Newsletter 91.
Newsletter 91
from Maurice
Sweetsur
Contents.
Christian religious education in N.Z. state
schools.
Bible in Schools battlers denying our
heritage - Dr. Paul Moon.
T.T. 62 - How many different types of
Christians are there?
Arrested for -------
What?
Answering the five reasons why
Christian Religious Education should not be allowed in state
schools.
For many years the vast majority of
New
Zealand parents saw the roughly 30 minutes a
week spent on Christian instruction in state primary schools as either harmless
or beneficial: a half-hour of innocent stories or a fortification of children's
moral fibre. However, with our changing society, there is now an ongoing debate
about the desirability of Christian Religious Education (CRE) programmes in
New
Zealand State primary schools. The humanist group
"Secular Education network" is conducting a vigorous campaign with the objective
of making all New
Zealand state schools completely secular. Let's
look at the five main arguments that are used as to why these porogrammes should
stop.
1. The closing of schools for 30
minutes per week is illegal.
An amendment to the Education act in
1964 allowed schools, if they wished, to officially close for half an hour a
week to allow Religious teaching to take place. In this way the schools remained
"Secular". Parents who did not wish their children to participate had the right
to withdraw them from such classes.
Thus, such an arrangement is, and
always has been, completely legal. Some opponents talk about a loop-hole in the
law to give the impression that the closure of the schools is a means of doing
something illegal. But, as I say, the practice is completely within the law of
New
Zealand.
As a way of compromise, some have
suggested that the CRE classes should take place outside normal school
hours i.e. at lunchtime or after school. However as the parts of the school
where CRE classes are taking place are officially closed, they are already
happening out of school hours. Lunchtime or after school classes would have to
take place in a hall, without access to basic teaching aids such as desks,
chairs, whiteboards, pens, pencils, etc. Also, whether the classes meet during
lunchtime or after normal school hours, they would be competing with eating
time, playtime, and various other activities that the children would have to
give up if they wished to attend the Religious Education class.
Some "out of school hours classes"
are already in operation but, for the above reasons, they generally only attract
the very youngest children. Many such classes have been abandoned due to lack of
numbers.
I believe that a truly holistic
education involves addressing the needs of a child's mind, body and spirit.
Schools generally do well in the first two areas, and Religious education
generally does well in the third, but by moving these classes outside normal
school hours, and thus making attendance at them impractical for many, we are
hindering what should be a child's natural development in the third
area.
2. Christian Religious Education is just a means of
indoctrinating children.
There is a world of difference
between indoctrination and passing on knowledge about a subject. In contrast to
some subjects that are taught in schools, such as evolution that is usually
taught as a proven scientific fact rather than the unproven theory that it is,
the purpose of CRE is to teach the basics of the Christian faith and show the
important role it has played both historically and culturally in the development
of New Zealand's society. It is taught as a Belief system with such phrases as
"Christians believe that - - - - " or "The Bible teaches that - - - - " commonly
being used.
Very little schooling would take
place if every time a parent disagreed with a particular subject being taught it
had to be stopped. My
son was taught evolution as a fact at school, rather than the unproven theory
that it is. Although I don't believe in evolution myself (and I do hold a PhD
degree in Science), I didn't object to this because I believed that it would be
good for him to know about the subject and thus be better equipped to make up
his own mind what his Beliefs were when he was older. I believe the same is true
about CRE, which is actually taught as a Belief system rather than a proven
fact.
The religious
education teachers are drawn from all the main Christian (still by far the main
religion in NZ) denominations and teach from an agreed syllabus that
deliberately avoids any controversial subjects or anything that may offend
people of different beliefs.
3. Schools are discriminating against the children that
are withdrawn from CRE classes.
Because schools are
officially closed during CRE lessons, children are not obliged to attend them.
All parents need to do if they do not wish their child to attend such classes is
notify the school. The school will then provide suitable alternative activities
for such children. Some schools even run
their own non-religious "values" programme at the same time so as to give
parents a choice of which one for their children to attend. However, most still
opt for the "Christian" programme.
In my experience, far
from feeling discriminated against, children enjoy being singled out to do
something different from the rest of their class - like returning the class
register to the school office, being taken our for music practice, or going to
the library to work with a computer during CRE classes.
Really it is those
who oppose Christian education who are doing the discriminating. Because maybe
one parent doesn't want their child to attend the CRE class, they seem to think
they have the right to force it's closure against the wishes of the thirty or so
other parents who support it.
Over the last few
years many schools have polled parents on this subject. However, I do not know
of any school where the poll showed that the majority of parents favoured
stopping these programmes - although some of the schools went ahead anyway and
stopped the programmes to appease the vocal minority opposed to them. St.
Heliers’ school is a recent example. Their poll found that 68% were in favour of
the programmes, 19% were against and 13% didn't care either
way.
4. If Christianity is taught in schools, then so should
all religions.
It is estimated that
there are about 4,200 religions in the world! It is generally agreed that there
are twelve "major" world religions, but it would still be impracticable to teach
them all. Someone may suggest that only the "important" religions are taught,
but who would decide which religions were "important" and which were
not?
Actually, if their are
high numbers of people following a certain religion in one particular location,
there is no reason why their representatives cannot approach the local school to
ask them to allow teaching of their religion. In fact, I know of some schools
that already allow this, letting teachers to come in to teach the Moslem or the
Jehovah's Witness faiths at the same time as the CRE programme is being
held.
5. A better use of
children's time would be in studying more of the normal school curriculum rather
than having a CRE programme.
Let's put this in
perspective. Schools vary in the amount of time that they allocate to CRE
programmes. However, not many schools allocate as much as 15 hours per year, and many allocate
considerably less than this. I am sure that each year most children will spend
considerably more time than 15 hours absent from school for various
reasons.
The CRE programme
teach students about the importance of such virtues as respect, integrity,
honesty, tolerance, discipline, acceptance, forgiveness etc. They are intended
to help develop a safe and friendly environment in which the students will be
more likely to develop good habits and be better equipped to make better life
choices. They are thus designed to help maintain a safe and friendly school
environment in which students thrive.
As well as making a
difference to the moral standards of the students, these programmes would also
be expected to result in them becoming more disciplined and conscientious
towards their school work. This appears to be the case. National Standards
results show that, far from diminishing the academic achievements of the
children because of the less time spent studying the normal school curriculum,
schools that allow Religious education actually perform better on average than
those that don't. The difference between the two groups cannot be attributed to
different average Decile levels as these were almost identical. (See Newsletter 83 www.mauricesweetsur.blogspot.com
).
Conclusion.
There are many good
reasons for allowing the continuance of CRE programmes in state schools. But
where are all the "voices" speaking up in support of this? When this issue makes
the National news, as it seems to do more and more often, the number of
"feedback" comments seem to be about 90% for the abolition of the programmes and
only 10% in favour of their continuance.
I don't believe that
this is a true reflection of the general public's wishes. I have to conclude,
therefore, that those opposing CRE classes are more fervent in their desires
than those supporting them.
Dr Paul Moon: Bible in Schools battlers denying our heritage
It seems that the aggressive moral outrage from the serious-sounding Secular
Education Network was sufficient for the St Heliers School's Board of Trustees
to capitulate on the long tradition of Bible in Schools. This is how far we have
come, as a nation, in two centuries: from all the schools in the country being
organised by various Christian denominations (first Anglican and Methodists, and
later Catholics) to the insistence that no Christian instruction at all be
permitted in our state schools, and that to do otherwise becomes an urgent
matter of human rights
Christianity played a central role in the development of our state education system. By the 1820s, New Zealand's mission schools were the only source of primary schooling in the country. In some of these schools, lessons were taught by missionaries solely in te reo Maori, and there was an emphasis from the outset in providing free education to Maori as well as European children. Reading materials in te reo were printed by missionaries, and by the early 1840s, the Anglicans and the Catholics were both producing thousands of texts for the fast-growing Maori literate class.
Funding for these schools (based almost completely on donations from overseas churches) was often difficult to obtain, and they sometimes operated in extremely hostile environments. But the desire by missionaries in this period to educate and evangelise the nation's children resulted in an expansion in both the number and geographical spread of schools, initially radiating out from the Bay of Islands.
Only gradually did the state acquiesce to pleas by missionaries for support for schools. The 1847 Education Ordinance offered funding for mission schools, and specified that Christian instruction "shall form a necessary part of the system".
By 1867, legislation had firmly put many schools under state rather than church control, but the element of religious instruction remained. It was widely accepted in the 19th century to be beneficial for children, and despite the secular basis of state education in the country - which had been confirmed by the 1877 Education Act - the special place for Christian instruction remained.
By 1930, Catholics and Protestants united in advocating for Bible readings in state primary schools, and in the following decade, the Bible in Schools League encouraged the non-denominational "services" in schools. All the time, the vast majority of New Zealand parents saw the roughly 30 minutes a week spent on Christian instruction as either harmless or beneficial: a half-hour of innocent stories or a fortification of children's moral fibre.
Now, the agitation of a small minority of parents has abruptly turned this legacy into an issue of "human rights" - an appalling manipulation of the term that would offend those who have suffered genuine human rights abuses. And in the process, another part of our history is being discarded for the sake of an abstruse argument on rights.
Dr Paul Moon is Professor of History at AUT University, and author of several books on New Zealand history.
On the surface, the arguments for removing Bible in Schools
seem sensible, even noble. The separation of church and state is a worthy
principle, the role of schools is not to indoctrinate pupils, and as we live in
a much more diverse society than in previous generations, those professing
different faiths (and indeed, those with no faith) deserve equal respect.
.
Of course, looking over the curriculum for Bible in Schools, what is most
striking is how entirely innocuous it is - so much so that it makes its critics
appear self-righteous and doctrinaire. However, the emphasis of those opposed to
Bible in Schools seems to be on the absolutism of individual rights as an
abstract dogma, ignoring in the process the strong historical and cultural
legacy of Christianity in our state schools.Christianity played a central role in the development of our state education system. By the 1820s, New Zealand's mission schools were the only source of primary schooling in the country. In some of these schools, lessons were taught by missionaries solely in te reo Maori, and there was an emphasis from the outset in providing free education to Maori as well as European children. Reading materials in te reo were printed by missionaries, and by the early 1840s, the Anglicans and the Catholics were both producing thousands of texts for the fast-growing Maori literate class.
Funding for these schools (based almost completely on donations from overseas churches) was often difficult to obtain, and they sometimes operated in extremely hostile environments. But the desire by missionaries in this period to educate and evangelise the nation's children resulted in an expansion in both the number and geographical spread of schools, initially radiating out from the Bay of Islands.
Only gradually did the state acquiesce to pleas by missionaries for support for schools. The 1847 Education Ordinance offered funding for mission schools, and specified that Christian instruction "shall form a necessary part of the system".
By 1867, legislation had firmly put many schools under state rather than church control, but the element of religious instruction remained. It was widely accepted in the 19th century to be beneficial for children, and despite the secular basis of state education in the country - which had been confirmed by the 1877 Education Act - the special place for Christian instruction remained.
By 1930, Catholics and Protestants united in advocating for Bible readings in state primary schools, and in the following decade, the Bible in Schools League encouraged the non-denominational "services" in schools. All the time, the vast majority of New Zealand parents saw the roughly 30 minutes a week spent on Christian instruction as either harmless or beneficial: a half-hour of innocent stories or a fortification of children's moral fibre.
Now, the agitation of a small minority of parents has abruptly turned this legacy into an issue of "human rights" - an appalling manipulation of the term that would offend those who have suffered genuine human rights abuses. And in the process, another part of our history is being discarded for the sake of an abstruse argument on rights.
Dr Paul Moon is Professor of History at AUT University, and author of several books on New Zealand history.
T.T.
62 - How many types of Christians are there?
The answer is ONE. You need to understand what a Christian really is. If you ask most people what a Christian is, they will probably reply something like "A person who goes to church", or, "A person who prays a lot and reads the Bible", or, "A person who does lots of good deeds and is always kind to others". All these things are good, but none of them make a person a Christian. Rather, these are some of the things that Christians do - because they already are Christians! Real Christians do these things because they can't help themselves. They are "natural" to them because Jesus has changed them on the insides, and given them a God-given desire to do these things, which is simply an outward expression of their new love for both God and other people.
Of course non-Christians can also do some or all of the above things, but that doesn't make them Christians. Some people do these things to try and please God - because they don't understand that God's forgiveness and acceptance can never be earned, no matter how 'good' they are, or how hard they try. Others do these things to try and impress people, so that they will think well of them, or be good to them in return.
One of the best ways of understanding what a real Christian really is, is to consider the three words :- CHRIST IN PERSON. When you condense these words into one, you are left with CHRISTIAN.
Thus, CHRIST IN PERSON = CHRISTIAN.
In other words, a Christian is a person in whom Jesus Christ is living. And He can only live in you if you invite Him to do so asking Him to forgive your sins (wrongdoing) and to come and take charge of your life.
I understand why somebody could ask
the above question. There are thousands of different religions in the world, the
followers of some of the best known being the Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and
Jews. Even among the Christian faith, there are many different Denominations or
types of church. It can all be rather confusing to the
outsider.
The first thing to realise is that
Christianity is not a religion. In fact, it is the opposite of religion.
Religion is all about us trying to please God, to reach Him by doing good works.
On the other hand, Christianity is all about God coming down to us as Jesus and
meeting us where we are. All we are required to realise that it is impossible to
please God by our own good deeds and to accept what Jesus has done for us on the
cross. It is the difference between trying and trusting. See the Figure
below.
There are two radical differences
between all religions and Christianity.
1. Religions teach that our only way
to God and Heaven is through our own Good works.
2. Religions deny that Jesus is God.
(Many believe that Jesus was a good man or a Prophet, but they deny His
divinity).
At the centre of the Christian faith
is the belief that Jesus is God, and that we can ony reach God and Heaven
through Him (see John 14.6).
Different Christian
churches.
There are three different types of
Christian churches. They differ because of what they have as their FINAL
AUTHORITY for what they believe and consequently the way they
live.
1. The Roman
Catholics.
Roman Catholics have as their final
authority their church leaders, in other words the declarations of their Popes,
past and present. They believe that the Pope is God's spokesman on earth, and
that therefore what the Pope says is what God says. Also, as God is infallible,
so must be the Pope's declarations.
The problem arises when one Pope may
contradict what a former Pope had declared, or what is taught in the
Bible.
2. The Liberal
churches.
This group have as their final
authority human reason. They respect the Bible and what various church leaders
have said, but if this is against what their mind tells them is true, they
reject it. For example, they may deny most of the miracles recorded in the Bible
such as the bodily resurrection of Christ and attempt to explain them away.
Unfortunately, if you remove the miraculous from the Bible, you are just left
with a few interesting stories and some good moral
teaching.
3. The Evangelical
churches.
The Bible is their final authority. They use their human
reason, and they appoint leaders, but when these contradict the Bible, they
submit to the authority of the latter, believing that it is the inspired and
infallible Word of God.
Even among the Evangelical group of churches, there are many different denominations, and variations in what they believe and teach. However, many of these differences are 'minor doctrines' and ultimately not important to our salvation. Such 'minor doctrines' include Water Baptism - i.e. the Baptism of infants or 'Believers', the present day operation of the gifts of the Spirit, the method of Church government, the role of women in the church and the correct interpretation of the 'End Times'.
I would suggest, however, that there are six 'Major doctrines' that Evangelical churches have in common, and around which they can have true unity. These are:-
1.The Divinity of Christ.
2. The substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross for our sins.
3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus.
4. Our need to be 'Born Again'.
5. God accepts us on the basis of our faith in Jesus alone.
6. The Bible, as first given, is the divine and infallible 'Word of God'.
Even among the Evangelical group of churches, there are many different denominations, and variations in what they believe and teach. However, many of these differences are 'minor doctrines' and ultimately not important to our salvation. Such 'minor doctrines' include Water Baptism - i.e. the Baptism of infants or 'Believers', the present day operation of the gifts of the Spirit, the method of Church government, the role of women in the church and the correct interpretation of the 'End Times'.
I would suggest, however, that there are six 'Major doctrines' that Evangelical churches have in common, and around which they can have true unity. These are:-
1.The Divinity of Christ.
2. The substitutionary death of Jesus on the cross for our sins.
3. The bodily resurrection of Jesus.
4. Our need to be 'Born Again'.
5. God accepts us on the basis of our faith in Jesus alone.
6. The Bible, as first given, is the divine and infallible 'Word of God'.
We should remember, however, that true Christians can be
found in all these three types of churches. The type of church you attend
doesn't determine whether you are a Christian or not. A true Christian (CHRIST
IN PERSON) is simply someone with Christ living within them, because He has been
invited to do so.
Arrested for … WHAT?!
The Top 25 Weirdest Laws in the U.S. ( Taken from http://bit.ly/DumbLawsInfographic ).Did you know that if you try to pump your own gas in Oregon, you could be risking a visit from the police? Crossing state lines sometimes means entering a whole new world of prohibited behavior that you’d never imagine. Here is a list of the 25 strangest laws in the country: laws that beg the question, “What went wrong to make THAT a law?!”
25. Alabama
It is illegal in Lee County for a person to sell peanuts after sundown on Wednesdays.
24. University City, Missouri
It is illegal for four women to rent an apartment together.
23. Detroit, Michigan
Letting your pet pig run free in the streets is illegal unless it has a ring in its nose.
22. Las Cruces, New Mexico
One may not carry a lunch box down Main Street.
21. Alaska
It is illegal for a person to view a moose from an airplane.
20. Marion, Oregon
One may not walk backward while eating a donut on any city street.
19. Arizona
It is illegal for donkeys to sleep in bathtubs.
18. Logan, Utah
It is illegal for women to swear.
17. Arcadia, California
Peacocks always have the right of way on streets and even private driveways.
16. Acworth, Georgia
It is illegal not to own a rake.
15. Indiana
Liquor stores are prohibited from selling milk.
14. Omaha, Nebraska
It is illegal for men with shaved chests to run around.
13. Vermont
Women may only wear false teeth with permission from their husbands.
12. Wyoming
Taking a picture of a rabbit from January to April without an official permit is illegal.
11. New Britain, Connecticut
Fire trucks may not exceed 25 mph, even when hurrying to a fire.
10. Virginia
It is illegal to tickle a woman.
9. Minneapolis, Minnesota
It is illegal to drive a red car down Lake Street.
8. North Dakota
Falling asleep anywhere with your shoes on is illegal.
7. Kentucky
Dyeing a duckling blue and selling it is illegal, unless you are selling more than six blue ducklings at once.
6. Iowa
Men with mustaches may never kiss women in public.
5. Derby, Kansas
It is illegal to hit or pound on a vending machine that stole your money.
4. South Berwick, Maine
Parking in front of a Dunkin’ Donuts building is illegal.
3. Washington
It is illegal for people to pretend that their parents are rich.
2. Texas
The whole Encyclopedia Britannica is outlawed because it contains a recipe for making beer at home.
1. Louisiana
It is illegal to shoot lasers at police officers.
posted by Maurice Sweetsur @ 5:50 PM
<< Home