Educating for society

[3Vee]

This is spun off of the trust/government thread, as the discussion was getting off that topic. I'm going to try to present my view systematically, hampered somewhat by being obliged to also reply to a couple points. For any awkwardness this works into the argument, I apologize.

The side-tracking question there was, what should be done about America's education system?

Now, the American nation is a constitutional, more or less federal, democratic-ish nation with a representative government in three branches - and I think for most of us here this is pretty much common knowledge so all the details are unnecessary. So we should have the kind of education that's good for that kind of society.

I am going to assume - and this may be dangerous - that a democratic state is the ideal society. Probably our hypothetical state has a representative, possibly federal, etc. etc. government, but at any rate it's democratic, and this is good.

I'll start with a given definition of a good education:

Well, I did define it, but the definition was so short you probably missed it: critical thinking. That's 90% of what anyone really needs to learn, in my view, because it enables you to learn anything you need to learn and to weed out the garbage. Critical thinking, which is basically logic combined with skepticism, should form the basis of all learning. Beyond that, I'd be happy with the basics. Math (the logic of numbers), science (logic applied to the observed world), history (human events arranged logically into causal chains), literature (speculation about and logical analysis of the most complex aspects of human existence: thinking, culture etc.).

I am perfectly happy with this as it stands, with a couple minor exceptions. Let me explain, and I think we may be able to agree. First, Oblongato includes no study of other language, which I believe is essential to learning about how people communicate. Secondly, I don't believe knowledge and understanding of culture and religion - essential elements of human life - can be learned just from "literature", but must be studied separately. Last, I would like a definition of skepticism. Too often it means mocking any idea presented without proof - of one sort or another. By corollary, this "skepticism" tend to accept unquestioningly any idea that's been "proven". I think an honest skepticism would have to examine all ideas for itself, and by corollary be as open to the wild-ass guess as to the "reasonable" theory, at least at the beginning.

Assuming we can take the amended definition as given, what is the best way to achieve this?

There are two main options: schooling can be run by the government, or can be conducted privately.

If run by the government, we have the advantages of uniformity; if done well, of accountability.

If done privately, we preserve the advantage of varying viewpoints. It also preserves greater individual and local freedom.

What are the potential abuses? A universal government education will reflect the government; if the government goes bad, the people are responsible for that, but it will affect the schools instantly, removing a check on change. (I am assume that there is no way to set up anything, including a school system, that the Powers that Be can't get around if they feel like it. Which seems justified by history.) The universality, which is in once sense a government system's greatest advantage, is its weakpoint. If the system is missing something and people don't notice, all the students will be missing that something. If the system goes bad and can't be changed, it goes bad for everyone. And a homogenous and stupid democracy tends to go first to majority tyranny and then dictatorship by one.

On the other hand, a system of private education is relatively unaccountable and thus the end product may not be dependable. Especially if people decide they don't care that much about "education", the results will eventually result in the same problems as the government system-gone-bad. I believe it would be slower. However, the unpredictable results would mean some sort of test would have to be instituted if society were determined to keep its voting base made up only of the sufficiently educated. And that, eventually, tends to lead to an oligarchic tyranny, a "tyranny of intellectuals" to begin with, but eventually just tyranny.

Regardless of which system is chosen, the consequences of that system not being watched and guarded are severe, so in a sense it does not matter, in my opinion, which system we go with. In either case, we need a society dedicated to preserving their own good for posterity.

I personally favor a privatized system - as noted above, I believe it is less easy to corrupt beyond recovery, but to flesh out some of my other concerns, I will reply to some other points:

I would argue that religious schools and home schooling are indoctrinating our children into an ideology of willful ignorance. It is not conducive to logical thinking to tell children that the feeling in their hearts is true even if it is contradicted by what their brains tell them. Even worse, such schooling often gives fanatics the opportunity to shield their children from interaction with their fellow citizens in the marketplace of ideas.

Having been homeschooled, I both agree and disagree with your assessment. Yes, it offers those with strong beliefs the chance to shield children from other ideas. I would argue that this is in fact a benefit, and becomes a disadvantage largely because, in the modern world, "schooling" is mandatory until far too late an age.

Why? It is impossible to think without a system. The system may be wrong, but if you do not have a starting point, you don't have any comparison to draw. The fact that I am a Christian - or, if it were the case, the fact that I were a Muslim, or atheist, or Hindu - does not remove my rationality.

I know of no faith that requires its members to trust "feeling" over hard evidence as a matter of orthodoxy. Sects of almost any faith, yes. But then, I also know atheists who believe - almost religiously, as it were - that God not only does not exist, but cannot exist, when manifestly the non-existence of the "supernatural" cannot be proven by natural means. So to attribute the irrationality all to religion is hardly fair.

Let me now address the proposed solution:

I would abolish both religious schools and home schooling, instead requiring each student to participate in a revamped, simplified and standardized public school system with citizenship classes that made it perfectly clear to each individual, whatever their background, that they will take responsibility for the survival of the country when they come of age - through their vote.

I would tend to agree that because of the various difficulties involved, this is the best solution as long as the people of a country - say, the US - remain committed to what we can call "wisdom" in ruling themselves, both as individuals and as a country.

However, to have only the government running education seems dangerous, and I would rather implement a system where "checks and balances" are inherent. My first attempt at such a system would be to allow schooling up to a certain age to be done any way thought best by the parents - maybe even mandate that it be done privately. There would be tests administered at some point to make sure that "the basics" were being learned (definitely reading, writing, math - maybe others, depending). At that point, if the student was competent, choice of system could still be exercised. If not, the student would be required to attend the government school. Then, to ensure that all citizens knew what was required, at high school (or equivalent), all students would be required to attend a government-run school for somewhere between 2-4 years. A system somewhat like that would, I believe, maximize the benefits of all systems while minimizing the disadvantages and at the same time producing a skilled body of new citizens. That's obviously a "first draft" idea rather than finished product.

Okay, go to town!

[Oblongato]

I'll start with a given definition of a good education:

Well, I did define it, but the definition was so short you probably missed it: critical thinking. That's 90% of what anyone really needs to learn, in my view, because it enables you to learn anything you need to learn and to weed out the garbage. Critical thinking, which is basically logic combined with skepticism, should form the basis of all learning. Beyond that, I'd be happy with the basics. Math (the logic of numbers), science (logic applied to the observed world), history (human events arranged logically into causal chains), literature (speculation about and logical analysis of the most complex aspects of human existence: thinking, culture etc.).



I am perfectly happy with this as it stands, with a couple minor exceptions. Let me explain, and I think we may be able to agree. First, Oblongato includes no study of other language, which I believe is essential to learning about how people communicate.

I purposely kept my list minimal. I do think "literature" can be expanded to include other subjects - music, art, languages.

Secondly, I don't believe knowledge and understanding of culture and religion - essential elements of human life - can be learned just from "literature", but must be studied separately. Last, I would like a definition of skepticism. Too often it means mocking any idea presented without proof - of one sort or another. By corollary, this "skepticism" tend to accept unquestioningly any idea that's been "proven". I think an honest skepticism would have to examine all ideas for itself, and by corollary be as open to the wild-ass guess as to the "reasonable" theory, at least at the beginning.

I think social studies overlaps with history and literature, though I would have no objection to its inclusion as a separate subject.

And now for what I believe will be our biggest point of contention: religion. I would include an objective treatment of religion (meaning all religions) in either history or social studies. I would not allow it to be included as a subject itself. My reasoning is as follows:

The only state that can offer freedom of religion is a secular state. This is because freedom of religion means that no one religion can be favored by the state, and I would argue that no religion should be officially recognized by the state. Only if all religions are on an equal footing legally can one truly speak of freedom of religion. For this reason, the school system should also be completely secular. I do not agree that religion should be completely excluded from the curriculum. Instead, it should be treated as an aspect of society. (Whether it is an essential aspect is very debatable, in my view. Anyone who has read any of my posts probably knows that I am a "hard" atheist.)

Which brings me to skepticism. I do not think that mockery has a place in any state curriculum. On the other hand, a secular system should only grant credence to things for which there is evidence. In social studies one can talk about the facts of religion: who believes, what they believe, what their culture and traditions are. Religion would receive a similar treatment in history class. I think there should be a more-or-less official approach to beliefs that are not backed up by empirical evidence. Perhaps something like this: "Many people believe that, but it is not something that can really be studied in school because there is no scientific evidence for it." The problem would be to find a way to avoid open war between the factions in the classroom without squelching discussion. I am not sure if this is possible, but I consider the best chance to be a focus on scientific evidence. Anything lacking it would have to be deferred to one's church.


Assuming we can take the amended definition as given, what is the best way to achieve this?

There are two main options: schooling can be run by the government, or can be conducted privately.

If run by the government, we have the advantages of uniformity; if done well, of accountability.

If done privately, we preserve the advantage of varying viewpoints. It also preserves greater individual and local freedom.

What are the potential abuses? A universal government education will reflect the government; if the government goes bad, the people are responsible for that, but it will affect the schools instantly, removing a check on change. (I am assume that there is no way to set up anything, including a school system, that the Powers that Be can't get around if they feel like it. Which seems justified by history.) The universality, which is in once sense a government system's greatest advantage, is its weakpoint. If the system is missing something and people don't notice, all the students will be missing that something. If the system goes bad and can't be changed, it goes bad for everyone. And a homogenous and stupid democracy tends to go first to majority tyranny and then dictatorship by one.

On the other hand, a system of private education is relatively unaccountable and thus the end product may not be dependable. Especially if people decide they don't care that much about "education", the results will eventually result in the same problems as the government system-gone-bad. I believe it would be slower. However, the unpredictable results would mean some sort of test would have to be instituted if society were determined to keep its voting base made up only of the sufficiently educated. And that, eventually, tends to lead to an oligarchic tyranny, a "tyranny of intellectuals" to begin with, but eventually just tyranny.

Regardless of which system is chosen, the consequences of that system not being watched and guarded are severe, so in a sense it does not matter, in my opinion, which system we go with. In either case, we need a society dedicated to preserving their own good for posterity.

I stand by my claim that private schooling is in many cases primarily an instrument of indoctrination. Public schooling is also, of course, an instrument of indoctrination, but it indoctrinates students into the ideology of the state. People can have their own culture, their own religion, their own cooking. But one thing they must have in common, if a state is to function with any degree of fairness and efficiency, is the knowledge that they are all in the same boat, and knowledge of how that boat works. This is why I consider it essential to have a nationwide curriculum - so that every citizen and future voter has a common understanding of the state itself. It seems that there are very few people in modern democracies who take seriously the running of the state. (Otherwise, elections would not be decided on the basis of who bought the most propaganda.) I see this as a dangerous flaw in the school system. We need citizenship classes. People would not necessarily have to believe it all, but they would all be required to know the same information about the state.

Private schooling has the potential to breed dissent of the most pernicious kind. We do not need cults like the Branch Dividians turning out Branch Dividian children so that they may form their armed separatist movements; we need schools that expose children to true free thinking that they may not necessarily be exposed to by their parents, with the goal that children will come to understand that the state must provide for all citizens equally, regardless of the usual reasons for strife: religion, skin color, culture etc.

I personally favor a privatized system - as noted above, I believe it is less easy to corrupt beyond recovery, but to flesh out some of my other concerns, I will reply to some other points:

I would argue that religious schools and home schooling are indoctrinating our children into an ideology of willful ignorance. It is not conducive to logical thinking to tell children that the feeling in their hearts is true even if it is contradicted by what their brains tell them. Even worse, such schooling often gives fanatics the opportunity to shield their children from interaction with their fellow citizens in the marketplace of ideas.



Having been homeschooled, I both agree and disagree with your assessment. Yes, it offers those with strong beliefs the chance to shield children from other ideas. I would argue that this is in fact a benefit, and becomes a disadvantage largely because, in the modern world, "schooling" is mandatory until far too late an age.

My primary problem with private and home schooling is the fact that I believe it binds people within one ideology and separates them from other ideologies. To an extent, I would favor a state ideology; an ideology under which citizens recognize that the state is there to protect their private realm, but only if it protects the private realms of all. It should be clear to all individuals how it makes sense to maintain a neutral, fair and constant state so that all individuals are free to do what they please within that framework. And I believe this is only possible through a universal curriculum and public schooling. I consider it dangerous to allow citizens to a) escape the common curriculum, and b) potentially encourage ideologies opposed to a neutral state.

Why? It is impossible to think without a system. The system may be wrong, but if you do not have a starting point, you don't have any comparison to draw. The fact that I am a Christian - or, if it were the case, the fact that I were a Muslim, or atheist, or Hindu - does not remove my rationality.

I know of no faith that requires its members to trust "feeling" over hard evidence as a matter of orthodoxy. Sects of almost any faith, yes. But then, I also know atheists who believe - almost religiously, as it were - that God not only does not exist, but cannot exist, when manifestly the non-existence of the "supernatural" cannot be proven by natural means. So to attribute the irrationality all to religion is hardly fair.

I am not suggesting that religious people do not have the capacity for rationality. Obviously, they do, but when it comes to religion, rationality is switched off. There is a reason that religions are referred to as "faiths", and the reason is that scientific evidence does not support the concept of religion.

Atheism is not a religion. By the definition I will use here, it means a non-belief in god/s. There are atheists who are such for rational reasons (i.e. lack of evidence of the existence of god/s) and those who are atheists for other reasons.

As a lifelong atheist, I can attest to the fact that it is completely unnecessary to have any religion at all, and still live a good life. I believe I have a good set of morals, developed on the basis of treating others as I would wish to be treated. (This is not a religious concept; it is a logical concept.)

I would not necessarily say that religion is irrational; I would, however, say that if there is a rational basis for religion, that basis is psychological. I have not encountered any even-remotely convincing scientific justification for religious belief.

Let me now address the proposed solution:

I would abolish both religious schools and home schooling, instead requiring each student to participate in a revamped, simplified and standardized public school system with citizenship classes that made it perfectly clear to each individual, whatever their background, that they will take responsibility for the survival of the country when they come of age - through their vote.



I would tend to agree that because of the various difficulties involved, this is the best solution as long as the people of a country - say, the US - remain committed to what we can call "wisdom" in ruling themselves, both as individuals and as a country.

However, to have only the government running education seems dangerous, and I would rather implement a system where "checks and balances" are inherent. My first attempt at such a system would be to allow schooling up to a certain age to be done any way thought best by the parents - maybe even mandate that it be done privately. There would be tests administered at some point to make sure that "the basics" were being learned (definitely reading, writing, math - maybe others, depending). At that point, if the student was competent, choice of system could still be exercised. If not, the student would be required to attend the government school. Then, to ensure that all citizens knew what was required, at high school (or equivalent), all students would be required to attend a government-run school for somewhere between 2-4 years. A system somewhat like that would, I believe, maximize the benefits of all systems while minimizing the disadvantages and at the same time producing a skilled body of new citizens. That's obviously a "first draft" idea rather than finished product.

The key to the success of any democratic government is to convince the citizens of its wisdom. If this can be accomplished, then a state curriculum and state-run schools would succeed. If, however, the people do not demand accountability from their elected representatives, those representatives will become corrupt and make a good life for themselves. The power is in the hands of the people, but the people have to take the reins and make sure government continues to head in the right direction. Good schools and good government are both absolutely essential to the success of a democratic state.

[3Vee]

I'm afraid I'm going to take some of your argument out of order, and also pass over some of it. Where I pass over, I believe we agree closely enough as to be not worth the time of debate here.

And now for what I believe will be our biggest point of contention: religion. I would include an objective treatment of religion (meaning all religions) in either history or social studies. I would not allow it to be included as a subject itself. My reasoning is as follows:

The only state that can offer freedom of religion is a secular state. This is because freedom of religion means that no one religion can be favored by the state, and I would argue that no religion should be officially recognized by the state. Only if all religions are on an equal footing legally can one truly speak of freedom of religion. For this reason, the school system should also be completely secular. I do not agree that religion should be completely excluded from the curriculum. Instead, it should be treated as an aspect of society. (Whether it is an essential aspect is very debatable, in my view. Anyone who has read any of my posts probably knows that I am a "hard" atheist.)

You're right; this is a point of contention. I agree completely that a religious state cannot preserve freedom of all religions: law will be founded on the religion's "revealed truth", and will inherently preclude certain other religious beliefs.

But the secular state does not solve this problem. I'll avoid the societal issues for now - that's another subject - and look only at the educational aspect:

How can you teach just "the facts" about something that claims to be true without passing some judgement on whether or not it is true? It's one thing to teach trivia, like the ordinary of the Catholic Mass, or the Seven Pillars of Wisdom; it's quite another to try to decide what good it all is. It is essential to Christian doctrine that Christ rose from the dead; to try to teach that somebody believes it, in the context of a secular materialistic curriculum, is to imply that they are wrong. It is essential to Muslim belief that "Mohammed is his Prophet"; when elsewhere you teach that prophecy is impossible, you implicitly discredit Islam.

And this is all besides the trivial objection, which is: you simply can't teach about all religions; there are too many. How do you choose which ones are worthy of being learned about?

Which brings me to skepticism... I think there should be a more-or-less official approach to beliefs that are not backed up by empirical evidence... The problem would be to find a way to avoid open war between the factions in the classroom without squelching discussion. I am not sure if this is possible, but I consider the best chance to be a focus on scientific evidence. Anything lacking it would have to be deferred to one's church.

I'll repeat what I sketched out before: If you accept nothing but empirical evidence - by which you mean, although you don't say, material empirical evidence - you are forced to teach, implicitly, that religion is false. Not only that, you ignore evidence. There is "empirical evidence" of seemingly miraculous occurrences, in the form of eyewitness accounts, in many faiths. Do we discredit these merely because they disagree with our scientifically observed "Laws of Nature"? You must know, I'm assuming, that current scientific understanding of such laws regards them far more as models or probabilities than as necessarily universally binding fact.

I stand by my claim that private schooling is in many cases primarily an instrument of indoctrination. Public schooling is also, of course, an instrument of indoctrination, but it indoctrinates students into the ideology of the state. People can have their own culture, their own religion, their own cooking. But one thing they must have in common, if a state is to function with any degree of fairness and efficiency, is the knowledge that they are all in the same boat, and knowledge of how that boat works. This is why I consider it essential to have a nationwide curriculum - so that every citizen and future voter has a common understanding of the state itself. It seems that there are very few people in modern democracies who take seriously the running of the state. (Otherwise, elections would not be decided on the basis of who bought the most propaganda.) I see this as a dangerous flaw in the school system. We need citizenship classes. People would not necessarily have to believe it all, but they would all be required to know the same information about the state.

In a well-organized state, it should take maybe a year to teach future citizens how the state is organized, what its history is, and what their responsibilities are. Two years at the outside. Ideologically, this is all that should be necessary.

If you attempt to impose a state ideology farther than this on people, you are denying a freedom of ideas essential to a truly democratic state. Unity of ideas does not safeguard freedom, it brings tyranny, or at least bureaucracy. People are easy to convince; a state-imposed education will convince the people to believe what the state believes. It doesn't matter how logically you make sure to lay out your position; it will become an illogical worldview.

The counterbalance to this human proclivity is multiple worldviews within your populace, and this can only be safeguarded by consciously maintaining them within the populace by allowing private action in education as in other areas.

...We need schools that expose children to true free thinking that they may not necessarily be exposed to by their parents, with the goal that children will come to understand that the state must provide for all citizens equally, regardless of the usual reasons for strife: religion, skin color, culture etc.

Note though that your "true free thinking" is defined by the state, in terms of logic and critical thinking. Your "free thinking" actually leaves no room for freedom to think/wonder/believe in a supernatural; leaves no room for any reasonable discussion, in fact, of philosophy or arts or anything that could be subjective. Unless you would claim that artistic standards can be rationally determined, and claim that you can tell whether Kant or Nietzche has the more logical philosophy.

...To an extent, I would favor a state ideology; an ideology under which citizens recognize that the state is there to protect their private realm, but only if it protects the private realms of all. It should be clear to all individuals how it makes sense to maintain a neutral, fair and constant state so that all individuals are free to do what they please within that framework. And I believe this is only possible through a universal curriculum and public schooling.

Your definition, then, of the state's purpose, is "to protect their private realm, but only if it protects the private realms of all"? But how do you define the private realm? I maintain that this includes what I believe, and your system definitely does not leave this alone. For anyone.

I consider it dangerous to allow citizens to a) escape the common curriculum, and b) potentially encourage ideologies opposed to a neutral state.

As I believe I have shown, there really is no such thing as a neutral state. Even the secular state, if it stoops to requiring universal anything, violates that neutrality.

Atheism is not a religion. By the definition I will use here, it means a non-belief in god/s. There are atheists who are such for rational reasons (i.e. lack of evidence of the existence of god/s) and those who are atheists for other reasons.

I would argue that atheism is in fact a religion, as it constitutes a belief about the supernatural, specifically god/s. I have yet to meet anyone who finds it unnecessary to hold some belief about whether such things exist. Sure, it's not a religion with incense and formal prayers and what-not, but it is the basis, in a sense, of a system of belief.

The key to the success of any democratic government is to convince the citizens of its wisdom. If this can be accomplished, then a state curriculum and state-run schools would succeed. If, however, the people do not demand accountability from their elected representatives, those representatives will become corrupt and make a good life for themselves. The power is in the hands of the people, but the people have to take the reins and make sure government continues to head in the right direction. Good schools and good government are both absolutely essential to the success of a democratic state.

You overlook, I think, the fact that the government, to be truly democratic, must in fact be set up by the people. Your "democratic" government-run education abolishes or abuses so much liberty of thought that the people would not stand for it. If I am setting up a governmental system, I am not going to set up a system that takes the essential liberty as a means of preserving lesser ones.

Or would you say that the liberty to think for myself - which your system, I have argued, demolishes - is not an important freedom?

[Oblongato]

Good idea, I'll do the same. If I leave it out, I more or less agree.

But the secular state does not solve this problem. I'll avoid the societal issues for now - that's another subject - and look only at the educational aspect:

How can you teach just "the facts" about something that claims to be true without passing some judgement on whether or not it is true? It's one thing to teach trivia, like the ordinary of the Catholic Mass, or the Seven Pillars of Wisdom; it's quite another to try to decide what good it all is. It is essential to Christian doctrine that Christ rose from the dead; to try to teach that somebody believes it, in the context of a secular materialistic curriculum, is to imply that they are wrong. It is essential to Muslim belief that "Mohammed is his Prophet"; when elsewhere you teach that prophecy is impossible, you implicitly discredit Islam.

I think a secular state by definition has no choice but to take a scientific approach to truth. Here I think it is unavoidable to address the issue of lacking (material) empirical evidence. More following your later comments.

And this is all besides the trivial objection, which is: you simply can't teach about all religions; there are too many. How do you choose which ones are worthy of being learned about?

I suppose the most obvious method would be to cover those with the most followers and any that are somehow unique in their beliefs or influence. Obviously, due to time constraints some would have to be left out. Students could then perhaps have the option of researching and writing a paper on any they missed.

I'll repeat what I sketched out before: If you accept nothing but empirical evidence - by which you mean, although you don't say, material empirical evidence - you are forced to teach, implicitly, that religion is false. Not only that, you ignore evidence. There is "empirical evidence" of seemingly miraculous occurrences, in the form of eyewitness accounts, in many faiths. Do we discredit these merely because they disagree with our scientifically observed "Laws of Nature"? You must know, I'm assuming, that current scientific understanding of such laws regards them far more as models or probabilities than as necessarily universally binding fact.

If religions truly are faiths - of which I am firmly convinced - then you are not proving them false by showing the lack of (material) empirical evidence to support them. Faith alone has perpetuated them this far, and will no doubt continue to do so. When I used the term empirical, I was using it in the sense that is commonly used in science: evidence based on experiment and/or observation.

Eyewitness claims are notoriously unreliable, particularly when they conflict with physical laws. Indeed, they would have to be dismissed. To my knowledge, there is no way to stretch natural laws to allow for the conversion of water to wine, except in a metaphorical sense. In fact, many religious people believe miracles are to be understood as metaphors and not literally as physical occurrences. The Catholic Church has even gone so far as to declare evolution a possible theory of creation - though there is of course much more in Catholicism that conflicts with science.

I actually don't believe it would be all that tragic to put forth the scientific position that there is no verifiable evidence for the claims of any religion. Teachers would not say the religions are wrong, just that they have no scientific basis.


In a well-organized state, it should take maybe a year to teach future citizens how the state is organized, what its history is, and what their responsibilities are. Two years at the outside. Ideologically, this is all that should be necessary.

If you attempt to impose a state ideology farther than this on people, you are denying a freedom of ideas essential to a truly democratic state. Unity of ideas does not safeguard freedom, it brings tyranny, or at least bureaucracy. People are easy to convince; a state-imposed education will convince the people to believe what the state believes. It doesn't matter how logically you make sure to lay out your position; it will become an illogical worldview.

Some experimentation would be necessary to determine the best way to convey not only the facts about the state, but to instill in children an identification with the state. For those intellectually rejecting the state, which should be allowed, it should be made clear that this rejection must take place within the laws of the state.

I am not suggesting a total unity of ideas. Rather, I would advocate a core understanding that the guarantee of life and liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness is maintained by the state, and that the state must be preserved to preserve these rights and freedoms. It would also be constantly emphasized that each individual is free to think, believe and express whatever they like within the confines of the rules of the system, which in turn exist to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens.

The counterbalance to this human proclivity is multiple worldviews within your populace, and this can only be safeguarded by consciously maintaining them within the populace by allowing private action in education as in other areas.

I would require all children without exception to attend the secular public schools as a sort of citizenship training. What people do in their free time would not be a matter for the state as long as it didn't violate the laws of the state. Sunday schools or religious instruction outside of the public schools would be no problem.

Note though that your "true free thinking" is defined by the state, in terms of logic and critical thinking. Your "free thinking" actually leaves no room for freedom to think/wonder/believe in a supernatural; leaves no room for any reasonable discussion, in fact, of philosophy or arts or anything that could be subjective. Unless you would claim that artistic standards can be rationally determined, and claim that you can tell whether Kant or Nietzche has the more logical philosophy.

People would be absolutely free to think and believe what they want. But they should also learn whether their beliefs are subjective or objective, fact or speculation. People claiming objectivity for their beliefs would be expected to provide evidence to support them. Philosophy does not deal only with scientific fact. As long as it is not presented as scientific fact, I don't see the problem.

I don't want to leave the impression that I would establish thought police. Speculation plays a large role in science, too, and philosophy consists largely of speculation. Whether an idea is scientifically verifiable should be discussed. But the scientifically verifiable aspects are not the only aspects worth discussing. I would have no problem with discussing the viability of Christian philosophy in a social studies or philosophy class. But no secret should be made of the lack of (material) empirical evidence for the basis of the religion, either.

Your definition, then, of the state's purpose, is "to protect their private realm, but only if it protects the private realms of all"? But how do you define the private realm? I maintain that this includes what I believe, and your system definitely does not leave this alone. For anyone.

The private realm extends exactly as far as my fellow citizen's nose. My rights cannot interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. It is not always easy to establish these boundaries. For that reason I would suggest that the current system in the U.S. is pretty good and could form the basis.

I would not give citizens the right, however, to escape exposure to secular science classes, for instance. There would be no requirement to believe in evolution, or prohibition of discussing intelligent design, but in the schools all would be exposed to dominant scientific opinion on these issues. If the exposure alone is enough to destroy someone's beliefs (which I doubt), then so be it. They certainly would not be compelled to abandon their beliefs. Only to learn what the secular (scientific) perspective is.

As I believe I have shown, there really is no such thing as a neutral state. Even the secular state, if it stoops to requiring universal anything, violates that neutrality.

I disagree. I think a secular state whose policies and laws are based on logic and science is indeed neutral. (Logic and science are neutral because they are verifiable by all.) All policies would have to be demonstrated to be religion-neutral. Yes, because there are multiple perspectives even in the secular realm many policies would have to be decided on democratically. The people would also have the power to change these policies. But a court system would ensure that no religiously motivated policy could be implemented.

I would argue that atheism is in fact a religion, as it constitutes a belief about the supernatural, specifically god/s. I have yet to meet anyone who finds it unnecessary to hold some belief about whether such things exist. Sure, it's not a religion with incense and formal prayers and what-not, but it is the basis, in a sense, of a system of belief.

There is a big difference between a belief, such as theism, and lack of belief or disbelief. Atheism by my definition is the absence of a belief in god/s. There may be atheist social clubs, but there are no atheist churches. The concept would be absurd. You cannot worship "no-god." Simply taking a position on the supernatural does not constitute religion, and the rejection of the supernatural automatically takes one outside of the bounds of religion.

You overlook, I think, the fact that the government, to be truly democratic, must in fact be set up by the people. Your "democratic" government-run education abolishes or abuses so much liberty of thought that the people would not stand for it. If I am setting up a governmental system, I am not going to set up a system that takes the essential liberty as a means of preserving lesser ones.

Or would you say that the liberty to think for myself - which your system, I have argued, demolishes - is not an important freedom?

I am not sure after reading my comments that you will still think that my proposed state schools would demolish freedom. However, I see the only obstacle to the establishment of a secular state of the sort I have described here as being religious prejudice. What fair-minded religious person could oppose the neutrality of the state on the issue of religion? Only those who hope for advantages for the religious, or their own religion. Remember, one purpose of my secular state is to preserve religious freedom and equality among religions.