"So as a Christian I have no in-principle difficulty supporting the humanists in Queensland in their plea to offer special religious education to children of humanist parents." That's very big (dare I say very Christian) of you Ted, and I guess following that lesson kids will be taught creation "science" but I have a couple of problems with this. Firstly, humanism is not a religion. Additionally, why shouldn't the kids of Christian parents be taught humanism too? This isn't about 'you'll go to school to learn my beliefs' it's about 'schools teaching facts'.

It's a fact the Christians believe in the existance of a god and a person named Jesus. It's also a fact that there is no evidence of the existance of the same said god, nor, probably, Jesus. Those facts are what should be taught and in an academic environment of philosophy or comparative religious studies. Anything less is the censorship that you are concerned about.

For schools to allow the teaching of any religion (as opposed to examining the beliefs in religions) is to allow the teaching of superstition. They may as well as teach astrology, tea-leaf readings (Harry Potter could be the text) and the healing power of crystals.

"For schools to allow the teaching of any religion (as opposed to examining the beliefs in religions) is to allow the teaching of superstition. They may as well as teach astrology, tea-leaf readings (Harry Potter could be the text) and the healing power of crystals."

Thank you Peter. I was pretty much going to say exactly the same thing.

Sure, teach religion as part of social studies, as a subject to critique and analyse (and count the corpses of those killed in the name of God). But to teach "religion" as "religion" would be a step back into the dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

I'm all for religious education of our children in schools. They should be taught about the role of religion and religious institutions in the formation of our society; they should be taught about the role of religion and religious institutions in the formation of other societies; they should be taught about the role of religion and religious institutions in present and past conflicts and social repression; they should be taught about the magnificent variety of religious thought and faith that is available.

Unfortunately, my own experience - and that of my school-age children - is that "religious education" in school is none of those things. It amounts only to an indoctrination into a particlar faith - no discussion of alternative faiths; no discussion of the pitfalls and issues that holding a particular faith brings with it; no discussion of the role and responsibility religion and religious institutions hold in society. It amounts to an entirely unsatisfactory experience for young enquiring minds.

If we're gonna have religious education in schools, make it focussed on the study of religion, not indoctrination into blind faith. The former is a justifiable role of a secular education system, the latter is the role of parents, peers and friends.

I support the posts of Peter,Lev & Hughie and I believe they reflect the growing trend in australia amongst enlightened people of various religious beliefs who are dismayed at the actions of many who profess 'christian' ideals.

Perhaps that explains why many in our community search for 'the true meaning of life'

It is well before time that the mysticism and superstition of our origins were exposed and the use of fear and untruths to manipulate our thinking gave way to true science

I agree with the comments so far; objective comparative religion could be taught in schools. I don't agree with the article's author that children should be encouraged to think critically about different religions. 'Children' are not yet equipped to think critically at all. And I don't agree that 'Students also need to “get” religious belief'. If religion was not taught at all, there may be a chance of aethesism getting a grip. Sounds good to me. Surely, now more than ever, aethesism is the safest place for us ALL to be.

A thoughtful piece and good comments.
Ted, most religions seem to concern themselves in one way or another for better or worse with values and ethics promoting their brand name and providing rules for adherents to co-exist.
Within these values and ethics is some commonality, why can't there be an acceptance of broad principals within the secular system and put forward as a life framework i.e do unto others, suffer the children,respect for the old and suffering?
Modern Christianity in this country does not seem to have provided adherants with the insight or courage to confront and change the evils in the self professed Chtistian we have as Prime Minister who can lock up women and children seeking succor,disempower working Australians and use the plight of the most disadvantaged to assist his re-election campaign.
In my opinion Christian religious education seems to dismpower rather than nurture the confidence to express moral outrage.
But as you no doubt know it is an interesting balance. The teachings of so called Islamic fundamentalism does just that but in so doing identifies moral depravity in non believers. Them and us, which I suppose is what Howard is all about. I'd never really thought of hin as a militant fundamentalist but there you go. Where do we put Jensen and Pell? And how do we see their stock of tolerance and compassion?
Bruce Haigh

The human secularist would not be happy just to have their religion and lack of decent values taught in the State system. They will then want to tell private schools what they can and can't teach. That is because many of those who claim State schools should only have secular values see how miserably it has failed and then send their kids to private schools. I find it very amusing.

I get tired of hearing statements like 'count the corpses of those killed in the name of God'.

People kill each other for all kinds of reasons. 'God' is usually just a convenient justification for fighting and wars that would happen regardless.

Apologies for the spelling error. Of course what I meant was 'atheism'.

6 months ago I couldn't even spell 'atheist', now I are one!

I have long been absorbed by, and abhorred by, the wholesale grief and bloodshed and bigotry brought about as a result of religious belief. So it would be easy for me to argue the 'secular' case for teaching in schools.

I don't, because we can't escape the bald act that religion, in all its forms and in all societies, is part of the fabric of human existence. Like it or not. Some scientists even believe that it has an identified component in our brain structure.

Most violence and prejudice that stems from religion comes from reductionist thinking. Faith in one God. One true belief, one true church. The negative sides of religion do not stem from spiritualism, but from the very opposite that churches tends to imbue in their faithful. Competition for righteousness.

The worst offenders are arguably the larger multinational churches, but small fanatical ones can be just as dangerous.

If anything, a general study of religion and spirituality I think can help to differentiate the ugly side of religion from a true search for meaning. Being taught to have faith in one belief is reductionist and not educational. Being exposed to ideas about the history of religion and human spirituality can help to develop a healthy perspective on life.

Perhaps most importantly in these times, an awaareness that there is something bigger than our egotistical selfish selves.


church. The negative sides of religion do not stem from spiritualism, but from the very opposite that religion tends to imbue in theri faithful.

The worst offenders are the larger multinational churches, but fanatical small ones

First three posts do it for me too.

Imagine being a child and being taught about religion and then turning on the TV and seeing the realities of the world as it is today?

Our kids would have to be scared and confused. I know my youngest son is.

We need to help our children make sense of the world today.

Who knows we might learn some answers on the way.

Regarding Religious Education... boy oh boy, we have some desperate need for clarity there.
I'm having an interesting time on YOUTUBE, debating with Muslims and others, and this one used the 'carrot and stick' approach to me after I invited him to Christ.

QUOTE:
u have heard what u have heard...now, i invite u to a paradise where there is no sleep and no tiredness, where u will be able to surf all u want every day u want for eternity, and u will have the best and most pure beach babes created specifically for u, who will become virgin after every time u sleep with them, and who have no impurity like menses or stool or urine, whose eye will only be for u, not for other men, unlike many aussie and other women unfortunately...where u will have all u desire and all the best of food..and wine that does not give hangovers...and rivers of it...and the best part ...that u will be be close to GOD, under his protection, and u can even go and visit jesus (pbuh) and other PROPHETS like him...this is paradise and IT IS EASY FOR GOD TO CREATE. and God was never tired on th 7th day or any other day...as is mentioned unfortunately in the corrupted version of the book sent down to Jesus (pbuh)..and GOD knows best what we hide and what we reveal.

the other choice is Hell...u can find more about hell from your bible probably..its painful and eternal is a basic summary.
UNQUOTE.

The only thing which comes to mind here is "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is".

What we must appreciate, is that THIS is what is driving people to suicide in the name of Allah. How do I know this ? good grief, if you saw the video's on this blokes profile you would SEE why. "Al Qaeda Ambush".. "Red Mosque Seige" etc etc...
This bloke is calling me 'maate.. g'day... ' etc...so he might even be Australian.

Such rediculous ideas must be NIPPED in the bud.

Ah well.............this got off to a good start...

I agree with most all of you. I'm getting a tad cheesed off with those that wave their deity around as the 'one true God'.

Can I suggest twenty paces at dawn one armed with a Bible, one with the Koran, winner then takes on the Sun worshipers, armed with...er,...whatever, winner takes on one armed with a bronze statue of Buddha.I reckon that should finish it nicely.

Being whacked with a bronzed statue, can make an extremely bad impression on your mind.....

Sorry, BOAZ_David, but I must protest. As ridiculous as those ideas are, they are no more or less ridiculous than many others professed by adherents to other faiths. Remember that the Ku Klux Klan started out as the Holy Knights of ... firmly cemented in their Christian faith.

As I recall, the movie "Bedazzled" satirised what any form of Heaven would amount to ... hanging about in eternal adoration of the Creator and only existing by exercise of His whim ... that doesn't sound any more realistic to me than your Muslim debater's version of Paradise.

This forum is not a place to single out any particular faith for special treatment: it is a place to reconsider the role of *any* faith in our lives and in the education of our children ... IMHO it is not the role of secular state schools to invite children to Christ or Mohammad or Buddha or Krishna any other faith/deity in particular.

But I must confess that the views you report scare the pants off me ...

Religion has it's roots founded in tribalism and hence no amount of education or logic will deter people from believing.Just look at our Islamic Doctors who plotted the Glasgow bombing.Highly intelligent yet believe all that the Koran espouses.

Anyone who has been indoctrinated into any religion finds the tribal bonds and belief systems extremely difficult to break.There is something deep in our psyche that makes us yearn for the power of enternal existence.I think as adults we yearn for the security of a parent figure and the concept of god fills the void.Let people have their religion but do not let religion over ride science or logic.

I've got no idea what Boazy's post above has to do with the subject of RE in schools, but since he wants to participate in the thread, perhaps he could answer the following question:

Does BOAZ_David - or other members of his Brethren sect - go into state schools to provide Religious Education classes?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

PeterJH,

"It's a fact the Christians believe in the existance of a god and a person named Jesus. It's also a fact that there is no evidence of the existance of the same said god, nor, probably, Jesus. Those facts are what should be taught and in an academic environment of philosophy or comparative religious studies. Anything less is the censorship that you are concerned about."

Indeed - and to not do so is to say that modern human beings are incapable of contemplating and articulating human life/"spirituality" to the same or even more 'evolved' levels of understanding than people from antiquity - real or mythic.

The author is a realist. He says that we have to educate our kids for the real world, and that atheists and people of faith have to learn how to get along.

The atheists in their posts above are eternal optimists if they think religion is going to just disappear any time soon, simply because of their wishful thinking.

Faith and religion are integral parts of human society. They’ve been around for thousands of years and, the final judgement not withstanding, they’ll be around for many more, especially in this country with our strong Christian heritage.

“Religion is at the base of all wars and blood letting.” This is true because people are the cause of all wars and most people are religious. They all have a god they can refer to at time of war. That is, except for all the atheist wars that have been fought in the name of atheism.

One difference between the atheists and myself is that they seem to be under the belief, like the people in Communist Russia, that the state has the ultimate responsibility to educate our kids. I don’t.

I take that responsibility for my family. I want to prepare my son to thrive in this world and be prepared for the next. If my son can’t read and write, I am prepared to teach him. If he turns out to be a lawyer, street sweeper, bank teller or bank robber, I will take some of the blame. If the state helps me to educate my son, then I’m happy to work within that system.

One similarity between atheists and myself is that we both pay taxes, we both contribute to state education. If atheists think that Christians are so weak that they’re going to lie down and give total control to atheists and humanists to run an education system that we also helped to build, then they’re mistaken.

Instead, we must learn to get along in a spirit of tolerance. In any locality parents must find common values and principles that can be imparted to the young in their community.

CJ "yes"

Hughie... I half expected a bit of a 'poke' on that, so.. no drama.

I tend to agree with you on the issue of 'inviting' to Christ or Buddha or Mohammad or whatever in schools.
Secular schools are indeed a place for education on issues, rather than sectarian invitations.

I am of the understanding that RE classes are more on the lines of 'informing about' rather than 'inviting to' when it comes to Christian RE. I'm quite happy about that, because the life and teaching of Jesus is sufficient invitation in itself. Simply knowing 'about' is probably enough for the open heart to want to know more.

I have no problem with the comparing and contrasting of various faiths in schools.

I kind of worry though, that if the Islamic idea of 'paradise' is presented even as 'information' to young 15 yr old boys.....it might be too much and there will be a rush to the mosques :) I can't see the gals making quite such a rush though.. hmmm wonder why ?

Hughie..I have to agree also that such 'weird' ideas of paradise/heaven "repeatedly taking the virginity of many girls created specially for that purpose" are quite different from the Christian view. The emphasis in Christianity is on the Lion laying down with the lamb..(peace) and on being flooded with love of God, no more sickness, dying etc.... its sexually neutral.

I wonder what those who claim 'Religions are invented by men' make of this contrast. ie.. the 'inflicting of pain on a daily basis on virginal women for the sake of male sexual satisfaction' with the 'Peace, happiness and love,.... but no sex' of Christianity.

I am of the view that anything involving the fulfillment of 'male' desires for triumphal sex is closer to what might be called 'male inventions'

Does this mean Christians don't care about sex ? of course not. We just accept that it's role is 'this' worldly and the means of reproduction, and that heaven is way better than that.

Mick V, That is how the phrase 'moral high ground' came into being....

Why do you elevate yourself to a position of being the arbiter of decency and moral values. Referring to 'the atheists' in a derogatory manner as though we lack any moral fibre or standards.

Not nice Mick. ANY belief system or lack thereof has its good guys and its bad guys. Need I remind you of the lack of moral fibre within the Christian Church where a good number of men of the cloth have shown a distinct disregard for decent moral values, and have used their positions to get away with it; sometimes for decades?

Peter, Lev, Hughie, Maricas…. What a great start to this discussion…
The original article states: “In a democracy leaving the child free to make her own decisions about belief is a foundational principle for both religious and secular educators.” So true. but when chaplains come into classes of five year-olds offering sweeties, colourful toys and games and engaging theatrical performances presenting supernatural events as reality, what chance have they of forming rational decisions?
The ability to think, use logic, weigh up arguments, consider alternatives, compare… are complex mental operations that take years to develop. If an educator compared the beliefs of ancient Norsemen, ancient Greeks and Romans, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Incas, Jews, Muslims and Christians in such a way that they could be understood as the once useful myths they are, and not as ultimate universal truths, then that would be fine, but that is not what happens. The chaplain/religious instructor sneers at all other beliefs and promotes his own as the one true faith.
Universal moral values and virtues such as kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity, humour, gentleness, equality, listening, respect for the elderly, love of children, and diligent respect for the land, plants and animals are essential for survival. They are the property of humanity, not religion. Surely these ‘missionaries’ should be prosecuted for false advertising?

CJ Morgan: "Does BOAZ_David - or other members of his Brethren sect - go into state schools to provide Religious Education classes?"

BOAZ_David: "CJ 'yes' "

I can't think of a better argument against RE than that. It's appalling that religious nutters like Boazy (or other members of his oddball Brethren sect) are allowed into state schools in order to peddle their loopy ideas among impressionable kids.

It beggars belief that they would always restrict themselves to teaching about their religion, and not stray into stirring up "righteous anger" against, for example, homosexuality or Islam. While that reprehensible mission might be tolerated among adults in forums such as this, it has absolutely no place in a school.

That is not to say that children shouldn't be taught about religion/s. However, the subject should be presented by qualified teachers within the context of history, social studies, literature etc. If parents want their kids to receive religious indoctrination, they should send them to religious schools or Sunday school.

A study group at the Vatican recently said "In a Europe (1st World?) that suffers from widespread atheism, an intolerance of the truth, an allergy to the faith and, at times, a kind of Christophobia, parents are invited to give life, educate their children and transmit the faith so that the youth can make mature and responsible decisions in full freedom, and holiness becomes a fascinating project to hand on with joy to new generations."

Now the big challenge for school RE programs is to define, yet alone teach, 'truth' and 'holiness' and any bearing they may have on "Universal moral values and virtues such as kindness, generosity, consideration, affection, honesty, hospitality, compassion, charity, humour, gentleness, equality, listening, respect for the elderly, love of children, and diligent respect for the land, plants and animals are essential for survival. They are the property of humanity, not religion."

The term 'Christians' is first recorded in describing the actions of the Church in caring for each other - the expression of their love. I am not too sure Pharoah or Caesar exercised too many 'universal moral values,' indeed, State administrations are often perplexed by Church concerns for the unborn, disabled and eligibly euthanisable, but, most of that comes down to economics and there being no value in suffering.

So perhaps the real challenge is to practice what we profess: NICENESS - as Maxwell Smart would put it - and if we want to attribute it to God or our well formed intellect, then so be it.

Myth or human perfection, both often seem fanciful, but also desirable.

Right on C J Morgan!
Realitycheck, The trouble with your idea is that reputable studies show, as you are well aware, that the more ‘religious’ a society is, the more dysfunctional. The U.S.A. being a case in point, having the highest rates of teen pregnancies, abortions, murders, rapes, theft, grievous bodily harm, prison incarcerations, judicial murders.……. than any other so-called ‘western democratic’ country. Statistically, it is safer to live in Iraq than in the U.S.A. The most liveable and law-abiding region on planet earth is Europe, and that’s because they respect individuality, have non-discriminatory laws and do not permit religions to impose their supernatural insanities on everyone. They don’t stop crazies like Boaz and his ilk from believing whatever nonsense they like, but at least they don’t give them access to their children! Child abuse like that is what has caused and is causing the horrors of all theocracies, including the U.S.A. and, if we’re not careful, Australia.

I am not sure that you could attribute this 'dysfunction' to religion per se, although the NRA is probably now recognised with Scientology as a religion, but as for Europe being a safe place, I think that needs a 'for now' added to it as the likely outcome for the long term success of this situation is under threat of de-population and other factors (see http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/mind-this-gap-where-trouble-brews/2007/07/08/1183833338385.html )

Now just because the likes of Geo. W and others appear to function without reason, doesn't mean religious belief is without reason. I would argue that due to individual (self appointed) interpretation of Church teachings and scripture and the inconsistencies from such a worldview, the issues you have raised are non-christian practices.

Roman / Church law differs from reformation law in that the Church teaches people to avoid something, but, realises that many will fail. The black letter law has its purpose by exposing a position, pastoral application of the law then should see healing and reconciliation - not terminations - as the outcome.

Ginx

I think you are imagining that I said things that I didn’t say, or did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

Please tell me, where did I refer to atheists in a derogatory manner? Please tell me, where did I elevate myself to being the arbiter of decency and moral values?

What I said in summary (if you can’t bother to read properly) was that people of faith and atheists need to learn to get along in a spirit of tolerance.

ybgirp

I suggest to you that Europe is such a wonderful place to live probably because of its strong Christian heritage, not in spite of it. Is it any wonder that people want to go there? The whole country of Turkey (though not wanting to become Christian) is wanting to go there.

And if America is as bad as you say, why are people queuing around the corner of American embassies around the world trying to get green cards to get in there?

Though, I still prefer Australia, which is kind of a mixture of somewhere between the two.

Ginx.. welcome to OLO.

umm..I have to concur with Mick V on his question about 'where' he elevated himself as you described. (supply quotes please)
I couldnt find it.

You said:

"as though we (Atheists) lack any moral fibre or standards."

For we 'God Botherers' the issue is not that Atheists don't have any moral fibre or standards. The issue is "which and who's" ?
Without an abiding anchor and foundation for our morality, we are subject to the loudest voices, the manipulation of opinion leaders, and economic interests who want to re-shape our education for the ultimate goal of making us more vigorous 'consumers'.

A visit to the local service station will quickly reveal the extent to which the 'MIUAUG' mob (Make_It_Up_As_U_Go) have sunk in order to extract more dollars from us. They know 'sex sells' and indeed that is what they are mostly selling. If they don't happen to be in a sex industry, then they try to 'connect' the product they are flogging 'to' sex.

The FM stations are generally at one with this push to dehumanize us and reduce us to "penis's with arms and legs attached, with a miniscule brain if at all"

All in all, we are in an abysmal mess morally. One does not need a MBA in 'moral high ground' nor in 'bone pointing' to say this, it's a simple fact. As Paul said of himself 'I am the chief of sinners'.. we don't point to social depravity with a "Oh God.. I'm so glad I'm not like THAT scumbag atheist over there, I goto Church regularly, I give, I help charities" etc.. nope.. Jesus condemned that attitude.
We have to thump our chests and utter "Lord...forgive ME.. a lousy sinner"

Mick V and David B;-thank-you both for responding to me.

Mick, cut the .rap on the 'wrong side of bed/not being able to read' thing. It's a tacky little dummy spit.

David, though you are a little more polite in your delivery, with all due respect, your response is entirely predictable.

Both; I have no intention of getting into the tedious exercise of cut/paste of segments of posts here.

I accept that you can both read (OK. Mick?), and as such you should be able to see with clarity that though the overt message is tolerance between Christian's (religion) and Atheist's, the covert message IS negative. You did not miss the opportunity to put down non-believers by elevating the principles of a Christian parent, and a Christian doctrine.

All well and good. Each to his own. I take exception though, to your need to state this. Good parenting is NOT the exclusive domain of the Christian. Don't even attempt to suggest to me that this was NOT a clear inference that the 'Godless' are not in your parental league.

Now Mick, you can waffle around with the need to make me understand that I am reading into your post what isn't there..etc,..etc. But can I suggest to you, that YOU read your post again, and perhaps indulge yourself a little less in a style that will inevitably be open to interpretations that you may not like??

Boazy: "We have to thump our chests and utter 'Lord...forgive ME.. a lousy sinner' "

I really hope that's not part of the Brethren RE classroom routine. On second thoughts, I'm sure most kids would find such a performance very entertaining - mine certainly would. But of course they're familiar with the idea of supernatural forces through fairy stories, books, movies and games, so I'm sure they'd relegate such an act to the well-established category of "pretend". That is, fictional stuff in stories and performance that aren't really true, but are fun to explore with one's imagination.

Unfortunately, in the case of extremists like Boazy's Brethren sect, one then has to explain that there are unfortunate adults out there who never outgrew their infantile credulity, and therefore firmly believe that the stories and myths are true. While of course people are entitled to their beliefs and fantasies, I personally don't want my kids and grandkids exposed to religious nutters in the absence of a trusted adult.

If parents want their kids subjected to religious indoctrination, they have the option of enrolling them in any of the various Christian schools that seem to be popping up like weeds all over the country. Or they can send them to good old Sunday school or whatever. I say it again: there is no place for religious indoctrination in State school. Education by qualified teachers about religions should be part of any general curriculum, but that is a very different thing to allowing representatives of outlandish religious sects into our schools in order to proselytise their faiths.

We wouldn't allow members of Hizb Ut-Tahrir into our schools to provide RE lessons, would we? Why then do we allow "Brethren" sect members to do so?

BTW, well said ybgirp and Ginx :)

For parents to be 'good'... surely they have to stay together? Yet statistics that appeared last year showed that a higher percentage of religious couples divorce than atheists, and the highest divorce rate is amongst fundamentalist christians... I wonder if religion could be a factor there?

Interesting to read the posts here and the different styles of arguing. Frustrating how in many instances the participants seem to be talking past each other rather than engaging in a "meeting of minds". Is it the Tower of Babel Syndrome? Perhaps the Scholastics of Old had a point when they insisted that for a fruitful debate points of reference should be well defined and agreed upon.

Ginx,

Thanks for responding. Fair comment!

I probably did go overboard if I gave an implication that parental responsibility in education is a specifially Christian thing. All parents everywhere should and generally do take a responsible role in their children’s education. So I’ll have the luxury of another go and try and clarify what I meant.

As the discussion was centering around government responsibility, I would like to emphasise the role of the parent in having more of a say in what their kids are taught, even at school. If all religious concepts are dismissed as superstition, as some were suggesting, then God or other religious ideas will never be mentioned, leaving God irrelevant and atheism taught by default. This is hardly neutral or ‘secular’ (depending on how you define that word), especially if it goes against many parents’ wishes in any locality.

If Christian parents see no room for their own values in state education, then this will only drive them to start their own private schools. This is a trend which the Prime Minister seems quite happy to encourage. Is this what the state system wants, people to vote with their feet, leaving the system impoverished? This is why I suggest that common spiritual values and tolerance need to be sought.

Apis, it is not possible for a mind that believes in supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent supermen in the sky, to ‘meet’ with a mind that rejects such infantile notions.
Mick V; Religious concepts of supernatural extraterrestrial gods and devils and heavens and hells are unfounded beliefs based on nothing but myths and legends. To indoctrinate children with such palpable nonsense is criminal – how will they ever learn to think? To question? To live in the real world? The multifarious visages of Christian and Islamic gods are more than irrelevant to human survival… they are an impediment! As for ‘teaching’ atheism, what on earth do you mean? There’s nothing to teach! Atheism simply means not believing in gods. There’s no dogma, catechism, myths and other spurious nonsense. Would you teach ‘not believing’ in fairies? ‘Not believing’ in father Christmas? ‘Not believing’ in gnomes? Of course not! And neither should we teach children that the bizarre beliefs of the most recent superstitions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are worth considering. After rejecting the twenty thousand or so religions humans have followed over the millennia, surely it’s time rationality prevailed and the beliefs of these three relatively recent, monotheistic, warlike religions should be tossed into the same waste basket as the beliefs of the Incas.

hold up the reasons as to why atheists choose to be atheists, right alongside the reasons christians, muslims, jews, hindus etc choose their religion and i think you'd find the ranks of rational atheists would swell considerably.

weighing up all the fanciful fairystories littered with inconsistencies and contradictions when next to each other gives good perspective. As Dawkins so aptly puts it (to paraphrase): "We are all atheists to the thousands of gods that have been worshipped on this planet, some of us choose to go one god further."

Nice quote from Richard Dawkins julatron!

I think that 'Comparitive Religion' classes are a good idea. What's more they should be compulsory in schools belonging to a single religion. This way the children have at least some protection from the usual mind-bending indoctrination.

In the meantime society should reinforce the general idea that unquestioning religious faith is counterproductive to the human mind. THE 'DEFAULT SETTING' FOR THE HUMAN MIND SHOULD BE DISBELIEF. Only when the evidence is sufficient should the switch be made from disbelief to belief.

This mindset of disbelief is useful to the individual when combating the evils of tribalism and peer-group pressure. Scepticism and disbelief reinforces creative individuality and makes the human mind less open to manipulation and abuse.

ybgirp wrote:
"...it is not possible for a mind that believes in supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent supermen in the sky, to ‘meet’ with a mind that rejects such infantile notions."

Pardon me, ybgirp, but you do sound rather paternalistic when you say that, perhaps even a tad elitist and undemocratic. Don't you think your approach could be seen to be somewhat insulting to those who have a different point of view?

ybgirp

You talk about the meeting of the minds. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga said that demonstrating the existence or otherwise of God is comparable to defending the existence of your mind. How can I be sure that your mind exists? I can see and touch your body but the mind is something else. (I presume you would defend the existence of your mind.) To see evidence of the mind we need to look by inference at things such as planning, purpose, intelligence, communication, etc. To ‘see’ God you need to look for such things, and many claim to see such evidence for God in history, the sciences, the created order in the universe, its beauty and wonder, and God’s ability to communicate and affect our daily lives (though Plantinga could argue it better than me.)

What do I mean by teaching atheism? If I wanted my kids to believe in atheism, I would try my hardest to ignore God, probably deny His existence if the subject ever came up (and it inevitably would), and consign belief in him to the ignorant or mentally unstable. Very importantly, I would need to come up with an atheistic creation myth, in order to be able to explain our existence, how the world just popped into being, because the natural order begs for an explanation. Darwin’s ideas and related explanations have been filling this intellectual void for a while despite their counter-intuitivism and inability to convince the population at large. And I would buy lots of books from carefully selected authors and pay homage to the High Priest of Atheism – the right honourable Richard Dawkins himself.

This is what I mean by teaching atheism. The Russians and many neighbouring countries tried it in their education systems for most of last century but I think they’re starting to give it up as a lost cause.

continued …

Christianity is based on the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. His teachings are contained in the writings of the Gospels. If you’d like to call these writings and others associated with them ‘myths and legends’, then fine. But they have been heavily scrutinised, even on a daily basis, by eminent scholars. The conclusions of which, I think, are worthy of sharing with our kids.

TR

You say comparative religion classes are a good idea and should be taught even in single religion schools. I am no expert on what is taught in every school around the country but, in my experience, this kind of thing often happens in private schools. For example, my wife tells me that in her Anglican girls’ school where they had regular religious education, she also learned about other religions. I could give other examples.

You said the default setting for the human mind should be disbelief. I agree that heavy doses of scepticism are healthy for the mind. Blindly believing anything is bad. However, much of religion, even in single religion schools, is not taught this way, and where it is, it is often counterproductive.

Many of the strongest Christians I know came to faith from positions of scepticism. They are Christian because they were convinced by the weight of argument against their original position, or an overwhelming encounter with the reality of God (or both). A famous example of this is C.S. Lewis who was an atheist university lecturer. Even Jesus first disciples you could argue started from a sceptical position. Their ideas of Messiah were destroyed when they saw Jesus die. They only started to proclaim their faith after witnessing convincing proofs that Jesus had resurrected.

True scepticism is a good thing. If only there were a few more sceptics around when it comes to evolution, in place of the devout believers that reptiles turned into birds millions of years ago, though no one saw it happening and no one can explain how it happened. More scepticism in many areas of our public and private schools would be a good thing.

Ah…. We have another creationist in Mick V; someone else who can't imagine life without an overlord; who thinks because he doesn’t understand how it all began, it must have been his personal god who made it.
Apis, I hope I sound insulting because I am insulted by religionists who tell the world they invented morality, decency, goodness and self-sacrifice. I am insulted by religionists’ insistence that theirs is the only way to live and laws should be based on their irrational notions of a supernatural lord and master in the sky who arranges everything – even his own ‘snuff’ movies with all the catastrophes and wars and slavery, and horrors his favoured creations – humans, come up with. Religionists do not have a point of view, Apis; that implies thinking, reasoning, observation of fact, and contemplation of history. Religionists blindly follow dogma. It is faith they revere above all else. Because if you start to examine the bizarre claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you discover they are as sensible and believable as the beliefs of the pre-Christian Zulus, Aztecs, Norsemen and Neanderthals… and you would consign them to the same file marked “Ancient belief systems.”

The article was a reasonable article. The beginning of the debate was heartening to me, as I have very strong views as to what my children are told by adults at school.

CJMorgan, now you understand my horror at what happens at primary state schools. It is unfortunately the Boazy's of this world who are fanatical enough to want to recruit souls who go and sprout nonsense to innocent children of unsuspecting parents. I was appalled at what my daughter came home with. Nobody asked my permission for her to be told this stuff and this in a public school funded by tax payers in this supposedly secular society.

I'm given forms and have to go to 'parent's information' evenings on 'sex' education, I have to give permission before the children can attend, but not for something as fundamentally important as spiritual and moral teachings. No, I actually have to demand removal from the class. It is outrageous.

General teaching on philosophical thought, both Religious and non-religious, would be fantastic. Unlike the Runners of this world, there are many non-Christian people who live exemplary moral lives. I wonder if he realizes how similar the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims sound?

Well written Yvonne:
The Head teachers of all state schools are legally obliged to inform parents of proposed religious instruction, and of the parents'right to refuse. They must post you a form for this purpose. You and other concerned parents must go to the school and insist that the students are given useful, valuable work that is assessed properly, in place of the religious indoctrination. Only parents can stop this evil [I use the word advisedly] because both major political parties are infiltrated with dogmatic religionists, and most marginal seats are subject to the block voting of fundamentalist religious groups. It is also important to realise that about 90% of all so-called 'independent' candidates are in reality representing fundamentalist religions, so be very wary when you vote.

Mick V,
-Your mind is your brain, a collection of electrical and chemical impulses that can be manipulated by drugs and scalpels to create a different mind. This is routinely done by medicos; the impact of appropriate drugs on the minds of people who want to kill themselves/others/or who think they are a parrot, is often truely astounding. I recommend a book by Stenger 'God; the failed hypothesis. How science shows that God does not exist' who impassionately expounds on some of these ideas.
-There are many atheists today who came from positions of belief, including the ministry. Some have books and blogs.
-If you are honest I think you will realise that your opposition to evolution only comes from your faith; why else would anyone care if reptiles evolved into birds? I think that it is eminently more plausable than the alternative; that God just clicked her fingers and created everything in one puff.

Quite so, Yvonne. RE's bad enough in State schools, but apparently standards and safeguards are even lower in some church-run schools:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22078268-952,00.html

CJMorgan, at least in a church run school a parent knows that there will be religious teaching of a particular kind.

I was hit for six when my daughter came home quoting bible texts from a public school. The kids got a lolly if they got it right. Or, my daughter thought this the funniest thing, the world was created 4,000 years ago, the dinosaur bones included.

There were none of the parables that Jesus told his disciples, I asked her, these were the stories I loved as a child. There was lots about prayers being answered if you REALLY believed, statements about scientists vs those who love God and visual 'jokey' work sheets ridiculing evolution.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with teaching and learning about morals or values, but everything with fundamentalist Christian indoctrination.

I was wild, withdrew her and she was then made to move her desk to the back of the class and sit with her back to the class during RE. So I wrote a letter to the department of education asking how this exactly fitted into their waffle about equal opportunity and respect for all children. I got a tepid response back about my right to withdraw her from RE and the school then contacted me.

Why do parents need a 'right' to withdraw? The education department needs to ask my PERMISSION for this. A parent who wants this kind of stuff should need to put in the effort, not the other way round. And you need to go through this farce every year.