Roger Hicks
Veteran
Good point Roger. The presenter I mention made a distinction that the influence of church did not matter as to any religion at all. He was really not speaking about the spiritual aspect so much as the social norms one learns in the institutional setting of the church. For example, the socially accepted norms of dress, behavior, how to interact with adults, etc. Reflecting on my own experiences, I think I did learn a great deal in church as a youth about how to interact with others and what the social norms were. That is totally separate from any value judgement about the spiritual aspect of church that I agree we should avoid in this discussion. In my own community the weekly attendance to church by the public is a low percentage of the overall population, so youth here do miss out on that opportunity for social education not related to religion. Did I make sense?
Dear Gary
In the UK, the Education Act 1944 required 'a daily collective act of worship' (I think I have the wording right) and at least one lesson per week of a subject variously known as RK (Religious Knowledge), RI (Religious Instruction), Scripture and Divinity.
This did a good deal to inoculate my generation against religion. Morally, I really doubt that I learned anything significant from organized religion. My parents were not habitual churchgoers and I lasted (as far as I recall) two weeks at Sunday School, but as it was over half a century ago I'm not sure if it was one week or two. Even then I perceived it as saccharine drivel, devoid of provable content.
In other words, because we didn't get one particular view of religion, presented by one particular vicar/priest/minister, and reinforced by parents whose views were never contradicted by exposure to any other religion,we learned to make up our own minds, which is why I am actually in favour of an established religion. The Catholic church (though as far as it could be from established) fulfilled a similar function in France.
Morality is where you find it, and indeed, it has to be taught. The trick lies in exposing kids to as wide as possible a variety of passionate believers in particular morality patterns, and also to people who teach them to mistrust all they hear. Teaching them to believe everything they're told by their parents/ teachers/ politicians is a recipe for disaster.The morality of my (Marxist, paternal) great-grandmother and my (Methodist, maternal) grandmother were different.
Many years ago, when I was a teacher, I was assigned to teach 4b (14 year olds, lower ability band) 'citizenship'. I walked in to the first lesson and said "OK. What is citizenship?"
A hand at the back went up. The ones at the back are aways the awkward ones, which is why I encourage their questions. If I can engage them, I can engage anyone. "YOU teach US to be good little citizens."
I shook my head. They were surprised. I said, "No. I teach you to THINK about being good little citizens."
They looked even more surprised. 'Think' was a new word in the roughest school in Bristol in 1975 or so.
A few weeks later, the headmaster sent for me. "Mary Smith in 4b says that you said it wasn't your job to teach them to be good citizens."
After initial confusion, I told him the story as above. He said, "You're wrong. That is your job."
I replied, "No. I'm a teacher, not a Party Commissar. I'm not here to indoctrinate them. If you don't agree, fire me."
He left before I did.
A decade or so later, a young man said to me in the street, "'Ere, it's Mr. 'Icks, innit?"
When we'd established how we knew each other, and that he'd been in that class, he said, "Us thought us didn't learn f*** nothing from that class, but now I know that I learned more from you than from the rest of the f***ing school put together."
While I'm glad I wasn't his English teacher, I've always treasured that as one of the greatest compliments I've ever been paid.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: