Religious Beliefs Aren’t Special

July 3, 2008

Religious Beliefs Aren’t Special

Blogging about 120 miles away from me, in the Columbia office, fellow intern Audrey Spalding claims that we should offended by a Missouri superintendent’s decision to put a biblical quote at the bottom of his emails. Imagine for the moment that, instead of placing a religious quote at the bottom of his emails, the superintendent had a pet philosohpical quote with no religious relevance. For the sake of concreteness, consider this quote from David Hume:

Actions may be laudable or blameable; but they cannot be reasonable: Laudable or blameable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes controul our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason. Reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals.
— A Treatise of Human Nature, book 3, part 1, section 1

This quote is bound to be controversial. Other philosophers would surely disagree — e.g., Kant — and I’m sure the average Joe would take issue with calling morality “irrational” in any sense, which is essentially what Hume is doing. Should we be offended if a school superintendent includes this in his emails? I don’t see why. Sure, the belief is controversial, but we shouldn’t be offended by beliefs merely because they are controversial. There is nothing in the quote to suggest that people who believe otherwise are stupid, immoral, evil, or anything else of that nature.

Including the quote in emails may be motivated by a desire to convert others to the same belief. I have a hard time seeing how this is objectionable, though, considering that the purpose of schools is to do essentially the same thing. Do we not desire to convert children to the belief that 2 + 2 = 4? Perhaps it’s the desire to convert someone to this type of belief that is at issue. Perhaps moral issues should be left out of the classrooms, then. But, first of all, I don’t think a school can function without addressing moral issues. What are we doing when we tell kids that it is wrong to hit each other? Second of all, if this were the issue, it is relatively minor compared to other forms of ideological indoctrination happening inside the classroom.

The method of conversion isn’t objectionable, either. No one is forced to read the quote; they are merely given the opportunity to do so. The same can’t be said for ideological peddling, which goes on inside the classroom.

The only thing that seems to be different is that the superintendent’s quote refers to a deity, and my quote does not. Should it really be offensive to simply to hear about a deity?

Someone might argue that the Constitution has specific language regarding religion, but not regarding meta-ethics — and that is why religion is special. While completely true, this is irrelevant to the question of whether we should get offended about such a quote. This argument ignores the possibility that the Constitution simply got something wrong.

I agree that the superintendent shouldn’t have included the quote in his emails, but not because we should be offended, or because it is intrinsically immoral. The problem is that some people will be offended, which will only cause problems for the school district.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

7 Comments »

Matt,

While I appreciate your thorough comment on my post, I disagree.

I write here about specific people and issues, so I think abstract arguments do not apply. The issue of education in the classroom is always touchy; people entrust their children to the state for education, not religious education. When the line is blurred — no matter the intentions — we need to be critical.

My argument is not that the quote itself is offensive. It is that the leader of the school district uses it in every email he sends. That looks like an endorsement of Christianity. His use of biblical quotes is not inconsequential — he communicates with administrators, teachers, parents and students on a daily basis.

This is not a moral issue. Morals (and math) and religious beliefs are different. A person can be nonreligious and moral, and vice versa.

Your last sentence, that people who are offended by the reference to religion in any school setting are the problem, is one I take issue with. You can’t ignore something the school district is doing for the sake of appearing stoic.

There needs to be a line. Religion in public education is a sensitive issue. If we let things slide, when can we ever take a stand?

If you’d like to discuss this further, I’d be happy to do so through email.

Comment by Audrey Spalding — July 7, 2008 @ 9:18 a.m.
[...] Religious Beliefs Aren’t Special – Show-Me Daily Blogging about 120 miles away from me, in the Columbia office, fellow intern Audrey Spalding claims that we should offended by a Missouri superintendent’s decision to put a biblical quote at the bottom of his emails… (tags: Family and Religion) [...]

Pingback by links for 2008-07-07 » The Foundry — July 7, 2008 @ 2:31 p.m.
I’m going to have to disagree with Mr. Simpson because I don’t think he addresses the issue at hand very fairly. The salaries of public school superintendents are paid by taxpayers, and superintendents therefore represent EVERY tax-paying citizen in their districts, be they atheist, Muslim, Christian, etc. Public school employees are fundamentally beholden to each and every single citizen, and their personal opinions regarding religion, politics, or the philosophy of morality have absolutely no place in an e-mail sent from a school account. To include such an opinion is to express favor for one group over another.

I hardly think this is an issue of whether or not a particular opinion offends anyone. I could not care less whether a superintendent worships the holy golden toad at home, or if he or she chooses to showcase that worship in every e-mail sent out from his or her private, personal account. But there is no excuse for a religious opinion to be tacked onto a communication sent from the school. The school, and it’s employees when on school grounds, or when using school resources, are bound to remain voiceless in these matters. It is owed to the diverse group of taxpayers that pay for the schools, and the diverse group of children that attend the schools.

Lastly, let’s not obfuscate the real issue by comparing teachings of well-supported mathematics (2+2=4) to proselytizing. To say that “converting” children to understanding math is comparable to converting children to a religion is laughable. One is a fact of our mathematical system, and the other a personal belief. Let’s not pretend either has anything to with the other.

Comment by Cathryn Dunn — July 7, 2008 @ 6:17 p.m.
I want to reiterate that my issue is whether we should be offended by the quote. What isn’t at issue is whether the email violates any law. It probably does. However, that doesn’t mean that we should be offended by it. The law could be unjust. There should be some reason why we should be offended whether or not the law is just.

As far as I can tell, Cathryn’s argument is that public school officials are bound by law to not send such emails (correct me if I am wrong). This is probably true but dodges the issue at hand.

In addition, Cathryn writes:

Lastly, let’s not obfuscate the real issue by comparing teachings of well-supported mathematics (2+2=4) to proselytizing. To say that “converting” children to understanding math is comparable to converting children to a religion is laughable. One is a fact of our mathematical system, and the other a personal belief. Let’s not pretend either has anything to with the other.

Be careful here. I was comparing them in a very specific way. Both the email and teaching is intended to change the beliefs of someone. This isn’t controversial at all, at least for math (I’m guessing at the motivation of the emails). Do we not desire to change the beliefs of a child who doesn’t know math? You’re right, mathematics is different from religion because we are much more confident in their truth. However, my point is based on the similarity.

Math and religion are a bit more similar than you think, however. When students are taught math, they are routinely taught a system without being shown why the system is true until later, if at all. For example, in high school algebra, students are taught the rules of exponents and logs, but it isn’t until a calculus class that these rules are proven (calc 2 for me). In elementary arithmetic, students are taught long division. Only in advanced math classes in college would students finally learn the division algorithm which proves that long division works. These proofs are typically left for math majors such as myself.

Similarly in religion, young people learn the system, e.g. Christianity. Only later in theology or perhaps in a philosophy course do they come across the arguments for the existence of God and for their own particular religion. These arguments are typically left for priests, theology majors, religion majors, and perhaps philosophy majors.

Comment by Matt Simpson — July 7, 2008 @ 7:02 p.m.
Again, I’m not sure that the issue has been addressed squarely, and I feel my argument is being misrepresented. If you re-read my original post, you will find that I do not claim that the superintendent was wrong because he or she broke a law; this was not my point at all. I do not believe that laws are “right” simply because they are laws. They must have a solid logical foundation, which is exactly what I provided. My argument was that because superintendents are paid by citizens, and are representatives of all citizens, they cannot favor the beliefs of some citizens over others within their professional sphere.

Although I do understand what you are trying to say with your point about math, I still don’t believe it is entirely valid. I think it is misleading to refer to the teaching of mathematics as the changing of a child’s beliefs. Beliefs belong to the realm of opinion. You would be hard-pressed to find a person who does not “believe” that 2+2=4, because it is a widely accepted fact. However, you pass people of a wide variety of faiths on the street every day. Clearly, attempting to teach a young child math and trying to convert a young child’s faith are completely different propositions. One concerns fact, the other an astounding variety of opinions.

Also, although you say that you are guessing at the superintendent’s intent, I submit that conversion was definitely not his or her intent. I find it very hard to believe that people would read the Bible passage in question, and think to themselves, “Ah, now I see! I will now abandon my Muslim faith (e.g.) and become Christian!” This scenario is so obviously unlikely, there must be some other motive for the inclusion of the religious passage. As I see it, the only reason the superintendent includes it is, in the best case, to announce his Christian beliefs to others and to create a sense of belonging with fellow Christians who receive it, and in the worst case, to create a sense of isolation in non-Christians who receive it. Either way, tax-payers have every right to feel excluded and offended.

Comment by Cathryn Dunn — July 8, 2008 @ 10:12 a.m.
My argument was that because superintendents are paid by citizens, and are representatives of all citizens, they cannot favor the beliefs of some citizens over others within their professional sphere.

If the problem is favoring the beliefs of one group of people over another, religion still isn’t singled out. Schools routinely favor the beliefs of those who think that holocaust did happen in history class over the beliefs of holocaust deniers. No one thinks this is objectionable but it certainly violates your principle. Either your principle is wrong, the email is ok, or telling kids about the holocaust is not ok.

Beliefs belong to the realm of opinion. You would be hard-pressed to find a person who does not “believe” that 2+2=4, because it is a widely accepted fact.

I think we have different definitions of ‘believe’ in mind. When I say that someone believes something, all I mean is that they think it is true. So if I say Joe believes in God and 2+2=4, I mean that he believes that it is true that God exists and that 2+2=4. Using this definition, the truths of math most certainly are a matter of belief. You either think they are true or you don’t.

Comment by Matt Simpson — July 8, 2008 @ 1:47 p.m.
Fair enough; we were discussing different meanings of the word believe. No point in arguing over semantics. But I still maintain that there is a big difference between favoring the beliefs that the Holocaust happened, that the Earth is round, that atoms exist, etc. and favoring a faith-based religion; it’s comparing apples and oranges. We teach theories and beliefs in school that are backed up by a solid, reasonable base of evidence, and as such do not violate my principle. That which is not (religion) should not be part of that, and no preference should be shown for one over the other.

Comment by Cathryn Dunn — July 8, 2008 @ 2:34 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

Matt,

While I appreciate your thorough comment on my post, I disagree.

I write here about specific people and issues, so I think abstract arguments do not apply. The issue of education in the classroom is always touchy; people entrust their children to the state for education, not religious education. When the line is blurred — no matter the intentions — we need to be critical.

My argument is not that the quote itself is offensive. It is that the leader of the school district uses it in every email he sends. That looks like an endorsement of Christianity. His use of biblical quotes is not inconsequential — he communicates with administrators, teachers, parents and students on a daily basis.

This is not a moral issue. Morals (and math) and religious beliefs are different. A person can be nonreligious and moral, and vice versa.

Your last sentence, that people who are offended by the reference to religion in any school setting are the problem, is one I take issue with. You can’t ignore something the school district is doing for the sake of appearing stoic.

There needs to be a line. Religion in public education is a sensitive issue. If we let things slide, when can we ever take a stand?

If you’d like to discuss this further, I’d be happy to do so through email.

Comment by Audrey Spalding — July 7, 2008 @ 9:18 a.m.

[...] Religious Beliefs Aren’t Special – Show-Me Daily Blogging about 120 miles away from me, in the Columbia office, fellow intern Audrey Spalding claims that we should offended by a Missouri superintendent’s decision to put a biblical quote at the bottom of his emails… (tags: Family and Religion) [...]

Pingback by links for 2008-07-07 » The Foundry — July 7, 2008 @ 2:31 p.m.

I’m going to have to disagree with Mr. Simpson because I don’t think he addresses the issue at hand very fairly. The salaries of public school superintendents are paid by taxpayers, and superintendents therefore represent EVERY tax-paying citizen in their districts, be they atheist, Muslim, Christian, etc. Public school employees are fundamentally beholden to each and every single citizen, and their personal opinions regarding religion, politics, or the philosophy of morality have absolutely no place in an e-mail sent from a school account. To include such an opinion is to express favor for one group over another.

I hardly think this is an issue of whether or not a particular opinion offends anyone. I could not care less whether a superintendent worships the holy golden toad at home, or if he or she chooses to showcase that worship in every e-mail sent out from his or her private, personal account. But there is no excuse for a religious opinion to be tacked onto a communication sent from the school. The school, and it’s employees when on school grounds, or when using school resources, are bound to remain voiceless in these matters. It is owed to the diverse group of taxpayers that pay for the schools, and the diverse group of children that attend the schools.

Lastly, let’s not obfuscate the real issue by comparing teachings of well-supported mathematics (2+2=4) to proselytizing. To say that “converting” children to understanding math is comparable to converting children to a religion is laughable. One is a fact of our mathematical system, and the other a personal belief. Let’s not pretend either has anything to with the other.

Comment by Cathryn Dunn — July 7, 2008 @ 6:17 p.m.

I want to reiterate that my issue is whether we should be offended by the quote. What isn’t at issue is whether the email violates any law. It probably does. However, that doesn’t mean that we should be offended by it. The law could be unjust. There should be some reason why we should be offended whether or not the law is just.

As far as I can tell, Cathryn’s argument is that public school officials are bound by law to not send such emails (correct me if I am wrong). This is probably true but dodges the issue at hand.

In addition, Cathryn writes:

Be careful here. I was comparing them in a very specific way. Both the email and teaching is intended to change the beliefs of someone. This isn’t controversial at all, at least for math (I’m guessing at the motivation of the emails). Do we not desire to change the beliefs of a child who doesn’t know math? You’re right, mathematics is different from religion because we are much more confident in their truth. However, my point is based on the similarity.

Math and religion are a bit more similar than you think, however. When students are taught math, they are routinely taught a system without being shown why the system is true until later, if at all. For example, in high school algebra, students are taught the rules of exponents and logs, but it isn’t until a calculus class that these rules are proven (calc 2 for me). In elementary arithmetic, students are taught long division. Only in advanced math classes in college would students finally learn the division algorithm which proves that long division works. These proofs are typically left for math majors such as myself.

Similarly in religion, young people learn the system, e.g. Christianity. Only later in theology or perhaps in a philosophy course do they come across the arguments for the existence of God and for their own particular religion. These arguments are typically left for priests, theology majors, religion majors, and perhaps philosophy majors.

Comment by Matt Simpson — July 7, 2008 @ 7:02 p.m.

Again, I’m not sure that the issue has been addressed squarely, and I feel my argument is being misrepresented. If you re-read my original post, you will find that I do not claim that the superintendent was wrong because he or she broke a law; this was not my point at all. I do not believe that laws are “right” simply because they are laws. They must have a solid logical foundation, which is exactly what I provided. My argument was that because superintendents are paid by citizens, and are representatives of all citizens, they cannot favor the beliefs of some citizens over others within their professional sphere.

Although I do understand what you are trying to say with your point about math, I still don’t believe it is entirely valid. I think it is misleading to refer to the teaching of mathematics as the changing of a child’s beliefs. Beliefs belong to the realm of opinion. You would be hard-pressed to find a person who does not “believe” that 2+2=4, because it is a widely accepted fact. However, you pass people of a wide variety of faiths on the street every day. Clearly, attempting to teach a young child math and trying to convert a young child’s faith are completely different propositions. One concerns fact, the other an astounding variety of opinions.

Also, although you say that you are guessing at the superintendent’s intent, I submit that conversion was definitely not his or her intent. I find it very hard to believe that people would read the Bible passage in question, and think to themselves, “Ah, now I see! I will now abandon my Muslim faith (e.g.) and become Christian!” This scenario is so obviously unlikely, there must be some other motive for the inclusion of the religious passage. As I see it, the only reason the superintendent includes it is, in the best case, to announce his Christian beliefs to others and to create a sense of belonging with fellow Christians who receive it, and in the worst case, to create a sense of isolation in non-Christians who receive it. Either way, tax-payers have every right to feel excluded and offended.

Comment by Cathryn Dunn — July 8, 2008 @ 10:12 a.m.

My argument was that because superintendents are paid by citizens, and are representatives of all citizens, they cannot favor the beliefs of some citizens over others within their professional sphere.

If the problem is favoring the beliefs of one group of people over another, religion still isn’t singled out. Schools routinely favor the beliefs of those who think that holocaust did happen in history class over the beliefs of holocaust deniers. No one thinks this is objectionable but it certainly violates your principle. Either your principle is wrong, the email is ok, or telling kids about the holocaust is not ok.

Beliefs belong to the realm of opinion. You would be hard-pressed to find a person who does not “believe” that 2+2=4, because it is a widely accepted fact.

I think we have different definitions of ‘believe’ in mind. When I say that someone believes something, all I mean is that they think it is true. So if I say Joe believes in God and 2+2=4, I mean that he believes that it is true that God exists and that 2+2=4. Using this definition, the truths of math most certainly are a matter of belief. You either think they are true or you don’t.

Comment by Matt Simpson — July 8, 2008 @ 1:47 p.m.

Fair enough; we were discussing different meanings of the word believe. No point in arguing over semantics. But I still maintain that there is a big difference between favoring the beliefs that the Holocaust happened, that the Earth is round, that atoms exist, etc. and favoring a faith-based religion; it’s comparing apples and oranges. We teach theories and beliefs in school that are backed up by a solid, reasonable base of evidence, and as such do not violate my principle. That which is not (religion) should not be part of that, and no preference should be shown for one over the other.

Comment by Cathryn Dunn — July 8, 2008 @ 2:34 p.m.

July 3, 2008