schooleducation and freethinkers, religious education in schools

School education and freethinkers’ beliefs

Free thinkers have a naturalistic faith with which they want to replace the Christian faith as well as faith in God in schools and society

Decades ago, Christian faith played an important role in Finland and in the Nordic countries. During that time, it was completely normal to hold morning service, read the Bible, and pray in schools. Teaching of religion, especially the Christian faith, took place for several hours a week, which gave children a basic understanding of the gospel and what faith in God means.

The positive attitude of the time towards Christian faith is well reflected on the 1922 election program of the Finnish Coalition Party. Christian values and teaching were considered important in the school system.

Expensive is the Legacy that the current generation of our people has received from their predecessors. Generation after generation has been implanted with the Christian faith and a moral outlook on life. Past generations have sought from it the satisfaction of their hearts' deepest yearnings, guidance in life's most important questions, guidance and strength for a moral journey.

The important task of the present generation is to inwardly own, and for the benefit of future generations, to accumulate the good that had thus come to its part. With a Christian faith and a moral worldview, the family life of our people has developed into a firm foundation for the building of society.

Regarding the issue of religious education in schools, the National Coalition Party considers it correct that students in both public and secondary schools must be taught Christianity according to the confession of the majority of students. For larger groups of students, the state must provide Christian education according to their creed. Christian education for small groups of students is taken care of by the relevant religious denominations, which, if necessary, can receive state aid for it. The Chastity education of children who do not belong to any religious denomination must be taken care of. Religious education must be given in general educational institutions.

What about the modern day? There has been a change with relation to the Christian faith and schooling. Modern society demands neutrality. It means that the state should remain neutral in terms of religious education. This social reform has been insisted particularly by freethinkers and non-religious representatives. They consider it a freedom of religion and a right that Christianity should no longer be taught and mentioned among children or in other contexts. Other things should be viewed with approval and acquiescence, but not with God and Jesus Christ. A short newspaper article sheds light on the matter:

School hymn competition angered freethinkers

The Union of Freethinkers of Finland criticizes the hymn competition, Virsivisa, that is held in primary school.

The Union believes that bringing hymns to lessons, other than religion, runs counter to religious freedom and non-denominationality in teaching.

The Virsivisa is a competition for third and fourth graders in primary school, and its aim is to introduce students to hymns through a competition between schools.

The competition will be held in the fall for the seventh time...

In its statement, the Union of Freethinkers criticized the quiz for the fact that the voluntary nature of participation in religious events is compromised at school if the students take part in the competition during other lessons outside of religious lessons. (Etelä- Suomen sanomat on 28 May 2014)

Are freethinkers neutral, or do they have a religious worldview based on atheism? The above news talked about religious freedom and the freethinkers’ demand for non-denominationality to schools.

However, are the actions of freethinkers consistent? They push for a non-religious society and think they have a scientific mindset, but at the same time, they forget other religious views. That is, when textbooks teach about the spontaneous birth of life and that all species stem from one original cell, these notions also belong to a religious view. That is the case, because people have not been able to prove these things. It is a question of naturalistic belief on what may have occurred in the past. It is not a matter of science.

If freethinkers were to be logical, they should also demand that the evolution belief and the notion of spontaneous birth of the universe and life be removed from schools, because they, too, are matters of faith. However, they have not done so. Why is that? Why have they not risen up on the barricades to oppose these religious views based on a naturalistic worldview? Why do they accept these religious and faith-based beliefs that cannot be proven in the laboratory? Personally, I consider them fables and fairy tales.

Such views based on faith and a naturalistic worldview include, e.g. the following things. Their origin itself has never been proven:

• The birth of the universe by itself is based on faith and a naturalistic world view. All birth theories based on naturalism are at a dead end.

• The spontaneous formation of galaxies and stars is a similar unproven theory.

• The self-genesis of the solar system and the earth is based on naturalistic belief.

• The origin of life by itself is a naturalistic theory similar to the previous examples. It has never been proven.

• The inheritance of species from a single primordial cell has never been proven. The fossil record is against this notion. It is a faith-based, unproven theory.

The following quote is very relevant to the topic (bolds added later) It is an indication of naturalistic belief. The author is certain that life arose by itself, as did the earth, although he cannot prove either, and frankly admits that the origin of life is a mystery. This kind of storytelling often occurs in e.g. nature programs and school books, but it is interesting that free thinkers do not intervene in these programs or school books. They only react to belief in God, but not to belief in naturalistic theories. Why are they biased in their opinions? If they acted consistently, they should also oppose the teaching of these naturalistic and unproven theories in school books and TV programs. However, they don't do that, because they themselves have a naturalistic, i.e., religious worldview based on atheism.

After life once started, the story of life becomes a logical, downright inevitable chain of evolutionary cause and effect. Science can figure out its rings with all their fascinating details, but how life started is still quite a mystery. There is no convincing explanation for it. The chemical constituents of living organisms are known, and the biochemical reactions that sustain life are well known, but the crucial initial spark of life awaits precise definition. Life: such a self-evident and simple phenomenon, and yet so difficult to explain...

There is no doubt that life arose from the materials of the earth, the stars, and the universe. Of the same substances that have circulated again and again in timeless space. We are all basically stardust. Just as life evolved from a single cell to become more and more complex and diverse, the earth has also had its evolution. It condensed from an interstellar dust cloud and cooled almost four billion years ago into a solid-shelled ball, but is still today subject to the forces created by its own internal heat. (2)

What should freethinkers do? They should recognize the fact that they are not neutral, as they promote a naturalistic, atheistic worldview and are opposed to teaching children the Christian faith. It is impossible to be neutral in this area. We are either for or against; we cannot be in neutral territory. It's an impossibility. Because if you don't want God and Christian faith in schools, some other, opposite ideology will fill it. What usually takes its place is a non-religious and atheist way of thinking (which, however, is based on naturalistic faith), in which God has no place. Thus, in the name of neutrality, freethinkers are advocating a non-religious society that operates on the terms of atheism. It is a model similar to that which existed in the communist countries at the time.

Where does the freethinkers' model lead? As is well known, freethinkers and non-believers seek to get Bible reading, prayer, and the teaching of creation out of the school curriculum. They think that the removal of religion from schools and society will make the situation neutral, but that is not true, as has already been said. Freethinkers only bring their own belief system to the farm, which they claim is based on science, even though this is not the case. They act on faith like other people. In addition, their faith is based on absurd assumptions, such as the emergence of life from self-dead matter. It is an impossibility, although atheist scientists may try to argue otherwise.

But where does the model of free thinkers lead? This has been experienced in the last century in communist countries, where the Bible was a forbidden book, and schools were not allowed to teach about God. Is this the kind of model and society that free thinkers want? We are moving in that direction at a good pace due to the efforts of free thinkers. Moreover, the same atheism was characteristic of Germany of the last century, just before the Nazis came to power. Descriptive of the development at that time was that in Germany huge masses of people left the church, as the following quotation shows (It is known that free thinkers strive for the same activity in modern times). The quote also shows how even then God was wanted out of schools. Atheistic worldview and morality won the field in people's minds. The book was published in 1934, i.e. five years before the Second World War:

From time to time, there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc. (3)

The opposite model to communism and the model of freethinkers is that God is taken into account in schools, society and everywhere. The Nordic countries were in this situation earlier, as was England, where there were strong spiritual awakenings in the 18th and 19th centuries and people turned to God. As a result, there were many good things, such as literacy, the abolition of slavery, and the improvement of the status of workers. The following quotes give a good picture of the spirituality of this country. The first quotation relates to Sunday schools, which were attended by about a quarter of the children in England.

Sunday school movement began in July of 1780, when a lady called Meredith started to host a school in her home down Souty Alley. Older boys acted as guides for the younger boys. Raikes wrote four school books based on the Bible. Slowly, the schools were also welcoming girls. Raikes was singlehandedly responsible for almost all of the expenses. More Sunday schools were founded in Gloucester and in its surroundings. In 1831, when it had been 20 years from Raikes death, approximately fourth of England’s 1,25 million children attended Sunday school. England was becoming a literate society due to the teaching of God’s words; the government had nothing to do with it. (4)

Darwin’s ”bulldog”, Thomas H. Huxley, also provides a good picture of the influence of Christian faith in England. He too supported the teaching of Christian beliefs, like many Englishmen, although, he himself was a strong advocate for Darwin. He wrote in one of his essays in 1870 the following:

I believe that no person or community has ever achieved anything, nor will they ever, if their actions are not controlled by love for some sort of ethical ideal. - - And if I was forced to choose a school for my children, where they will receive real religious guidance, or a school without such guidance, I would choose the former, although my child would consequently receive a lot of theology.

Thus, when the majority from the public of England declared wanting that the Bible be taught for their children in primary schools, - I see no reason to oppose this wish. Surely, I as an individual cannot retain my coherence and oppose other children being taught, what my children have been taught to do. (Thomas H. Huxley: Science and Education Essays, No. 15, The School Boards: What They Can Do, and What They May Do, Macmillan, London, 1893, pp. 396-402. First published in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 1870)

A good question is; would England, Finland and the Nordic countries have been better countries in the past without the influence of the Christian faith? They hardly would have been. Because if atheist communist countries are used as a point of comparison, they have been countries where millions of people have been killed and the opposition has been suppressed. In those countries, the living conditions have been worse for people than, for example, in England, where the Christian faith has been respected. In modern times, however, the trend is that the same atheistic ideas supported by the first communists are gaining support everywhere. Freethinkers are at the forefront of driving these models.

This topic has also been discussed in newspaper columns. The general secretary of the Union of Freethinkers, Esa Ylikoski, brought up the demand of free-thinkers in the newspaper: "Religious events outside school hours" (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 7 August 2018). I responded to Esa's writing and presented how the Christian faith has actually influenced the creation of literacy and schools. Similarly, healthcare and numerous charitable organizations (Red Cross, Save the Children...) have been started by professing Christians. Atheists and humanists have often been bystanders in this area. The English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990), himself a secular humanist, but nevertheless honest, noticed this. He paid attention to how the world view affects culture: "I have spent years in India and Africa, and in both I have encountered a lot of righteous activities maintained by Christians belonging to different denominations; but not once have I come across a hospital or an orphanage maintained by a socialist organization or a leper sanatorium operating on the basis of humanism." (5) I will take another quote from the biography of Stanley Jones. He said in this book:

Asking for a revival for his tribe, one chief said:

-- We are grateful for the leaves and fruits of Christianity - education and hospitals - but we would really like the root - the renewal of the moral character. That sentence should be posted on the wall of every religious center in the world. And so said the chief who came straight from the paganism...

Moise Tshombe told me when he was Prime Minister of the Congo:

-- In my opinion, Africa's only hope is the Christian church. Where the Church is strong, we have little, if any, trouble; where the church is weak or non-existent, we have nothing but problems.

Another foreigner said to me in the Congo: -- It is the missionaries and the Christians who have kept the Congo together. They have built islands of goodwill and service in a sea of hatred and selfishness. (6)

In any case, my newspaper article can be found below. It was published in the following format. My own headline was a little different, but the newspaper changed it to the following format, which also describes the matter well:

In many countries, the ability to read is thanks to Christianity

Schools: If religious events are removed, neutrality will not necessarily replace them

When the schools started, Ylikoski, one of the free thinkers, brought up the idea of non-commitment in schools. He wanted religious events to remain outside of schools. Freethinkers don't want God in schools.

However, one cannot be neutral in this area. If you don't want God in schools, another, opposite ideology will fill it. It is usually replaced by an atheistic model of thought, similar to that in communist countries. Is this what freethinkers basically want?

It is worth remembering how the Christian faith has influenced the civilization of societies.

First, literacy. Everyone understands that if nations do not have their own written language and literacy, it is an obstacle to the development of science, the birth of inventions and the spread of knowledge. Then there are no books and information does not spread. Society remains in a stagnant state.

How has the Christian faith influenced the creation of literary languages and literacy? This is where many have a blind spot. They do not know that almost all book languages were created by professing Christians.

For example, in Finland, Mikael Agricola, Finnish religious reformer and father of literature, printed the first ABC book and parts of the Bible. The people learned to read through them.

In numerous other western countries, development has taken place in the same way. Without the Christian faith, their development could have been delayed for centuries.

The same development has occurred later in Africa and India. Even such languages as Hindi, Urdu of Pakistan and Bengali have acquired their grammar and linguistic basis through Christian missionary work.

Yale University professor Lamin Sanneh has also admitted that missionaries in Africa have done the greatest service to local cultures by creating the basis of a written language.

What about schools and universities? The first universities in Europe and America (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard...) were not born on the basis of secularists and states, but on the Christian faith. Hundreds of thousands of students studied natural sciences and other subjects in them. This enabled the scientific revolution in Europe in the 16th-18th centuries.

Also in Africa, basic and professional education (such as health care) is mainly built on the basis of Christian missionary work. Nelson Mandela wrote in his autobiography: "It seemed that almost everything that Africans accomplished originated from the missionary work of the Church."

A good question is, why do freethinkers oppose the Christian faith when it has had such a profound effect on schools and literacy? (Etelä-Suomen sanomat 10.8.2018)

Jari Iivanainen

Is Jesus evil or are freethinkers evil?

- (Luke 6:22) Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

As stated, free thinkers and non-religious organizations oppose Jesus and the Christian faith being presented in schools. They don't want children to hear about Jesus and God.

A good question is, is Jesus so evil that he must be strongly opposed, or are free thinkers and representatives of non-religious organizations evil themselves when they try to prevent children from hearing about him? Which of these options is correct?

Because if Jesus was and is good, why should we oppose good and perfect? Why do you have to be against good? Or isn't it the case that only bad people oppose good? Isn't that what freethinkers are when they try to prevent children from hearing about Jesus, who is universally regarded as good? Actions show the quality of their heart in this area. The following words of Jesus fit the topic well:

- (Luke 18:16): 16 But Jesus called them to him, and said, Suffer little children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

- (Matt 18:5-7) And whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me.

6 But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

References:

1. Veikko Pöyhönen: Uskonnonopetus uhattuna, p. 38,39

2. John Reader: Alkumerestä maalle, p. 9,25,26

3. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115

4. Vishal Mangalwadi: Kirja, joka muutti maailmasi (The Book that Made Your World), p. 236,237

5. Malcolm Muggeridge: Jesus Rediscovered. Pyramid 1969.

6. E. Stanley Jones: Pyhiinvaeltajan laulu (A Song of Ascents)