Suzeonline..."Surely having a sound knowledge of ethics and morality that many religious-based classes give will only add positively to the knowledge gained in science classes?"... surely this is something of a moot point is it not?

I have yet to see where the 'morality' of Christianity-at-work can be seen in the world of business or politics, or within the churches for that matter.

Where, for instance, can any morality of a Christian variety be found in our global economic system, or within the world of international relations as designed by our mealy-mouthed politicians?

And it is not at all clear, to me at least, that 'religion' is the source of any 'moral' behaviour in the first place.

In fact, the myth of God-and-the-Jesus-death hardly seems to be a 'moral' tale at all.

But you are right to suggest that children should be taught about the role of religion in shaping our world, but that is not the same as elevating it to some exalted position and then fibbing to children about its absolute centrality to existence, and 'meaning' as Sells was suggesting earlier.

I'm not sure why any professional teacher would dare to whisper anything about 'Creationism' in any class at all, unless it were to use this dodgy thinking to highlight how untruthful people can be when attempting to hide their true intent and force mumbo-jumbo onto young people.

Just the other day, I was told by a parent in Qld how his daughter asked about evolution in her science class. The teacher declined to 'go there' because 'some parents' might get upset with him talking about evolution, without giving 'the other view too'.

Balderdash, poppycock, stuff-and-nonsense... see how professional teachers are now self censoring to accommodate a total fabrication, Creationism?

I doubt this would happen in NSW, but I bet it does in Tassie and WA, both states that seem to prefer the backwoods banjo lifestyle to the 21st century.

Dear Blue Cross,

Thanks for the correction. Teachers should not be forced to be preachers

Dear AJ Philips,
Faith is the substance of things hoped for . My hope is in Jesus and the alledged truth of the bible as the inerrant word of God and intelligent design. Atheists hope is in Charles Darwin and a monkey of questionable intelligence. Without a change of heart you never see the possibilities . In the old King James translation the error of confusion over the modern usage of the word Easter instead of Passover is cleared up. Man is falliable and makes mistakes and if we want to argue about words you have to go to the oldest root to get the true meaning of words. I watched a show on T.V. last night about Mt Sinai of the 10 commandments in Exodus and it had all the signs described in the bible. Unrepentant man's aim is to disprove the word of God to justify his disobedience. I seek justification and forgivness in the finished work of the cross and see limitless posibilities. So is the glass half full or half empty.

Joe,
I'm unchastened. I acknowledged the success of "the method", and I applaud rational thinking, but I don't accept liberal rationalism as the end of history, or think it's an ontology humanity will ever warm to ("the method" too is equally indifferent to us).
Unfortunately I'll have to forestall my heretical utterances on this thread for now, as I'm snowed under, but I'll defend my position more asap.

Richie 10 wrote: Faith is the substance of things hoped for.

I hope for a quick, painless death when it comes. That is not faith.

He also wrote: Atheists hope is in Charles Darwin and a monkey of questionable intelligence.

An atheist does not believe in God. That does not mean an atheist accepts evolutionary theory. In fact I know one who doesn't.

He also wrote: Unrepentant man's aim is to disprove the word of God to justify his disobedience.

It is nonsense to talk of disobedience to a non-existent entity.

I am uncomfortable with your logic, suzeonline.

>>even if religion is not a subject routinely taught in many schools, I believe that being taught about the many religions and Gods worshiped in our world will serve to enrich our children's knowledge of our history, ethics and morals.<<

I fully agree with this statement. Religion has been one of the most significant cultural influences of the past thousand years, and should most definitely be addressed in the classroom.

The history can be reasonably factual. These are the beliefs of the Jewish people, the Christians, the Muslims etc.

However, when it comes to discussing the "ethics and morals" aspect, you are back in the realms of theory, rather than practice. It then moves into subjective territory, since discussing ethics and morals in the context of historical events such as the Crusades, or the Inquisition, would be tough to handle from a neutral viewpoint.

Which is why I am concerned about your next statement:

>>Surely having a sound knowledge of ethics and morality that many religious-based classes give will only add positively to the knowledge gained in science classes?<<

Once you move away from the purely historical, you immediately are mired in doctrine. Each doctrine is unique to its own religion, and therefore would be difficult to "teach" without preaching.