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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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