Mugwumps All

Secular State Schools Versus the Bible

The debate or faux-controversy over teaching the Bible in public schools in New Zealand has been diverting.  But it has offered nothing new.  David Hines, self-proclaimed rationalist and propagandist, wants all religious instruction gone--according to his opinions expressed in the NZ Herald.  No exceptions.  He, however, is perfectly willing to accept religious education--by which he means learning "about" religions.  But here is the legerdemain: he wants all religious education to be from the perspective of rationalist, secular humanism.

He has a point.  New Zealand state schools are supposed to be secular, by law.  That is, they are to deny the validity of each and every religious belief.  They are all inadequate, wrong and mistaken.  The only thing which is right, the only perspective which is both true and adequate, is secularism.  This particular religion has the necessary tenet that there is no deity: secularism is the working brief of atheist assumptions.
  New Zealand state schools are supposed to reflect that religious and metaphysical position in their warp and woof.  Go to it, we say.  Stop mucking about and get serious about it.  Thus far, then, David Hines is doing us an excellent service.  He is arguing that state schools should be true to the requirements of the law.  What's wrong with that?  Nothing.

In fact, our view is that the state "secular" schools are not nearly secular enough.  State schools, and those who advocate for them, are really mugwumps.  They have their mugs on one side of the secular fence and their wumps sticking out the other side.  They are neither fish nor fowl.  They are thus dishonest traders.

Secular schools trade off religion all the time.  They just don't want to admit it.  It's high time they stopped--and if David Hines helps us do that, it will be all to the good.  Except that we doubt Hines will.  We have no doubt that he is just another secularist mupwump--a deceitful broker.

State schools talk about secular morality: it's acceptable and necessary that secular schools teach and instruct pupils in civic duties and secular ethics.  But they do so dishonestly--with an inevitable bias and cant towards one particular secular "view".  Take for example theft.  We have no doubt that every state secular school has the view that theft is unethical and immoral.  This particular ethic is no doubt reflected in the rules and institutional fabric of  the school itself.  But what they neglect to tell their charges is that there are plenty of secular humanists who have argued that private property is immoral, is itself a form of gross theft.  What makes one secular humanist on this matter right, and the other wrong?  Rank prejudice and biased self-interest.  Nothing more.  To instruct in or attempt to impose one secularist view and ignore others is as unacceptable as it is deceitful.

If our state schools were truly secular--as they must be by law--they would not instruct in the matter of property, they would educate pupils.  This education would include pointing out all the (bad) consequences that have arisen as a result of people hoarding goods and wealth and claiming it belonged to them and not to society as a whole.  This education would also point out there are powerful, respected secularists who have argued convincingly that to liberate people--make them truly free--all property must be removed from personal ownership.  To be free, people must be liberated from cars, houses, jewellery, and wallets.  And schools too should be thus liberated.  As to which secularist vision is right or wrong, moral or immoral, y'all have to decide for yourselves.  That's honest secularism. 

It is precisely here where David Hines drops his drawers and shows us that is secularism is deeply inadequate and that he needs to get real.  Here is an example.  Poor old David attempts a lame criticism of the Christian Church:

Religious education includes teaching about the many historical contexts of Christianity, including its crusades and inquisitions. Religious instruction sweeps the negative parts of history under the carpet.

From a secular rationalist perspective, what's wrong with crusades and the odd inquisition?  There are plenty of secular rationalists who have argued cogently that they are absolutely ethical and necessary.  Why take one side of secular rationalism and not the other?  Have not recent US Presidents crusaded in the Muslim world?  Have they not practised inquisitions?  Plenty of secularists argued that these are good things.  Others have argued the other way.  Why maintain this faux secularism, this mugwumpish pseudo-rationalism that is biased toward one particular secular school of thought?  Hines and his ilk need lay aside their prejudicial cant and become thoroughgoing secularists--that is, honest ones. 

As to whether the Bible should be taught in state schools, we say, "No.  Not at all."  Take the Bible away from them.  It is a sacred revelation, not to be slandered by compromised, hypocritical pseudo-secularists.  When they become honest and rigorous in their secularism we may reconsider.  But we refuse to take mugwumps seriously, lest we become like them.