The Education department signed an agreement with the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (TBFF) yesterday (Aug. 24) for the implementation of an interfaith program in public schools nationwide.
Read here: DepEd signs MoA on religious literacy, BusinessWorld
Education Secretary Armin Luistro, former De La Salle University president, justified the collaboration this way:
“Today there are many cases of extremist acts all over the world… because racial and religious prejudices are not addressed while in the infancy stage.”
I get Luistro’s reasoning. Ignorance is at the heart of prejudice and fundamentalism, and we use education to transform ignorance to awareness. But I’d like to hear what secularism advocates think about how the cabinet official translated his intention into public policy on education.
Does this feel like “one step forward but two steps backward” for secularism?
The program, which both parties will tailor-fit to the “Philippine context,” is based on the foundation’s Face to Faith Project. You can learn more about it from the website itself, but for now, here’s an overview:
“Face to Faith is the Foundation’s global schools programme, bringing 11 to 16 year olds together using digital technology so they can learn about each other, and about the attitude of different religions to global issues such as the environment, health, art, poverty, and wealth.”
— Tony Blair Faith Foundation
Academic materials were developed with the help of the Yale School of Management and the Divinity School.
Apparently, they skipped the fact that atheists, agnostics, apatheists — even humanist antitheists exist. These worldviews do not fit the framework of “religious faith,” much less “interfaith dialogue.”
So what about us? Are we part of the dialogue too?
“Religion can claim responsibility for some of the most profoundly positive and important events and movements the world has ever known. Yet it has also been associated with some of the most heinous and horrible crimes against humanity.”
— Tony Blair
Needless to say, Richard Dawkins was pissed at the former British Prime Minster’s initiative. Read the entire article bashing the foundation on his blog.
With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?
— Richard Dawkins
Images from Wikipedia
Ofcourse an interfaith program will ignore the faithless. If you have no faith, then you're faithless and don't belong in an interfaith program.
I guess, what the post is saying here is that we should focus on what is in the trend… and not on the topic of concern: Interfaith
@missingpoint: Oo, pwedeng-pwede no? Pilipino at hindi tagalog! Si Rajah Suleiman ay hindi si Pres. Quezon… pero bakit ka pipili kung pwede namang temang Espagnol at hindi temang hapon! lol
Mamangka sa dalawang ilog? Libo-libong ilog ang dumadaloy sa dagat! Pero kahit kaylan, ang bangka ay para lamang sa kung anong ninanais ng bangkerong ilulan dito!
Kapayapaan sa lahat! 🙂
I think you’re overreacting.
I’ve personally witnessed Face to Faith in action. The program allows students from two different parts of the world to share their perspectives on various aspects of life, and to explain how religion colors those perspectives. It is a celebration of the diversity of human experiences, not the promotion of a single, dominant worldview.
Face to Faith allows and even encourages schools that have predominantly agnostic / atheist student populations to participate in the program. Non-religious students are accommodated and included, as well they should be, given that they too are part of the social and philosophical fabric forming the human tapestry.
Finally, the program is a student-run experiences. Students ask questions and speak directly to each other. While teachers and moderators may be present, they do filter neither the questions nor the responses.
Given how rigid educational institutions can be, what could be more free-thinking than that?
I encourage Filipino Freethinkers to look into these issues more carefully and conscientiously, rather than letting your allergy to religion trump rational and thoughtful analysis.
[This part of my comment got deleted]: "If that is the case, I thank you for sharing this valuable information to us."
Given my brief stint as an educator, I agree with you that facilitating student-run multicultural interactions is one of the best ways to teach the value of diversity and how to negotiate differences.
Politically, I still have a problem about how the promotion of the program renders invisible the existence of people who precisely have no faith. It's not a mere matter of labeling or marketing.
I question the effect of how the program is framed on the pedagogy and whether the pedagogy will have a strong tendency to marginalize the uniqueness of "faithlessness." Will this program help theists understand atheism, agnosticism, apatheism, and the like as subjectivities and experiences beyond faith and religion? Because there are some people who still cannot conceive of faithlessness; who think that faith is an essential part of "humanity" so it is therefore impossible for people not to have faith. Even worse, I have heard of people claim that those who don't have faith are "not human" ("hindi tao").
Specifically, "understanding" theists who like to proselytize (or evangelize) treat atheism as a perspective that needs to be reformed. I have encountered people like that. They're polite, they're kind, they're not coercive, and I know they're well-meaning, but it's INCREDIBLY ANNOYING that they keep reframing to me my life using theistic metaphors (e.g., "god has a plan") then they keep telling me that they hope god will bless and guide me.
The criticism sounds theoretical for now, but one thing I've learned from my teaching experience and graduate studies in education is that educating children is a serious responsibility and it requires critical, meticulous, and deliberate analysis of your framework, methods, and execution (as well as relationship with your "students"). You'll never know what you'll end up "mis-teaching," and besides, do you want to risk that possibility?
Apart from student-run multicultural interactions, I think DepEd, if it is truly serious about reform and peace education, should reconsider revamping values education and transform it into a study of religions and secularism. This kind of curriculum will borrow from and influence science, history, and civics learning, and it will make the experience of education holistic and relevant to the "real world."
— author (Liz Diaz)
I am in complete agreement that our discussions about religion need to include a serious exploration of atheistic, agnostic, and humanistic perspectives, especially given the Philippine context.
Your concern that schools may explicitly or implicitly marginalize atheist or agnostic perspectives is a valid one. It is certainly possible that schools include Face to Faith as part of a values education course that fails to properly represent agnostic / atheistic perspectives.
But in those such instances, Face to Faith is not the problem. In fact, based on my experience, Face to Faith is a fitting remedy. As mentioned before, agnostic and atheist student populations are free to participate, thus allowing agnostic and atheist students to speak for themselves, rather than having their perspectives distorted by educators trying to feed students a particular religious agenda.
My bottom line is that the program is that despite its name, the program ultimately promotes free-thinking. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that this website decided to so harshly dismiss it.
This article does not intend to "harshly dismiss" the program. I can understand how the title might have communicated a "dismissiveness" but a HARSH dismissiveness? You might have to discern the ways in which you reconcile your own feelings and the objective content of the article (i.e., the words of the article).
I personally do not intend to dismiss the program. Rather, I am exercising SKEPTICISM toward it. I don't know how you personally discern those two (dismissiveness vs skepticism) and on what grounds you exercise skepticism. You said so yourself that I have valid sentiments about the tendency to silence and render invisible faithlessness.
Finally, I disagree. It's not "just" a name. If they truly are promoting freethinking that includes atheists, agnostics, apatheists, etc., in the dialogue, then why still call it "Face to Faith"? What agenda do they have for calling it that and insisting on it?
My answer: The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is really an attempt to totalize political discourse within the confines of religion and faith.
"Tony Blair is to use his extensive network of religious leaders to launch a 'FAITH OFFENSIVE' across America within the next 12 months."
"The former Prime Minister, who launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation in May 2008, is poised to develop a U.S.-based arm for the charity, which will pursue a variety of FAITH-BASED projects."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257867/T…
In that same article, Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said that to start from faith is a "fundamentally flawed concept." I agree. Because people have to learn to put faith aside in certain discussions and issues so they can begin to understand others who do not have the same faith. Belonging to a religion only functions to explain YOUR worldview, but it should not function as a tool for understanding THEIR worldviews.
As an educator, I'd like to know whether the students participating in multicultural interactions are, in some ways, informed of that during post-interaction reflection and processing sessions with a facilitator who can help them determine what cognitive tools to use to make sense of the encounter they just had.
If the program you specifically witnessed was running well, it's because, yes, the program is run by truly accepting and understanding educators. But as I said, I am skeptical of educational programs that do not and cannot see how it is vulnerable to bias and discrimination.
From the same article: "The views held by the religious figures on his charity's advisory council have also proved controversial. The inclusion of Rick Warren – the powerful founder of the California-based Saddleback church – has angered many liberals, who see him as an opponent of gay rights and abortion on demand."
I'm not sure whether he's still part of the council, but the fact that they even made that mistake is telling. Is this foundation and is that program run by people who face the faithlessness of people with mere tolerance, not acceptance? Are we sure we're communicating to people that certain opinions are harmful and need to be reformed in non-religious, non-faith-based, secular ways even if it's promoted by a doctrine of faith?
I hope people aren't forgetting it is an ethical imperative now for a democracy to be secular; hence, for the Philippine state to be secular. History is a testament of the consequences of using politics to forward religious agenda.
"This project threatens to set us back to an age in which political power was ascribed the mission of promoting a religious confession, or of changing it."
— Michel Schooyans, Catholic University of Louvain
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/20…
Let us also not forget who the founder is, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"But Tony's Christian faith is part of him, down to his cotton socks. He believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil, making lives better."
Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/…
It is only appropriate to be skeptical, as your sentiments in these comments certainly indicate. The headline "Interfaith Program Ignores the Faithless" does you no favors though.
The faithless are represented as part of the program. The mission statement of Face to Faith even refers to those with no faith:
"The programme is designed to support, encounter and exchange between those of different faiths and none, with the aim of improving understanding and respect for differences in worldviews."
From: http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/pages/sch…
Pre-conference discussions about intercultural and interfaith dialogue and post-conference processing are mandated as part of the program. The effectiveness of this is certainly dependent on the quality of the educators running the program. But that's true of anything in the curriculum.
Is the program promoting rationalism, humanism, or even just skepticism about religion? No, and it doesn't pretend to. On the other hand, it's also not promoting or encouraging particular religious belief. It's encouraging dialogue about religion. Given that, I think the name "Face to Faith" is quite fitting.
It seems you have two broad concerns. The first is whether this explicitly religious-based foundation, run by a powerful and politically-connected religious convert, can or should promote dialogue about religion in a way that can give justice to those of no faith. My answer to that is yes, just as a dialogue about atheism run by a humanist institution can meaningfully give justice to religious perspectives. I suspect we may disagree on this.
Your second concern is whether DepEd should have signed the MOA with the Tony Blair Foundation.
In principle, perhaps not. I see your point that there seems to be a violation of the separation of Church and State. Our government has contracted a religious-based organization to develop a curriculum about religious dialogue for public schools.
But if we're to be pragmatic, if we consider the way that Face to Faith is actually designed and implemented, then I'm all for widening participation among Philippine schools. And I think this is where I'm coming from.
So what's ideal? Perhaps what you suggested in one of your comments–a revamping of values education to reflect a more holistic and "real-world" understanding of religion, secularism, faith, and reason.
Good luck to us expecting DepEd to come up with something like that:)
1. “But if we’re to be pragmatic, if we consider the way that Face to Faith is actually designed and implemented, then I'm all for widening participation among Philippine schools. And I think this is where I'm coming from.”
Let me ask you:
Would you buy a shirt made from authentic organic fair trade cotton by a brand that turns the fabric into wearable clothing by employing children in a sweatshop? Would you donate money to a properly implemented waste segregation and recycling program managed by an organization that dismisses climate change and global warming as “liberal agenda”? Would you attend an effective and engaging human anatomy seminar organized by a group that considers creationism and intelligent design as valid theories that should be taught alongside evolution in biology classes?
Would you, like Howard Schultz (Starbucks CEO and founder), cancel your appearance at a leadership summit hosted by a church that supports corrective therapy for LGBT individuals for as long as it’s done “in a much more conversational, relational, service sort of way”? If you asked me, I wouldn’t. I don’t care if the religious program involves lots of hugs, gracious conversations, rainbows, entertaining Jesus songs, and butterflies — you’re not supposed to be telling them to “go straight” in the first place. [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/willow-c… — “She’s speaking at a church that legitimizes the idea that (LGBT individuals) can change, and that’s what a lot of the bullying we see is based on.” ] FYI, Starbucks is known in the US for its promotion of diversity and equality, and zero tolerance for discrimination.
I honestly think you are not pragmatic. “Pragmatic” is an adjective I reserve for people who know when and how to make practical decisions — not for those who think that every single matter can and should be decided “pragmatically.” I think it’s more apt to say that you have weak convictions and you do not understand well enough the implications of state secularism as a corrective lens for public policy and decision makers and what it means for people to have no faith (to be atheist, agnostic, apatheist, etc.,).
I don’t think that pandering to Tony Blair — the guy who went to war in Iraq with George Bush despite having no evidence that the Middle Eastern country had nuclear arms and no majority support from his constituency considering Britain is a “democracy” — and his oh-so effective Face to Faith program you can’t stop gushing about is a sign of pragmatism. To me, quite frankly, it’s a sign that you have no hold on your principles in this matter.
Compromising secularism while teaching about multiculturalism sends mixed signals to the rest of society. In fact, your current frame of thinking is a testament that the mixed signal is unacceptable. DepEd’s initiative merely validates your opinion that secularism can be suspended for as long as someone benefits — like it’s okay to give money to a religious charitable institution because they’ll use that money to build health centers for the poor anyway.
It seems to me that you do not realize how syncretic it is for an atheist to promote a religiously run educational program because this ends up supporting that group’s tendency co-opt the discourse of faithlessness into its system of faith, belief, superstition, divinity, and deities. It’s like asking a full-fledged vegan who subscribes to deep ecology to eat french fries at McDonald’s.
DepEd can have an equally effective — or even more effective — program without needing to call it Face to Faith and without the support of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. As a developing country, we have access to all sorts of ODA (official development assistance) from all sorts of secular finance institutions, foreign embassies, and foundations.
Again, it’s not so much a question of mere possibility or effectiveness of including the faithless, because no one’s questioned that. Rather, the bigger issues are first, the silencing of their [the faithless] presence in the dialogue by calling it Face to Faith; second, the disregarding of the risk of promoting tolerance for faithlessness rather than acceptance of it; and third, the request for the faithless to let believers represent their desire for dialogue.
Have you ever heard the concept of boycott? It’s withdrawing support from a group that holds certain principles which you believe you cannot condone.
I personally cannot condone a group that has an anti-LGBT cleric in its board. I cannot condone a group led by a person who thinks “divine revelation” is a legitimate basis for doing politics (e.g., “He believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil, making lives better.”) because going to war should not be a decision based on faith but on empirical facts, critical social analysis, and secular democratic ethics.
My intention in writing was not to suggest that Face to Faith was an appropriate venue to promote humanism. It was to suggest that Face to Faith is designed and executed in such a way that the faithless are included as part of the discussion.
"Again, it’s not so much a question of mere possibility or effectiveness of including the faithless, because no one’s questioned that."
You did. To quote from your original article:
"Apparently, they skipped the fact that atheists, agnostics, apatheists — even humanist antitheists exist. These worldviews do not fit the framework of “religious faith,” much less “interfaith dialogue.”
So what about us? Are we part of the dialogue too?"
Yes, the faithless are part of the dialogue too.
"Your support for the interfaith program disturbs me because you think an open and free discussion of faith and faithlessness (and whatever else related to those two) can be had separate from secularism, humanism, and reason. "
I suspect this is the heart of the matter. I do not equate free thought with a devotion to secularism, humanism, and reason. You accuse me of having weak convictions on these matters. Guilty as charged.
1. I will concede to your first point. But you still haven't addressed this related point:
I don’t think that pandering to Tony Blair — the guy who went to war in Iraq with George Bush despite having no evidence that the Middle Eastern country had nuclear arms and no majority support from his constituency considering Britain is a “democracy” — and his oh-so effective Face to Faith program you can’t stop gushing about is a sign of pragmatism. To me, quite frankly, it’s a sign that you have no hold on your principles in this matter.
It seems to me that you do not realize how syncretic it is for an atheist to promote a religiously run educational program because this ends up supporting that group’s tendency co-opt the discourse of faithlessness into its system of faith, belief, superstition, divinity, and deities. It’s like asking a full-fledged vegan who subscribes to deep ecology to eat french fries at McDonald’s.
I personally cannot condone a group that has an anti-LGBT cleric in its board. I cannot condone a group led by a person who thinks “divine revelation” is a legitimate basis for doing politics (e.g., “He believed strongly at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil, making lives better.”) because going to war should not be a decision based on faith but on empirical facts, critical social analysis, and secular democratic ethics.
—
2. But your comment only goes to show that you cannot address the meatier parts of my discussions.
"I do not equate free thought with a devotion to secularism, humanism, and reason. You accuse me of having weak convictions on these matters. Guilty as charged."
Let me repeat why I find this problematic, and I think you should, too:
[ It's a program that encourages dialogue about religion. This is a problem if your worldview does not revolve around religion and yet you are made to participate in a program that precisely wants you to talk about your ethics in terms of religion. ]
[ As I mentioned before, the problem with putting religion at the center of multicultural interactions is the tendency for the program to teach students that it's okay to assess various issues using primarily your faith experience. What if your faith experience is inherently irreconcilable with certain types of accepting and celebrating diversity? That Willow Creek Community Church that held the leadership summit keeps saying now that they're not anti-LGBT just because they don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church, but it only means that their approach to the issue is tamer. Nevertheless, deep down their faithful hearts, they think being gay or trans is a sin; they may hate the sin and not the sinner, but that only means they're going to gently goad you toward heterosexuality. That's not acceptance. That's tolerance, and that can also be harmful if you think it's okay not to transform that to acceptance. ]
Why is humanism important? Humanism is not necessarily an atheistic or secularist approach. Yes, psychesophia, I think it's important for theists to be humanists as well, because they need to put human beings at the center of discussions that concern HUMAN violence and HUMAN casualties. Injustices and oppression are directed toward people, and if you do not understand that, then I cannot conceive of how you can reform discriminatory or bigoted opinions which people justify using their so-called sacred doctrines.
Why is secularism important? Because secularism is a means of suspending your religious bias so you can begin to engage other people in discourse using ideas and knowledge that do not assert infallibility and can therefore be subjected to open critique and evaluation by anyone no matter who they are. It levels the discursive field for everyone.
Why is science important? This one, I have to clarify. I don't mean to claim that only scientific arguments are valid, because I don't believe that. But I think it's important for people to understand the concept of "empirical grounding." While physical/concrete reality can be interpreted in different ways depending on the theoretical framework or ideology, methodology, or discipline used, at least people recognize that their beliefs and opinions have "real" effects in this physical/concrete world that we share. Many anti-RH advocates are guilty of rejecting the empirical basis pro-RH arguments instead of offering an alternative interpretation of these empirical data. (By the way, yes, I've heard a decently and sensibly argued point against the RH Bill. I'll direct people to it some other time.) I do not want to encourage reflections on "very real" human pains and suffering that do not refer themselves to the concrete world at large.
If you do, suit yourself.
2. “Just as a dialogue about atheism run by a humanist institution can meaningfully give justice to religious perspectives.” — WRONG. We, the faithless, can meaningfully discuss religious perspectives, but we cannot meaningfully GIVE JUSTICE to religious perspectives.
I cannot represent the religious experience of a believer as an atheist in the same way that a white European colonizer cannot represent the experience of oppression of a slave. As an anthropologist, I can talk about faith intelligently and meaningfully and contribute to the way believers think about their religion and spirituality. A colonizer can talk about oppression intelligently and meaningfully and contribute to the way the colonized thinks about their subjugation and their desire for freedom. But to “give justice” — whatever that means — is a stretch.
While the Face to Faith program gives atheists, agnostics, apatheists, etc., the opportunity to represent themselves in a multicultural dialogue, their participation is being used to launch a “faith offensive” throughout the globe. You know what that sounds like? Buying a shovel from someone who plans to push me into the ditch I was asked to dig.
3. "On the other hand, it's also not promoting or encouraging particular religious belief. It's encouraging dialogue about religion. Given that, I think the name "Face to Faith" is quite fitting."
See, that's another problem right there.
It's a program that encourages dialogue about religion. This is a problem if your worldview does not revolve around religion and yet you are made to participate in a program that precisely wants you to talk about your ethics in terms of religion.
As I mentioned before, the problem with putting religion at the center of multicultural interactions is the tendency for the program to teach students that it's okay to assess various issues using primarily your faith experience. What if your faith experience is inherently irreconcilable with certain types of accepting and celebrating diversity? That Willow Creek Community Church that held the leadership summit keeps saying now that they're not anti-LGBT just because they don't act like the Westboro Baptist Church, but it only means that their approach to the issue is tamer. Nevertheless, deep down their faithful hearts, they think being gay or trans is a sin; they may hate the sin and not the sinner, but that only means they're going to gently goad you toward heterosexuality. That's not acceptance. That's tolerance, and that can also be harmful if you think it's okay not to transform that to acceptance.
Your support for the interfaith program disturbs me because you think an open and free discussion of faith and faithlessness (and whatever else related to those two) can be had separate from secularism, humanism, and reason.
4. "The effectiveness of this is certainly dependent on the quality of the educators running the program. But that's true of anything in the curriculum."
I'm not doubting that. But what I'm saying is that Face to Faith is a badly designed curriculum to begin with. It's lucky that the class you observed (again, not the entire program, just the specific case of the program you observed) was running smoothly.
As I've learned from my Singapore Math sessions, a bad math curriculum (example, the Philippine math curriculum) can still produce proficient students in the subject, but it's not going to make the overall proficiency of our students reach the same level as those in Singapore (or South Korea and Japan — countries which more or less have a similar math program). Why is that the case? Because our current curriculum does not address the risks of confusing the students even more.
Are they really going to inform students about the different religions and not end up promoting just one religion?
There must have some worries of who is behind the leadership that they have to smudge someone just to get the attention…
In doubt, there is this problem of knowing who is who among who is behind who. In every faith there is doubt and actions confirms true faith…
Shouldn't racial and religious prejudices be tackled in the subject Values Education?
Hay, simula pa lang ng dialogue and promotion of global understanding, rumatsada na naman kayo. Classic example of “can’t please everybody.”
Kaya nga. Simula pa lang may sablay na. Paanong magkakaroon ng understanding kung ang mga walang relihiyon ay hindi kasama?
Why is it that would be with religion? Faith on Governance and Education is not about any religion, it is about acquaintances… The trouble here is the urge to eradicate religion and it is inappropriate to discuss them here!
Uy, ok lang magtagalog 😉
LOL. That's a bit mean.
But yeah buyco5513, I think a lot of has here found it hard to understand your statement.
The rest of the world is quite slow on the uptake with regard to inclusion and non-discrimination. Sometimes I think it’s incomprehensible for them to not have any faith or belief in any god. And I wonder why.
I wonder if they have that in Israel…