with the Diamond Jubilee. But the lesson to draw form Britain is that 'once a superpower not always a superpower'. After overexerting itself in the Boer War in 1902, despite victory, and through participation in World War I, Britain drained what was already a teetering economic situation. Although it remained politically powerful even up until the aftermath of the Second World War, it had to eventually cede its dominance to the new global superpower: the U.S.

Now fast forward a bit 1945: Post WWII agreements sees the Soviet Union also claim some political clout. But the threat of the spread of communism in the East soon precipitates the beginning of a 46 year Cold War between the Soviets and the U.S, resulting in a nuclear arms race, a space race and numerous proxy wars, and ultimately, a great sense of global unease, perhaps best exemplified in 1959, when the world held its breath over the Cuban Missile Crisis, where nuclear war seemed set to break out between the two superpowers. Fortunately it didn't, and with the eventual Soviet collapse in 1991, the U.S emerged on the global stage as the now sole superpower of the world. The global hegemon that sold the American Dream, pushed for free trade, encouraged globalization, spread its ideals and to some sold its soul for the niche economic interests of the elite oligarchs. In any case, it was all-powerful, politically, economically, militarily and culturally, and it strutted its stuff and did as it pleased. The Bush administration almost prided itself in ignoring popular international opinion and the stance of the United Nations and World Court. For who was going to challenge them? Unipolarity must have tasted sweet for almost the past two decades, but did the U.S play their hand badly? You bet they did.

2009: A sea change is occurring that has been so far unprecedented. China is emerging as a real economic power. China has grown 9% a year for almost thirty years, in the process lifting 400 million of its citizens out of poverty. But hang on...what's that coming over the hill from the south? India too is booming, granted not as fast as China (whose economy is three times its size), but its economy is still showing significant growth. Add into the mix other emerging economies in countries like Brazil and Russia, and we get to the stage where we should be considering what the future of geopolitics is going to look like? The U.S at the moment is suffering a huge economic hit from the financial meltdown. It also has a spiralling national debt ($2 trillion of which is owned by China - and don't mistake this for altruism either, this is a highly conscious decision to help prop up the American economy which is a huge market for Chinese goods). The U.S also has the health care issue to take care of, which is proving to be another huge drain on the national budget in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars a year used to finance two Middle Eastern Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, we must ask ourselves, is this the end of the U.S? Are they to become the next Britain....ashes of the superpower legacy?

No, far from it. Remember, economic power is only one facet of being a superpower....and even then, the U.S economy is still by far the largest economy in the world. The combined $125 million spent yearly on the Iraq/Afghan wars is only a paltry 1% of GDP, and despite losing many manufacturing jobs, the U.S still holds a sizable global lead in both the Nanotechnology and Biotechnology industries - industries for the future. Not only this, but America still possesses the most formidable and powerful military force in the world, and China doesn't look set to catch up any time soon, with its defense budget currently only 10% of that of the Pentagon. Politically, the U.S still has a great deal of clout, although this has diminished over the years as the government has abused the concept of legitimacy, resulting in a growing sense of Anti-Americanism across the globe. But for all these problems, none of the emerging countries is even close to challenging the hegemonic power of the U.S. But this is now, what about further on down the road? Well that is surely dependent on how the U.S, with all its power, reacts to the continuing growth of such countries. Will it accommodate and share the pie, or will it try to impede and keep as much for itself as it can? This is why the foreign policy of the U.S will have a significant bearing on the future of our planet. For me, integration and collaboration should be the way forward, particularly in tackling issues such as climate change and nuclear proliferation.

One thing is for sure though....the U.S is going to have to learn that complacency can have no place in Washington like it did in the last two decades.

2030: World War III...or a more harmonious multipolar geopolitical landscape? The decisions that we make now will determine this....so it is worth a thought or two, don't you think?

Brush Up On Your Evolution

Curious about evolution, but quite rightly intimidated by Darwin's wordy, often archaic 'The Origin of Species'? Which, keep in mind, was written in 1859, before anyone even knew anything about DNA! Although Darwin had it right on the mark, science has come along way since 1859, and Richard Dawkin's 'The Greatest Show on Earth' ,set to be released on the 3rd Septemeber, is bound to chronicle this progress in what I expect to be a pretty reader-friendly account of evolution. So why not give it a go? I have a pure hatred for hardbacks and trade paperbacks (mainly because they cost so frickin' much), but I think I'll make an exception for this once.

Darwin once famously wrote about evolution that 'there is grandeur in this view on life'

So check out what this view is all about. Visit your local bookstores now! Welll....maybe not now. But Sep 3 :D

Morality

It’s usually expressed by believers, either implicitly or explicitly, that they are moral because either i) they base their lives upon the Bible and its teachings or ii) that God fine-tuned us for morality from the beginning, and it is our job to tap into this divine morality.

Well….what a horrible damnation of humanity! So we can’t be moral without God or the Bible. Isn’t that sort of….you know….belittling our moral actions by saying that we are just channels for God’s morality? So a person who volunteers to go work and help deprived Africans over in Sierra Leone, Burundi etc. at his own financial and time costs is ultimately only doing this because of a divine being? So individually he should not be the one acknowledged for his selfless behaviour, but God. Doesn’t that dull any form of altruism then?

And then what about us atheists? Are we wicked, immoral beings because we reject both the Bible and God? In fact, I’d argue the exact opposite. How many wars have been waged in the name of religion or God? The Inquisitions, the Crusades etc. How many acts of grave immorality have been carried out in the name of religion or God? Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, in expressing the state of suppression of those bringing opposition to the religious rule of the Islamic government and its theocracy, stated that “We will oppress them by God’s order and God’s call to prayer” This man also ordered mass murder of demonstrators and protesters to the theocracy, resulting in thousands upon thousands of deaths. He also in 1989 ordered a fatwa against Salmon Rushdie, for writing the novel The Satanic Verses. That is one example, and I shouldn’t even have to explain in detail religion’s role in the suicide bombings occurring in Iraq, Israel, Indonesia etc. And don’t get me wrong, this is not an Islamic thing. George W. Bush almost invariably invoked the name of God in his horrific foreign policy, including a very much unjustified war at the time in Afghanistan following 9/11. And please don’t get me started on the ‘morality’ of Catholic priests…

So where did morality come from then, if not God? The beauty of it is we don’t really know for sure yet. But the fact that concepts of morality differ from culture to culture should ring alarm bells for those who think that it is a universal applied by God. More than likely morality is a by-product of the evolution of the human brain which is unique in its ability for ‘higher-thinking’ and a ‘theory of other minds’, in other words, empathy. So perhaps it is an evolutionary trait, which has been somewhat refined by situational factors such as the culture we grow up in.

Certainly, even if morality did come from God, then he must have done a pretty incompetent job!

My First Post

This is my first foray into blogging, and I guess the reason behind it is to help encourage rational and free thought among the many web users out there. If I get through to only one person I'll consider this venture to be a success. I hope you enjoy you're time here, whoever and wherever you are

Jay