I find it hard to feel too sorry for the poor humanists. The reality is that the whole school curriculum is based on a secularist/humanist world view. Even 'comparative beliefs' or 'study of Christian values' fundamentally assume the humanist/secular point of view that religion is simply an interesting cultural phenomena.

Special RI is the only half hour of the week that in some way presents a world view where God is a reality. It is highly ironic that a group claiming to represent democracy and open inquiry into the world is so dogmatic about the need to remove this small opportunity for children to understand why the majority of people in the world choose to believe in God and have the opportunity to make up their own minds.

Some peopple just don't get it. After 50 or 60 years of humanist secular values being taught people have voted with their feet and are flocking to Private schools and it is not for the religous beliefs. It is because secular humanism ends with two homosexual men replacing a mother and a father in society. Secular humanist values ends with thousands of murdered unborn babies and a warped set of 'religous beliefs'. Secular humanism which basically teaches man is his own god produces the most selfish society where people demand their rights to take drugs, watch pornography and don't give a damn what happens to society. We see the results of secular humanisn in our indigenous communities today. Why allow this poison to be taught in a more open way. It is already modelled through the secular education system.

APR,

Geez its a bit early in the morning to be on the turps mate.

Most of the world does not 'choose' to follow god, Religion has been instilled in them through parents, culture and in many cases, necessity.

Religion is a method of controlling the masses and for explaining what we cant scientifically.

Fair Dinkum, if we stop religion, the irony is that the world would be a better, safer place.

The human race has evolved so that regardless if there was a higher power out there (and i am not disputing it) an organised religion based on old beliefs and differing philosophies is most likely off the track for what is truly out there.

There are thousands of religions out there, theoretically the best case scenario for religion would be that 1 religion is spot on and the rest are way off track. So that makes you ask the question, just because we where brought up in a particular sect or religion, does this make it the right one?

Its worse than picking the Melbourne Cup, 1 in a thousand chance, and the irony also is that you go to hell for following the false ones.

Id rather abstain than run the gauntlet myself, and this is assuming that one religion actually got it right, which is not likely anyway.

If we left it out of schools and allowed religion to be a personal choice, we would be more politically correct and we would be better off as a new age nation.

The first two posts remind me (if I needed reminding) of why I'm a militant atheist. Maybe there should be more teaching about religion in schools - so students can find out what it's really like.

Btw, why not have astrology or witchcraft as part of religious education? There's already Christianity which isn't much different apart from the costumes.

Must say that this whole milieu of teddy (god) worship looks depraved and idiotic to most freethinkers. It should be kept out of school education full stop.

Religious indoctrination where finagling is endemic, is the logical use of fear among other things, as a very powerful inducement used on captive young minds. There is no thought of reason, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy, in this systematic manipulation. The end product of this process is simply one of damaged goods rather than the true achievement of human potential.

Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution countries including the US of A, performs poorly. In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows.

Surely we can progress from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't.

realist,
just to try and keep this discussion on the subject of the article - I'm wondering how half an hour of religious instruction a week in any way takes away from personal choice. In my mind it enhances choice by allowing students to be presented with a different world view, which is not presented in any other part of the curriculum.

DavidJS - I think you confirm the point of my original post perfectly. Getting rid of RI is not about any kind of freedom, it's about militant, dogmatic, fundamentalist, ideological, totalitarian atheism.

If Religion is as useless as you guys make out - why so much fear about a half hour presentation a week!

Well then APR, how about if someone came into the religious schools and lectured for half an hour each week about atheism and how God doesn't exist? Would you like that to happen? Then the kids could make up their own mind. It's all about choice right?

I think you'll find that religious parents want the choice for their kids to be taught their values and to not be exposed gratuiously to values that do not fit their ethos. Why can that not apply to atheist parents?

Save the teaching about "god as reality" for Sunday School. State schools should be about real reality.

I agree with Zelda Bailey. As a secular humanist, I'm becoming increasingly concerned with the intrusion of religious beliefs and practices into secular areas of Australian society. Hardly a week goes by without some godbothering politician, priest, mufti or whatever attempting to impose their religious dogmas on the rest of us.

As a parent of a couple of kids who attend Queensland State schools, I have direct experience of the inadequacy of alternative arrangements to RI for those pupils who do not hold religious beliefs. My 10-year old daughter is one of those who is sent to the playground while her more credulous peers receive "religious instruction". I would certainly support the availability of the kind of humanist education advocated by Ms Bailey as an alternative.

"Getting rid of RI is not about any kind of freedom, it's about militant, dogmatic, fundamentalist, ideological, totalitarian atheism."

You forgot to use the term "politically correct". How could you? And I'll ask again why not teach astrology and witchcraft (and maybe palm-reading, fortune-telling and voodoo for good measure) in schools as well? What are school authorities afraid of?

I really like the Christian way of arguing: if you can't address the point, just make stuff up.

CJ MORGAN said:

"As a secular humanist, I'm becoming increasingly concerned with the intrusion of religious beliefs and practices into secular areas of Australian society."

Well...I'm glad about that CJ because it sounds like you are almost ready to join me in a demonstration at the offices of Hizb Ut Tahrir on such issues as this: (which they announced on their youtube promotional video for a conference on re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate)

"After 80 years of the absence of the khilafate (caliphate) the Muslim world has awakened from its slumber, and the umma (the community of all the world's Muslims) is ready to resume its political destiny,"

WHAT IS....THAT POLITICAL DESTINY? (from their draft consitution which was taken down from their website soon after it appeared)

Article 7
The State implements the aHkaam shar’iyyah on all citizens who hold citizenship of the Islamic State, whether Muslims or not, in the following manner:

a. The aHkaam shar’iyyah is implemented in its entirety, without exception, on all Muslims.

b. Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships.

c. Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtadd) from Islam are to be EXECUTED according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have by themselves renounced Islam. If they are born as non-Muslims, i.e., if they are the sons of apostates, then they are treated as non-Muslims according to their status as being either polytheists (mushriks) or People of the Book.

COMMENT.
Point b is rediculous. Never has this happened and Christians world wide are being persecuted daily for simply being 'Christians' in Muslim countries

POLITICAL DESTINY OF PERICLES, CJ MORGAN, REALIST and other humanists in the Nation under HiZB.

Article 26
Every mature male and female Muslim, who is sane, has the right to participate in the election of the Khaleefah and in giving him the pledge (ba’iah). Non-Muslims have no right in this regard.

COMMENT: Just 'how much' say can you atheists have in Hizb's world?
Correct- "zero".

Excuse the pun but for Christ's sake Boaz can't you keep Muslims out of one thread?

Realist, I think we must be soul mates. Of course that's another BS fraud. But I agree with you.

As I do with DavidJS. It is interesting how our schools force RI on kids. Why don't they allow atheists to simply demonstrate the flaws in the whole God delusion. My 10 year old saw it instantly once she asked me about God. Until then I had let her think about it and talk with her friends. She asked if it was true and we talked about the Bible (fiction), Koran and other texts. What she said after we had stopped talking is this. "Did God write any of those books Dad"? No. End of interest.

As to minority views having time in schools instructing on "beliefs". I believe the Sydney City Rossters will win the nexy 10 NRL premierships. Why can't I get time to lecture on that? It's just as ridiculous as telling kids some guy in a white gown created Earth 2000 years ago and then had a day off. Must have been a member of the God Union and had a good AWA.

Runner, good grief. Flocking to private schools. 70% still go public mate. What's bigger than a flock? They don't flock to these schools at all and the only reason people send their kids is to try and gain entry to the old school tie brigade, nothing to do with fairy tales about Gods. Their God is, as usual, money. Another thing which isn't real. It's a notional object created by man to represent exchange of labour

It's interesting that the points of view on this subject are so diverse but not surprising. It has been a center of discussion in the U.S. for years. At present as I understand it, religion can be taught in the private schools in the U.S. but not in public schools. That seems to me to be "fair dinkum" (or is the appropriate expression?)

DavoP,

Even if a god(s) did exist: The various religions are different constructs to said entity. Religion arises from sharmanism and is sustained thoughout history by ignorance, subsistition, lies and power politics. Even if one admires the Sermon on the Mount, the histories of OT and the Christrian Churches stand far removed from it.

I did not realise that anyone was lobbying state Government on this matter but as I do now I will endeavour to add my voice to it through my state member. My child attends a state primary school and I did not want him recieving Christian religious education as I find it fear based and harmful. But in the state school there was no alternative exept to sit outside the class room and do revisional work. My son is quite a shy, emotional little fellow, probably a little young for his age in emotional maturity so isolating him from his peers (he was the only child in the class exempt from RI) was not a choice I was prepared to make for him, however I am concerned about things he has learnt in his short weekly RI. eg) 'Mummy did you know that if you ask God for things really hard he will get them for you' Now I'm not sure which would be more damaging the lesson that some superior being will bless some people and not others or the isolation. I think we should have a choice and the State Government is not providing that. We need to change this legislation.

APR children are very impressionable. Half an hour a week of nonsense for 12 years is enough to create another generation of people who believe in fairytales and who are willing to go out and kill for those beliefs.

I hope I live long enough to see society reject these old wives tales in their entirety so they can then choose to kill each other over things that really matter.

Fascinating that the federal govt decided to buy into this one. Julie Bishop's press release is here http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/05/b001220506.asp It's a classic, managing to squeeze both "moral vacuum" and "political correctness gone mad" into the one sentence! Marvelous stuff.

The line that the Feds generally run is that public education is the responsibility of the States. Thus they can happily give greater funding to private schools (four times as much per student, private vs public), while blaming the States for any problems. Best of all, they can wield the big stick, by threatening to withhold funding over critical educational issues like flagpoles, "values education" or scripture classes for atheists. This wouldn't work quite so well if we had any Coalition state govts, who'd tell Bishop where to stick her values.

I note that Bishop's PR spin has gone down a treat with the peanut gallery here on OLO. Be interesting to see what else she might run up the flagpole (no pun intended).

BOAZ_David, I fail to see the relevance of Hizb Ut Tahrir to this thread. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to stay on topic.

Now taking the thread entirely off-topic, has anyone else noticed Julie Bishop's scarily unblinking eyes? My daughter hides whenever Bishop appears on telly. Good thing too.

Please tell me were to sign up to stop the idiotic Religious Education that happens in public schools.I wrote to the Qld education department asking how this kind of RI fits in with their 'mission statement'. I was told I could withdraw.It is outrageous that you have to withdraw. You should specifically have to give permission.

My children went to private multi denomination schools and Catholic schools. Nowhere did they ever get the ludicrous information as my daughter received at a public school.

My daughter did not get 'religious education'. She got a particular fundamental Christian viewpoint. And I quote: 'the world was created 4000 years ago.' 'if you pray hard enough, you will be answered'- on being asked by another child why God didn't answer her request re a dying relative-'you mustn't have really believed', 'There are people who believe in God and there are scientists'. And more in this style.

On withdrawal my daughter and another girl were made to move their desks and face the back wall.

Previously in the Catholic primary school she had wonderful instruction. Religious education, where they also looked at other faiths and beliefs.

It is outrageous that in a supposedly secular society children get exposed to a particular brand of Christianity. Many on this thread would be spitting chips if their child was instructed in fundamental Islamic beliefs. That's religious education too, isn't it?

Educating children on world religions and philosophies, that is expanding. It is up to parents if they want their children to be brainwashed into a particular brand of religion. Not for a public school to choose for you.

I agree with CJMorgan's sentiments on this issue.

The local Primary School in my area does not cater for non-Religious families either. I don't have any deep misgivings about my children learning Christian scripture BUT I make sure that I qualify what they are taught by explaining that Bible stories are similar to the Greek mytholoy stories that I read to them at bedtime. That is, they are fun and instructive but not to be taken literally.

Mind you, if I heard that the RI teacher was scaring them with stories of hell then I would be complaining straight to the school board. The doctrine of hell would have to be the most stupid, hideous and abusive of all monotheistic doctrines.

But now that I think of it, time to visit the Principal about the availabilty of Humanist Instruction!

Well, this is boring. Only two RI defenders, and neither with any argument of substance to address. Where's that idiot Muehlenberg when you need him?

YVONNE

regarding your childrens experience with what I would describe as close to 'Christian animism'..why not do the hard yards and read the Gospels, Acts and Epistles yourself, and see exactly where they got it wrong?

Then, instead of buckeing shallow naive Christians here, you could instead provide a far more biblical explanation of the issue at hand.

blessings.

JohnJ My post was directed at CJ Morgan, so I understand if it seemed to drift.

Boazy: "JohnJ My post was directed at CJ Morgan, so I understand if it seemed to drift."

Let me just say that I also fail to see the relevance of the babblings of an extremist Muslim nutter cult to a discussion of the desirability of introducing a secular humanist alternative to "Religious Instruction" in Queensland State schools.

Of course, it might make perfect sense to a member of an extremist Christian nutter cult like the "Brethren".

The only 'religious' lesson children need to learn is known as "The Golden Rule" - or, treat others as you would wish to be treated. It is common to all the amjor faiths and is not incompatible with atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

The way to learning this all important lesson is not important - just the learning of it and then acting upon it, fully.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated... and all will be well.

Oliver, you put it far better than I did, or could. Thanks.

Although I must point out that God does exist, or did. He played full forward for Geelong, remember? Obviously I'm a footy fan but not Geelong. A little levity for once on a religious thread.

'Please tell me were to sign up to stop the idiotic Religious Education that happens in public schools.' I suggest you join the Greens or Democratics (r they still a party). They have many go haters among their ranks.

State Governments are not providing choice. I experienced both IR in state and private high schools. At the state high school, with half an hour of IR, the atheist students in class had fun debating the credibility of that week's bible story. I enjoyed the discourse and thought nothing of it at the time.

However my world was turned upside down when my father took a job posting to the Hamersley Iron in the Pilbara region of WA, resulting in 3 tortuous years enrollment at a private boarding school where religion was force fed seven days a week, twice on Sundays in chapel and religion, of the christian kind, was a compulsory subject for my Leaving Exam.

I barely scraped a pass in religion due to my irreverent analysis of fantasies that others held to be the 'word of God'. However I did gain a valuable insight into the power that religion exerts in Australian politics, especially in the corridors of parliament. At school assembly we were told that several members of federal and state parliament were old boys.

Sadly we'll not see enlightened legislation changing the status quo of IR in state schools. I'd love to see comparative religions taught over the year. We need to understand all religious views including the oldest religions like animism. They have some of the most beautiful creation stories.

Too many MP's fear the Cardinal 'consequences' of not toeing the Ratzinger's now papal dogma against stem cells, for church school funding, against contraception, for church tax concessions, against death with dignity, for government grants to churches, against civil unions for gays and lesbians and strongly endorse candidature to parliament of suitably supplicant members of the flock.

"how about if someone came into the religious schools and lectured for half an hour each week about atheism and how God doesn't exist?"

Great point Bugsy! Given the amount of federal funding given to
religious schools, why should their pupils not receive a bit more
objective education? Lets face it, if kids from an early age have
been brainwashed by family and friends into following the
Bretheren, JW, Catholic or Muslim faiths, when are they in fact
exposed to more rational and objective viewpoints?

If religious nuts won't accept even half an hour of say "morality
and ethics" rather then religious fairytales, perhaps its time
that we demand that those religious schools who are busily brainwashing their kids, if they want any kind of federal funding,
should accept that those brainwashed kids hear about another side
of the debate, in interests of more balanced and objective education.

Religious brainwashing, funded by my taxes, is a real worry

Eh, Johnj, what you could be getting at about Julie Bishop, is that the Howard Elite is getting so much tied to the ultra-right-wing Corporate Culture, they are developing the steadfast eye-gaze of the ultr-rightist NAZI SS while on parade.

It is also common with ultra-left-wing militias like North Korea.

Couldn't say whether it's fear or favour, or fanaticism?

Cheers, BB

It is worthy of note that where atheistic secularism has been taught in schools and religious instruction even by parents in the home is a Federal Offence their societies have become totaly void of equal justice. The USSR for one - murdered children and parents who disobeyed by teaching religion to children, now realising the benifits of teaching Christian morality now have it a formal subject in State schools. Observe the moral state of North Korea as an example. Since South Korea has adopted Christianity as its major religion it has become a nation of note in the World even though they many of the christians are immature in their faith.

The Atheist Bertram Russell states in his writings that every child should be taught Christian morality - it makes for a safer less selfish and more caring society. At least Bertram was a wise man.

The attitudes, misinformation and hostile immaturity of atheists toward Christian teaching on this thread are far from attitudes I want taught to my children. The problem with atheism is it is negative and a society does not function haromously on negative attitudes.

So I suggest atheists formulate just what the world is about rather than what it is NOT about and they might have a believeable philosophy. The thing is they are as divided as any organised religion on these facts. If the philosophy of the Greens are the epitome of secular socialist atheism then observe their personal atitudes to all life, personal use of toxic poisons and social reality. They are equally steeped in negativism and obstruction to a productive society.

Jesus, Philo. No one is accusing Queensland Christians of being the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe you can similarly forgo absurd references to the Soviet Union. The issue isn't the banning of religion, the issue is the forced shoving of one particular religion down people's throats. And, as almost all of the "atheist" posts show, one can value the moral and cultural and historical messages of Christianity without also advocating the fairy story nonsense.

Zelda is quite right to keep fighting against RI in Qld schools.

What she has not commented on is the number of parents who fail to fill out the 'what is your religion' section of the Qld school enrollment form.

With no information here the school is required to find out what parents' want done with their children, RI or the mythical alternative programme? The one that simply does not exist in most schools here.

Well, here in Toowoomba we believe it is at least 80% of parents, and we've been told by a deputy DG of Education that across the State it is as high as 90%.

Yet still Ed Qld fails to insist that the proper processes in their own policy documents are followed!

Now we're being loaded up with chaplains in State schools too. $90 million of tax monies from Howard and $10million from Beattie.

Meanwhile, in at least one primary school in Toowoomba the P&C is funding teacher aide hours out of their own pockets, while the principal pays for RI books out of school, that's taxpayer, funds.

These are very strange priorities indeed.

See this url: http://www.artdoco.com/thefourthr/PDFs/SU_touts.pdf

to read about how at least one school in Qld is getting chaplains passed within its school communities.

A mixture of parent apathy and conniving and dishonesty from 'those who should know better'.

Bishop Rick

It is amazing with so much opposition to Religous education how many of the pollies from all parties wanting their own kids to get a private school education. If the secular humanist believed in their own lies they would not send their own children to private schools. It seems like it is only the lunatic fringe that really object to Christian values taught in State schools. This forum seems to attrack a few of those. Decades of social engineering from our secular humanistic friends have resulted in all sorts of community problems. I visited a prisoner the other day who was laughing at how dumb it was that they had people showing them how to use clean needles for their drug habit. Despite 30 years of showing kids in schools how to wear condoms we still have massively high teen pregnancies and abortion. Secular humanism has proved to be a massive failure ignoring the need to teach such simple traits as self control.

runner, you just make up complete crap. You say "secular humanist" as if you have any clue what it means. You talk about people sending kids to private schools as if you're a goddam expert, as if it can't just be for purely educational non-religious reasons. You won't address a single argument on the post, but write everybody off as "lunatic fringe". You talk about "simple traits" being taught, as if only people who believe in your god can teach morals and personal responsibilty. You're the archetypal closed-minded religious bigot.

To the last post well said, however Im of the opinion that
a lot of people whom choose to pay for private schooling
are sending thier children to these institutions because of the general ADD affected, disruptive, immigrant and violent
little bastards that are common to our society in this day and age.

However having said that and being a product of a GPS education
I can say with experience thier are some awful little rich bastards
in private institutions.
The difference is in public schools you just have to tolerate it.

"Secular humanism has proved to be a massive failure ignoring the need to teach such simple traits as self control."

Lol Runner, perhaps you think we should be like George Bush
and teach just abstinence. Its not actually working.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6554743.stm

Fact is our sex education at schools is not very good, as
the results show. Have a look at the Dutch figures to
see what good sex education can do. But of course our
religious lobby would be um in arms over such factual education.

Crossing your legs for Jesus has been shown to be a dismal failure,
thats why the high US teen pregnancy rate.

A little religion goes a long way. But it must be the right religion that can be comfort and not a brain washing exercise.
The Ten Commandments are a pretty good rule to follow, no dogma,just commonsense and society needs to have a goal to reach.The alternative is anarchy or Islam.

Hi Yabby

U need to be pretty desperate to use the Dutch system as a model to follow. Again for the last 40 years many with totally failed philosophy have tried to teach kids the art of wearing a condom. It is obvious by looking at the homosexual community that no matter how much education you have unless you are taught self control it just aint going to work. Aids in on the rise depsite the propaganda campaign. In Uganda where abstitence is being taught outside of marriage they have having huge success in combatting aid. Not what you or many others want to hear but it is fact.

"The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm calls the years between 1914 and 1991 "an era of religious wars" but argues that "the most militant and bloodthirsty religions were secular ideologies"......Prof Niall Ferguson "The Next War of the World" Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2006 p61.

You've got to give it to the secular humanist (whatever that means) whingers.....they're an insignificant rabble but they want to dictate to the majority and, thereby, deny us our democratic rights.

The noted Atheist Madalyn O'Hare managed to have the saying of the "Lords Prayer" banned from American State schools in 1963; on the grounds of separation of Church and State because she wanted to protect her son William from all that religious nonsense. However her denial of William to be exposed to Christian Prayer only made him more curious and today he is a Christian evangelist. Atheism that bans a childs right to be properly informed and feeds misinformation to children about the Christian faith denies a right of children to be educated. William today is a strong advicate of religious education to children.

Philo, do you want to attempt to address the point, or are you happy simply whining about non-existent threats? I understand this is a subtle point, but try to follow: being informed about the history and nature of religious belief is not the same as having religious belief presented as fact and being forced to undergo religious rituals. The former, pretty much everyone who has posted here is happy with. The latter is disgusting indoctrination, only supported here by you and a couple other sanctimonious nitwits.

bushbasher,
Please present relavent historical facts rather than bigoted opinion. Your personal hostility is shown in your name calling. Something which Christianity finds imature in the respect of others. The Christian value of a person is based upon the example our Lord demonstrated by caring for the lowest of social outcasts. Obviously you have not learned that lesson, and it is now obvious you prefer not too. However you are born for this generation and have a divine purpose, but obviously you do not value your own dignity.

A society needs laws to stay cohesive otherwise it is based opon anachy. Give us an example of a society where atheism is the foundation of its laws. Current attitudes by atheism places little value on the sacredness of all life. With the rise of the atheistic Greens Party life will have less and less value. They read the same texts as communists as their strongest advacates were former Communist Party members.

It is the Greens who push for banning religion in schools, parliament and society. It is they who want to allow the personal use of socially harmful drugs.

"U need to be pretty desperate to use the Dutch system as a model to follow."

Runner, sometimes I wonder if you are actually religious, or just
a comedian trying to act ignorant. Given the Dutch teen pregnancy
rates at around 12% of the US figures, I'd say that every Aussie
politician should take note! Many countries are actually now
examining the Dutch system, to understand why it works so well.
Lets hope that Australia does the same.

As to Uganda, I remind you of their ABC system, C standing for
condoms and their promotion. When some religious fanatics caused
the emphasis to be taken off the C, the HIV rate started to
climb again in Uganda.

Last I looked at some figures, around 8% of Australians bother to
go to a church or similar. Clearly Australia is now a great example
of an secular country thats doing ok. The godsquad are a small but
noisy irritant to most of us.

Philo,

1) Even though I directly addressed what you wrote, you chose to entirely ignore the substance of what I wrote. What a surprise.

2) My name-calling is irrelevant, but "sanctimonious" describes you perfectly. You act as if God is on your side, and so you write as if you don't have to address anybody's arguments, or make any arguments whatsoever. You don't argue, you preach.

3) Yes, I am hostile. I don't like sanctimony, and I am appalled that you present your God to me as my moral judge. I am a moral person, I value my dignity (?) quite fine, and I have no need of your God's blessing.

4) I should provide "relavant historical facts" about what?? All I did was take your example, and try to explain to you the difference between indoctrination and education. You now choose to ignore your own example.

5) Stop pretending Atheism is a competing system of moral belief. Atheism is simply the disbelief in God. That's it. It is not a foundation of laws. It says nothing about the sacredness of life, or the lack of it. It is not a moral code, and it is not the lack of a moral code. It is not this amoral bogey man that you claim.

To pretend that one needs a Christian God to be moral is silly and offensive. And it's the prevalence of that kind of sanctimonious silliness which is why religous indoctrination has no place in secular education.

Can I say that I agree that there should be a proper program for those wishing not to attend RI. However, this is not the main aim of the Humanist Society. I am even sympathetic to Atheists having an opportunity to present their views, however it should be noted that this is not the aim of the humanist society. The aim of the humanist society is quite openly the complete abolishment of RI. It is this aim I oppose as intolerant and unfair to the majority of people who do believe in God.

Bugsy: It should be noted that RI in state schools is not the equivelant of Atheist instruction in Religious schools. Last time I checked state schools were not meant to push an Atheist agenda - they were not meant to exclusively push any religious agenda.

DavidJS: there was a certain irony in my use of adjectives - I don't think I'm as against being politically correct as you might assume.

To everyone who is comparing christianity to ludicrous beliefs such as teddy bears, Santa Claus, and especially the idea that the Roosters are going to win the next 10 NRL premierships!

I know this kind of comparison has been made popular by Mr Dawkins, but it's just not accurate. I know of NO evidence that any of these things exist. I know of NO adults who believe any of them. I know of NO adults who have carefully examined the evidence and started accepting they are true. However whether you accept it or not, there is clearly substantial evidence for the Christian faith because many, many adults, including well educated adults with no Christian upbringing, examine the evidence for the Christian faith and come to accept it as true.

Children deserve to have the opportunity to learn about this evidence, that has such a profound and positive impact on our society, and half an hour of voluntary RI is not unreasonable!

APR, if you removed the word "exclusively" and all that it implies in that sentence, then I would agree with you. In fact many atheists would.

Your argument that many adults believe that after examining the "evidence", therefore it may be true and should be taught, is not valid. If it were then teaching atheism would be at the top of the list, atheism is not taught in schools, it is usually only arrived at after "examining the evidence". The fact that no adults believe in Santa etc, is just because it is a much simpler hoax, that everyone is in on, only perpetrated on children and very easy to disbelieve once ones mental faculties achieve a certain level. The fact that many children DO believe such myths highlights the fact that children are so credulous, so should we teach them myths that may motivate them to be afraid of people that do not believe the same? The argument that the idea of God is less easy to disbelieve than the idea of Santa does not make it true.

At its core religion , religious beliefs are based on paranoid superstition. I find it offensive that any child is indoctrinated into believing in superstitious phantasmagoria. Indeed instructing children into believing in deities is a form of child abuse. What is occuring is the parent holds superstitious delusions and exploits their child to reinforce the parents belief.

Such horrors are worstened as the same parent calls for all children / other peoples children to be brainwashed into believing in the gods those individuals belief.

To teach children religion (meaning brainwash children into superstition) and expecting schools to support it is exactly the same thing as alchoholic parents forcing their children to drink alchohol and then requiring schools to distribute alchohol or drug addicted parents getting their kids addicted to drugs and then requiring schools to push drugs.

Religion is biased by nature, religion is a dedication to ones own fantasies to the point where ones own fantasies take supremecy over the treatment of other people. This is evident in the untrue claim that Christian or Moslem values are good values. They are not they are values of Judgement, exclusion , abuse and control.

This society has failed in protecting children from so many threats , violence , sexual abuse , poverty and religion. This society has at least tried to battle violence , sexual abuse and poverty that threatens its children but we do nothing to address a great monster as wicked as the other three threats , the threat of religion.

Religion has no place outside of the game playing mind of the religious. We must address religion as a problem not as a cutsie B grade sitcom character. If we dont we will end up like Iran , Afghanistan, great swathes of middle U.S.A. and darkage Europe.

It is the child that suffers , condemed to a life focused on death and marching to the beat of misogynist ignoramuses who manipulate by speaking for god , interpreting for god and judging for god. Where every insidious crime is inspired by god.

I have come to the conclusion by watching this over the years, yes religion is threatened by secularism , by science , by rationality but the reason for the intense hatred the religious have for the secular world is because of feminism. Feminism has liberated women. All the major religions especially monotheist religions by fault of Genisis regard women as subhuman and therefore property of her patriach.

We have fallen decades behind in womens rights and equality. One of the reasons is superstitious values are still taught in schools.

it didn't take long for my grandson to declare that that his RI class is "silly" after he realised that what he was learning in real science and history classes was contradicting what he was being told in the RI class! Thankfully he's he has chosen facts over fiction.

Atheists/humanists don't seem to realise that they are religious (atheist worldview) and that they already have a considerable sway over the way things are run in this country thanks to too many Christians walking away from the public sphere.

Indeed, there is religious bias and discrimination - by atheists and humanists!

Because for many people, our brains seem to treat beliefs we consider to be true, almost exactly the same as facts, we need to learn to distinguish the two. For many people this is quite difficult but it also indicates that worship needs to be disassociated with love. i.e. Worship is not love.

Love (Eros) always maintains the critical functions of the mind but worship effectively is designed to strip away critical functions and create obedient stooopids. This worship mindset seriously points to people drilled in accepting, believing in belief, in faith, and unthinking obedience to an all powerful 'teddy' figure. It creates through intellectual dishonesty a Goebbels with Nuremburg Rallies and many other absurd fictions.

If we are considering RI in public schools here are some lessons ...
Lesson 1
Worship is weakness.
Worship is always all twisted up over the most appropriate and effective mind control techniques.
Worship can only misinterpret or ignore or denigrate or deliberately distort evidence.
Worship will cripple Eros with varying degrees of destructiveness, depression.
Worship embodies a psychosis delivering at a cost nothing but very phony, cosy playpens for those who conform (which is akin to Thanatos).

Lesson 2
Love is the source of real breakthroughs and understanding.

To both Runner and Boazy who mentioned my name.

Runner, my children know about RI because in principle I'm all for Religious education as part of development. The best Religious education they received was at Catholic Schools. They learned things about Islam for instance that would give you Islam haters pause for thought. (For you older ones, things have changed massively in Catholic schools.)

It is about education, not indoctrination into a particular narrow fundamental Christian viewpoint.

Boazy, read a post I wrote elsewhere about reading and quoting passages from the bible. You're not the only one with a heavily underlined bible. I had lots of fun with that once upon a time too.

Philosophy, both Christian and non-Christian, is an important part of education in the public schools of our secular nation. A particular brand of Christian education is not. Private schools cater for this.

Bugsy: You'll note I didn't say the fact that many people believe in God makes it TRUE. I said it indicates there is significant evidence for such a belief. It may be WRONG evidence, but unlike with Santa etc, it is SIGNIFICANT evidence which convinces many intelligent educated people (at least people you'd have to admit are intelligent and educated in every other area of their life...)

West: I feel your pain. If you've had a bad experience with religion I'm sorry, but name calling doesn't really progress the debate.

All the name calling aside, I've seen nothing presented that makes optional RI any kind of a menace to society. I still argue the vast majority of school curriculum has a secular humanist outlook - God is not considered. It's not unreasonable for this view to be presented for half an hour a week

APR, if you have significant evidence of a Christian God, then please share it. I know of no such evidence.

As for whether RI should be taught in a public school, it depends upon what you mean by RI. If you mean "It's in the bible therefore it's true" then that's absurd. If you mean "The Bible says it is moral/immoral therefore it is" then that's absurd. But these are the obvious dangers if RI is taught by a professional advocate of that religion.

I don't see the fact that many people believe in a Christian God is relevant. Many people believe in astrology, but that is no argument for teaching it in a public school. (And, it seems that the current Queensland law would permit that, which is really the point of the original article). And, most people (at least in the U.S.) do *not* believe in evolution: would you use that as argument for the perversion of science education?

It seems to me that education is primarily about learning to reason (about life, science, culture, language, ethics, religion, everything). But that means everything is subject to the rational spotlight. That includes RI.

APR, I find it increasingly difficult to accept your argument. The fact that many people may believe in something does not constitute a basis for teaching it in school. It does not make the evidence behind it "significant" either. Many people believe in angels, in fact more than 80% of the American populace according to some polls, although no figures are available for Australia. And many people believe in ghosts, spirits and aliens, with numerous first hand eyewitness accounts! Would this constitute significant enough evidence to teach them in school too? The alien half-hour or the ghost period? Maybe we call have them all together on the same day and call it nutbag Friday?

Belief in God, and certainly religious instruction, is totally unnecessary in our childrens education at school. However math, reading and wide range of other subjects certainly are. But if you want your kids to grow up with that particular monkey on their back, then by all means take them to Sunday School, but please stay away from the State School.

First I found the article, and its argument, very reasonable, until I came to the sentence “… it is certain that Humanism is the system of thought that appeals strongest to intelligent inquiring young minds as well as the minds of their astute parents” and the sequel. It reminded me of an old joke: Visitors are shown around a lunatic asylum by its director. At the end he comes to a patient, who, he claims “is a very serious case, because he thinks he is Napolean, whereas everybody knows that I am Napoleon.”

In some former Communist countries the public schools offer a choice of, say three, options (e.g. Catholic, Lutheran and a "secularist" or "humanist" Ethical education). Everybody has to enrol in one of them, like you have to enrol in one of, say three, foreign languages offered by the school. The problem is only with small town or village schools where only one-two students/parents would choose a particular option.

APR should note that seemingly rational people also believe in the tenets of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and countless other non-Christian religions. Why should any religious instruction in schools be biased towards Christianity?

I think studies of various religions could be useful in secondary schools. But not as religious instruction. It is one thing to look at how Christianity developed. It is quite another to teach that people can literally rise from the dead.

It is quite legitimate to compare mainstream religions with other belief systems like astrology. For thousands of years, people have attributed events to the movement of the stars. Educated people such as Isaac Newton believed in astrology. It doesn't make it real simply because some people say so. Ditto religion.

APR 8000 years ago 100% of the human population was aministic. You are arguing therefore that animists hold the strongest evidence as to the true nature of the supernatural dimension. Your argument leads to the conclusion that we should instruct school children about animal spirits and how they manipulate life and the universe.

Christians made up a tiny minority of people who have ever existed it stands by the logic of your argument that Christianity is false and therefore blasphemous to animism the one true religion.

RI is child abuse and is distinctive from the belief in Santa Claus. When we believe in Santa Claus we are free to acknowledge evidence and the truth that he does not exist. By the time we are adults we have rejected Santa.

The belief in God requires brainwashing and the denial of evidence and the truth that god does not exist. If a child wavers in his/her belief he/she is punished , either through violence, depravation or social exclusion the worst of wich is family pressure. There is no freedom to accept reality and truth. To believe in god one is bonded and enslaved to the cult. This is apparent in mind as well as we see that Christians cannot accept the premises of science as description of evidence and so must be anti science as nature that science describes contradicts scripture and cult politics.

The belief in god ( a superstition in itself) creates more paranoid superstition, a life long focus on death which is believed to be better than life. The central excusionary nature of the religion/cult which in turn leads to sexism , racism ,classism and social heirachy.
This is especially true of Christianity which was invented to justify the coronation of crime bosses as kings.

RI risks burdening a child with a wasted dysfunctional life. Although churches and cult members are greedily rubbuing their hands to gain more trophy converts so convince themselves their delusions and superstitions are honestly based. The child is the victim. RI in schools is effectively the government abandoning the lamb to the wolves.

DavidJS,
“Why should any religious instruction in schools be biased towards Christianity?” Perhaps because it is a Christian (e.g. Catholic) school. In a state school, as I suggested above, there could be a choice of world-views, ethics or what you call them, one of them catering for secular humanists, whose parents do not identify with any religion in the classical meaning of the world. Everybody would have to choose one. The school’s offering would depend on parents’ wishes and on what the school is able to offer.

“I think studies of various religions could be useful in secondary schools. But not as religious instruction.”
This is like wanting to replace the teaching of foreign languages by some linguistics. There is nothing wrong with instructions, you need them to learn to swim, but also to do maths, etc. However, I agree that it should not be an irrational and emotional condemnation of the alternative. Not only some simple-mined religious instructors are capable of this, as West’s last contribution amply illustrates. Perhaps for older students if the school offers, say, three choices, the first three lectures could be devoted to the instructor of each one of the optional streams talking to everybody - not only of his/her stream - explaining what the beliefs of his/her world-view are about.

You cannot offer a totally objective “study of various religions” without choosing one (including, of course, the secular humanist option) to start from. Like you cannot teach linguistics without first deciding whether you want to do the explanations in English, French etc. In case of linguistics the choice of language of instruction is necessary but not important; in case of religious studies the choice of a “home religion” is both necessary and important.

“It is quite another to teach that people can literally rise from the dead.”
DavidJS, I am sure nobody ever taught you that you could literally rise from dead.

George, firstly the controvesial issue here is religious teaching in state schools. If it's religious instruction in one particular religion you want then there are plenty of churches and Sunday schools that provide that service.

Instruction in maths and swimming is different to religious instruction. Teaching maths and swimming means doing one's best to ensure the student gets it right. That sort of instruction is measureable. In that sense religious instruction is an oxymoron because how can the student demonstrate s/he has got it right? Sure, they can be tested to see if they remember all the books in the Bible. But religion requires belief and with Christianity it does require a literal belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead (and yes George, funny how that phenomenon hasn't been repeated lately). This is rather different to learning a language I would have thought.

Teaching of any kind won't be totally free of bias given teachers tend to be human beings (apart from some when I went to school). However, the study of how various religions have influenced the world can be useful and interesting - as opposed to dogma.

David, maybe the problem is not the lack of ability to measure but the objectivity of those doing the measuring. Plenty of people willing to measure how well people do in religion, just hard to get an objective measure of what doing well is.

I wonder if those so keen on RE in schools would be happy if political science was not taught by teachers but rather by a party hack from one party (with most others excluded).

Oh and their kids are automatically enrolled and will be made to feel uncomfortable if they as parents don't want them in that class.

Just to make it even better the PM puts resources into party people providing counselling in the schools rather than into professionally skilled councellors.

R0bert

I was taught that Jesus rose from the dead , that humans will be god like and immortal , the world was flooded, moses parted the ocean and the world was created in 7 days. Women are made made from mens ribs and therefore lesser beings. That Jesus was good and all sorts of other garbage besides.

What it taught me was that such claims were ridiculous and the people who were pushing such garbage were not to be trusted. Upon investigation I later found the history of the cult was a history of violence and degradation. That all claims of moral standing are dishonest and meaningless.

By all means teach children about religion , the holy wars , the slavery , the subjigation of women , slavery , witch burning and inquisition , the sociopathic hatred of gays and sectarianism, the power struggle with realism , the anti democracy and the money farming of churches. Teach kids the truth , that god is a dubious fantasy articulated through superstition. Compare the Bible with others of its type , the Lord of the Rings , Harry Potter , Dune.

Just dont feed them the garbage that Christianists conspire to do. Kids need truth the opposite to god. Information is power and if we lie to children and brainwash them into believing in gods and fairylands we are disempowering them as adults.

Crazy Causes for Wars.....

Talking about preventing religous wars, if we don't look out if we attack Iran - and the surge that follows, we might soon be facing the most religous war the world has ever seen. Not only because George Dubya says the Islamists, especially the Iranians are such a religous war-mad lot, but Georgie Boy himself especially with that stormy-eyed Christian Right behind him, backed also by the Israeli Jews that the End-days mob have officially forgiven, will more than match the Islamics in some sort of cranky belief in an ever-after Sweet Existence that death in such a war might be for either.

Best pray that they both lose touch.

DavidJS , R0bert, West,
I must have misunderstood something. I though the point of this article was to give all students/parents – whatever their world view preferences were – a fair choice of a world view and ethics perspective in their education, whereas you all seem to advocate the replacement of a, compulsory for all, religious alleged indoctrination (as it is the case in some Muslim countries and was the case in the past in some then Christian countries) by a, compulsory (for all (except for those whose parents can afford a private school), anti-religious indoctrination. I am sorry for the misguided way you were taught by your teachers of (Christian?) religion but I doubt they would have spread so much hatred towards, and ignorance about, other beliefs as you demonstrate here.

I have been through all this: there was no religious education in the Stalinist schools I attended, only an endless litany about the “scientific world view” that anybody could claim if he/she replaced traditioinmal religion by marx-leninism that embraced many of the tenets propagated by you. I was lucky to have a university educated father who could easily counterbalance the arguments I heard at school, but not everybody had this advantage. The consequences of that can still be seen in Eastern Europe with its predominance of very naive Christians and even more naive atheists.

DavidJS, “how can the student demonstrate s/he has got it right” How can a student demonstrate that he got it right in a science subject, e.g. physics? By being able to memorise the laws he/she has been taught, apply them in very simple (e.g. laboratory or fictitious) situations, and accept that there are specialists who studied the subject for years, and have a deeper understanding of what it is all about than a high school kid could comprehend. “Jesus Christ rose from the dead ... that phenomenon hasn't been repeated lately”. Had it been, if would not have become the founding fact (or myth for you) of a religion that survived for 2000 years.

The laws of physics have nothing in common with belief systems such as Christianity. The theory of gravity, for example, has been tested and regarded as a valid theory which explains why objects fall. If a better theory came along then scientists worth their name would adhere to that theory.

Religions and Stalinist dogma require uncritical belief. Quite the opposite of science.

I must admit, after reading this article I was somewhat infuriated. I too had direct experience of religious instruction in both public and private schools.

In the public school, I brought a note and was able to go to the library and read instead. I still don't see why this was an 'opt out' system, rather than an 'opt in' one. Were it the latter, I wouldn't have any issues with it, but the implication that we should all be receiving religious instruction except those who decide against it, seems a little off. I bet there'd be an outcry, if it was, say, Islam instead of Christianity.

runner - people are flocking to Christian schools because most private schools are christian. There are very few secular ones. I went to a private christian school, because there was no secular option, but around 15 christian private ones in my area.
If you read the recent census, you will see that the number of people identifying as non-religious has jumped significantly. There is not an increase of people wanting religious education, no matter how much you'd like to believe that. Most of the people I knew in the Christian school were in the same boat as me - only a handful identified themselves as openly christian.

I don't see how this can be construed as anything other than impressing a belief system on others, and denying them the alternative they wish for.

DavidJS,
“The laws of physics have nothing in common with belief systems such as Christianity”
Nobody claimed they have, at least not at a high school level. If Christianity for you is just a belief system, religion requires an “uncritical belief”, you think that high school students should be taught about gravitation only on the basis of “valid theories” (whatever that means: Newton, Einstein or even quantum gravity?) and you correlate Stalinism (I do not know about you, but I lived through it, though was never taught any “Stalinist dogma” whatever that is) with (any?) religion then I surely hope, for the sake of all high school kids, that you do not teach philosophy/ethics or physics or 20th century history.

TurnRightThenLeft,
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Whatever the cultural heritage of the West – and you have to have some understanding for historical inertia, which still keep the Christian outlook in the forefront – the PLURALITY of world views (religious, in the classical sense, or not) is a reality that should not be ignored: Neither by militant Christians, who keep looking to the past which they want to preserve, nor by militant anti-Christians (or anti-religious) who also keep looking to the past which they want to turn around by making the secular humanist – or even simply atheist - outlook as privileged as the Christian one was in the past.

There could be some technical problems with a particular school’s ability to offer a fair selection of world-views or ethical education, or what you would call them, i.e. not only those associated with a particular religion or even Church. However, in my opinion, the main problem why there are not enough secular humanist offerings as alternatives to religious instructions lies in the fact that those in favour of them instead of lobbying for plurality, and consequently for the inclusion of their “quasi-religion” as an alternative, concentrate on ATTACKING the established alternatives, or even religion as such. This is, of course, counterproductive.

George, not "anti-religious" rather as balanced as we can make it. That will be fairly threatening to most creeds because it would show the strengths and failings of various belief systems including secular humanism.

I'm a former christian so I've got a bit better understanding of how RE is treated within the churches than just sitting in an RE class would give. Despite the pretense many wish to make by and large RE is regarded as an outreach activity not as a community service.

The approach taken by Boaz_David http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=719#13215 (especially the third paragraph) to dealing with other belief systems is typical of what I think happens when advocates for a particular belief system teach RE classes. I've also seen childrens bibles and the changes made in them to make the whole thing more appealing to children.

Some of the same issues are a risk whoever is teaching about beliefs and values, there is always a risk that the teachers own beliefs and values will be presented in a way that is not balanced and opposing viewpoints will be unfairly portrayed. At least teachers have a curriculum and training to deal with those issues.

R0bert

Exactly RObert.

RE has no place in public schools. Parents have to send their children to the nearest public school, so there is no choice. Whereas if you want your child to have any particular kind of Christian teaching there are many schools to choose from or your church.

If there was to be any Religious education that is what it should be; about religions. Not just Christian, but philosophy in general, including humanistic thought.

It is fundamentally wrong that parents have to act to remove their child in a state school from something as personal and private as spiritual indoctrination of a kind that may be completely contrary to their own beliefs. This includes Christian philosophy.

If this happened with sex education for instance, for which you have to give permission for attendence, many of you would go ape. Why is sex so private that it is accorded respect, but a family's spiritual beliefs are not?

Parents should be asked if their child has permission to attend and should be told exactly what their child is taught. In that scenario I would suggest that very soon this nonsense would stop.

R0bert,
you had a bad experience with a Christian RE, I had a bad experience with a secular (actually explicitly atheist) education system, and my experience with my daughter’s RE in a Melbourne Catholic school was far from satisfactory.

However, I think we should concentrate on what is desirable (and also realisable) for the future. I agree that any subject that explicitly or implicitly conveys a world view should be “as balanced as we can make it” and, I would add, as appropriate for the age of the students involved as it can be. This is an ideal that you strive for, and I think, also any RE – not only Christian, but, say, also Muslim – should strive for. Children should not be taught that their parents are immoral, because they do not go to church, or irrational because they do go to church.

What is practicable in the present situation is a different story. You mention a contributor here whom you think could not provide such a balanced view; I could name many OLO contributors, explicitly or implicitly atheist, whom I would not trust with being very balanced in their presentation of other belief systems.

I also agree that “there is always a risk that the teacher’s own beliefs and values will be presented in a way that is not balanced and opposing viewpoints will be unfairly portrayed”, and this applies to RE teachers as well as those who think they are above any “religion”. So again, this is a question of quality, not choice between world view orientations. One can and should strive for quality and objectivity, but the “home orientation” will always show: there will always be a difference in how e.g. the battle of Mohács in 1526 is explained and evaluated in a Hungarian or in a Turkish school. This haunts present day EU enthusiasts who want to find a unified way of teaching European history. Do you think teaching “religious studies” - where you have to answer students’ value loaded questions etc. - would be easier or even possible at all?

Yvonne,
I like your contributions on this forum, but I am not sure I understand you this time. Do you mean that instead of a choice of a SUBJECT that teaches “religion” (in the classical RE sense or some secular humanist alternative) in a public school, there should be a choice of SCHOOLS dedicated to different world view orientations? I am not sure how these things could be financed in such a way that a poor student would have an equal chance of getting into a Humanist, or, say Catholic or Muslim school. Or at least the same chance as he/she would have if public schools would offer a choice of a subject along these lines.

Another way I can understand your suggestion is that public schools should be a priori secular humanist and teach “about religions”. In addition to my doubts, as expressed to R0bert, that this can be done without an anti-religious biast, it somehow reminds me of the – in my and many scientists’ eyes dubious – university level “scientific studies” subject for students who were unable to understand science, notably the maths behind physics (often the same was true about their lecturers). This was very different from philosophy of science which was studied by students who have already taken some proper science and maths subjects.

It just occurred to me, whether there is not some similarity, although one is at university level, the other at a high school level, and the “insider knowledge" that the “studies” instructor often lacks is mathematics in the first case and faith in the second case.

Also, I find your comparison of the two intimacies, sexual and spiritual (I used to call them horizontal and vertical) very illuminating, though I think there is one difference: nobody proudly proclaims he/she is asexual, but many, also on this forum, claim to be something like “areligious”.

I find it abhorrent that Christians see it their right to damage the minds of not only their children but the children of others. What we see in teaching religious values and concepts in schools is to sanctify explicit crimes against humanity by subverting laws of the land to enable cults that believe in gods or other mythological creatures to brainwash children which will allow Islamists and Christianists and who knows what in the future to dominate and corrupt this society.

The core value of Christianity and Islam is the disrespect of those who dont share their superstitious beliefs. We have witnessed moral corruption in the United States where education funding is linked to Christian demands and therefore rendered great amounts of the population to believe in invented lies such as intelligent design along with its racial supremacy and the supremecy over homosexuals and pacifists. The Bush administration bolstered by Americans Christian population which is violence loving and hate inspired and war mongering. All serve to expose the myth that Christianity inherently holds good values. It is a cult dependent on the lies of myth such as resurrection and Noah and a host of other magic tricks.

That we even consider sanctifying the psychological abuse of children and take those preaching the darkage cults of monotheism seriously is alarming especially at a time when the federal government must address the child abuse amongst christian communities as it is with Indigenous communities. Where children are kept in poverty as parents waste money on churches, are abused with corporal punishment for the slightest of acts, sexually abused by clergy and youth camp volunteers and are psychologically abused with being brainwashed into believing the world will end soon and they are to be judged on the false premise they are born in sin. What results are damaged minds who believes magic spells such as prayer can evoke gods which do not exist. Believing they are chosen above all others, self focus to a point of dysfunction and putting death as greater than life and are politically aligned to spreading their superstition further.

West, you are so misinformed about what Religious Education in Schools is about. I suggest you visit a good bookship and see the text set for the State curriculum "Studies of Religion".

Most of it is about man living in community, and not about Noah's flood etc; unless to illustrate a point that God cares for his creatures and so ought we.

Philo the point is children are human beings and not play things so as Christians may indulge in their dungeons and dragons role playing games.

All religions are based on ignorance and the rejection of facts which is in essence the truth. It is up to the individual to decide wether they want to believe in ridiculous myths and wildly superstitious concepts. No religious person has a right to allow their beliefs to affect others. In the case of monotheist cults religion is directly harmful to the community as we see with Islamic terrorism and Christian gay bashing and looney activists preventing the progress of medicine. If churches want new recruits then they should advertise in the classifieds and leave the innocent alone.

Nobody here has been talking about teaching children the truth about religion , that religion is immorral , exclusionary and almost everything asserted by the religious and the religion about their morals and gods are fiction. That religion is harmful, produces violence , is devisive and dishonest. Yes religion should be taught as a health topic.

But to teach something as false and poisonous as the belief in god as something worthy and benevolent is conspiracy to scam innocent people to satisfy the self indulgence of the believer. That is predation which is more than just immoral it is evil.

I regret not having seen this article sooner but still want to say that I agree mostly with the author and enjoy posters such as West, RObert, Yvonne, Yabby, and Bugsy.
I used to think that RI stood for Religious Indoctrination; learnt something new.

I am all for teachers teaching children ABOUT religions, to give them an overview of world religions because I think it’s a necessary foundation not only if we want to teach our children respect and tolerance and understanding, but also if we want to teach them where to draw the line when it comes to tolerance and respect.
During their lifetime, our children are all going to be exposed to people belonging to a wide range of religions. We need to teach them “how-to” things, like how to analyse a religion so they are equipped with a tool for the rest of their lives.

When my two children attended our local Public primary school, as an immigrant I didn’t even realise that they’d receive RI/RE as this was not done where I came from.
Anyway, I received a form with a list of denominations and religions and I was asked to tick a box. There was no non-scripture box on the form at all. So I drew and ticked my own, writing next to it: “humanism, atheism, or non-scripture”.

The next day, I was asked to come and see the deputy principal, who then told me that the non-scripture classes were not available anymore as there was so little interest, and that it would be very good for my daughter to be introduced to a religion.
Not wanting to go into a debate about religious education being good or bad, I just said that a public school should cater for all children including children of non-religious families, and that if they wouldn’t cater for my daughter, I’d contact the department of education.
Luckily I didn’t have to follow up my threat because she added the option of non-scripture to the form.

Continued below...

Then there came a time that my daughter got very bored in the non-scripture class because she, and a handful of others, were to do extra math, so she wanted to go to scripture with one of her friends, so she attended (not 100 % sure) Anglican scripture for a few weeks until she came home upset and told me that the scripture lady, with a bright red face, (my daughter pays attention to details) had ‘educated’ the class about hell and how people who didn’t believe in God and didn’t attend church would go there. She was, at that time, 7 or 8 and thought that her whole family would burn in hell. It took me weeks to make her see what kind of nonsense she had been told. There are still people who believe in hell at this day and age and indoctrinate children with it? Wow!

Of course, this ended up in taking my daughter out of that class again. From that moment, I took the non-scripture group to do some fun things with such as craft, drama and singing.
I really think that some schools are so desperate to get enough scripture teachers that they don’t even bother to check what they will be teaching. It’s like they swipe any religious nutter off the street to put in front of a class. Anything goes; there is no control of what they are actually telling the children as far as I know. Pretty dangerous, if you ask me.

"There was no non-scripture box on the form at all. So I drew and ticked my own, writing next to it: “humanism, atheism, or non-scripture”."

Sheesh Cevilia, if they ever land up cloning an innovative,
intelligent female like you, then please let me know :)