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 (2)

Please re-read the introduction to the previous post, Ethical Dilemma (1), so you know what this one is all about.

The Dilemma: The Case of the Lying Refugee
A young woman, in another part of the world, faces an arranged marriage to
a man she hardly knows and does not wish to marry. She therefore
secretly leaves home to seek asylum on another continent. Fearing that
her family might trace her whereabouts and arrange for her repatriation,
she gives a false name and age in her application for citizenship in the
host country. When found out, should she be denied citizenship in her
chosen country of refuge?

Comments

Western culture tends to condemn arranged marriages. In addition, we are familiar with this case and she is upheld as an international hero and writer. Hence, most of us might almost naturally approve of her refugee application and discount her lies. My worldview takes the following into consideration and leads to the following decisions:

• The Bible does not condemn arranged marriages. A case might be made that the Bible would prefer such arrangements to those of the West, where marriage occurs in an extremely individualistic framework and breaks down much more frequently than in cultures where it is arranged.
• This person had a very rebellious attitude about her that did not tolerate the restrictions of her native culture. It was not a matter of religious or political persecution that endangered her life. Such a person might make a good immigrant, but refugee provisions are not meant to cover her circumstances. So here we have a person taking up refugee resources of time and money that should have been applied to genuine refugees.
• Since her entire refugee case is a bogus one, I would not accept her as a refugee. I would recommend she be deported to her native country and apply for immigration. I would insist on deportation to discourage others from making bogus application. I would advise her that, if she wants to come to this country, The Netherlands (NL), she apply from her home country as an immigrant. She might return to NL under bond to pay expenses NL incurred from her bogus refugee claim.
• Alternatively, in this particular case, while awaiting lengthy refugee proceedings, suppose her life style, ambitions and considerable ability had become clear. She demonstrated that she would be a valuable citizen. Hence, her case could be transferred to the immigration dept and treated there within NL. However, to qualify as an immigrant, she should be bonded to repay the expenses incurred in processing her bogus application.
• I will tolerate “lies” from genuine refugees whose lives are endangered at home for religious or political reasons. Here compassion would kick in as well as my conception of truth vs lie. I am a product of WW II, where people saved each other’s lives by so-called “white lies.” Such “lies” are used worldwide. I do not consider them lies but a life-saving device to be used in dangerous circumstances. The case of the KGB Russian in Vancouver who told the truth about himself, should teach us that truth is not always appreciated in the halls of refugee administration. In the murky circumstances of refugee culture the “white lie” is standard and needs our sympathy but not our unqualified approval or affirmation. It should be considered allowable in selected cases. That would not be the case in our example.
•
Neither life nor reason nor the Bible are always all black or white! The refugee in question, after being accepted as refugee and citizen, ended up chastizing her new country for being too tolerant of refugees!

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?

For the Love of Food Animals (3)

Post 9

I was going to move on to another topic, but an article by Peter Fricker in the Vancouver Sun caught my attention. The title is “Are Food Animals Victims of Their Poor Image?” (Vancouver Sun, 20 Sep/2010). Fricker is a departmental director for the Vancouver Humane Society and has given me leave to use his article as I see fit. For not knowing me at all, that’s pretty generous and daring. So, thanks, Peter.

In the previous post, I dealt shortly with how food animals are treated and insisted that they must be treated with respect, compassion, mercy and in ways appropriate to their nature. They are, after all, creatures of God who are entrusted to us for care, protection and, where necessary, control.

Fricker wonders why not more outrage is expressed at cruelty to animals in general, including food animals. His is not the only one. A couple of years ago there was a public campaign against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)for the atrociously cruel way they treat(ed) their chickens. It was fought on various fronts, including on the sidewalk in front of KFC outlets. I understand the company promised to do better and the street campaign, at least, has ceased. I hope it is true.

Chickens seem to be among the most vulnerable of food animals. They run into the billions. According to Fricker, Canadians slaughter 580 million of them annually. Our giant cousin, no fewer than 9 billion p.a.! Now that’s some chicken!

How do they suffer? Well, they are bred to grow so fast that “their bones cannot support their weight, leading to chronic painful conditions and injuries.” When they are to be transported for slaughter, “they endure rough handling, often breaking (brittle) bones.” En route, they are “exposed to extreme weather over long distances, with some dying” along the way. Survivors so far are often “shackled upside down, dragged through a sometimes ineffective stun bath and having their throats slit.”

Though Christian tradition and the Bible allow animals to be used for human consumption, that does not make it acceptable for them to “be treated so inhumanely.” Fricker suggests that “breeding for unnaturally fast growth could be stopped” Based on the responsibility for treating animals according to their kind, I would see that such breaking should be stopped. An imperative, especially for Christians who should know better. They should also be allowed more space to move around beyond the “half-square foot of space,” as Fricker puts it. While en route, they should be fed and watered more frequently. Slaughter methods should become more human—by gas perhaps, as Fricker would prefer to see.

Like our pets, chickens “feel fear, pain and distress. Capacity for suffering is something all animals share,” but “it appears that, for most of us, that is acceptable.” Thanks, Fricker, for this pungent article.

One of the things that bothers me in all this is that Christians are among these poultry keepers. There are several of them in the Fraser Valley of BC’s Bible Belt. Why is that we do not hear them speak up in protest as professionals and as people who are aware of Biblical teachings? It is perhaps because few people write about it and few express outrage. Preachers hardly ever preach on the subject. I have never heard one sermon on the subject, not even from my own mouth!

The problem I believe is that handy little escape hatch many Christians use as an excuse. It goes by various names. My favourite name for it is “<dualism.” It describes the worldview held by many Christians that divides religious, spiritual and churchly concerns from the rest of culture. We are left with two realms: religion and the world. In the world you do as you please, as long as you do God’s things in the religious real. Chickens are part of that world cut off from religion. So, therefore you can do with chickens as you please. It is not of God’s concern.

I’ve got news for you, you Christian dualists. That ain’t the way things are or go. The entire world and all that’s in it belong to God and they are to be treated accordingly. That’s one of the time-honoured emphases of the Calvinistic tradition. That dualistic perspective is a secular worldview with which Christians ought to have no truck. The Christian Religion is not that cheap or easy.

The same reasoning and perspective hold for keeping any other animals for profit. Profit is legitimate; it is the oil of the economy. But it cannot be the sole bottom line. I invite you to take it from there.

For the Love ofAnimals (2)--and Control

Post 8

Yes, it is a cause for celebration that we are so much more humane in relationship to the animal world around us. But, based on the Bible, theology and well-established Christian tradition, animals are not our equals. We need to respect them and protect them. We are meant to enjoy them, but we need also to control them. The safety and well-being of people have priority over those of animals.

When in emergencies we are forced to choose between rescuing people or animals, we choose the former. When animals become dangerous to the human community, we must do what we can to accommodate them, but they must give way. When deer and bears attack people in their towns and villages as they do in some BC communities like North Vancouver and Grand Forks, then ways have to be found to move them away or, under extreme circumstances, even kill them. When rabbits on a university campus as in Victoria, threaten to take over the place, government regulations should not prevent authorities from taking the necessary steps to alleviate the problem. When Canada geese poop all over the lawns of Stanley Park so that they can no longer be used for recreational purposes by the tax payers, then there must be freedom to solve the problem, probably by killing them. When large birds endanger airplanes or disrupt power supplies, the community must protect itself against such onslaughts, possibly by killing them.

Biblically, we have priority. An early Bible account has Adam and Eve giving names to animals. You don’t give names if you don’t have the authority to do so--except perhaps place names changed arbitrarily by colonial adventurers—or if you don’t have the required insight into the nature of the individual animal. Our earliest ancestors in the Bible stories are given the assignment, the obligation, to rule over the entire world and all its creatures. The fact that the human race has often messed up this assignment due to the fall does not reduce our authority over animals or our obligation to rule and control them.

We have zoos, where we keep animals out of their natural habitat for human entertainment, but also for education. Is this legitimate? Purely for recreation, probably not. For education, I believe it is, especially if they are kept in humane ways and in environments as natural as possible. How many children have not enjoyed and profited from seeing wild animals, perhaps even petted them? It should lead to awareness, admiration and respect on their part.

For a long time, people have hunted and fished to supply themselves with food and this continues to be so. This is a legitimate use of the creatures placed under our authority. However, when hunting and fishing is reduced to recreation, then it becomes another issue. Recently my grandson and I watched some recreational fishermen on the White Rock BC dock roughly pull the hook out of small fish or even cut them with knives and then throw them back in the water. My 8-year old grandson was rightly horrified and indignant. I know of people who derive pleasure from shooting elephants in Africa, those magnificent beasts! Just imagine: pleasure! The fact that the villagers got to eat their meat does not undo the affront of the pleasure. That is not the authority over and responsibility for our animals that can be Christianly justified.

But hunting and fishing as part of a community’s food chain is legitimate—as is the raising of animals for meat. At least, in my estimation and understanding, though I have considerable sympathy for the vegetarians among us. I may well be ever so slowly moving into that direction, but I am not ready for it—yet! But raising chickens or hogs or any other meat for human consumption must take into consideration their nature, something that has been ignored for too long. Thousands of chickens in crowded batteries is no Christian way to treat them. The Bible says, they all have their own nature and must be treated accordingly. Filling them with chemicals for greater profit is an abuse of human authority and cruel, quite apart from the human disease such practices cause. At the same time, raising rabbits on the ground may be natural to them, but will lead to their disappearance and, quite likely, lead to an out-of-control rabbit plague.

And with this,I leave you to ponder.

For the Love of Animals (1)

I love it when birds carelessly stroll in my path on the city sidewalk, pecking away at seeds or insects invisible to me. I feel so honoured that birds and other wild creatures have come to feel so much at home with us humans that they share intimate space with us without fear. Though our society has plenty of raw sides that I can and in due time will rant and rave about, it says some very good things about our communal values. Not only do we humans regard untamed animals as our friends and respect them, but they have also learned to accept us in what is their territory just as much as ours.

This mutual sharing of space and respect is, probably with the exception of our bovine friends in India, hardly practiced in most non-western countries. There animals are seldom treated with kindness. Even domesticated animals such as dogs or cats, those we consider pets, are routinely roughly chased out of people’s way without a grain of kindness. I have lived in such countries for 30 years and have seen it all. Closer to home, the other day I watched an obviously foreign mother with two small children in Stanley Park. The children were, playfully to be sure, chasing the large gaggle of Canadian geese strolling in the grass. The mother, rather than restraining and teaching them the better way, obviously encouraged the children. I was there with two grandchildren who were also tempted to the chase, but my wife and I restrained them, even though I am no particular lover of those geese in the Park for reasons my Vancouver readers will understand. So much for my fellow immigrants accepting Canadian values. Or has love of, respect for and delight in animals not yet been included in the hallowed status of Canadian values?

But neither has it always been that way in our own western society. When I was a child, pets were usually treated with kindness by its owners. Other than that, animals were seldom treated with respect or love. Of course, cattle and other animals kept for profit were treated well, but others were readily chased away with no one challenging it. We had no birds or ducks sharing our space, for they knew we were their enemies.

During my forties—a long, long time ago, I admit it—I was once part of a relaxed circle of chatting friends. One of us—not me, I rush to say it!—saw an ant close to his foot and he casually crushed it with his foot. Another member—not me, I hesitate to admit—stopped the conversation and asked that friend why he so callously crushed that ant for no reason. He had no explanation, of course, certainly not a valid one. That incident was a turning point in my life when it comes to treatment of insects, animals, birds, fish, whatever, and my relationship to them, though the friend who gave the challenge did not remember the incident when I reminded him years later.

It is good that we in our society have come to this stage in our relationship with birds and animals, including wild ones. It is good, for these are God’s creatures that He made for a purpose. They enrich nature and, once you begin to study their world, you will delight in how these creatures fill this world with incredible diversity in the sky, on the land or under the waters. It has taken us way too long to reach this stage. Apart from that, of course, they largely keep the entire ecological system in balance, though imbalance can and does set in occasionally.

Perhaps there is an explanation for this difference between the West and others in this respect. Part of it, no doubt, is the continuing penetration of Christo-humanism in the minds of Westerners. Growing realization of the need to respect creation in general based on a combination of both Bible and reason for some and only on reason for others. It is part of the promise of Jesus that God will lead us collectively into truth as we make our way in this world.

But there is also the economic factor of greater wealth that makes us more relaxed. My wife and I were in our office in Nigeria together with a Nigerian friend. A beautiful bird was flying about outside, jumping from tree branch to branch. My wife and I both commented on its beauty, but our Nigerian friend shrugged his shoulder and muttered, “But you can’t eat it!” Though he may not have been poor himself, he was part of an economically challenged community that naturally reacted in that way. It had no value for him and he had no respect for it. We don’t crave the meat of animals in the space around us, for we are already satiated. And we have the time to admire animals without that craving.

But then we have other animal issues that seem to militate against the love and respect we have for them. I will deal with some of these issues in the next blog.