Secularists Opening up a Can of Their Own Worms?

Post 23—

We are still on the issue of why some secularists want to effect changes in the Public Schools of BC. The secularists under discussion are, of course, good friends of mine and fellow members of World Views Collaborative (WVC). So, I am talking here about and even to these friends. They are three and I could name them for you. Their initials are E and K and E. Well, you know that bit about privacy that’s in the BC air.

They invited me to join them in a “crusade” to have Public School authorities in BC agree to a new high school course that would teach about all major BC world views. That would include the various religions as well as Humanism, their own world view. I joined them because I agreed this would be a good thing and I am glad I did, for I have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know my WVC friends in a setting where everyone is very definite about their own world view but also very open, respectful and courteous about that of others.

I have tried to warn E, K and E that they could be opening up a can of their own worms. As it is, their world view is actually the reigning one in the Public Schools. There is no course teaching their world view, but theirs is the entire basis of the system and all courses are based on the secular world view. Now, of course, like other religions/world view, secularists are also divided amongst themselves, so that many of them will have some critique of the Public School system. However, by and large it is theirs that is the very atmosphere that the students and teachers breathe in these schools as the assumed truth that is hardly ever subject to scrutiny in those schools. The entire world view is simply assumed and considered neutral enough that everyone can subscribe to it. ‘t Ain’t so. Many do not subscribe to it and hence have transferred to schools more amenable to their own world view—after they have been forced to pay the taxes to have the establishment world view of Secularism taught.

E, K and E, do you not realize how privileged your world view is in the Public School? Without anyone overtly teaching it, students just soak it in effortlessly without realizing it. I know, for I have been through it and did indeed soak it up without realizing how I slowly veered away from my own Christian world view. Oh, I did not lose my faith, but my views of the world and events and scientific discoveries, etc. all became increasingly secularized. It was not until I began taking courses in Christian philosophy at university level that I began to realize that I had been secularized in much of my thinking. The secular world view of the system almost achieved its purpose with me.

But no one seems to realize that secularism is really the establishment faith or world view. It is exactly that. Now, if the schools are going to teach that course, including Secularism, students are going to question that world view that previously they simply imbibed unconsciously. Students and parents may suddenly begin to realize that there is nothing neutral about this perspective and that it is as subjective as all the other world views taught in the course. It, too, can be questioned and rejected like all the others or accepted. Its privileged status in the schools will be questioned. That is the can of worms I am talking about.

And with its privileged status now being questioned, people will begin to ask why the Public School only supports this one particular world view and not any of these others. Canadians have long ago rejected the notion of an establishment worldview, at least, when it was a Christian one. Catholics long had that dubious privilege in Quebec and they still enjoy the financial residue of that in Ontario. Anglicans have been the establishment in Ontario and, if my BC history is not completely off the track, even enjoyed a minor version of it on Vancouver Island. People have revolted against such arrangements and many take it ill of these churches for the establishmentarian roles they have played. E, K and E, is that what you are looking for? You really want those worms out of the can? Having an annual Christmas tree in these schools or one or two other tokens of our Christian past is a small price to pay for having your world view presented as unquestioned gospel truth.

Public School System--A Discrimination Factory?

Post 20

In the last blog or so I have referred to Humanists cum Atheists—from here on I will refer to them all simply as “Humanists”-- in the Public Schools. They tell me they feel excluded. The schools may celebrate some religious holidays, especially Christian, but no one ever pays attention to or singles out Humanism. As if they do not exist. That’s the complaint I keep hearing from my Humanist friends of World Views Collaborative (WVC).

Humanists are not the only ones to complain. In fact, it seems almost everyone complains. Almost everyone feels excluded in one way or another or at one time or another. Jews and many others feel excluded during Christian celebrations like Christmas. Almost every year, some people will take their Public School or their Public School Board to task for being so pro-Christian and, thus, discriminating.

So you would think that of all the various groups, Christians would be the happiest with the Public School system. After all, according to some, the system reflects their values more than that of any other group.

But this raises the question why it is that Christians in BC have established so many private schools of their own and have opted out of the public system. Humanists haven’t opted out and neither have Jews, but Christians have, by the thousands. Christians of all stripes, with the Catholics and the Reformed family of churches in the forefront, but also Evangelicals. Do Humanists, Jews or others who complain about the Christian culture in the Public Schools ever wonder about that? Christians are so unhappy with these schools that they spend fortunes of their own money on these alternative schools, money that others spend on luxuries and travels. Christians also feel discriminated against in the Public Schools.

So, now we appear to have a system no one is happy with and everybody feels it discriminates against them. I have not even mentioned the complaints of the gay community. Why does the public put up with a school system no one seems to like and everyone experiences as discriminatory? That’s not the way it was supposed to be. Everyone was supposed to feel at home in this system because of its alleged neutrality when it comes to religion or worldview. We all were expected to be happy with the common platform provided by secularism, but, it seems, many are not.

In the next blog I will explain why so many Christians have opted out. Good night.

World View Collaborative (WVC)

Blog 19 --Religion in the Public Schools

The last two blogs featured discussions about ethical dilemmas that were generated and discussed in the framework of WorldViews Collaborative (WVC). Though I have already briefly introduced this organization two posts ago, let me elaborate a bit more.

WVC’s main mission at the moment is to promote the teaching about religions and worldviews in the BC public schools. I mention both “religions” and “worldviews,” for at least one group represented does not view itself as a religion so much as a worldview. I refer to the Humanist members, who also describe themselves as Atheists. While in our time Christians and Atheists are engaged in a pretty fierce battle, especially in books, journals and magazines, the members of WVC respect each other and their views, sometimes discuss them, but always amicably. This does not mean that we are lukewarm regarding our individual world views. In fact, we are all quite adamant and convinced within our own minds of the truth and value of our beliefs. None of us are world view slouchers. (From here on, I will avoid repetition of the term “religions and world views” by simply using “world views” to cover both of them.)

However, it came to the attention of the Atheist founder(s) of WVC that the people of BC do not really know much about what makes us all tick or what different people find important in their lives. Our public schools don’t help us in this regard, for religion is taboo there. Our schools are secular. Punkt. Religion has no place there. The system is said to be “pluralistic” and “neutral.” It emphasizes what we all have in common and ignores what separates us. As a result neighbours don’t know their neighbours; public school pupils don’t know each other either.

Nevertheless, according to these founders, though no worldview is overtly taught in our public schools, there is a strong Christian bias that permeates the school culture at the disadvantage of other worldviews, including Humanism. Of course, they are not the first to have noticed this. Especially at Christmas time, non-Christians often feel marginalized in our Public Schools and will either complain in the press or to their local school boards. It happens every year.

So, the solution that occurred to these Humanist friends of mine—yes, we have become good friends!—is to find a way to promote the teaching about all major world views in BC—Christian, Humanist, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Muslim, all of them—in the Public School system. The purpose is not to convert anyone or to proselytize, but simply to present the main contours of each world view in an objective manner as information, so that pupils of different world views will get to know each other better, also later as adults.

Rabbi Dennis Prager once blamed certain “liberals” who are in charge of the system, apparently “liberals” of a different stripe from those who founded WVC as follows:

Liberals… are always talking about pluralism, but that is not what they mean. They mean “melting-pot.” Pluralism… means that Catholics are Catholics, Jews are Jews, Baptists and Baptists, etc. That’s what pluralism means—everyone affirms his values and we all live with civic equality and tolerance. That’s my dream. But in public school, Jews don’t meet Christians. Christians don’t meet Hindus. Everybody meets nothing. That is… why their children so easily inter-marry. Jews don’t marry Christians. Non-Jewish Jews marry non-Christian Christians. Jews for nothing marry Christians for nothing. They get along great because they both affirm nothing. They have everything in common—nothing. That’s not pluralism. But that’s exactly what the liberal world wants. They want a bunch of secular universalists with ethnic surnames. (Quoted by Paul Marshall in A. Van Ginkel, ed., Shaping a Christian Vision for Canada. Markham: Faith Today Publications, 1992, p. 20.)

So, the point of WVC is to make the citizens of BC aware of their differences as well as commonalities, so that we can know each other better. My neighbour to know what makes me tick and vice versa. Pupils will come to realize that these different world views represent deep depositories and traditions of truths and insight from which we can all obtain greater wisdom, even if we do not agree with all we hear. The various colourful parades and other events are not just “funny” things that Indians or Pakistanis do, but they represent depths of thought that would never have occurred to us. This project will hopefully take away the shrouds of secrecy and mystery with which we surround ourselves and remove the ignorance with which we observe each other. Exchange fear with respect and interest; suspicion with challenging dialogue.

For reasons I do not quite comprehend, the founder, retired Professor Ernest Poser of UBC and, before that, McGill, somehow found me and judged me a suitable candidate for this project. Perhaps he fell upon my website (www.SocialTheology.com ). But I am glad he invited me, for I have enjoyed meeting this inter-religious group tremendously. For one thing, I have noticed that not all liberals, Humanists, Atheists and secularists are the same. There are tolerant ones amongst them, very gracious and compassionate. I write a lot about adherents to that world view and often quite vociferously. When these friends read my writings, I want them to know that my frustrations with their co-liberals are not aimed at them, especially not personally. Of course, the deep differences and disagreements remain, but we enjoy each other’s company. Poser and I especially enjoy our occasional souperamas either in our homes or in restaurants, during which we engage each other in great discussions. Thank you, Ernest!--as well as you, Kathy and Eric.

Ethical Dilemma (1)

Post 17

I belong to a small organization that is busy at promoting the teaching of BC’s different world views in the public school system. The organization is called "World Views Collaborative" (WVC). Its members are consciously recruited from different religions and world views. They include secular Humanists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians and various kinds of Christians. We are all aware of the stark differences between our respective worldviews, but, in the interest of a common mission that we all espouse, we have decided to work together and have gradually developed strong personal bonds between each other. Though we are all firm adherents to our respective world views, we have decided to be tolerant of our differences. We talk about them freely, accept and respect each other and, though disagreeing, we do not criticize each other’s perspective.

Among other exercises, we have devised an ethical dilemma project in which each member explains how she would solve the dilemma on basis of her worldview. So, various members have submitted their contribution, all of which are found on the WVC’s webpage
<>.

Below I reproduce the first ethical dilemma assigned to all of us, after which I reproduce my response to the dilemma from a Calvinist perspective.

Dilemma (1) – Medical Intervention vs. Death

Your 80 year old brother, who lives at a great distance from you, has been hospitalized with pneumonia. He has no "living will." The treating physician asks your sister-in-law to authorize a surgical procedure that would make it very difficult for the patient to speak and would also require that he be fed through a gastric tube for an indeterminate length of time. Without these measures the patient is not expected to survive longer than a week.

A Calvinist Perspective (slightly edited from the website version)

My basic Christian view is that, even under extraordinary circumstances, human life is always inviolate and sacred. It must be protected. That is true for everyone’s life, poor and rich, young and old. At both ends of life. One of the issues in this case may be resources and finances, where a choice must be made between the life of this one elderly man or of some younger or more vital people who are responsible for the lives of dependents. The example is not clear. But given his age and the information at hand,

I would recommend the procedure–

-- if the brother can live with the intervention in reasonable comfort;
-- if his post-pneumonia health is of viable quality that could still qualify as life, in distinction
from a very poor and painful existence;
-- if there are viable care-taking arrangements in place.
-- if the procedure and subsequent care will not make heavy demands on the public purse that
would lead to younger people with dependents being bypassed.

I would recommend that the situation be allowed to take its natural course–

-- if his life during intervention would be (next to) intolerable;
-- if there are no viable care-taking arrangements available;
-- if the resources expended on extending this life would be at the expense of a younger persons
lives, especially those with dependents.

I invite readers to challenge me on this one, especially fellow Christians. We are facing unfamiliar situations today. Medical technology allows amazing life extension sometimes, but usually at terrific expense. In Canada and many other Western countries, such expenses will often have to be borne by the public. The public purse can be stretched only so far and therefore choices have often to be made. Should this life be preserved at any cost, even if it should mean that a younger, more vital, person with dependents would not get needed treatment and be kept from supporting his dependents? Should that course be followed, the total expense would be horrific. A fragile life would be preserved, most likely under very negative conditions hardly worthy of the designation "life." The younger persons with dependents might go down the tube, with several promising lives perhaps forever thwarted, which would potentially drag out expenses over many decades of distorted lives. In BC, at least, the cost of a street person is something like $60,000 per annum. All lives are sacred, that of the younger person and her dependents as much as that of this fragile elder who has lived his life. What would be your solution?