The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The war for children’s minds > Comments

The war for children’s minds : Comments

By Stephen Law, published 21/8/2007

If authoritarian political schools are utterly beyond the pale, why are so many of us prepared to tolerate the religious equivalents?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
This will be interesting because a lot of those who damn 'church' schools support Islamic schools as complying with 'multiculturalism'.

That said, there is no doubt that some Catholic schools have exceeded their educational charter in the past by drubbing catholicism into students. I went to a Catholic convent school for music instruction and while I am the first to applaud the standards of music excellence of that Order of nuns and I was a good music student, the amount of religious instruction and observance and the discipline enforced with it were excessive and harsh. In think that many of the nuns were kind inside, but the rules and leaders they obeyed forced them into cruelty. Many nuns were lesbians and their ways were feared by their colleagues and students alike.

I do not decry all modern Catholic schools, but like their Islamic equivalents, intolerance of other beliefs and interference in politics are never far below the surface.

I see nothing wrong with most 'religious' schools, for example the Lutheran private schools, because their spirituality and moral code is inclusive, not exclusive and they are about developing good citizens and sound ethics, not religious obedience.

Dawkins (The God Delusion) and atheists like him prove to be just as bigoted and prone to logical fallacy and 'brainwashing' as the organised religions they decry.

Governments are not going to step up to the mat to build enough public schools.

But who says that the State can always be trusted? Governments of all political persuasions have proved that they will re-write history and all put political imperatives first. So independent schools are welcome as one of the bulwarks of democracy and religious schools are welcome too as long as they do not teach bigotry or forget that this is a secular state.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 10:16:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would recommend that this article be printed out so that it can be re-read from time to time. Email it to as many people as you can.
Posted by healthwatcher, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 10:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An aim to reduce the intellectual curiosity of a child is despicable. This article follows only just after last night's Four Corners where Ken Hams and others of his ilk were shown using a comprehensive range of emotional pressures and many unprovable beliefs, even lies, with the aim of convincing those children in the audiences that the Bible is the infallibe word of God. No matter that some of the Old Testamant stories tell of abominable atrocities (read the stories of Joshua' activities) carried out in the name of their god. The evil of such prophets is never highlighted. Joshua would rival Pol Pot and Hitler.
We need new laws that properly protect the rights of children and the first of those laws should protect children from having their mental abilities and self confidence undermined.
Churches for centuries have taught human beings that they are sinners, undermining their self confidence, and then preyed on them by advocating that they need a savior. Recent damages claims have revealed many agents of that saviour are no better than Ted Hazzard.
It is time to introduce ethics as a school subject and to consign religious indoctrination to the dustbin where it belongs.
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 10:38:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Decades of secular humanist brainwashing has led thousands of even non believers to send their kids to schools where they are going to get at least some moral guidance. Why else would so many non believers want their kids to get the fruit of believers. It is not like they are getting their education at the expense of the tax payer like those in the failed State schools.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 10:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sigh,

"Failed state schools". Umm nope. State schooling manages to send out a vast majority of its students with the required skills to either enter the workforce or continue their education. This is despite a lack of resources and an idealogical obsession - at least at the federal level - with running the whole system down in favour of private/religious schools.

The job of a school is not to force students down one idealogical path or another. That is the parents job. Instead students have to be educated in both the ability to gather facts and the ability to think critically, to not accept a statement on face value but to do their own research and come to their own conclusions
Posted by James Purser, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:11:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said - an incisive and important article. The problem of child indoctrination is widespread and is generally encouraged by many who should know better. Education based on religious dogma is a curse throughout the world, and is getting worse, with results plain for all to see. The problem is compounded in Australia (even more so in America) by a federal government dominated by an evangelical right faction. There should be no government funding for any school that, either covertly or overtly, has the aim of turning children into indoctrinated automata - a restriction that regretfully would exclude most government funded 'private' schools in Australia today. The pressing question is: what can we do about it?
Posted by GYM-FISH, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the writer about the Constantinian aspects of religious education in some schools both past Catholic and present so called Christian schools. Surely the gospel is always proposed not enforced. It is expected to win its own way in the argument. However the liberal ideal that students make up their own minds when they have no minds to make up is also unfortunate. The faith should be presented in schools in a similar way that other subjects are, as an attempt at truth, not as an optional extra that one may choose if one is “religious”.

Secular humanism has now been unmasked for what it is; the ideal that only the absence of a story may be permitted. But we all adopt stories as ways of interpreting the world, the absence is just a vacuum into which inadequate stories may lodge. Thus are students are at the mercy of the thin stories of capitalism or personal fulfilment or the necessity for intense experience etc. My past article may be of interest:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=655

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:30:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Humanism is not a vacuum, Nihlism is a vacuum, they are two different concepts. What it might be showing is a tendency for some parents to expect the schools to become surrogate parents, teaching the values and mores that the parents themselves should be teaching their children.

If you want to teach religion in public schools, how about running comparative religion studies. In this area as with no other, the "Truth" has as many definitions as participants, and as such the state has no place presenting one "Truth" as the "Truth.
Posted by James Purser, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If your not of that particular religious persuasion it's none of your business and get back to your public school where you belong. Worry about the minds of the children in public institutions if you will but, leave off with the persecution of religions and their education centres. Children studying at religious schools will never be helped in any fashion by the God haters and the 'social designers' who think everyone ought to think just like them. Mindless autotoms spreading belief in nothing as an option to having faith in the divinity of life. No responsibility for their society and no consequences for their decisions or lack there of.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:45:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Purser said: "The job of a school is not to force students down one idealogical path or another."

James,

I generally agree with you, however the State education departments and individual State school are not immune from that. Worse, there is no accountability, the attitude is that you either take it or leave it.

A bit away from the central point but it is our experience and that of many of our friend that where a child is experiencing problems s/he will not get ongoing coordinated counselling and support through the State school system and it is almost certain that he/she will eventually 'fall through the cracks'.

Our experience and that of our friends is that such problems are better monitored and followed up at the independent schools. Maybe that is because of their ethics, maybe it is because the staff are more accountable and maybe independent schools attract people who want to teach and not waste their days dealing with the Education Department busywork, who knows?

There are good State schools, but lets not try to bluff anyone that they offer intellectual independence because they don't. There is significantly less independence of thought for the teachers and students at State schools than at private schools and they know it. State schooling, especially at preparatory level is always the first target of social engineers and for good reason.

Have you considered that the opponents of private schools and especially religious schools just might have a secondary agenda in mind?
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:49:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To teach children the usual fairy stories about "jesus" is to do them a dis-service.

If they have half a wit of real intelligence left over by the time they see through the associated stories of the tooth fairy, the easter rabbit and santa claus they should also understand that they have been sold a lie about the parental diety---a very consoling lie yes, but still a lie. And also a dis-empowering lie which cripples their capacity to be truly responsible for their presence and actions in the world.

This essay addresses the nieve mommy-daddy "creator" god idea

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html

For a unique understanding of Conscious Childrearing please check out:

http://dabase.org/children.htm
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:51:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'To teach children the usual fairy stories about "jesus" is to do them a dis-service.'

To teach children the hopelessly scientifically flawed theory of evolution is to do them a dis-service. The text books continue to publish the greatest hoax of our modern times. Santa surely has more chance of being true than evolution. Fail to teach the truth results in these kind of lies being swallowed.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 12:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,
It isn't just evolution which discredits creationism and the existence of an omnipotent being. It is astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and geology.
We live on a planet which did not become suitable for life until long after an earlier sun in our vicinity gave up some of its matter to the region of the ball of matter (mainly hydrogen) which condensed to form our sun some 4.5 billion years ago. This occurrd when the oldest objects in the universe were already about 9 billion years old. It is difficult to contemplate such a long span of time but it is that span which made possible the first life forms on our planet. If that time span and our era is compared to a year we came into being near the very end of the last hour of the year.
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 1:02:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great another piece that will have the God squad spreading hate and lies again. My view is that religion if taught at all should be taught at home outside of normal school work. It's always funny the level of supidity that is displayed by otherwise seemingly intelligent people. Cornflower I'd love to know just what you mean by your statement "Dawkins (The God Delusion) and atheists like him prove to be just as bigoted and prone to logical fallacy and 'brainwashing' as the organised religions they decry.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 1:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle the key here is never argue with a fool you'll only endup looking like one yourself. Creationist are not big on logic that's the only way they can believe this stuff is to have a thought process like this. It say so in the bible the bible is true, if you find anything that cast doubt on the bible it must be of the devil and therefor false.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 1:38:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evolution isn't just the greatest hoax of our times. It's been a great hoax for billions of years now. Through all sorts of species' times. No doubt it'll continue to be a great hoax when apes learn to speak and take over the planet.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 3:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As our Constitution does not permit the making of laws about religion it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ban religious teaching in schools.
Therefore we need a balance, perhaps by way of a national curriculum, that will introduce children to a wide range of thought and opinion. State schools do a pretty good job of inculcating at very least marginally left wing values and philosophy - and often stronger than that if the local schools are any example. Fee paying schools seem to be more inclined to be middle of the road or right wing. We therefore have a range but not a balance.
Perhaps more schools need to do the International Baccalaureate with the compulsory units on Philosophy and Logic?
Teachers' unions have been opposed to a national curriculum because it would need to entail balance. It would also cut back on state power bases and narrow state based curricula. Why do we tolerate that?
It is no better than the religious base of many fee paying schools and does not have any moral or spiritual basis...for what they are worth.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 4:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think it really matters what school you are at, if you come across people with closed minds you will be taught their way. A religion teacher at a public high school told my daughter that the only real religion was the Catholic religion and that all other religions were wrong. When questioned about it she answered every time with 'the Bible tells us so'.

I have two in a Catholic High School and two in a public school and at no time have the two in the Catholic High school ever felt pressured about religion. Of course it might just depend on which school or more importantly - who is teaching the class and what they believe!

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 4:33:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"These schools would be accused of stunting children - of forcing their minds into politically pre-approved moulds."
But that is precisely what the Liberal and Labor government have been doing including closing down schools: A market for education is in the making. That has been taking place since the mid 1980's and that is a right wing perspective. Clearly, to undermine and degrade the social infrastructure of learning and subordinate it to the profit considerations of Big Money. Despite how many times education is paid for over and over in taxes. Big Money gets first and final say. Objectively, to turn education before all else, into the holy dollar. In consequence, they then start cutting into everything that interferes with the process of profit making including the replacement of experienced and well qualified teachers. The 'political pre approved mould' is the "Australian values" parochial agenda designed to manipulate youth as recruitment material for Howards ongoing wars.
Posted by johncee1945, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 4:47:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am intrigued to know why "Cornflower" considers "Dawkins (The God Delusion) and atheists like him prove to be just as bigoted and prone to logical fallacy and 'brainwashing' as the organised religions they decry."

I would have thought that Dawkins was the epitome of logic with the whole of his belief (or disbelief) based on the fact that religion had no evidence other than blind faith and was not logical at all and had no scientific proof on which it could be accepted.
Posted by snake, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 4:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The governments and politicians of all stripes are against society; they stand for the private individual - albeit a wealthy individual - privatisation - private wealth. The right to a proper education is a universal right; however that would be horror upon horror for the politicians. That is why we can pay for education again and again, over and over then the politicians declare "there is no money for education." And there is no better way to undermine education than to bring big profits into the learning process. They are anti-social in every sense of the word. We should never forget that the politicians are a grasping and opportunistic layer in society that pitch their appeal to all on election day but represent themselves and Big Money. Objectively, bombing people in Iraq is far more important on their list of priorities than creatively developing higher learning.
Posted by johncee1945, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 5:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Communicat,

If you have some evidence for your claim that “[t]eachers' unions have been opposed to a national curriculum because it would need to entail balance”, please supply it.

The only advantage of a national curriculum is consistency. It may be consistently good, or it may be consistently bad.

We tolerate the various state curricula because we elect those governments in preference to their oppositions, whose education record, if Victoria’s is typical, are dreadful.

Victorian state curriculum is not in the slightest narrow. One could argue that it is so broad as to be unachievable in the normal 24-25 hour school week.

More schools doing the IB would mean a lift in standards compared with the VCE. I do not know about other states.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 5:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sure Chris, not a problem - all you need to do is look at what is currently taught. You get taught state geography and history (and, I suspect, sports teams) in something euphemistically called 'social studies'. You have state based curricula boards, state based examination systems, state based university entrance. Teachers in South Australia were complaining loudly that, if we had a national curriculum then the South Australian focus would be lost and the children would not be taught about their home state. I understand that there were similar complaints from Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. Even when it was suggested that there could be a state component they were unhappy with the idea.
You are right though - there are far too many things that are supposed to be taught. We could do away with a lot of it, especially in the 'social education' area. We could cut back on some of the other material too. It might leave time for some basics and perhaps allow some time for children to learn how to entertain themselves instead of relying on computers, television and adults for before, during and after school entertainment - that's my quota for the day so I won't be able to respond to the arguments I suspect you will try and put.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 5:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it peculiar that the writer and so many comments seem to accept the false dichotomy - that it is possible to have two types of education, one biased by values/ideology/moral standpoint, and the other one free from any of these things.
Of course, this is a nonsense. All teaching is influenced to one degree or another by the particular viewpoints of the teacher/principal/testbook writer/university lecturer/curriculum consultant etc etc etc.
The only real issue is, does the particular flavour of bias reflect your own?
As for the example cited - the complaint with political ideology in schools is not that there is some - but that it is not the same ideology as that of the parents. Do you really think that anyone would be complaining if the children were being taught from the same viewpoint as the parents? The 'right' tends to complain when teachers push a 'left' ideology and vice versa.
As for funding schools, surely parents have the right to determine what and how their children are taught? IF parents want their children to be taught with a particular moral/religious emphasis why should that be forbidden? And, why should some parents who wish their children to be taught a particular way be denied the financial support their tax dollars pay for everyone else to receive.
Of course, the above should be restricted to ensure that fundamental educational outcomes are being met - but that is no part of the complaint against faith-based schools. I am yet to see any evidence that these schools fail their students in imparting key skills in literacy and numeracy. On the contrary there is some anecdotal evidence suggesting they are, in fact, better in this area.
Posted by J S Mill, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 6:52:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There has been some interesting comments, mostly rational with a small percentage of closed mind idealogues.
There are strong views about standardisation of curriculum and for general outcome to equip students for the workforce.
Concern that teachers impose their particular ideological bias on students when actually the teachers most important role is to provide access to divergent views and to use their teaching skills to teach students HOW to learn, not WHAT to learn.

The secrets to learning lie in Understanding and the development of ones powers of logical reasoning

Ideal religious knowledge is best acquired by exposure to a wide variety of sects,including athesism permitting the student to compare faiths at the same time as they study the sciences including Darwinian theory and evolution. The final imperative is that whereas one's rights to have a faith must be respected, so too is one's rights to NOT have a faith.

Schools need to provide social boundaries and a safe learning environment free from violence whilst nurturing student's curiosity
Children's spiritual development is the perogative of their parents
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 11:04:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,

Can you help a digital dinosaur? I notice that you have posted first to this topic. I have never seen an article listed with zero comments, but whether this is simply due to not being online at the right time I know not.

Is there a place on the site where topics come up for preview, or is it all done by telepathy? I know the answer must be staring me in the face somewhere, but it doesn't seem to be in front or on top. What am I missing?

I have greatly appreciated some of the posts you have recently made, not only here, but to the "Cave Men Walk the Earth" topic. Do keep it up. You say it all so much better than many others. Well, no, that's not quite right, because there are so few saying anything like what you do. Let me rephrase: if there were many others revealing the unrecognized truths underlying or surrounding these topics, I doubt that they would do it as well as you.

Thanks in anticipation. I am currently posting in the General Discussion: Elections area in the thread to "Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide", now being used by daggett (James Sinnamon) as a support repository for his article "Dictatorial Conduct", to which you have posted. If you can afford a post and can help, it would be much appreciated.
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 10:04:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forest...you may be a 'digital' dinosaur but you are an absolute well of knowledge :) don't go away....

The article title is quite worrisome... this bit.

"why are so many of us prepared to tolerate the religious equivalents?"

I'll bet that this author would be out there waving the 'tolerance' flag for every other thing..... and claiming that those who (for example) crave 'selective immigration' are.."RACIST BIGOTS and INTOLERANCE SYCOPHANTS"

Yet here.. his own words are borderline Cultural Genocide.

I presume he doesn't mean we should CULL those who wish to convey a Christian education to their offspring, but what DOES he mean ?

OUTLAW them ?

I don't mind if he waxes long and eloquent about 'Public funding' for religious schools... that's a different debate, but here.. he is deliberatly advocating 'ideological intolerance'.

If the ideas contained in Christianity were 'dark and dangerous, seditious and warlike' ok... I can see some point in attacking them, but when the whole focus of the faith is
1/Love God
2/Love your neighbour
3/The Kingdom of God is in our hearts not the Parliament.
....one wonders where this anti Christian 'hatred' is coming from or is based on ?

It simply underscores how those yelling 'tolerance' are in fact VERY INtolerant..and self serving.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 11:25:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having read the author's book, and listened to him speak last night, I can reassure some of the alarmed poster's here. Stephen Law is not advocating the closure of all religious and faith based schools. He believes many such schools can be just as liberal in their pedagogy as secular schools. He says so over and over in his book, and also said it over and over last night, though - from their reaction - some of the religious in the audience appeared to be unable to hear what he had actually said.
What he is advocating is liberal rather than authoritarian pedagogy. In other words, he believes children should be taught to think and to question rather than be indoctrinated or taught to accept anything at face value - even religion. He advocates the removal of public funding from authoritarian religious schools. If there were authoritarian political schools of the kind he uses in his analogy he would advocate the withdrawal of funding from them, as well.
Whatever the conservative propaganda, pedagogy in all Australian public schools and most Australian faith schools is decidedly liberal. As teachers in both systems are trained in the same courses at the same university's they tend to follow the "think for yourself and question" method. There is evidence, however, that some religious schools - the more fundamentalist in nature - are moving to a more authoritarian (don't question, just accept) stance. This may be one reason why public school students are both less likely to drop out and more likely to outperform their private school peers once they get to the very liberal learning environment of university. (There are 3 studies that back this, by the way, the latest by Ian Dobson of Monash Uni).
Posted by ena, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 12:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I might be wrong, but it seems some of the critical comments about schooling really mask a bit of hostility towards kids and adolescents. For example, Communicat’s comments about returning the curriculum to basics so that kids learn to entertain themselves seem glib and self-righteous. How would you keep a 16 year-old engaged all day at school by teaching the “basics”? Why would you want to try? The idea that kids can be prepared for an increasingly complex world armed with nothing but the 3 Rs is simply nonsense.

JS Mill is spot on about values and perspective. There is no such thing as a neutral perspective in teaching and learning any more than there is neutrality in news reporting. We tend to be irritated when a contrary perspective is put. I know of many public schools where teachers promote socially conservative values and have a decided bias towards Christian ideologies. Schools tend to reflect the social mores of the staff and the communities in which they exist, as you would expect. Curriculum development in most states and, especially in NSW, explicitly allows for this variety and actively tries to get students to recognise their own perspectives in relation to the content. For example, check out the Studies of Religion HSC course and most of the other courses. Here’s the link:
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/sor_guide.pdf

Finally, I disagree with the issue of equivalence when it comes to the expenditure of public funds on private schools. I think public schools should and should always have a prior call on public funds. I don’t think it’s the state’s role to fund private choice and the consequent duplication of resources.
Posted by DamienJ, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 1:27:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
snake: "I would have thought that Dawkins was the epitome of logic with the whole of his belief (or disbelief) based on the fact that religion had no evidence other than blind faith"

On what evidence does Dawkins base his own faith in atheism? Either way it is about faith. Maybe he should de-bunk himself.

Safer ground is to say simply that one cannot find evidence to support a certain belief.

He is an attention-seeking popularist de-bunker who flits like a gadfly through sciences he poorly understands. He is one hell of an entrepreneur though - speaking in terms of fodder for airline booksellers, not serious work.

For the record, I am concerned as any other about religions screwing up people and society. However the religious schools in Oz are quite benign, teaching ethics and values that are not inappropriate for all citizens in a secular State. But we should remain vigilant for any change in that circumstance.

This criticism of Dawkins is spot on:

The Dawkins Confusion, Naturalism ad absurdum by John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame

Quoted here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 3:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs –If you are not of that persuasion its none of your business.
I believe that each child has the right to the full development of his or her potential. That outcome is not likely if their parent has been subject to indoctrination and is intent on passing on the indoctrinated beliefs instead of genuine knowledge and a spirit of enquiry. Parents don't own their children. They hold each of them in trust for the child's future.
Chainsmoker –Evolution isn’t just the greatest hoax of our times. Its been a great hoax for billions of years.
The Theory of Evolution only came into being 150 years ago. Science now accepts this theory to nearly the same degree that it accepts the theory of gravity or of thermodynamics.
Communicat- Constitution does not permit the making of laws about religion
The Constitution does allow laws on education and behaviour with children and such laws are what are required.
Kenny – Never argue with a fool
I present my arguments with the aim of enlightening the thinkers and waverers. I agree some people are beyond help and I use them as a foil.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 5:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The mesmerism that the universe [one song] is all coincidental and no thing was meant to be isn't worth the price of the magicians hat. All things is a fluke? That there is no nature of all things? A conspiracy of flukes? Or you believe in design because the nature of something predisposes that all things are inclined. The disposition to do or be by design. Like the innate talents given to each and every child that will hopefully with proper parenting and mentoring see each child into a mental and emotional successful adulthood.
There is no war for the minds of the children. It is a battle between competing adults to see who will directly influence the child not for the sake of the child but, for the self-gratification of the adult. Be that mother, father, teacher or preacher. Though these like are the minority, they demand the most attention by the use of terror tactics that would put the Mongol hordes to shameful incompetence. The minority rule through the generation of fear of the minority who cause all strife. We do not have general fears. We have specific fears directed to a minority of ill behavior found in all institutions directed by political expediency and not directed to the benefit of the individual. Several teachers are actually needed per class but, at 60,000 a year and full union, the cost would make education a thing for the very wealthy. So we are stuck with probably what are or were good people of good intent who have become authoritarian for their own survival.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 5:12:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was not intending to sound glib and self righteous. My apologies if it came over like that.
I really do believe that some sound basics so that children feel confident about reading, writing and maths are essential. I also believe that children should have a good grounding in a community language other than English, world affairs with enough history and geography to understand them in context, some basic science so they have an understanding of the physical world and some skills in music, art, craft and physical education that is not based on being good enough to be picked for the sports team. A little logic and morals would do no harm although some would argue the latter should come from parents.
My worry is that schools are so busy teaching social education and rights before responsibilities or reading that children do not have the cultural literacy with which to understand their rights or their responsibilities.
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 5:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle, the arrogance and self-righteousness of your belief exceeds that of any average person of faith. I'd put you right up there with the fundamental religionists. Of course by the sound of it you have been heavily indoctrinated so you don't actually believe in anything but rather are spouting the party line ground into you by your nihilist upbringing or petty rebellion. Whichever, the damage well done.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,

That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out,
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 5:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps instead of looking at whether public versus private schools represent a propaganda battle, we should consider the conditions under which each operate.
State schools must take and keep the students enrolled there, regardless of their behaviour.
Private schools do not. Their teachers do not have to accept verbal and physical abuse, disruptive behaviour, and do not have to work within a bureaucratic, not merit-based, system.
It is understandable why so many parents would prefer to send their children to private schools. In many cases it has nothing to do with the philosophical bias of the school but of the safety of the child and the liklihood that it will enjoy the better educational environment.
Diana
Posted by Diana, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 7:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article. I loved the analogy with political thought.

The problem with this whole debate regarding religious education is that whenever as a parent you voice objections you are immediately branded as some immoral anti-religious being when that is not actually at issue.

As Jolanda pointed out it not necessarily the religion, but how it is presented and by whom. A child’s spiritual upbringing should be primarily the responsibility of the parents. Not schools. Schools at most should be just an adjunct to this and only with the knowledge of parents. Schools are there to Educate. Educate in the classical sense-to expand and broaden the world of children.

My eldest son went to a private non-denominational school and finished his last two years doing the International Baccalaureate (IB) http://www.ibo.org/. He loved it, and found it very stimulating and wished he could have done it his entire school life. He claims he learnt more in those 2 years then he did in 10 years of ‘Christian’ teaching.

My daughter is at a public High School which hopefully will be ready to start the IB by the time she is in year 10. There is no way she is going to finish any school doing any State’s curriculum. I’m with Chris on this. The IB will lift standards.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 8:30:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower wrote:
"On what evidence does Dawkins base his own faith in atheism? Either way it is about faith. Maybe he should de-bunk himself.

Safer ground is to say simply that one cannot find evidence to support a certain belief. "

Your words betray your utter ignorance of the nature of atheism. Atheists do not have faith in atheism, the word "faith" does not belong in the atheist lexicon. The second part of the above quote is what atheists DO say - ie, there is no evidence to support belief X, so I do not subscribe to it.

Atheism is, by definition, the asbence of something (define theism as you will).

Atheism is merely the refusal to accept religious dogma as fact and instead looking to nature and observable phenomena in an attempt to discern reality
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 9:37:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite so, stickman.

A common form of Christian sophistry is to try and reframe atheism as just another form of faith - which is of course precisely the kind of twisted logic that is taught at Christian schools.

I suppose kids who are brainwashed in this way grow up to believe that their myths and legends are the equivalent of scientific knowledge, and post nonsense to that effect in forums such as this.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 22 August 2007 9:59:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stickman said: "Atheism is, by definition, the asbence (sic) of something (define theism as you will). Atheism is merely the refusal to accept religious dogma as fact and instead looking to nature and observable phenomena in an attempt to discern reality"

No, that is not the usual description of atheism and I suggest you Google for the superior OED definition. But no matter, Dawkins' athesism is far more limiting than that, which is precisely the point I am making: Dawkins doesn't just doubt the presence of God he denies God's existence entirely. That is an extreme atheism where God-denial (or belief in the total absence of God) is as much a faith as the 'God-belief' of the religions he criticises.

As I suggested earlier, this is a silly, rigid, unscientific standpoint for him to take when the more robust conclusion could have been: "there is insufficient proof for the existence of a God, so I doubt the existence of God". He is expansive, emotional and carried away with hyperbole, which is unprofessional but then he had a book to sell I guess.

C J Morgan

Why do you restrict your criticism exclusively to 'Christian' schools? In doing so you show ignorance of Dawkins, who was concerned about all, not some religions. Your lack of balance could easily be construed as stereotyping and bigotry.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 23 August 2007 9:17:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower: "C J Morgan. Why do you restrict your criticism exclusively to 'Christian' schools? In doing so you show ignorance of Dawkins, who was concerned about all, not some religions."

My comment was specifically directed at the peculiarly Christian sophistry that attempts to reduce scientific knowledge to the same credulous status as 'faith'. I have no doubt that schools run by other religious groups engage in their own forms of brainwashing, but I haven't seen that particular form of irrationality in the ravings of their graduates. For example, I'm not aware of a Muslim or Hindu version of 'creation science' or 'intelligent design'.

I'd hazard a guess that Dawkins has forgotten more science than correspondents like Cornflower have ever understood. What qualifications does s/he have to question his scientific credentials, beyond the sort of idiotic reasoning that reduces science to the same level as myths and legends?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:02:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheism:
I guess you have to be one to know one;
For me, having been encouraged by an agnostic mother to attend sunday school we children went to a local Church of England school in Taringa, Brisbane. It was rather a benign form of Christian dogma that I embraced, participated in the church,served in choir and as Altar Boy attended services more regularly than most. That is until I reached a point where I developed serious doubts about many aspects of what was being preached.

In my search for truth I attended other denominations in Brisbane:Baptist, Methodist,Catholic,Lutheran and Apostolic only to learn they were all quite similar which merely served to reinforce my doubts. I too became agnostic and "wandered in the wilderness" until I was introduced to Darwin's "Origin of Species".

I am aware of the furore that Darwin's work created and the ridicule that he was subjected to by one-eyed christians despite the fact he was a practicing christian himself and did not write the work to challenge the existence of God or Creation.

However, science has moved on since his day and more evidence emerges with time to produce scientific evidence which refutes the myths and legends that have been created by 'Man' in order to explain his origins.

Fear of the unknown tends to encourage people to embrace the notion of 'hereafter'and 'resurrection'which of itself tends toward a belief in a supreme being. If people are afraid of death and have a need to believe in a god, then so be it but for this Atheist, I dont want to clutter my mind with dogma.

These days there appears to be an increasing interest in Buddhism as people search for life's meaning and drift away from established sects. Probably a safer course than embracing the evangelicals that create suicidal cults and more bizarre sects.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:30:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,

You've misrepresented Richard Dawkins quite strongly above. In _The God Delusion_, he posits a scale of atheism/agnosticism from 1 to 7, with 1 being C J Jung's "I do not believe, I KNOW" God exists, 4 being a bob each way, and 7 being absolute certainty that God does not exist. Dawkins puts himself not at 7 but at 6: technically agnostic (He quotes Carl Sagan: "It's okay to withhold judgment until the evidence is in!"), but leaning heavily towards atheism on the grounds that all the evidence indicates that the universe could exist just as it does with no supernatural intervention.

(He also quotes Woody Allen: "If it turns out God does exist, I don't think he's actually evil, the worst that you can say is he's an underachiever")

I read the article you linked above by Prof. Alvin Plantinga ("John A O'Brien Professor of Philosophy" is his job title, not his name). Plantinga's argument is completely empty: he seems to think there is a "problem" with Dawkins' skepticism of what he calls "the God hypothesis", and he paints an invalid syllogism ("If P is not disproven then P must be true", where P is the proposition that the universe came to be without supernatural intervention) as indicative of Dawkins' position.

A more accurate representation of Dawkins' opinion is Occam's Razor: "If P is the simplest explanation AND P is not disproven then P is almost certainly true".

Dawkins isn't a radical believer in anything; he's eminently reasonable. He is also reasonably angry at political pressure from religion to suppress reason, and even more angry at the constant use of faith to justify violence -- hence his consistent but well-mannered anti-religious bellicosity.
Posted by xoddam, Thursday, 23 August 2007 11:27:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs - Foyle, the arogance etc. and your nihilist upbringing.
I am the son of parents with little education. My father put his age up by five years to join the British Navy early in WW1. I went to a public primary school school in a mining and railway town during the depression and to a selective high school during WW2. I saw plenty of abject poverty. Both my parents were life members of the Red Cross and raised substantial sums that charity. My father was an agnostic ex Mason and my mother a Baptist as was I in my youth.
Both my parents valued education as a way out of poverty and I benefited from their efforts and example. Now at nearly 77 I spend many hours each week on charity work and as a volunteer tutor mainly in high school mathematics. Some nihilist! All I seek for children is an education that encourages intellectual curiosity and development of each child's full potential. I see religious indoctrination as inhibiting this.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm glad the initial article noted that there is some high quality liberal education at religious schools, and I would have to reject the notion that intolerance lies below the surface in all religious education. Certainly, there is intolerance of perceived immorality - my Catholic school's sex ed program presented a low view of sleeping around (but did not go so far as to condemn extramarital sex). But those values are the reason my parents sent me there. I learnt that the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy was abstinence; the program I am required to teach in the state system now teaches 14 and 15 year old boys thejoys of contraception but doesn't even touch on the illegality of sex at their age.

I would also add that my Catholic education taught me more about Buddhism and Islam than any of my students have ever learnt. And if they were trying to turn me against these non-Catholics, they hid it so well that the point escaped me entirely.

I'm not bashing the state system - after all, I am part of it and a proud part of it. But I believe that, just as parents choose to teach their kids to follow their own beliefs, they should (and do) have the right to employ like-minded people to make that education holistic. Would I send my kids to a Communist school? Probably not. But if parents support their beliefs strongly enough to establish and support such an institution, I won't stand in their way.
Posted by Otokonoko, Thursday, 23 August 2007 11:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle,"All I seek for children is an education that encourages intellectual curiosity and development of each child's full potential. I see religious indoctrination as inhibiting this."

And I'd agree with you if you were speaking on the subject of the singular exercise of the study of the Koran in say Pakistani madrassas. However your referring to Australian private schools that offer no indoctrination of any kind and the 'religious' education barely skims the ten commandments. And sir, as admirable as your social efforts are they do not omit your own rebellion from your own personal experiences or attitudes. That's why we have religious haters, women haters, men haters, police haters, mother haters, father haters, and those who wont eat their vegetables. Your heavy handed language identifies you. Tolerance isn't just something we expect from others. It's part of that golden rule one learns say at Catholic school. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 24 August 2007 12:50:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How extraordinary.
Aqvarius golden rule is the same one I learnt at my godless state school and my daughter's are learning at their godless state school too!
Could it be that most public and private schools teach the same core values and liberal pedagogy, and that most of the smears and sneers about brainwashing in either sort of school is exaggerated? As a recently retired godless state school principal said "If I could brain wash kids I'd start with be good to your parents and do your homework."
Isn't the issue here whether we should be funding schools with an authoritarian approach to education? They can exist, and people can fund them themselves, I suppose. But should we be publicly funding them if they teach children (as was apparently said in one prestigious religious school recently) to "avoid athiests, agnostics and public school students because they will lead you to sex drugs and crime." After all, that school happily accepts money from athiests, agnostics and ex-public school students.
Posted by ena, Friday, 24 August 2007 8:39:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goddamn Xoddam, you beat me to it!

The 7 point scale precisely demolishes your argument Cornflower. If you are going to criticise Dawkins's views, at least know what they are. I believe the 7 is what he classifies as 'radical atheism' which as Xoddam rightly points out is the 'God cannot exist' end of the spectrum. Dawkins says he is a 6 but that he would change his views on the existence of God should sufficient evidence present itself.

Did you actually read the book? Or just a negative review? Or did you read the title and make up your mind? The guts of the book, as it pertains to this thread, is that religious indoctrination of children is a form of child abuse, as children are told what their religion is at an age where their critical faculties are not even close to being well enough developed to make what is an extremely complex choice. As he says in the book, studies indicate that about 1 in 8 people end up with a religion different to that into which they were born. So 87.5% of people follow in their parents footsteps when it comes to religion. Does that seem like an outcome you would expect by chance?

So if religious affiliation is (largely) demonstrably an accident of birth, is there not a valid argument to be made that children be exposed to a variety of views before consigning them to a faith, which seemed to me the gist of the article?

Oh and apologies for the typo on absence Cornflower, I trust you were able to somehow glean some meaning from the sentence regardless. And I tried to find your OED definition of atheism and the website appeared to want me to pay for it.. maybe you could grace us with the definition?
Posted by stickman, Friday, 24 August 2007 8:41:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs- 'religious' education barely skims the ten commandments. How is it that the Jesuits took the view "Give me the boy for the first seven years and I will give you the man." When I was about ten a younger cousin said in my presence "A lie is not a lie if told for the Church." There is something morally and ethically wrong with both the above concepts. If church leaders were were really following the concepts of Jesus they would striving to dramatically improve the education of every child particularly in the direction of clear thinking.
A retired ordained minister who has known me both in industry and the community since the early seventies recently commented about my attitude and community work "You are the most Christ-like person I have ever met."
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 24 August 2007 10:31:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose the whole issue boils down to the concept of 'faith' and what you believe faith represents.

Religion - any religion, requires faith. The term is used invariably as a positive attribute.
The writings of each religion, be it the Koran or the Bible, require the individual to invest a certain amount of faith in their contents.

The only theological ideology that exists without faith is agnosticism. Even atheism requires an unprovable conclusion to be drawn.

Now - the issue comes down to your concept of faith. Religions stipulate that their followers have faith as a key part of the process - if your faith is strong, you are a good christian.

The non-religious however, view faith as a negative.

To use the term evolution in a different context, I believe that belief systems evolve through a manner of natural selection like any other evolutionary process.

Survival of the fittest.

The belief systems that succeed will either be more aggressive, or be structured in a manner that is conducive to persuading and maintaining converts.

It is no coincidence that both Christianity and Islam have had bloody conflicts, and it is no coincidence that elements in both believe it is a duty to bring new converts to the fold.

Getting back to the faith concept - more successful religions will be those that say "you must have faith." It's the very epitome of a circular argument. This statement, to an agnostic, reads "you must adhere to the religion regardless of obstacles in your way" which can then be extrapolated to "you must believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary."

Thus, while I don't believe the modern day incarnation of Christianity is aggressive, I do believe it has succeeded because it's scripture has evolved its structure in a manner that precludes honest followers from proper reflection.

They wouldn't "have faith" otherwise.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 24 August 2007 10:50:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle, I hope you slapped his face for giving you such an insult. The unmitigated effrontery of some Ministers. And Foyle, the Jesuits took such a view because they taught classical knowledge not opinion. YOUR OPINION that religion is the indoctrination of false Gods, false ethics and false morals, is just that; opinion. NOT KNOWLEDGE. Also you may understand that Guilds men have a similar expression, taking aprox. seven years to go from apprentice to journeyman to tradesman. So do Armies. It takes about seven years to produce a "professional" soldier, which one is generally considered upon achieving the rank of Sergeant.
That you consider an indoctrination of atheism to be of moral benefit and teaching basic understanding of theology or that understanding theology is harmful and amoral or unethical manipulation of children is in Australia an extremist attitude. I spent 12 years at Catholic school and if I am any example of your brainwashing it is with out doubt the dismalest of failures. They didn't teach me to be an unquestioning dolt. Far from it. They gave men the gift of moral independence, to know right from wrong, and to go out into the world questioning, reasoning, learning, giving. And that integrity of reasoning behavior included questioning the Church and the Catholic community and general society. Not autonomic acceptance.
So sir, I question your intent and others like you, who promote atheism as a reasonable argument to theism.
I do have a question though. When do they start teaching religion in public schools? My understanding(I have no experience)is that public schools don't teach religion. It looks to me as if parents have a choice. However, it can be argued that religion or no the children are still with out in making the choice. So how much is this really about the children and how much is it simply a moment for the God haters.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 24 August 2007 11:53:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarvis- In my teaching a child something not backed by very strong evidence is not ethical? The guilds and army are teaching trades based on evidence not faith.
I suppose in your view insisting that Gallileo accepted on pain of death that the sun went around the earth was an application of the church's classical knowledge.
It was the thinkers who led us out of the dark ages.
“Over 40 years ago the Readers Digest published a survey on integrity thresholds. The rough conclusion was that about one in five of any population have unshakable integrity. They just know what is right and do it. This behaviour had nothing to do with childhood religious training or the lack of it. A characteristic of the one in five was that they always questioned authority. At the other end of the scale - those with the lowest integrity threshold - revered authority."
This point was recently made by the author of this article in a recent ABC radio interview.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 24 August 2007 2:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Public schools dedicate one afternoon a week to what is called Scripture. This is provided by local community churches and parents have the right to choose which scripture their child attends ( generally catholic, anglican, uniting, jewish etc depending on demographics of local community) or to opt their children out altogether.
One insidious thing, however, is that kids whose parents do not want them to attend scripture spend the afternoon watching videos in the hall. Any attempt to give them something more productive to do is objected to by the churches who regard it as unfair "competition" to their religious offering. Even more ridiculous, the humanists in Queensland recently persuaded the Beattie govt to allow humanist scripture to be included as an alternative. The outcry from the religious was so loud, the attempt was abandoned.
I see this as authoritarian behaviour by the churches and a neat example of what Law is talking about. It seems many in religious education are only keen on choice when they think people will make the choices they approve of.
Posted by ena, Friday, 24 August 2007 2:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not what you teach the children that makes the most difference. It is how you treat them.

That is why Catholic Schools and private schools are becoming so popular. They treat the students and parents with more respect.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 24 August 2007 3:07:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aquarivs wrote:
"So sir, I question your intent and others like you, who promote atheism as a reasonable argument to theism."

What does that mean? How can you say atheism is not a reasonable view? You may not agree with the proposition that god does not (or may not depending upon how strong the position) exist but what is wrong with informing students that there is a significant proportion of the population that has no faith, as well as some of the better philosophical arguments that have been proffered, for and agin?

Further, who was arguing for 'atheist indoctrination?' I don't remember reading anyone saying it? Foyle certainly didn't. The point of the riginal article was not that there are not good religious schools. Remember this quote?

"Let me be clear that there are some excellent religious schools, schools that dare to educate rather than indoctrinate. But far too many, while officially liberal, are busy applying psychological techniques that, if not quite brainwashing, lie on the same scale."

The author was clearly making reference to that part of the educational spectrum that "insists its religion should be “a given and never challenged”."

I too was raised Catholic, went to a Jesuit school for the final ten years and would argue that I was well-taught and trained to reason and criticise. None of which is evidence that a secular school would not be capable of providing the same. Nor is it evidence that there are not religious schoolds that ARE harmful.

And whoever said that we should adopt compulsory logic units for the HSC was spot on, the IB system has that right
Posted by stickman, Friday, 24 August 2007 6:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ena, thank you. One class per week dedicated to a subject loosely called scripture with an opt out written into the study. Do the public schools have an opt out written into maths?, sciences?, english?, literature? , geography?. If parents state they know where they live and how to get about town do their children still have to take geography, or do they get to watch videos in the hall? Once a public school student learns the 12x table can they opt out of maths to watch videos in the hall? Or do public schools offer other classes in lieu of these subjects under their opt out clause? It would seem that there is some basic unfairness institutionalised by public schools. Foremost, the idea that humanist scripture? Whatever the hell that is? Should be regarded as an equal to the worlds body of religious work. Secondly, that the various Churches should be viewed as being authoritarian for taking note of such blatant prejudice and for not wanting to offer gameboys with their 30 minutes a week. I would also question how the Churches could be considered authoritarian when it would be the Board of Studies who as the authority would have initiated and made conditional this watered down secularist pseudo study of the scriptures given by poor harried Rabbi's, Minister's, and Priest who have to face such disrespect not offered to any other study, including I'll wager, the teaching of 'humanist scripture'.

Stickman, it means atheism is not a reasonable argument to theism. As oranges are not a reasonable argument to apples. One can not compare or replace argumentatively being with not being.

Foyle, the Jesuits never taught history, science, mathematics and philosophy based on faith. While I understand your ignorance and your 'need' to paint the darkest picture, I do not understand how you think closing young minds to the idea of religion is a good thing. You hold that all people must walk your path of atheism. Your not broadening children's minds your confining them to your personal misgivings and theological rebellion.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 25 August 2007 7:13:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aquarivs wrote:
"As oranges are not a reasonable argument to apples. One can not compare or replace argumentatively being with not being."

Why not? Do we agree that god (as conceptualised by the monotheistic churches) either exists or does not? There is not much in between, a fairly binary outcome I would have thought.

Having agreed on that (I hope) then why is it invalid to weigh arguments for and against the existence of god? Atheism is a perfectly valid argument to theism, the ONLY argument to theism, surely? Obviously it is not a question that has ever been resolved; greater minds than mine have attempted to prove and disprove god for aeons, to no avail. But surely it is a worthy endeavour to expose young minds to the fact that not everyone holds the same beliefs as their parents? Then they can make up their own minds. What about introducing a subject called 'comparative religion' with atheism considered as a philosophical entity? It will never happen in religious schools of course but the state system could do with such a program.

Can you honestly say that your religion (whatever it is) is not largely, if not wholly, an accident of birth? Were you to be born into a Hindu family in Mumbai, you would almost certainly now be a practising Hindu? (7 out of 8 according to the studies Dawkins cites). To put religion into a market context, there are high barriers to entry for competitors in the marketplace of ideas. I can't see why lowering them could ever be a bad thing.

Anyway - again, I make reference to the gist of the article, which was not that there are not good religious schools but that allowing (and funding) schools to teach that there is to be no questioning of its particular faith system (and consequently, denigration of those who hold other views) is tantamount to state-sanctioned child abuse. I hope you would concur
Posted by stickman, Saturday, 25 August 2007 10:14:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aah, I remember doing scripture at my public school in Sydney (note that we didn't do it in Perth or Brisbane, though). Back in the bad old 80s, the Anglicans stayed in the classroom, the Catholics were sent off to the weathershed at the back of the oval (there were about 10 of us) and everyone else sat in the corridor facing the wall. It seemed fine at the time, but nowadays it smacks of intolerance - and not from a genuinely religious school . . .
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 25 August 2007 11:27:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stickman, “Do we agree that god (as conceptualised by the monotheistic churches) either exists or does not? “
No we don't agree. Concepts don't exist. They are abstract thought, something conceived in the mind. The idea of a God is not even culturally similar in concept to construct any unified argument against existence let alone for existence. The three main monotheistic Churches do not agree on God.Yet they especially do not deconstruct belief to further obnubilate the study of theology and it's relationship to man's methodology to answer the unanswerable.
I have no religion, I have a spiritual connection with the world and all with in it. I have read every major religious text more than once and have enjoyed the stories of cultural beginnings, social precepts and foundation of laws and that relationship to how each people think and act. That you and others view such thoughts and practices as unnecessary means not to me. When I plant a fruit tree I don't want just a single blossom. I want an entire tree full of blossoms. When I look down the road I don't want to see a single track going off into the horizon. I want diverging roads, highways, dirt tracks, old washboard, fire roads and foot paths. You can have your singularity of thought and welcome to it and if you need to be thought of as intellectually superior. Hey! Your superior. Can I go now or do I have to listen to even more how narrow, one dimensional thinking is better than having access to many structures of thought. Or how diversity in thought processing is abuse. Quoting extreme cases or mocking what you consider immaterial to further education is not an intellectual argument vis-a-vie todays children.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 25 August 2007 3:25:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aquarivs - whe-hey, touchy!

There I was, labouring under the misapprehension that the forum was all about sharing one's perspective and asking others to clarify theirs if you don't understand it. Which is what I was doing, I thought quite respectfully. If you want to take your bat and ball and go home, no worries.

I have read your first paragraph there about five times and I still don't understand it. One of the attributes of good writing is making it comprehensible.

And as for intellectual superiority, I never claimed it and your sarcastic tone is unbecoming. I had to scurry for the dictionary for "obnubliate" which I am sure was your intent.

Good luck up there in the thought stratosphere, while Richard Dawkins, myself and the rest of us simpletons ply our limited, narrow trade of applying logic and rationality to such prosaic issues as the dangers of fundamentalist religion, unable as we are to access those many structures of thought that you do.
Posted by stickman, Saturday, 25 August 2007 7:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stickman. You did a good job of defending me and rebutting Aqvarvis. There are hundreds of variations of religion in the world and it is unlikely that one is right and all the others wrong. It is considered impossible to prove a negative but in the modern era I have not seen evidence to support the existence of an omnipotent god. An omnipotent god would by definition have to be good and just and there is too much evident of accidental unfairness or injustice to support such a possibility so I am about a six on the seven scale towards atheism.
I do not object to teaching comparitive religion but I would prefer ethics. Like you I object to indoctrinated adults using emotional pressures and hysteria to pass on the indoctrination to the young. The ABC Four Corners program last Monday was a good illustration of the evil which can be attempted in the furtherance of Christian dogma.
Posted by Foyle, Saturday, 25 August 2007 8:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stickman, talk about defensive. I am well aware of your approach to religion. Dawkins is your high priest and the God delusion is your bible. Given the chance you and others of your 'persuasion' would have no trouble brainwashing todays youth with that trash. Your just upset because the majority of people haven't taken to atheism as you have and you feel powerless over their lives. Your atheism is not benign and no different than the religious extremist. They feel just as you do. Powerless over others so they act out in anger and violence. Atheist extremist are no different. Your anger and violence mixed with other secular extremist behavior is not unknown. Skin heads busting up Jewish and Christian grave yards would be a good example.
I gave the word obnubilate to you as I had thought you'd get a kick out of verifying it's meaning. From the latin obnubilare. To act as clouds. Blocking out the light. A life sans spirituality. That's atheism. A dark cloud as theories go.
I am a bit touchy that individuals want to curb intellectual multiplicity in todays youth in the guise of secular supremacy. I'm a bit touchy about the extremist, prejudicial, bigoted use of the word brainwashing for subject matter 'hated' by a few based on bad experience, incompetent or incomplete education, or authoritarian upbringing. Can you imagine the hullabaloo if 'teachers' and their subject matter were treated as the Rabbi's and Minister's and Priest's are in ena's example of public school religious studies.
Perhaps proponents of the public school system could concentrate on their own syllabus put forth by the Board of Studies and not be blaming religion for that.
And you people wonder why even public school teachers have their children in private school. It's no surprise to the rest of us who demand balanced, full, non biased education for our children.
Grown men afraid of cultural stories. How empyrean.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 26 August 2007 2:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarius,
The reason parents are allowed to have their children opt out of scripture is at the very heart of secular public schooling. It is because secular schools are not formed to push a particularly religion or philosophy over any other. So, a parent - like me - who objects to religions who treat women as "lesser" ( and that's all of them, I'm afraid) - has the choice not to have my daughters taught beliefs that -in my opinion - do not respect them.
I would send them to humanist scripture, or a comparative religion course, if I was permitted that choice. I am not, because the churches do not want me to have it. I don't object to other children attending religious scripture, why should the churches object to my kids attending humanist scripture? And just because you don't know what that is doesn't mean it has no worth.
Geography, history and maths etc are not pushing a particular spiritual belief. They can be tested and there is hard evidence to support all of them. The same cannot be said for any religion.
Much as you might want to compell all children to attend christian scripture, fortunately, that is not your right. One more reason why Stephen Law's point about authoritarian religious belief is so important to keep re-stating.
Posted by ena, Sunday, 26 August 2007 4:28:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Communicat,

There are some matters peculiar to each state that such a state might reasonably wish to concentrate on; e.g, the Eureka Rebellion in Victoria. Most subjects can be the same throughout the country, but a national curriculum can easily be of a low standard throughout the country. That is why a national curriculum is not an automatic answer. Far more important is the quality of that curriculum.

The most important task of early schooling is to teach children to read because that ability will open up every other area for learning.

Schools are dumping grounds for society’s wishes – education on sex, bullying, drugs, alcohol, road safety, bike safety, financial “literacy”, etc. They cannot do all this successfully.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 26 August 2007 4:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs,
you probably remember that I share most of your sentiments and opinions. However, stickman - if I remember him properly from posts in another thread - is a student of medicine who is rather a seeker than a militant atheist.

It is understandable that a man may seek but not find;
it is understandable that a man may deny;
but it is not understandable that a man may find himself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe.
> John Paul II (then Cardinal Wojtyla), 1978. <

Of course, JPII had the communist regime in Poland in mind when speaking of those who forbid religious belief. That was the marx-leninist ideology entrenched in political power, but there are many people among us even today who would like to “forbid” the wider perspectives of a 21st century Christian world-view from the positions of “science”, “reason”, “logic” or even, by pretending to protect children. They are what one calls militant or aggressive atheists. I do not think stickman is one of them, I think he is one of those whom JPII had in mind in his first two lines.
Posted by George, Sunday, 26 August 2007 9:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ena, thank you for your response. I was wondering if I would hear back from you. I'm sorry. I have no answer to mitigate your fears. I have had no bad religious experience of institutionalised disrespect. All the Nuns I know are mature, well balanced, productive women with no more problems than anyone else. All the Priest's and Monks I know or have met were sociable, out going, kind men who cared deeply about their community and wanted to be there to ease the burden and offer understanding for the everyday troubles people experience.
When I was a little fellow one of our neighbours made a habit of 'stopping by' and was a great concern to my Mother. I found out later on when I got old enough to understand that he had been molesting me. I guess it never got too serious but, it was serious enough for my Mother. He was one of your secular humanist. I guess he didn't think it was wrong to mess with Catholic children. He probably thought he had a right.
I too don't think religion should be taught in public school. I simply say don't blame religion or the Churches for the Board of Studies actions, and if you favour public school education get involved and work as an advocate to have religion removed.
For myself and how I raise my children, religion is an academic exercise not something to be against nor to preach to others. I won't let my children go to public school because of the politicalisation of the social studies they are forced to imbibe and what I perceive as a lack of ethical principles. You get that lack of ethics teaching children by example that religious studies, Priest's, Rabbi's, and Minister's are to be prejudged and shown petty, socially ignorant, pissy disrespect. Schools should teach how to think not what to think. And parents should know better than to allow it. I don't. I pay over and above to make sure my children get taught properly. Even religion.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 27 August 2007 3:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Today, I learned a new word: "obnvbilate", from ovr colleagve aqvarivs.

It really is possible to learn something new, every day, if only one looks in the right place!

Thankyov.
Posted by xoddam, Monday, 27 August 2007 3:59:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it amazing that religion has caused more wars than anything else.Religion causes intolerance and hatred towards others.I believe in god but not religion.I went to public and private schools and the only difference was,more discipline in private.I do however resent the private schools getting more govt funding per head than public.All you really need to know to get through life as a decent person is "do unto others as you would have done unto you".Noone can prove their religion is the right one,be it worshipping the stars or whoever your particular god may be.The 3 Rs and how to become decent citizens are what we should be learning at school.Truthfullness and compassion covers all we need to learn about how to treat others.We need a lot more than that to earn a living.
Posted by haygirl, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 7:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a product of the NSW public education system from kindy to uni, and as the parent of two daughters who are entirely products of the NSW public education system - between us we've gone to about 5 or 6 public schools, none of us, not once, have ever heard religion dissed or condemned by any teacher, principal or staff member. To the contrary, many of the teachers were personally religious themselves. The unrelenting propaganda put out by people who either have universalised from a bad personal experience, or who haven't been near a public school in decades, is quite bizarre. There are good and bad schools of all flavours, always have been, always will be. To say one side -either private or public - has a monopoly on a particular way of teaching, or on bullying, brainwashing or social engineering or bad teaching is demonstrably bollocks.
Once they finished year12, two of my eldest daughters dearest school friends (her school was co-ed, public, comprehensive and had - horror of horrors - no uniform) - devout christians both (she is an athiest) - took themselves off to the US for their gap year to surf 50 states raising money for charity, to considerable acclaim. Like many of their mates back here - many non religious like her, she set herself to supporting them in everyway she could, to their great pleasure. Isn't it nice to see the religious and non-religious working together so well? That's what public schools can achieve when all our kids - regardless of background -sit and learn side by side. They discover they have more in common than not.
Can her godless school claim any credit for this? As they get plenty of blame for their mistakes (and no school is perfect - no matter how much or how little it costs), I think its only fair they get some praise for their successes too, don't you?
And as I sometimes say to my friends ( a little gleefully, I confess), all this for no fees.
Posted by ena, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 8:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
haygirl ,

If “religion has caused more wars than anything else”, would you list all the wars caused by religion and all those not caused by religion so we can determine the factual basis for your claim? The two biggest wars in all of human history, World War One and World War Two, with tens of millions dead, were not caused by religion.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 9:48:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice one Xoddam ;) Oh, that we were all svch accomplished Latin scholars and could astovnd all with ovr svrfeit of ovtstanding vocabvlary.

And thanks George, I believe you have just a tad more insight into my position. I wasn't going to dignify that idiotic rant with a reply though. Cheers.
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 30 August 2007 12:21:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course i don't have exact figures on religious and non religious wars.Look it up on the net.Just to name a few.French war of1562-1598.Ireland,orange and the green.Thirty year war in Europe1618-1648.Hitlers extermination of the Jews.We now have radical Muslims declaring war on Christianity.I am no expert on wars but if religious groups were living by what they preach then surely their should not be any wars on religious grounds at all.I have no problem with religion being taught at school,my problem is the fact that they all teach love and turn around and kill someone who doesn't agree with their particular creed.To say that someone who gets schooled at religious schools,learns more than public is a fallacy.Look up the university records re admissions and who gets the higher marks and you will see that for yourself.I believe in god but not religion.
Posted by haygirl, Thursday, 30 August 2007 5:57:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,here's some more.Spanish Inquisition.15th cetury Hussites slain.16th Pope Paul declared crusade.1572 france.17thMagdeburg/Germany.In the 30 year war 40% of population slain.Croation extermination camps 1940 killing non catholics.Jerusalem 1099 60,000 victims.Battle of Askalon 1099,200,000 slaughtered.Witch hunts. Now you tell me the wars that weren't religious.Sure a few have been political,not many.
Posted by haygirl, Thursday, 30 August 2007 7:40:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
haygirl ,

If you claim that “religion has caused more wars than anything else”, you really ought to have the figures to back it up. The Spanish Inquisition is not a war. Witch-hunts are not wars. Wars not caused by religion include World War One, World War Two, the Chinse Civil War, the Russian Civil War, the French Revolution, the Vietnam War, the various Indo-Chinese border wars, the Vietnam-China War, the Rhodesian War, the Angolan War, the Mozambique War, the war in East Timor, the various Roman wars of conquest, the war of William the Conqueror, the Crimean War, the various wars of independence in South America, the English Civil War, the War of Spanish Succession, the wars of the Swiss cantons. The list just goes one and on.

If you want to claim that religion has caused many wars, you will get no argument from me, but if you want to claim that it is the major cause, you need to prove it.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 30 August 2007 11:58:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah stickman, but you did comment. But did you clarify your interpretation of xoddam's post with him before using it as a weapon.
The intent of his post may have been benign and not belittlement as was your intent.
As for your last post. I think we are all more aware of your position. :-)
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 30 August 2007 12:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's right aquarivs, I did not seek to clarify Xoddam's intent, which should be fairly clear from the above threads. I guess the only way that his meaning would be clarified is by Xoddam himself!
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 30 August 2007 7:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris, I see your point.I find it difficult to understand people who murder in the name of religion.I can agree with protecting your property,family,freedom etc in war.I worded my assertion wrongly,I should have said it another way.Regardless of that,why do so called religious people find it neccessary to kill someone who doesn't agree with their creed.Religions are supposed to be about love and caring,not murder and mayhem.I'll be more careful how i word my posts in future.
Posted by haygirl, Friday, 31 August 2007 12:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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