I guess as the saying goes, "all's fair in love and war", but this statement not only goes too far, it is factually wrong:

"During the Cold War and after a sustained period of clerical activism, a statutory exception was made to the “secular principle” granting a right for the church to use part of the school day to conduct Special Religious Instruction."

The fact is that prior to the 1870's many schools were started and owned by the churches, like the one next door to the Presbyterian Church I attend. The churches (RC's excepted) handed over their Schools to the State and in return provision was made for religious education. That has been the system ever since. Certainly as a child in the early 1950's we had religious instruction in school by the local Anglican rector - I remember it well. Nothing to do with the cold war.

As far as I'm concerned it is not the churches imposing their opinions on secularists, but precisely the other way around, and without too much grace either - more like intolerant bullying.

It is precisely why for these kinds of intolerant secularising, anti religion opinions so many Christians have pulled their children out of the State School system and started their own schools over the past 30+ years.

I agree David, I went to public schools, but I could never send my kids to a public school now - all the talk of equality, secularism and the anti-Christianity is a real turn off. It's a pity I still have to fund public schools though.

I agree totally with the author. As an atheist I find it abhorrent that we allow religious people into our schools to attempt to indoctrinate our children with what I consider are absolute lies and fantasy. For all those religious people out there who think this is good, ask yourself how you would feel if the government allowed people like myself to go into the schools with the intention of telling your children that "there are no gods". It would be undermining what you are teaching them at home.
I don't object to the teaching of comparative religion as this will only serve to show the children that all religions are equally ridiculous. But "special religious education" is nothing but indoctrination. My daughter should be able to attend school without having her mind poisoned by some religious nut. Likewise she should not need to "opt out" of any part of the school day to avoid this mind poisoning. If parents want to indoctrinate their children, they can do so at home or send them to religious schools. There is no place for SRE in state schools.

Where has Tim been living for the last 50 years? He writes 'Or shall we keep our children together and educate them to be knowledgeable and respectful of the many traditions that make up modern Australia? '

We have seen secularism produce disrespect, a great increase in violence, perversion, rebellion, arrogance, immorality, debauchery, teen pregnacy, abortion and he now claims that secularism is respectful of Australian traditions. Please give us a break from this nonsense.

Another day, another Christophobic article.

Yawn.

Rhys Jones,
You have the right to have your children exempt from attending religious education. However Murray O'Hare's atheist mother lobbied to have religion removed from schols in the USA, this made Murray inquisitive to why; as most of the children attending religious education seemed decent kids. Today he is a Christian evangelist and sought after preacher.

Yes I suggest you exempt your children from religious indoctrination; they might just be able to make up their own minds!

@David Palmer. "The fact is that prior to the 1870's many schools were started and owned by the churches, like the one next door to the Presbyterian Church I attend. The churches (RC's excepted) handed over their Schools to the State and in return provision was made for religious education."

Great, so no SRI for my daughter's primary school then - it was purchased as vacant land by the education department around 1910. We don't live under some tyranny of the past. I don't see how the above is a valid argument. There was no undertaking that Christianity would be included as part of the state curriculum in perpetuity and the churches understood that state education would be secular. Society progresses and evolves.

As for teaching the role of Christianity in Australian society, SRI doesn't do that in its current form. Students can do 12 years of SRI as a buddhist or muslim and not learn the first thing about Christianity in Australia. The fury and bullying from ACA and friends is nonsensical.

I agree with Tim for calling out the ACA for their lack of reasoning, bullying, posturing and re-writing of history. In the absence of a reasonable argument, I can only assume they don't have one.

So...if it shakes your hand in peace.......tell it to shove it up there arse:) Your beautiful free woman's.....will love you for it.

Religion! What a waste of human time.

LEA

I had not previously heard of Special Religious Instruction. Is it something peculiar to state schools in Victoria? How did it arise and how prevalent is it? I agree with the comments of Rhys Jones on the need to preserve a secular public education. Children can be taught to understand the part religion has played in our history and culture without exposing them to doctrinaire beliefs.

I also totally agree with the author. Rob Ward makes the statement that “It is a simple fact that culture derives from who or what a society values most.” However, another simple fact is that religion has not been a significant part of the culture of a considerable majority of Australians for many decades. In reality, most Australians don’t give a toss about religion. Figures show that at least 9 out of 10 Australians never go to church except to attend weddings and funerals. Progressively over the last century or so Australians have voted with their feet and walked away from the church. What groups like the ACL, ACCESS Ministries, Scripture Union and all the other godbotherers seem unable to accept is that most people no longer ground their moral beliefs in the teachings of the church. The funny thing is that, contrary to the expectations of many Christians, the sky has not fallen in. People have come to realize that, in the modern world, most of moral teachings of the Bible are irrelevant, silly or just plain wrong

On the matter of religion in schools, the various groups that provide chaplains and RI teachers attempt to hide their real agenda. Spokespersons for these groups make soothing statements for public consumption but what they really believe is something quite different. For example, Evonne Paddison, CEO of ACCESS Ministries, in an opinion piece on the ABC’s Religion and Ethics webpage, made the statement that “SRI is not about ‘making converts,’ but about education.” Contrast that with this direct quote from a Testimonial to Paddison on the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne website: “God has opened this door which we may not always have,“ Evonne explains. “State school chaplaincy is often cutting edge, and I am delighted more people are expressing interest in a calling to chaplaincy. It’ a great way of serving God, serving his people and making new people for him”. I think it is safe to assume that when she used the words “making new people for him” she was not talking about having babies. The Testimonial also states that “Evonne sees this access into state schools as a hugely significant ministry, offering an extraordinary gospel opportunity to reach young people”.

Is that clear enough for everyone?

Paddison is described in the Testimonial as being “first and foremost an evangelist.” Do people know what an evangelist is? Perhaps these statements on the ACCESS Ministries and Scripture Union websites might offer a few clues.

Scripture Union:

Mission & Vision
We exist in order to undertake our MISSION:
To see young lives transformed by engaging them with Jesus, the Bible and the local church.

As we engage in our mission, we will realise our VISION:
We want to see a transformed generation of young people impacting Queensland for the Kingdom of God.

ACCESS Ministries:

Mission
ACCESS ministries leads the Church in its mission to reach students and school communities in Victoria and beyond with the transforming love of God and His Son Jesus Christ.
Our vision is to reach every student in Victoria with the Gospel. Join the vision and help us transform this nation for God.

Note the words “every student.” I guess that includes Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist students.

So for evangelists their mission is to convert people to their religion. It is the most important act of obedience to God that they can perform in their lives. No doubt most of the chaplains and RI teachers provided by SU, Access Ministries and other providers share their zeal for mission. Does anyone really believe that they will modify their behaviour in schools and ignore their overwhelming belief in their mission?

The real agenda of organisations like SU and Access Ministries is to proselytize by stealth, and if you don’t understand that you haven’t been paying attention.

"As far as I'm concerned it is not the churches imposing their opinions on secularists, but precisely the other way around, and without too much grace either - more like intolerant bullying.

Posted by David Palmer, Monday, 9 May 2011 12:04:04 PM

What a re-definition: There is no imposing, there is just an expression of a desire for equal opportunity to use the space. Given the failure of secularists to be able to instil programs of their own, through an inability to introduce programs such as the Humanism one, and a general historical lack of cohesion, it is a strawman you put up.

"It is precisely why for these kinds of intolerant secularising, anti religion opinions so many Christians have pulled their children out of the State School system and started their own schools over the past 30+ years."

so, a relatively greater proportion 'left behind' desiring equal use of the SRI space?? for non-SRI programs i.e. non "special-religious" instruction??

I am 77 years old. I am a retired lawyer.It is therefore possible that I have had the oportunity to observe and reflect more than most of the contributors to this discussion on this subject. My view is that it is not correct to say that our way of life has been constructed by therule of law and those of natural justice only. What is correct in my view isthat the Rule of Law and the Rules of natural justice can be traced back to the Commandments. Think of them for a moment. Then think of each of the branches of 'religion'. Eachof them has itsown set of commandments. Each set is based on similar principles of love, fairnessand compassion. Those are the very tenets of the Rule of Law and those of natural justice.

My contention then is that there is nothing sinister in religion as an abstract and therefore it is not to be feared and cando no harm by being told to our children. They are smarter than we think, but the religious message is clear - treat others as you would have them treat you. That means by the Rule of Law and in accordance with the Rules of natural justice.

By the way, I am not particularly religious nor was I harmed by its message being broadcast in all my schools.
cheers everyone. bj34

Neil of Ipswich "In reality, most Australians don’t give a toss about religion."

In reality, most Australians are not campaigning against SRI.

"Figures show that at least 9 out of 10 Australians never go to church except to attend weddings and funerals."

Figures show that only 1 out of 10 (if that) Australians is a militant atheist.
Nobody cares about *your* cause.

I got more than my fair share of religious indoctrination from my Jehovah's Witness parents.

And I still managed to leave their Church in my mid-teens.

And have thought for myself ever since.
You people are vastly overstating the potential influence of these classes.

Tim,
You speak about 'the rule of law' as highly valued and something we can all base our society around. In the very next sentence you speak of 'separation of church and state'. I hope you realise that there is no such law as 'separation of church and state'. That's just a slogan.

And you need to look a bit deeper into your history, and your definition of the word 'secular'. When Victoria established its school system (free, compulsory, & secular), the word secular didn't mean atheist, it meant non-partisan to any particular sect or denomination of the church, Catholic or Protestant.

Up until that point, the churches were the main provider of education, and going forward there was much cooperation between church and government (as the first post above has indicated). There was Bible instruction given as per normal, though not partisan to any particular creed.

The important thing for me is that parents' wishes within a school community are satisfied. 

I don't see the majority of parents wanting the intolerant atheist creed or being as frightened by Gospel teaching as what you are. And I don't see the majority of parents agreeing with your versions of 'balance', or 'human rights' or whatever other jingoistic word you want to angle your way.