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 > Core curriculum as rubbery as ‘core promises’? > Comments

Core curriculum as rubbery as ‘core promises’? : Comments

By Cathy Byrne, published 15/2/2007

A national curriculum for Religion Education - what a marvellously simple item for the agenda … but whose agenda?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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.
Posted by Stan1, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:10:55 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 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.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:57:11 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 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.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 15 February 2007 4:01:44 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 ,
you're nothing if not consistent consistently mistaken that is, where do these notions come from, do you belong to the A.O.G.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 15 February 2007 4:22:50 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
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?
Posted by runner, Thursday, 15 February 2007 5:27:43 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
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
Posted by tapp, Thursday, 15 February 2007 6:07:48 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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