Good posting, Kieran.

I think for a more informed view on this issue, readers would be well served by looking at: http://studentwork.hss.uts.edu.au/oj1/swerve05/nelsoneducation/values.htm

Teachers in our State schools were incensed that the Prime Minister indicated that public schools do not teach traditional values. Howard criticised the state school system for being both "too politically correct" and "too values neutral". (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/19/1074360697635.html)

Goodness, where have I heard the former expression before? It becomes rather confusing when Sellick brands Nelson's document with the same weakness that Howard claims it seeks to address. It is a pity that the good teachers don't write policy instead of paper-shuffling bureaucrats, but I guess they are better off out there doing their job and being blamed for the obvious inadequacies of a politically-driven system.

Peter I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I agree the program is a waste of money.

One thing you should be corrected on.

Democracy has nothing to do with the cult of Christianity. Christianity was designed to justify warlords being crowned as kings. Throughout Christian domination politics was based on feudal dictatorships. The only political social organisation that Christianity gave rise to was early forms of communism.

Democracy occured only where pagan beliefs were deeply intrenched in local culture , such as was found in the British Isles.

I dont understand why you claim the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools is politically correct? The term political correctness has been so saturated with lies and myth by racist, religious and all sorts of self interest groups to attack so much of social justice that the term no longer holds meaning. Rather using it exposes a veiled attack.

It is rather obvious your agenda is to over ride social justice and push Christian values. I would ask you to consider that for many Australians who hold egalitarian values Christian Values are considered immoral as they are considered exclusionary ,bigoted , mysoginist and superstition based.

Although religious values may have a place in the privacy of ones home or shrine , it is immoral to push religious values onto the public. Especially onto school children.

West, I totally agree that, 'democracy has nothing to do with Christianity. However, I take strong exception to your reference to 'the cult of Christianity'. Firstly, I don’t believe that history tells us that it was 'designed', it just developed from an unassailable popular following of a man called Jesus. Centuries of attempts to wipe it out in so many times and cultures have resulted in a third of the world's population embracing Christianity. A world-wide cult? How many opinions within that 'cult'? According to Wikipedia, 'In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream.'

I also dispute that 'democracy occured only where pagan beliefs were deeply intrenched in local culture.' I am no student of political science, but I understand that the Britain you cite as an example began to accept democracy as a result of a process of change that began with the implementation of an oligarchic system from the time of the Magna Carta. I believe that Britain did not become a democracy in the true sense of the word until 1832. One might argue that religious influences such as the rule of the Puritan Cromwell would have just as much influence in developing a democratic culture.

For myself, I hold egalitarian values alongside Christian values and find them quite compatible. When you refer to 'exclusionary, bigoted, mysoginist and superstition based' values, I suggest that you refer to groups such as the gallivanting Exclusive Brethren, not the humble followers of the Good Samaritan.

Finally, you state that it is 'immoral to push religious values onto the public'. I agree, but I think these values should be taught. Having been in South East Asia recently, I was impressed by the understanding and demonstration of tolerance that Buddhists have. If tolerance is (hopefully) a value that is needed in our society, maybe understanding religious culture is a tangible way of helping children appreciate it.

GracealOne a cult is a system of worship. By your definition somehow a cult is no longer a cult when it meets some range of critical mass. Even if that were true if you added all the people who have ever existed only a minority that have ever been existed were Christians , so even by your definition Christianity is still a cult.

As for designed , it is no secret Christianity was developed and manipulated to serve poltical power. I suggest you review the entire history of Christianity and indeed Hebrew history as well. Religion is designed by people to serve the interests of its designers. Christianity is not alone all religion is a product of this.

As far as Jesus is concerned. There is no evidence Jesus existed so the question of anything he did or stood for is irrelevant and any suggestion he did or was symbolic of anything is a product of imagination or conjecture.

As far as the values of Christianity. Christians (and according to the bible Christ) believe non-believers are not saved (on their terms) , this is exclusionary. Although many Christians deny it this affects how they judge and treat other people. The article is a good example of this. Somehow Christian ideology is more important than anybody elses views (this is bigotted) and children should be instructed to the beliefs of the religion even though many if not most are not Christian.

Can that be harmful to society? Yes it can. It is a form of ethnic cleansing to force a dominant religion on children. As a Christian would you want your Children instructed in the values of the Aztecs?

West, I really must respond to your poorly-contrived arguments before you are besieged by about 96% of the world's population (those who are not atheist). The definition of a cult is not my own but conforms to the main definition of the word by those who use a dictionary.

As for your conspiracy theory on religion, I find it fascinating.

"There is no evidence Jesus existed." Muslims and Jews would also contest this. Maybe you should do some reading before publishing unreferenced opinion.

As with any religion, I agree that Christians view their 'ideology' (for which I substitute 'theology) as correct, but for a 'bigotted' point of view, have a look at your own.

"Can that be harmful to society?" What position are you going to take? Atheism - a viewpoint of little more than 4% of the world's population? I believe that a holistic education would not avoid presenting values, whether they are branded as of a religious origin or not.

gracealOne,

Where do you get your figures of 96% non-atheist and 4% atheist?

What about those who have been brought up in a religious or spiritual culture and have not been given alternative explanations for the world, or an opportunity to develop an atheistic world view? Where do they fit on the spectrum? What about agnosticism?

Does the fact that the majority of the world's people live in abject poverty with little ability to control their lives influence their propensity to believe in outside controller?

Does a majority of "non-atheists" mean that what they believe in is true?