“If there is one issue that threatens to destroy what remains of Europe’s Protestant ecclesiastial communities from within, it is homosexuality. Few Christian communities have kept up with the advance in homosexuals’ civil rights. Perhaps they do not understand how advances in education mean that young people coming out of schools today find opposition to homosexuality in the churches incredible.”I stopped at that point, in order to re-read that last sentence. In fact, I have read it several times, and I don’t get it. Had she written “Perhaps they do not understand that young people coming out of schools today find opposition to homosexuality in the churches incredible,” I would not have been surprised. There are a lot of things that about churches (and most other aspects of life) that undoubtedly surprise young people coming out of schools today. But to attribute this to “advances in education” was something that I, personally, find incredible.
This begs two questions. The first question is “How can something be described as an advance in education, if it causes the products of that education to be surprised by what they find in the world around them?” Surely a good education is one that helps a person know what they can expect to find in the world around them.
But there is also the question of what these “advances in education” might be. (Is it relevant that today’s Telegraph reports a leading headmistress declaring that teenagers increasingly left school with little factual knowledge?)
So what are these “advances in education” that Ruth Gledhill writes of? Is it an advance in the realm of religious education? Do school leavers know more about churches and their teaching and beliefs? I don’t think so, somehow. Is it in the realm of science? Could it be that they have they been taught that it is a proven fact that homosexuality is genetically determined? I don’t think she means that, either. (First, because the study of the determinative causes of homosexuality is well beyond the scope of high school science lessons; second, because there is no consensus that homosexuality is genetically determined.)
So what “advances in education” does Ruth Gledhill have in mind? I asked a science teacher at our local comprehensive. The reply I got was that she was undoubtedly referring to the personal education / social education / citizenship type classes - in other words, the parts of the state school curriculum that teach children what they should believe about what is right and wrong. Which would mean (putting together what Ruth Gledhill says with what my local science teacher says) that they are basically being taught that opposition to homosexuality in the churches is wrong. In other words, this is basically about indoctrination*, and Ruth Gledhill thinks that this is an advance in education.
Well, maybe that’s not what Ruth Gledhill means. But when she speaks about “advances in education,” I must admit that I really don’t know what she is talking about. And I get the impression that she doesn’t, either.
*see my earlier post here for some thoughts on the difference between education and indoctrination.
Posts
4 comments:
'Which would mean (putting together what Ruth Gledhill says with what my local science teacher says) that they are basically being taught that opposition to homosexuality in the churches is wrong.'
Thank you for this interesting post, and yes you are right, that is what I meant. More precisely, they are being taught that homophobia is wrong. And I consider that an advance.
Ruth Gledhill
I suspect that indoctrination through popular culture is probably more the cause of any wider acceptance of homosexuality than what children are told in schools. The reason I suspect this is that in schools many pupils are not listening to what is being said, never mind learning it or taking it seriously.
I would be interested in knowing the source of the figures/stories indicating that homosexuality is becoming more accepted than it previously has been.
Also, given the shifting demographics in this country I would expect this trend to reverse among children of primary school age within the next decade if it has not done so already.
Good article. Unfortunately, what Ruth Gledhill considers an 'advance' will actually produce confused youngsters who will leave school with a warped notion of right and wrong and find it harder to settle down in a committed relationship. They will have a prejudiced view of Christians and be likely to have a negative view of marriage and raising a family.
All-in-all, a good recipe for destabilising society. It's a great shame these 'academics,' politicians and journalists cannot see past the end of their noses.
Thank you to Jonny Newton and Stewart Cowan for their interesting comments.
Particular thanks to Ruth Gledhill for clarifying what she meant.
Post a Comment