Dawkins does not dismiss all mystical thought as insanity: he argues that, for instance, the belief in God as Man is absurd. However, I don't think this detracts from the author's main point. If all deistic religions are in fact silly, it's difficult for any one religion to argue some rational superiority.

Personally if educators are going to pervert the gospel message by watering it down to just 'another religion' then I would rather them leave it out all together. Just means that private schools will continue to grow and the humanistic and other false religions practiced and taught in State schools will continue to destroy lives. More and more people are turning to home schooling with amazing results.

I always get a chuckle out of the term "agnostic." Am I correct in thinking that 'agnostic' is a doctrine/theory that means man cannot know God, first truths, or anything beyond material phenomena? (Taken from Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary). I've heard the term agnostic used to describe many different positions in it's relationship to religion, but mostly I find it used to describe someone (an "agnostic") who isn't really sure if God exists or not, but is too scared to fully "not" believe. Being "not really sure", they tend to sit on the fence, unable to make up their minds one way or the other. Ok! Nothing wrong with that in principle, but in reality, there can be no "fence sitting" when it comes to religion. Either you're a believer, or an atheist. If you're a Christian, you must fully believe in Jesus to become one with him. You must also believe that Jesus is one with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. No use sitting on the fence, that won't cut it with God.

Kick Religious Teachings to the curb, they have their families and sundays to practice their religion.

All my religious teachings at school where little more than propoganda, it is disgusting that any religion encroaches on education. there is enough facts in the world to grasp without having subject children to unproven, false teachings.

If there are hundreds of religions in the world, and lets say 1 of them was actually correct, the other hundreds would be wrong, incorrect and possibly downright decieving.

Religion has its place in the private lives of those who choose to subscribe. It does not need to be brought into education, we need every second devoted to learning things that are beneficial to the children.

I am annoyed that at least 50% of my time at school was completely irrelevant and a waste of time and resources, as things like religion and other things take time away from what is realy needed: literacy, numeracy, social, practical and leadership skills.

Families choose to educate their children in state schools because they are secular, they have no religious bias. I would be disappointed if Australia loses its proud tradition of secular state education.

Australia hasn't killed off 90% of a minority population because they are a different religion, OK we chose, and still choose, colour.
Australia doesn't have the Catholic - Protestant divide that mars Ireland.
Despite our prime Minister's best efforts there still hasn't been a Muslim - Christian death

Touche Realist. If the power were invested in me, I'd eradicate religion not only from schools, but also politics. Look at how religion inspires hatred in Muslims as they go about their daily lives of blowing up the "infidels," of the USA's percieved "right" to invade other countries and kill with God's "approval" and of Australia's political willingness to follow them blindly into the unknown. If all such countries had factual and humanistic individuals running governments instead of flaky psuedo religious followers, then maybe we could stop spending obscene amounts of money in efforts to prop up the war machine which keeps at least 80% of the World's population poor and destitute. It will never happen of course while so many people are being continually deluded into believing in a form of superstition carted along with humanity from the dark ages.
I'm sure there will be some who disagree with me on this issue and I'd love to debate it further, but I'm afraid once I hit the send button, my posting allotment is done for today.

Sorry, I've just come in and I must have missed something.

Could someone tell me why we are talking about how religion should be taught in State schools?

Who decided we were going to teach religion in State schools?

I thought State schools were secular. I thought Australia did not have an established church.

Of course it would be beneficial for students to know about religions, but surely this would be done through History, Geography, Social Studies - or whatever the current curriculum lingo is.

Is someone being sneaky by talking about how we teach Religion as a separate subject when we should'nt even be talking about whether.

I was educated in the State School System without religious instruction and when I was about 10 year old, my agnostic Mother decided I and my younger brother and sisters were going to Sunday School at the local church.

We attended and fully participated in the church activity; I became an altar boy attending church three times on sunday and assisting the minister on wednesdays at a small church in the diocese.

I clearly recall the moment at an evensong service when I decided I did not believe in the church.
I thought I might be attending the wrong denomination so I consciously attended other faiths only to find they were all teaching the same message with a different spin.

I too became agnostic until I discovered 'Origin of Species' and became Atheist in my adult life.

I became aware that most people have a need to believe in a faith of some sort, depending on their understanding of life and death.
Most people become drawn to a dogma with which they don't have to question. In times of grief and tragedy, a belief in a God and ressurection can be comforting. That doesnt mean there IS a God .

I cringe when I witness our parliamentarians recite a prayer before a sitting after which they proceed to break every basic tenet of their belief.

I am appalled when world leaders,self professed believers in a deity proceed to instigate war, pain and suffering on innocent people in their quest for power.

For me, schools should remain secular whilst teaching religious and anti-religious tolerance leaving religious instruction the sole responsibility of parents.

I think some of you have missed the point.
Religion Education as the author explains it is to teach about different religions in a secular fashion, just like a kind of history or social studies class. Not as a window into state schools for each religion to be preached through.
But unfortunately this misunderstanding will be all too common; with teachers or principals injecting their views and beliefs into the classes, parents up in arms because they perceive it to be undermining their own religious "guidance" of their children, religious organisations themselves breathing over the shoulder of schools to ensure they are properly represented, and the non-religious accusing educators of putting religion "where it does not belong".
In theory it's probably a great idea, but in practice it's not worth the hassle.

runner ,
you're nothing if not consistent consistently mistaken that is, where do these notions come from, do you belong to the A.O.G.

Shonga

My allegiance is to Christ first. I belong to the body of believers who hold to the teachings of Christ whether from a Baptist, AOG, Lutheran, Catholic, Independant, Church of Christ etc etc. I have friends that share my beliefs across denominations. Where I go to church does not determine whether I am a Christian or not or have anything to do with the opinions on this forum. It appears to me that many on this forum are tolerable of all opinions except a biblical perspective. That is exactly why the State school systems are in the mess they are now. Why bother teaching a form of Christianity in schools at all if it an agnostics version? Why not have a complete athiest teaching Christianity or a Creationist teaching evolution?

Curch and state should be kept seperate as per the constitution and if people want religious guidance they can go to church.

And to let all know The Australian Peoples Party has now a wesite

www.tapp.org.au

Stu

Well done Donnie, unlike others you actually understand the concept. But why do you say it would only work in theory? It works pretty well in the English National Curriculum.

I have always been facinated by religious beliefs. Not so much in the beliefs themselves but why people believe in them. In other words, what particular state of mind or psychology makes someone believe something that would normally be viewed as stupid or ridiculous. After all, in normal circumstances the vast majority of people would scoff at talking angels, the dead springing to life, or virgins giving birth.

In this regard science and religion can inter-mix. There should be more scientific study as to why willingly delude themselves as per the recommendation of Daniel Dennett in his book 'Breaking the Spell'.

Yes yes, hold fast to ‘secular’ education. Unfortunately this term is often misunderstood as anti-religious. It actually means ‘living in the world, in the age’. The term can be traced to Greek rationalists who initiated the study of ethics - the notion that something could be inherently good or bad, separate from its association with a ‘god’. It has nothing to do with hostility to religion. Thus, public education, in this day and age has a secular duty to inform students about the social, political, theological force of world religions which impact on all our lives.

The benefit of Religion Education in the UK is seen in terms of increased cultural awareness, not faith in any particular creed.
It is possible for secular governments and educators to explore religion (history, practice and beliefs) in a non-sectarian way. Trouble is, historically this has not been the case. However, the future demands that we raise our children less ignorant than ourselves.

'The benefit of Religion Education in the UK is seen in terms of increased cultural awareness, not faith in any particular creed.'

This is an exceptionally good point Ms. Byrne! Nothing opens up the religious mind like having a pantheon of gods paraded before it.

it is impossible to be secular, be you an individual OR a nation-state, should you have no knowledge of religions in the first place. that is commonsense.

teaching young australians more about religions, in relation to a recent history of the world (and of course to the antiquity of our aboriginal people) will certainly benefit a Tolerant Australia. to suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of how the world works, and 74% of australians who declared themselves tied to a religion last census.

Extending the teaching of religion into the philosophy and morals of certain world religions would become much trickier. australian kids just don't get taught about the intellectual sciences and philosophy in high school. it would be unfair to teach them strictly religious thoughts in schools were (to name but a few huge western thinkers) plato, mill, kierkegaard, nietzche and foucault - aren't allowed in.

"Global Religious History and Function" as it could be called, should only be taught through a compulsory history course, which is modern, well-researched, interesting and can be taught appropriately to both young kids and older ones. To be the person in charge of deciding such a curriculum would be a challenge, and as Realist agrees, there is not much room to move there anyway

Hi trueaussie, i don't mean it wouldn't work in practice i just see it as a can of worms given the lobbyists and vested interests in play. But that said, if the cultural and social benefits of such education - that the author and some above have raised - are guaranteed and bias or perversion of the subject matter can be prevented then i would gladly ditch my conservative viewpoint and be all for it.