Dearest Foxy,
I value your opinion and your right to express it.

Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant to me. I will still read your posts and absorb their content, unless it becomes obvious that you have nothing worthwhile to offer the discussion.

To me, intelligence (high, medium or low) is no indication whatsoever of the value of a person's post. Many religious leaders are far smarter than I will EVER be, but that doesn't make them right.

What disappointed me about your previous post was that (like some others) you chose to ignore the "required" point of Glen's question. And do you know what? You STILL don't get it!

"...to suggest that parents have no right to pass on..." is very different to a child's religious status being "required" to be that of their parents. Do you see my point?

IMHO, the main thrust of Glen's question (and three of his five bullet points) relate to the current school environment, where fundamentalist Christian parents have (over the years) abused the RI/RE/SRE periods to the point where they have become blatant indoctrination for ALL the children in the school, otherwise your child is considered an outcast.

The spokesman for the Australian Christian Lobby might see this as "appropriate", but many parents believe it is wrong, but currently, there is no alternative class.

The only possible neutral "Ethics" alternative trial is being vigorously attacked by religious fanatics who are afraid of losing their "market share" of young minds. WHat does that tell you?

BTW: I suggest that you watch YOUR language in future. The use of "We all know this." clearly shows that you have no valid reference for your claim.

all

(secular guy)There is difference between having no allegiance and being anti something. Sadly you are tending to fall into the latter as does the author. I would refer you to Pericles' post.

I do make the point I agree with some of the author's bullet points but for other reasons:
BP #3- no RI in public schools. More along the point that:

- just because one is a pastor/priest( much less an enthusiast) doesn't necessarily the individual is either competent or appropriate (including skilled).
- the material is suitable for the children i.e. I recall being read 'Pilgrim's Progress' and obscure interpretations thereof at 6. It scared the bejesus out of some others.
- home and peers tend to be of greater influence and/or simply undo the work 1 or 2 lessons per week.
- without exams (motivation, reinforcement) they are practically speaking a Waste of school time (a budge class).
- to make it valid, the STATE would need to sanction a curriculum and make it part of the grade assessment procedure. It isn't competent to do so and in a secular STATE that is *not* its province to do so.
Even if it were it would be impossible to provide for all religions/denominations and therefore unintentionally sanctioning unintended discrimination.

BP 5- ethics lectures (although I doubt that it will make a lot of difference)to Australia per se given home or peer examples (see Pericles).

Beyond that and in the time honoured saying,(IMO)the author's ideas has left the building'

Aka and nairbe
Aka, actually, my schools did a very good job — except in English, Maths and Science where the instruction was inhibited by both teachers’ ignorance of their subject matter: I was into my thirties before I gained the courage to shed what I had been REQUIRED to believe. Even then, I had to steel myself to step away from indoctrinated views fearing the hurt I might cause my extended family; and I still tread warily at reunions. As usual, music helped. I realized it had become the only part of religious observance that my mind tuned into.

I don’t understand how you can say “The author is acutally pushing for his form of religious instruction to be regulated - that is agnosticism (or whatever it is called)”. What I actually said was that children should be taught “the beliefs that define each major world religion and the influence of its holy books on the belief, culture and literature of its followers.” How did you get your accusation from that? Are you sure you were not responding to what you wished I’d said rather than what I actually said?

nairbe, my sincere apologies if my riposte to the Nazi sounding comments was misdirected. I’m still struggling a bit with the amazing opportunities that technology now offers even oldies to interact with and learn from interesting strangers. What a world the youngsters are inheriting — if we haven’t already sentenced it to death from overheating. Btw, they say that accusing an opponent of Nazism is a sure sign that you know you’ve lost the debate

Glen,
It seems to me that your major beef is with your family and the fact that they were able to extend their influence by placing you in an educational environment that compounded and cemented their views. That is a symptom of a society that educates their children in institutions - it's pretty much one size fits all and, therefore, some members of the population are always going to feel hard done by.
My family don't have to worry about indoctrination (of any sort) that goes on in educational institutions because we don't use one. I homeschool my son which means he will probably have his outlook coloured by my ethics. I'd like to think that I will provide him with a broad range of views and allow him to form his own opinions on religion, politics and philosophy in general - I'll do my best, but it's a pretty sure bet that his outlook will be coloured in some way by my opinions and the way we live our life. Still, it is a luxury to be able to choose and one that is available to any parent if they so wish.
It is interesting that you support the notion of education of religious belief in theory, yet when the theory is put into practice, which seems a natural progression,you are against it. It is hard to go past Foxy's assertion that it is the most natural thing in the world for children to be identified by their parent's religious or cultural views as it is their socio-economic status.

GlenC,
<<Btw, they say that accusing an opponent of Nazism>>
racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, EVIL, bigotry, prejudice, xenophobia, hatred
<<is a sure sign that you know you’ve lost the debate>>.
It's all par for the course at OLO.

Dear Secular Guy,

When I said that "We all know this,"
my point of reference to the "we" was -
we as parents know this. That children
choose their own paths in life. I was
speaking as a parent - from my experience,
which is I feel quite valid.

And when I said that we are all entitled to our
opinions, I still believe that.

I may not 'get it,' as you believe. However,
I can only speak from my own experience.
My children were never "forced" to follow the
religion of their parents. Who or what they
chose to believe in (or not) was left up to
them completely. You raise your children in the
best possible way that you know. It's really a
passage. It isn't lasting, and if handled well,
it moves into a healthy friendship that only grows
and grows.

But letting go is a most important step: letting go
and having faith that the lessons learned will at
least in part be remembered. Sure, it's not easy,
but it's necessary, unless you want to be a parent
who has to be "dealt with," instead of a parent that
they'll come to for advice in the future.