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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.