"So as a Christian I have no in-principle difficulty supporting the humanists in Queensland in their plea to offer special religious education to children of humanist parents." That's very big (dare I say very Christian) of you Ted, and I guess following that lesson kids will be taught creation "science" but I have a couple of problems with this. Firstly, humanism is not a religion. Additionally, why shouldn't the kids of Christian parents be taught humanism too? This isn't about 'you'll go to school to learn my beliefs' it's about 'schools teaching facts'.

It's a fact the Christians believe in the existance of a god and a person named Jesus. It's also a fact that there is no evidence of the existance of the same said god, nor, probably, Jesus. Those facts are what should be taught and in an academic environment of philosophy or comparative religious studies. Anything less is the censorship that you are concerned about.

For schools to allow the teaching of any religion (as opposed to examining the beliefs in religions) is to allow the teaching of superstition. They may as well as teach astrology, tea-leaf readings (Harry Potter could be the text) and the healing power of crystals.

"For schools to allow the teaching of any religion (as opposed to examining the beliefs in religions) is to allow the teaching of superstition. They may as well as teach astrology, tea-leaf readings (Harry Potter could be the text) and the healing power of crystals."

Thank you Peter. I was pretty much going to say exactly the same thing.

Sure, teach religion as part of social studies, as a subject to critique and analyse (and count the corpses of those killed in the name of God). But to teach "religion" as "religion" would be a step back into the dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

I'm all for religious education of our children in schools. They should be taught about the role of religion and religious institutions in the formation of our society; they should be taught about the role of religion and religious institutions in the formation of other societies; they should be taught about the role of religion and religious institutions in present and past conflicts and social repression; they should be taught about the magnificent variety of religious thought and faith that is available.

Unfortunately, my own experience - and that of my school-age children - is that "religious education" in school is none of those things. It amounts only to an indoctrination into a particlar faith - no discussion of alternative faiths; no discussion of the pitfalls and issues that holding a particular faith brings with it; no discussion of the role and responsibility religion and religious institutions hold in society. It amounts to an entirely unsatisfactory experience for young enquiring minds.

If we're gonna have religious education in schools, make it focussed on the study of religion, not indoctrination into blind faith. The former is a justifiable role of a secular education system, the latter is the role of parents, peers and friends.

I support the posts of Peter,Lev & Hughie and I believe they reflect the growing trend in australia amongst enlightened people of various religious beliefs who are dismayed at the actions of many who profess 'christian' ideals.

Perhaps that explains why many in our community search for 'the true meaning of life'

It is well before time that the mysticism and superstition of our origins were exposed and the use of fear and untruths to manipulate our thinking gave way to true science

I agree with the comments so far; objective comparative religion could be taught in schools. I don't agree with the article's author that children should be encouraged to think critically about different religions. 'Children' are not yet equipped to think critically at all. And I don't agree that 'Students also need to “get” religious belief'. If religion was not taught at all, there may be a chance of aethesism getting a grip. Sounds good to me. Surely, now more than ever, aethesism is the safest place for us ALL to be.

A thoughtful piece and good comments.
Ted, most religions seem to concern themselves in one way or another for better or worse with values and ethics promoting their brand name and providing rules for adherents to co-exist.
Within these values and ethics is some commonality, why can't there be an acceptance of broad principals within the secular system and put forward as a life framework i.e do unto others, suffer the children,respect for the old and suffering?
Modern Christianity in this country does not seem to have provided adherants with the insight or courage to confront and change the evils in the self professed Chtistian we have as Prime Minister who can lock up women and children seeking succor,disempower working Australians and use the plight of the most disadvantaged to assist his re-election campaign.
In my opinion Christian religious education seems to dismpower rather than nurture the confidence to express moral outrage.
But as you no doubt know it is an interesting balance. The teachings of so called Islamic fundamentalism does just that but in so doing identifies moral depravity in non believers. Them and us, which I suppose is what Howard is all about. I'd never really thought of hin as a militant fundamentalist but there you go. Where do we put Jensen and Pell? And how do we see their stock of tolerance and compassion?
Bruce Haigh