There's this local "creation science" activist, Bill Morgan, with whom I have conducting an intermittant email correspondence for the past 20 years. He is the most incredibly dishonest person I have ever had the displeasure of knowing. He has constantly lied to me and has gone to incredible lengths to avoid discussing any of his claims. Our correspondence is intermittant because he keeps running away from discussion. All in all, he is the perfect model of a modern fundamentalist.A basic tool of fundamentalist proselytizing is the "unanswerable question", a question the proselytizer will present his intended victim which is meant to be impossible for the victim to answer. The purpose of such a question, as depicted in their training materials' mock conversion conversations, is to throw the victim off-balance and make him begin to doubt his own position; in the training materials, the proselytizer hits his victim with one "unanswerable question" after another until the final frame of the cartoon (the usual published format) where the victim either converts or at the very least admits that the proselytizer is right. In an unguarded moment, Bill Morgan admitted that the purpose of his "unanswerable questions" was to make us look stupid.
In our correspondence, almost every time Bill Morgan threw an "unanswerable question" at me, I answered it (out of his 25 questions to me, most of which were "unanswerable", I answered 23 of them having overlooked two normal questions -- that's compared to his having refused to answer 65 of my 77 questions to him, all of which were very easily answerable -- I compiled those statistics in response to his blatant lie that he had "answered 100%"; read Bill Morgan, "Mr. 100%" for that email exchange). He would always ignore my response by either claiming that I hadn't answered his question, throwing yet another "unanswerable question" at me, or simply running away by refusing to respond to my follow-up emails. Each time I would ask him to explain why he thought I hadn't answered his question and to urge him to discuss his question and my response and each time he would refuse to do so.
This page is about my answer to one of his questions, one that wasn't really an "unanswerable question":I gave him a very thoughtful answer, one which he rejected completely for no reason whatsoever. At least he refused to give any reason at all for rejecting it despite my repeated requests for an explanation. At first he simply repeated his question over and over again, ignoring my responses that I had answered his question and could he please explain why he thought I hadn't. His final "reply" was to run away and cancel his AOL subscription."If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?"On this page, I present his question and my response. You can read the entire email exchange on the original page, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?.
Summary of My Answer
In summary, the question as posed is too general and ambiguous to respond to properly, plus it includes an extraneous condition .
Bill Morgan kept insisting on a yes-or-no answer, so my general answer would be:
The deciding circumstances would be:"Yes to some interpretations of the question and no to other interpretations, depending on the circumstances and completely independent of whether any god or gods do or do not exist."
- Whether "being taught about [God]" means:
- To be taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god.
- To be indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion.
- To be proselytized.
- Who is doing the teaching, which I refer to in my response as "a competent authority". Part of the question of competent authority is who would be authorized to perform the teaching and whether it is in an allowable setting. And whether is it with the parents' permission.
- Whether the child's parents have authorized the teaching.
- Whose version of "God" would be taught?
So here are the various interpretations stated explicity along with my yes/no/maybe answers:
- "Regardless of whether any of the gods exist, should the kids be taught by competent authority about them and about the religions associated with them?"
- Yes. Please note the emphasis on "competent authority", because that is the key factor.
- "Should kids be taught and indoctrinated by competent authority and with the permission of their parents into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion, regardless of whether the god(s) of that religion exists?"
- Yes.
- "Should kids be proselytized to as part of a concerted effort to convert them to another religion?"
- ONLY if it is done by their OWN parents or by those expressly appointed BY their OWN parents. NEVER without their parents' consent and NEVER under to auspices of the government (eg, through a public school).
- Are the public schools an appropriate place for teaching about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god?
- Yes. The goal of public education is knowledge and understanding of the materials and ideas without compelling belief in the ideas.
- Are the public schools an appropriate place for religious indoctrination?
- No! Public schools are a government agency.
- Are the public schools an appropriate place for proselytizing?
- No! Again because public schools are a government agency.
- Are public school teachers acting in their official capacity authorized to teach about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god?
- Yes, so long as they do so factually and do not try to compell belief in the religious ideas being presented.
- Are public school teachers acting in their official capacity authorized to engage in religious indoctrination?
- No! They are government agents.
- Are public school teachers acting in their official capacity authorized to proselytize?
- No! Again because they are government agents.
- Are public school teachers acting as private citizens on their own time authorized to engage in religious indoctrination or to proselytize?
- Yes. As long as they are not acting as government agents and do so outside the setting of a government agency (eg, a public school). And as long as they have the permission of the parents of the children.
- Are strangers on the street authorized to indoctrinate children or to proselytize to them?
- No! Especially not creepy strangers, like Bill Morgan, who linger outside of public schoolgrounds looking for victims. Even if they are not technically breaking any law (which Bill Morgan boasts of being careful about), they are not authorized. Only if they have the permission of the children's parents, in which case they shouldn't be strangers anymore.
- Are other children authorized to indoctrinate children or to proselytize to them?
- No! Of course, that won't stop them, but they are not authorized unless they have the permission of the parents of the children they target. Of course, it will be colored as innocent sharing and witnessing as much of it undoubtedly is. But creepy adult proselytizers do recruit fundamentalist children and train them how to proselytize and encourage them to proselytize in school. Campus Christian clubs are one example; many of their meetings are planning sessions for how to convert the rest of the student body. Creationist movements such as "Question Evolution" encourage children to disrupt their science classes with lists of misleading questions to ask the teacher. Again, not technically breaking any law, but dishonest nonetheless.
The question of whether God or any of the gods exist or not makes absolutely no different to my answers. My answers remain the same regardless.
The details and reasoning behind my answers are found in my original emailed response to the question, as given below.
Bill's Question:
"If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?"
My Response:
(Text from emailed response to Bill Morgan dated 1998 July 22 and converted to HTML)Before I answer, I wish to ask that you state your point. From your question, you seem to be implying that kids are not being so taught, when the opposite is the case. You also seem to be implying that somebody is somehow preventing the religious instruction of children, which is, again, contrary to fact.
If you have something to say, then please say it. If you have a claim to make, then please make it (and be willing to support it). If you have a proposal to make, then make it (and be ready to discuss the goals and consequences of that proposal). If you have a case to make, then please make it. If you have no case, then please say so and put an end to your charade.
Over the years, I have seen and heard many creationists bewail that nobody will let them present their case. Well, for over a year, we have been asking you to please present your case, but you have steadfastly refused to do so.
Please stop being so evasive and start being more forthright.
Now as to your question:>If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?<
But why place the condition of God's existence on your question? Are you saying that if God does not exist, then kids should NOT be taught about Her? I think that is too restrictive. Besides, wouldn't that also require you to have PROVEN God's existence before you could satisfy that condition to whether you would teach the kids about Her?
There is also the question of what is to be meant by "be taught about Him." This can mean any of a number of things; eg:
Which meaning of "be taught about Him" do you intend? Or do you intend another meaning? We do know from experience that one of the principal purposes of creation science is to proselytize, so in the absence of any explanation from you (the usual state of affairs), we will have to assume that you are talking about proselytizing.
- To be taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god.
- To be indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion.
- To proselytize.
The shifting of gender -- excuse me, Gender -- that I performed above points to another question, the little matter of which god. Whose god? Whose version of "God"? The Fundamentalist version? The Catholic version? The Mormon version? The Unitarian versions (ironically plural)? The Buddhist version? The Mandan version? Whose version?
I know that you assume that it will be YOUR version of "God", but what if your child is going to be taught the Mormon, or the CATHOLIC! version of "God", then you may very well change your tune. Remember the bitter experience of the Catholics with the Protestant-run public school system in the 19th century.
Or as Brother Orson expressed it (albeit in reference to prayer in the public schools) [quoted from memory]:
"Of course, the Fundamentalists believe that it will be their religion that will be the one to be established. If they thought for one moment that the Catholic religion, or the MORMON religion was the one to be established, why, they'd be shoutin' FOR the First Amendment just as loud as they're shoutin' to have it torn apart."Elsewhere on the same subject of school prayer, Brother Orson said:
"In the South, they'd all be saying Baptist prayers. And in Utah, they'd all be saying Mormon prayers. And in New York City, they'd spend all day praying to every god you'd ever heard of. AND EVERY PRAYER THEY SAY WOULD BE A BLASPHEMY! If you don't believe me, just read what happened to Aaron's two oldest sons."Even if you were to pick the Protestant version of "God", you would still have to decide among the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist, Seventh Day Adventist, and several other versions of "God." Although some are very similar, they are still different versions. Most certainly, their versions' views concerning creation science are usually very different from your version's. I have often seen you condemn those other versions for not sharing your version's views on creationism and biblical literalism, so I can only assume that you would not want your children taught those versions either. At the same time, I would expect you to be able to see that most of the other parents do not want their children to be taught your version, either.
So whose version of "God" are you talking about?
There is also the question of "competent authority." This question goes beyond and ignores the question of an individual teacher's personal competence to teach a given subject; in considering this question, personal knowledge of subject matter and competence in teaching is assumed. Rather it addresses the question of who, as a group, would be authorized to perform the teaching. It also considers the allowable setting for the teaching; eg, public school classroom, church, the home. Hence, the question of "competent authority" considers where and by whom instruction should be conducted.Please note that the question of competent authority was central to James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance," to which you are responding (assuming that you are not just tossing out yet another non sequitur -- if I am mistaken in that assumption, then please let me know). Part of his conclusions is that the civil government is NOT a competent authority in matters of religion and faith and that the church is not a competent authority in matters of government. Another part of his conclusions is that history has shown us that the mixing of government and religion can only have evil and deliterious results, hence his advancement of a "Great Barrier" between government and religion, the original wall of separation between church and state, a few years before he drafted the Bill of Rights. Ever hear the term, "original intent"?
Those questions must be considered in answering your question. Again, if you disagree in any way, then please explain how and why you disagree. Monosyllabic grunts and non sequiturs cannot be accepted because they cannot be understood.
My answers to both of your questions, with amplifying explanations following, are:
Now, what do I mean by "yes in most cases and no in a few others"?
- "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others.
- "If God does not exist, should the kids still be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others.
First of all, I am saying that the question of the existence of "God" has no bearing on the matter.
There was an older participant on CompuServe's religion forum who had some really bizaare ideas, mainly focused around his belief in a form of word-magick (ie, that there is no such thing as objective reality, but rather that we create reality with our words). He had been a mathematician until he suffered a stroke. He claimed to have invented Gray code (which they may or may not still teach MEs and/or EEs -- at least they taught it to us technicians; Don Knuth's long-awaited fourth volume to The Art of Computer Programming is supposed to cover Gray code). To the question of obvious borrowings between the Code of Hammurabi and Mosaic Law, he claimed that Hammurabi's preceeding Moses by several centuries is proof that Hammurabi had copied it from Moses (seriously, he did make that claim). But he did make a couple interesting points. One was that it really does not matter whether the claims of Christianity are true, only that people believed them to be true and acted accordingly. European history and culture developed the way it did, NOT because Christianity was true (indeed, Bill "knows" that Catholicism is false), but because the people BELIEVED Christianity to be true. Even if Christianity were completely false, that would have made absolutely no difference to the effect it had on European history and culture.
BTW, he was a Christian. He also pointed out what Genesis does say about the Creation, which most of us had not realized. Therefore, I ask you again: do you believe that the Bible tells you that God directly created all life on earth? You should not have any problem answering this simple question, since it should be an article of faith for you.
Regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god, then of course the kids should learn about the gods. Whether they actually existed or not, the gods have still been an important part of our culture and our history. Much of our literature and art cannot be understood without a grounding in mythology and in religious symbolism. Much of our history cannot be understood without an understanding of the cultures involved and religion is a major part of most of those cultures. And much of modern-day politics, especially Republican, cannot be understood without an understanding of the religious ideologies involved.Also, a number of those religious traditions are still practiced and taken seriously by their adherents, so knowledge and understanding of what others believe is important if we are to interact with others effectively. Remember, we have already tried ignorance, so we know that it does not work.
The question of which version of "God" would be taught is largely moot here, since the approachs taken would usually perform a survey of a number of different versions.
As to the matter of competent authority, this manner of being "taught about Him" should enjoy the broadest range. Comparative religions and the history of religions is an acceptable part of college and public school curricula, although some religious groups may object to the objective study of their own religion, especially if their teachings about their history or their delusions of uniqueness disagree with reality. Comparative religion can also be an acceptable part of a church's religious education program; the UUA's youth RE programs explicitly include a curriculum for learning about other religions and visiting other churches. Competent authority for teaching by this approach includes public school teachers, RE teachers, parents, and just about anybody who is personally competent to teach the subject matter. Instruction could be conducted almost anywhere. The only problems that could arise would be due to not teaching objectively or without respect for the beliefs of others.
So to the question of: "Regardless of whether any of the gods exist, should the kids be taught by competent authority about them and about the religions associated with them?"
I would answer "Yes."
You already know my opinion regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. I am appalled at people who have grown up in a church and yet are ignorant about that religion. Kids should be taught this, but they should only be taught THEIR OWN VERSION of "God" and the competent authority to teach them this are their religious leaders and family, or those appointed to the task by their religious leaders and family. Competent authority does NOT include agents of the civil government -- eg, public school officials and teachers -- except as appointed individually by the appropriate religious authorities and only while acting outside their government capacity. I.e., a government official may conduct sectarian religious instruction as a private individual, but not as a government official. The appropriate place for this form of teaching is the home, the church, and other approved sites. The public schools are not an appropriate site during school and under the supervision of school officials or other government agents.Please note the approach officially taken by Boy Scouts of America, Inc. BSA is the competent authority for requiring "duty to God", but they are NOT competent authority for defining precisely what that duty is or entails for each and every individual member. Officially, they delegate full responsibility and authority for religious definitions and interpretation to the family and religious leaders of each individual member and they officially require that each individual member be judged by the standards of that member's own religious tradition. BSA officially recognizes that it is NOT the competent authority in religious matters. All the legal problems involving religion that BSA has been having this decade are directly caused by BSA trying to assume for itself the role of competent authority in religious matters, in direct violation of its own officially published rules and policies.
Also please note that applying this meaning of "taught about Him" does not exclude those kids from the previous meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. Kids can learn both their own religion AND about the religions and beliefs of others. I personally believe that they SHOULD learn both.
So to the question of: "Should kids be taught and indoctrinated by competent authority into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion, regardless of whether the god(s) of that religion exists?"
I would answer "Yes."
Finally, there's the matter of kids being "taught about Him" as part of a proselytizing effort to convert them to a different religion. That kind of teaching of children should ONLY be permissible if it is done with the explicit and expressed permission of the parents, which I do not believe would be a common occurance. The only competent authority for this kind of teaching of children are the parents and those appointed by the parents. Strangers off the streets, such as yourself, Bill, are NOT competent authorities. Public school activities run by school officials are NOT IN THE LEAST BIT the appropriate place for this kind of instruction.There is also the matter of peer proselytizing, which may seem innocent but which can turn out to be insidious. The government is not involved, you say, but rather it is a fellow student sharing his faith with his friends. Well, one of my previous bosses was born a fundamentalist, as was his son, Todd. When Todd would return from college on break, he would work with us. One day, he shared with me that he was lonely at school, so I mentioned to him that there are normally a lot of Christian student clubs and that he might find fellowship there. He said that he had already tried, but all that those clubs would do was to plot how to convert the rest of the student body, something that he found very distasteful. Checking around after that, I found that the practice was indeed widespread. Recruit fundamentalist students, train them in proselytizing techniques, and unleash them on an unsuspecting student body under the quest of self-initiated witnessing. Yeah, real innocent, that.
Bill, we know that your primary interest in creation science is as a tool for proselytizing. We also know that your efforts include creation science presentations in high schools. Therefore, from the context of your efforts, I would read that the meaning of your question is that kids in the public schools should be taught creation science as a means of converting them to your religion. To that I cannot agree and must answer with an emphatic "no," especially since creation science consists almost entirely of false and misleading claims.
So to the question of: "Should kids be proselytized to as part of a concerted effort to convert them to another religion?"
I would answer "ONLY if it is done by their OWN parents or by those expressly appointed BY their OWN parents. NEVER without their parents' consent and NEVER under to auspices of the government (eg, through a public school)."
As always, if you disagree with my answer or wish to criticize it, then please explain your disagreement and/or criticism intelligibly. As I have learned to expect, you will not do so. Though I hope to be surprised.A pessimist must be the happiest person alive. Most of the time he has the satisfaction of being right, and occasionally he is pleasantly surprised.
As I described above, Bill Morgan's "response" was to repeat the question several times demanding a yes or no answer, while ignoring my own repeated requests that he explain why he thought I hadn't answered his question. His final "response" was to run away yet again, only this time he also cancelled his AOL account.
Share and enjoy!
Return to Top of Page
Return to DWise1's Religion Page
Return to DWise1's Home Page
First uploaded on 2016 March 22.