The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ethics classes: the battle for children’s hearts and minds in NSW > Comments

Ethics classes: the battle for children’s hearts and minds in NSW : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 15/6/2010

There should be no Special Religious Education in state schools at all: the class is a hangover from the 19th century.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
CJ Morgan

I cannot believe that the designation of children who opt out of religious classes and then left to sit either in the back of the class or in libraries without any structured class, has not become a case for the Anti-Discrimination Board.

Particularly when the NSW education has tried to address this situation with an Ethics class. I understand how people may feel about ethics being taught in schools, and, as I previously posted classes do not have to include values that parents feel is their role. However, to dispute teaching a skill like Critical Thinking is simply reprehensible. This is a skill that will see children throughout their lives - to navigate between truth and deception is vital. Never more so than now where we are bombarded by information by various vested interests - from advertising to proselytising.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and of course MIkk is absolutely sure of his support for ethics classes. Oh that's right he/she does not believe in absolutes.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:22:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
The ethicist on last night's Q&A, Peter Singer, issued a challenge. He asked why contact between an initiating human and an animal under no duress, in private, that hurt nobody, was anyone else's business. Why is it yours?
Posted by GlenC, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see Glenc so you approve of Singers endorsement of bestiality. You might be comfortable with people with perverted views teaching their perversion to your kids in schools but I certainly aren't. NO doubt the ABC love broadcasting views promoting woman having oral sex with dogs. This kind of sick thinking is justified in people's minds who are foolish enough to believe they won't be held to account one day.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:54:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wellll....you found us out :)

WE RUN the place... "Theocracy" no less.

* no section separating church and state in its constitution;
* a governor who is the Queen’s representative;
* a parliament that opens with Christian prayers;
* Christian crosses in the state flag;
* Christian holidays;
* Christian ministers of religion elected to the Legislative Council;

GEE...you could be forgiven in thinking we had a 'Christian'....culture and heritage.. perish the thought ! !

BUT WAIT...I thought under a 'Theocracy' we were supposed to lynch the likes of Pericles and Morgan as heretics.. stone them outside the city walls or something... but it's not happening ? ? ? *confused look*

The 'Christian' ness of the American situation is being attacked without mercy by another 'faith' group...

http://www.jdl.org/index.php/threats-adversaries/assimilation-intermarriage/

Hmmmmm....if we 'white' Aussies declared Jews or Muslims as a 'threat and adversary' we would be called 'loathesome haters' and racists.....
Is any such name caller prepared to make a 'declaration' openly on the web site group linked to above ?

If we DO happen to have a strong and prevailing 'Christian' flavor to our culture, government and society.. hmmmm.. *thinks*.. we might consider that attacks on that flavor,culture and social fabric to be overtly racist and vilifyingly hateful...even seditious.

It also gives serious credence to the notion of requiring migrants to assimilate and adjust their cultures to fit in with ours..and specially our laws.

Yes..let's do it.. away with all these PC and MC seditious socialist elements.
Away with all those who would undermine our clear and present heritage. Those who would rejoice at our cultural destuction. *shoo*
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 2:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
--- this post follows from my previous post ---

To demonstrate that an ethical action *requires* belief in an ethical standard let's examine the following scenario:
A woman is walking down the street with a briefcase full of money. She trips over, dropping the case and a wad of money rolls to a man walking towards her. The man sees this and picks up the wad returning it to the woman and then helps her back up. They both depart on their way.
case 1: The man believes the ethical standard "You shall not steal"-- believing in this standard is why he returned the money.
case 2: The man doesn't believe the ethical standard "You shall not steal"-- the reason he gave back the money is because he plans the circle back, stealthily follow her to where she is going then rape her, kill her and steal all the money in the brief case not just the one wad.
In both cases the man returns the money. Returning the money is in accordance to the "no stealing" standard however only in case 1 is he acting ethically.
The difference between the cases is the *belief* in the ethical standard. Belief in an ethical standard is *necessary* for an action to be ethical according to the standard.

Now once you have a belief system that deals with how you should behave and what the purpose in life is, then you have the foundation and a large part of the structure of a religion. The other main part of religion is the sharing of the beliefs. Religions are organized belief systems shared by more than one person. In contrast, individual personal belief systems are not accepted as religions (both legally and philosophically).

In other words, once you start teaching ethics, specifically if you are pushing a particular standard of ethics then you are more-or-less promoting a type of religion (possibly its more a cult than a religion-- the wish-washy difference between a religion and a cult is basically the number of adherents and how long its been around).
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 3:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy