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.

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

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.