n The Scotsman today: Veronica Wikman believes that “religious observance” in schools “equates to religious indoctrination”. In many cases, I suspect it serves more as inoculation than indoctrination, but her argument is flawed anyway. When school assemblies feature bland, lowest common denominator secular moralising, does that amount to humanist indoctrination? Secularists, usually driven by personal antipathy towards religion, demand an education system that only reflects their views. Pupils can be taught about religious views, but only secular opinions can be presented as personal convictions or institutional values. This is the definition of “neutrality” in the secularist dictionary. There is actually no such thing as a “neutral” approach to values and ethos in schools. Ms Wikman’s claim that parents are “forced to give religious organisations joint custody of our children in exchange for a state education” is just silly, overblown rhetoric. Am I forced to give the Scottish Rugby Union “joint custody” of my son because he has to play a bit of rugby at school? If she is concerned about being forced into “joint custody” of children, then the Scottish Government’s plan to appoint a state guardian for every child should be a more pressing issue. But if she is really just anti- religious, religious observance in schools will seem a better target. Richard Lucas
Posted on: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:11:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015