According to a report in Stuff, [21st May, 2013] the Post Primary Teachers' Association ["PPTA"] "outed" those organizations which had expressed interest in applying to become a charter school. Your name, Angela (as PPTA President) was cited in that report.
In particular you were quoted as opposing a situation where charter schools would be accepting state funding and would be teaching "creationism". (We note that "creationism" was undefined, either by you or the report, so we are left somewhat uncertain about precisely what approach to science you were opposing.) You, Angela were quoted as follows:
PPTA president Angela Roberts said taxpayer cash should not go to schools teaching creationism. "They have the right to teach that in their school, of course, but they have no right to do that with money for the public education system."We appreciate your fulsome defence of an independent school's right to teach "creationism" because, in that case, the money comes from non-state, private sources--that is, parents and pupils. You are very clear parents have a right to their beliefs and convictions in such matters and a right to ensure that their children are taught consistently with those beliefs.
We note that your name, Chris (as Labour education spokesman) was also cited in the piece. Your defence of parents rights is less fulsome than Angela's, but at least you are willing to concede it has some weight and force.
"Those are their beliefs - but the state should not be paying for it. Those parents and kids can choose to believe and to receive a religious education. But not to the exclusion of other sciences, and I think in this case that is really inappropriate," Mr Hipkins said.We are not sure what "other sciences" you believe are being excluded by the teaching of "creationism", but in any event you believe that parents and children have a right to receive the religious education of their choice. Of course, Christians have a biblical cosmology. Unbelievers (that is, people who are not Christians) do not. We are thankful that you are willing to defend the rights of Christian parents and kids to be taught a biblical cosmology as part of their schooling curriculum.
We would like you to go further. We would like you to be somewhat more consistent in your respective positions. We would also like to enlist your help in supporting a just cause long overdue in New Zealand.
Firstly, we recognize that the state in New Zealand is self-styled as a secular entity, without commitment to any religion. We Christians realise that this actually makes the state a promoter of a very definite religion in its own right--the religion of secularism--which has its own cosmologies, axiologies, teleologies, and versions of metaphysics (as do all religions). Secularism has its own appeal to ultimate authorities. It is most closely allied to atheism, which is very clearly a "non-religious" religion in its own right. All of that is fine, insofar as it goes. But we would like you to be candid with us all about this. The fact is state education system in New Zealand militantly imposes the religion of secularism upon its pupils--as your own remarks in the Stuff article bear witness. You both know that this is the case, but public acknowledgement and transparency in the matter would help us all and would improve the quality of the debate. It would also go a long way toward helping us find fairer solutions.
Secondly, we would like you to clear up a confusion your remarks unfortunately generate. We have a considerable number of integrated schools in New Zealand, many of which are religious in nature. Provided their charter warrants it, such schools are permitted to teach all of their subjects in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. They are funded by the state in so doing. Should we understand that both of you principally oppose this situation and would support a "de-integration" of such schools?
Thirdly, we want to applaud your support of parental and pupil rights to be instructed in schools in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs. Angela, you go further and point out that this parental right exists only insofar as parents are paying for the instruction. We are inclined to agree. But here's the nub of the matter. Christian parents and pupils have money exacted from them through the taxation system to fund an education system that promotes beliefs to which they object--namely, secularism. You, however, oppose having any of that money channelled back to schools that do not teach all subjects from a secularist perspective.
So Christian parents and their children are in an invidious position. They are forced to pay for state secularist schools and you both agree that the state secularist education system should not support any other curriculum than those promoting the state's secularist beliefs in every subject. Hence the militancy we refer to above. So for Christians (and other religious groups) the state takes, but does not give back. There is a grave injustice being perpetrated here. We want to enlist your support in righting this serious wrong.
There are two very simple, yet effective ways this might be done. The first would be to introduce a voucher system for parents and pupils who conscientiously object to the enforced imposition of state secularism via state schools. This voucher would be to the value of the annual per-pupil cost of educating a child in the secularist state system. It could be redeemed at any registered private school or home school, which would then receive Ministry of Education payments to the value of the voucher. This would restitute those parents and pupils which have had money unfairly exacted from them to fund a secularist state education system to which they conscientiously object.
A second way in which this current inequity might be remedied would be to provide a special tax refund to all parents who send their children to registered independent schools or registered home schools to the level of the annual per-pupil cost of educating a child in the state system.
Since you both express support for parental rights in the matter of teaching according to one's religious beliefs, and you both object to the state secularist education system funding such teaching (at least in independent or partnership schools), either of the above solutions would remedy the very grave injustice that exists under the current system. Both alternatives remove the injustice of conscientious religious objectors having compulsorily to fund an education system antithetical to their beliefs even while imposing upon them a double burden of having to fund an alternative education out of their own post-tax means.
We thank you in anticipation of your response and support in righting this grave injustice in the current system.
Yours, etc.
John Tertullian
(Ed note: we have sent this letter both to Chris Hipkins and Angela Roberts. We will publish their replies in due course, if we receive any.)
No comments:
Post a Comment