父母教導子女宗教信仰是否違反其自主性？T. H. McLaughlin與E. Callan及P. Gardner論辯之評析

DO PARENTS VIOLATE THEIR CHILDREN'S AUTONOMY BY UPBRINGING THEIR CHILDREN RELIGIOUS BELIEF? AN ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS OF T. H. MCLAUGHLIN, E. CALLAN AND P. GARDNER

研究目的：西方自由主義認為價值多元，政府必須站在價值中立的立場，教育理想不能預設特定的美好生活型態，而是要培養學生的自主性。對有宗教信仰的人而言，則是把幸福依託於神。父母教導子女宗教信仰是否違反其自主性，就成為重要的學術議題。本研究即擬針對此一議題加以探究，並提出對臺灣教育的啟示。研究設計／方法／取徑：本文屬哲學研究，研究者針對英國倫敦路線學者T. H. McLaughlin父母教導子女宗教信仰並不違反子女自主性的主張，以及E. Callan與P. Gardner認為會淪為灌輸之質疑，兼及McLaughlin的回應，探究其相互論辯的效力。研究發現或結論：T. H. McLaughlin以父母兒女共同隸屬的原生文化、家庭成員的有機統一及宗教參與有助於理解宗教等理由，企圖證成父母對子女進行宗教教育，不違反自由主義的教育自主性理想。E. Callan以及P. Gardner則擔心這難逃灌輸之嫌，在子女幼小階段，其思想未定型，過早進行宗教教育，會造成根深蒂固，不利子女爾後的自主發展。筆者檢視他們之間的論辯，同意McLaughlin的主張，只要父母持守自由主義的精神來教導子女宗教信仰，是可以回應其他學者質疑。研究原創性／價值：臺灣對於宗教教育的研究不多，現有的研究有從宗教教義著手，也有研究討論美國重要宗教教育判例。教育哲學可以對教育進行綜合反省，分析的教育哲學更期許能對教育實務問題作概念分析與論證。鑑於臺灣教育政策論述，很少有嚴格哲學論證，更遑論分析哲學的論證。本研究將能為臺灣學界探索宗教教育時，提供分析哲學的論證範例。教育政策或實務意涵：經由本文論證，家長有為子女提供宗教教育的權利，學校也無須以價值中立之名，嚴禁宗教涉入。但無論家長還是學校，仍應秉自由主義精神，慎防宗教灌輸。

Purpose: Western liberalism believes that values are diversified, and the government must stand on the position of value neutrality. The educational ideal should not presuppose a specific good life style, but cultivate students' autonomy. For people with religious beliefs, it is to rely on God for their happiness. Whether parents teach their children religious beliefs violates their autonomy has become an important academic issue. This study intends to explore this topic, and puts forward the implications for Taiwan education. Design/methodology/approach: This article is a philosophical study. T. H. McLaughlin, the scholar of London Line, tried to justify that parents have the rights to educate their children for religion which would not transgress the ideal of liberalism - educational autonomy. However, E. Callan and P. Gardner worried that it could be suspected of indoctrination. And McLaughlin responded to their challenges. The author investigates the validity of their mutual claims by philosophical arguments. Findings/results: McLaughlin tried to justify that parents have the rights to educate their children for religion which would not violate the ideal of personal autonomy of liberalism, on the grounds of primary culture parents and children both attach to, the organic unity of family members, and contributions of religious participation to understand religion. However, E. Callan and P. Gardner worried that it could be suspected of indoctrination. When children are young, their thoughts are not fixed and religious education is carried out too early, which will result in persistence beliefs to harm their development of autonomy in the future. The author examines the arguments on both sides and stands by McLaughlin's points. As long as parents adhere to the spirit of liberalism for their children on religious upbringing. they can defend the challenges from other opposed scholars. Originality/value: There are few studies on religious education in Taiwan. Some of the existing studies start from religious doctrines, and some studies discuss important court cases of religious education in the United States. The philosophy of education can reflect on education comprehensively, and the analytical philosophy of education is expected to make conceptual analysis and arguments on the practical issues of education. In view of the educational policy discourse in Taiwan, there are few rigorous philosophical arguments, let alone analytical philosophical arguments. This study will provide an argument example of analytical philosophy to explore religious education for Taiwan academic circles. Suggestions/implications: This paper argues that parents have a right to religious upbringing for their children, and schools do not need to ban religious materials involving to campus in the name of value-neutrality. But both parents and schools should embody liberal spirit and must guard against religious indoctrination.