Joe, (rather than the appalling appellation "Loudmouth")
Dawkins and co are taking a political stance against religion; rightly, for the most part, because it has too much influence in society, to the detriment of more 'rounded' thinking ('rationalist' thinking is just as irresponsible as religion), apropos various debates; and that's all well and good. But where is the critique, from Dawkins and co, of capitalism, and its 'fundamentalist' laissez faire sponsorship of anything that generates money or maintains the system?
Science and its method, with no ideological hang-ups to hold it back, is happy to hang-out with any regime that offers funding, that facilitates 'progress' (towards what?). The 'method' is applied to all manner of discreet projects--the minutia, or technology, of life--and this is what absolves it of ultimate responsibility; it isn't concerned with the larger picture, only with what's 'on the slide', hence my Mr Magoo analogy. Yet via Dawkins and co, rationalism is setting itself up as an ontology--they're spreading the word--notwithstanding their profound myopia!
I was aghast upon reading the article for this thread--its sanctimonious complacency is breathtaking! Yet here I am a pariah. Faith (sorry, memes) is a powerful thing!
There is indeed a better hole, joe.

Davidf, your logic is impeccable (no flattery intended); ethics do inevitably conjure the dominant creed. Isn't it about time we developed a set of enlightened ethics, that governments (first), are obliged to exemplify? The US constitution for instance, which I'm fond of denouncing, is "one of the most inspirational pieces of empty rhetoric ever penned", to quote myself.
Full marks to Obama, though!

David F Blue Cross et al.
The description of what is happening in Queensland school is unethical; to teach a programme called ethics as a means of indoctrinating students with a particular set of values is unethical; it is not what ethicists do.
The same applies to religious indoctrination programmes that masquerade under the title of religious education.
I am more familiar with the situation in South Australia and indeed with the R.E. programmes that have been developed at years 11 and 12 level. Those certainly conform to David's definition of R.E.
The situation described by Blue Cross should not mean that we abandon attempts to teach ethics. Rather it implies that we need to be much more rigorous in weeding out programmes that are little more than an attempt to foist on students particular religious beliefs.
Ethics taught by properly trained teachers following a curriculum that is consistent with the principles of academic ethics is important. Perhaps this should be the subject of a substantive article rather than attempt to explore the implications within the limitations of the forum.

Thank you, Mr/Ms Squeers, I could say the same about yours too (oh, I get it, your real name is Nicholas, or even Nicola ?), and thanks for the compliment and for your helpful explanation.

I'm not sure if liberal rationalism (an ideology) can be equated with the scientific method (a methodology) but surely Dawkins' propositions should be subjected to the same heartless, brutal testing employed by anybody applying the full range of weaponry of the scientific method for falsifiability, as any other proposition. For the record, I think they would pass.

But as a bear of little brain, I think I dimly understand your reservations: science (or at least the scientific method) assesses propositions empirically, for some sort of conditional epistemological validity, while ethical principles are really in the realm of metaphysics, not epistemology, impossible or not easy to put to any empirical test, so can't be assessed using those methods, so the two tag-teams are not even in the same wrestling ring: one demands testability, the other doesn't - have I got that remotely right ?

Joe

Baygon.. Qld has never 'masquaraded'... RI has never been RE, it's just that people (teachers, parents, ministers-of the church and education- and journalists) have.

RI has always been RI-religious indoctrination.

It was called RI in 1910, and it is still called that 100 years later.

I am glad you think it is a poor job.

What do you now intend to do about it?

I accept that it is a good idea, in fact a 'national interest' idea as well as a 'global interest' idea to impart some form of ethical code to our children.

I also accept that this will be, and should be, a contested area, for ever.

Which is why no one 'religion' should ever get a grip on it, nor any political ideology, or cultural one.

That is a tall order, of course.

So who does it, and what is it?

I see the point Squeers alludes to. If our nations had an ethical basis, which they do not seem to, then we might be able to see 'ethics' in practice.

But such a dream is nowhere evident from our leaders.

And seems not to filter up from below either.

So, are there any 'ethics' to be found anywhere, in fact?

Or, is the very idea of ethics so contested and undermined that there are, really, none to be found anywhere?

I suspect there are not, beyond a few individuals.

But then, do others recognise them as ethical anyway?

I suspect, like that crass 'mission statement 'in pursuit of excellence', which is never found, never mind recognised as a real destination in the first place, that there are no 'ethics' on offer anyway.

Just 'points of view', which some dress up as dogma, and follow like a sheepdog follows sheep (and food).

But then, to be fair, what does that say of the followers of the leaders? Which covers most of us.

Thankfully the schools that believe in truth rather than pseudo science such as evolution will continue to grow. As many of the teachers know what crap the secular system tries to enforce they will be able to show clearly how 'scientist' twist or ignore observations to support their flawed theories. The harder the secularist tries to ignore the obvious (our Creator) the more stupid they look. The fruits of their dogmas will continue to be a win for the private sector.

Blue Cross, I don't know about schools in Queensland, but my daughter has just finished school here in the "..backwoods banjo lifestyle" country of W.A.

She went to a private co-educational Catholic high school. We are both skeptics and did not send our daughter there for religious reasons or for religious instruction as such.

We sent her there because it was only one of 2 schools available in our area, and the other school was not suitable for her.

She went to RE classes because they had to if you wanted to send them to this school. There were kids of all denominations at this school, as well as many with no religion at all.

Thus, these RE classes were based on living as a good person in the community. They were required to do good deeds for people in their community as part of their course.

They were taught about evolution extensively in science classes.
They were taught how to be thoughtful and understanding of all cultures and religions. That is what I wanted.

Like us, she remains a skeptic as far as a possible God goes, and is a very good, kind person that I am proud to say is my daughter.

I guess what I was trying to say in my post above was that we should use the good parts of some religious points, but leave the mad parts alone when educating our children.

Runner, science has brought far more good for our race than any religion ever has.