thoroughly dishonest. mander should stop serving up straw men, and should address the real issues in wilson's piece.

Agreed, bushbasher.

I see that Mander's the current CEO of Scripture Union Queensland. Concerning the school chaplaincy program in Queensland State Schools, his predecessor Duncan Brown wrote:

<< School chaplaincy is a feeder ministry - it is a way of directly targeting potential Christians and bring them to God and into the church environment. >>

http://www.thefourthr.info/feds.html

The only place that religion should have in a public school is by way of inclusion in a social studies course that includes comoarative religion, i.e. schoolkids should be taught about religion, rather than preached to. Chaplains should be replaced by properly qualified secular counsellors who can provide support and mentoring without the pernicious influence of religious proselytising.

If religious parents want their kids indoctrinated in their beliefs, they should do it themselves, send them to Sunday school or whatever, or enrol them in any of the numerous religious private schools.

Yes but does what is taught as religion, especially the kind of essentially dim-witted religiosity that the SU promotes, have anything to do with Truth or Reality. Remembering too that the SU essentially promotes the false idea that only Christianity is true and that ALL other religions are the work of "satan".

For amusement I used to occasionally visit the now defunct SU bookshop in Flinders Arcade in Melbourne.It has gotten much worse now that it a Word bookstore.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

I wonder if Tim would be happy if all religions had the same access to these schools as his mod have got.

I agree with this article absolutely.

In fact, I'm looking forward to being able to teach school children the joyous truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Touch a child with His Noodly Appendage, and you touch the man!

It's a form of child abuse to NOT teach children about Christianity in State schools. Teaching our children a concept of God is all that separates us from the Nazi's.

TRUTHNOW78: [It's a form of child abuse to NOT teach children about Christianity in State schools. Teaching our children a concept of God is all that separates us from the Nazi's.]

Before we continue, I think it's important that myself and the other contributors here are reassured that the above comment is just a joke.

You ARE joking, right?

Tim Mander needs to find a better dictionary. Secularism is not that which "refuses to accept all forms of religious faith and worship". It is a principle whereby the state does not interfere in the religious business of its citizens (unless of course laws are broken), and does not favour one religion over another. Mander seems to view this as some kind of "enforced atheism" and appears to believe that if you're not advocating a belief in god(s) then you're advocating atheism by default.

Add to this his "atheism is simply a belief" canard. Tim, let me be clear about this. Atheism is a rejection of the claims of theism - a state of disbelief.

Amongst numerous strawmen arguments against Hugh Wilson we have "wants to ban religion" and wants to "an mentors", when all that's advocated is comparitive religion and no religious requirements for mentoring combined with the suggestion that effective mentoring does not require religious underpinnings. Furthermore, Mander argues that "care should be taken that these mentoring roles be restricted to suitable people who are carefully supervised and who work within clear guidelines", when just a few paragraphs earlier he argued that it's OK to bend the rules a bit, as if to say 'So what if a few science teachers include young earth creationism in the sylubus?'. A glaring inconsistency.

Perhaps Tim should keep to refereeing NRL games?

No TRUTHNOW78, the real crime is indoctrinating children with views that are not supported by evidence. In my view indoctrination of a child is a fundamental evil.
If we teach children to respect themselves and other well behaved people and to weigh evidence they will have a more fulfilling life. Religion has always been opposed to genuine knowledge. It was the Christians of Rome who started the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and brought on the Dark Ages.
If thoughtful parents decide to send their children to Sunday School I have no problem but in the 1000 hours or thereabouts of school time each year the State should be teaching children the essentials and one of those essentials is how to think clearly. Religion has no role in that State duty.

It's a joy to watch this specious nonsense being drawn and quartered by the above posters.

SU has been a beneficiary of government funds for the "chaplaincy" program. It must have a vested interest in defending the status quo, in order to wheel out its leader. The reality is that teaching religion is intellectual abuse. They teach that the world is 6,000 years old, despite scientific proof to the contrary. They are global warming denialists. I wonder how much industry supports religion as they are global warming denialists. Also religion has been instrumental in promoting a "work ethic" and makes billions of dollars annually through surveillance of welfare recipients and also putting them to forced labor (all in Australia) the forced labor violating their human rights. As its been said, religion is the "handmaiden of the state".

Religion also receives nationally billions of dollars in government subsidy in all churches through income tax exemptions, FBT exemptions, GST input credits, free motor rego, no council rates or charges, no stamp duty when dealing in property or transferring motor cars etc............ all because of a hidden phrase in the Tax Act defining charity to include "Advancement of religion".

The phrase "advancement of religion" ought be deleted from the Tax Act but I doubt any of our major parties would have the fortitude to end this subsidy where the rest of us are forced, by stealth, to pay for religion.

It is always useful to be kept abreast of the various religions recruitment drives.

Reminds us all to stay alert.

I hadn't heard of Mr Mander until today, but after only five minutes of Googling became rather fascinated.

He became CEO of Queensland's Scripture Union on January 9th 2006.

Given that a) Qld SU sponsor "Queensland's Father of the Year", and b) that Mr Mander was the 2005 winner of this award, I thought I'd trawl around to find out just how many days had elapsed between the two events.

Couldn't be more than a couple of months, I thought, and wondered for an uncharitable moment which of the two events had been decided first.

Only I couldn't find the announcement, anywhere.

So I looked on the Qld SU web site for a list of former winners - there's usually a list, together with a puff piece describing their wonderfulness - again, a complete blank.

But I did find information one one other former "Queensland Father of the Year"

http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/news/200405/s1103835.htm

I thought that would be a good place to stop.

But I did have a quick ponder on the linkages between:

i) Queensland's Scripture Union,
ii) their involvement in - nay, vigorous promotion of - schools' chaplaincy programmes,
iii) the selection criteria for the Queensland Father of the Year award, and
iv) the self-serving banality of the article here on OLO.

What a tangled web these folk weave, to be sure.

And ain't it fascinating when it all presents itself in the same place?

I certainly don't want compulsory religious education in public schools and would consider it inappropriate to instil fear in children about 'burning in hell' and other such nonsense. While reasonable Christian Chaplains might temper their teachings there are no guarantees that these old forms of abuse have ceased.

Would the author want his children to be brainwashed into Islam or another religion not of his choosing. I don't think so.

Using the anti-censorship argument in this context is disingenuous. Religion is a personal choice and should not be forced onto children too young to formulate their own ideas in a rational way ie. those ages where 'their' ideas are imprinted via other influences - parents, schools and friends or their family Church.

The dust Tim Mander is raising obscures the fact that the prime aim of Hugh Wilson and the Australian Secular Lobby (ASL) is to have statutory Bible Lessons by staff teachers removed from the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act & Regulation 2006. It's a reasonable proposition - eloquently and honestly explained at the ASL website: http://www.australiansecularlobby.com

Dear Tim Mander,

I oppose the school chaplaincy program and would like to see the chaplains replaced by trained counselors who are not missionaries and have no desire to get converts for their religion.

However, I think there should be more religion in schools. I would like to see religious education in the form of comparative religion. Many Australians have some form of religious belief, and students should learn about those.

PLEASE NAME those who you claim wish to exclude all religion from schools and object to comparative religious studies. Students of one faith may be reluctant to approach chaplains of another faith who are seeking converts. Public schools are for students of all religious beliefs and none.

Religious education has a place in the public schools. Missionaries and religious indoctrination have no place in the public schools.

Well well, Tim Mander speaks out. So the SU and their pals at the ACL must be worried that Rudd will not cave in next year when the current $165 million of taxpayers magic pudding runs out, and fund their so-called chaplains the $75, 000 a year, plus cars and on-costs they are seeking for these Christian-only lurkmeisters to hang around state schools running Hillsong programs and recruiting for all they are worth, for Jesus.

Amazing the gall of these people.

I've just had a look at the ASLs 'message in a bottle' website here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r8ESBkr128 and I neither saw nor heard anything to suggest they wanted to 'end religion in schools'. I re-read the Wilson article Mander was responding to and read nothing at all to suggest the ASL wanted religion out of schools.

It occurred to me that the message was a simple one: only Qld has Bible reading sanctioned by the state in public schools, and that means Christianity gets a free kick, and that should not be the case in a multi-cultural and multi-faith society.

Tim Mander needs to tell us which other state or territory in Australia sanctions Bible reading in state schools.

As for mentors, yes, let's have mentors in schools, but let's have that run by the Government to ensure we do not have the mentally ill evangelists being let loose, with no qualifications or training, spruiking for their religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Islam.

As for the Buddhist Society running 'chaplains in schools', they have one, in one state school, in the whole of Qld, while Mander has about 503 employed on tax monies, mostly with no qualifications or real training, most of whom are evangelicals who believe in a literal view of the Bible.

If we were to have a representative bunch of chaplains, most would be from the Vatican, then Canterbury, then Uniting Church... about three would be evangelicals from the ACL-Mander camp.

Well, this is as close as I've seen to consensus on OLO.

I have to say that I'm indebted to Hugh Wilson and the Australian Secular Lobby for bringing to our attention the quite anachronous anomaly whereby Queensland State schools are mandated by law to teach the Christian religion to their pupils.

They have a very good point, but I doubt very much that the Bligh government would risk alienating the apparently significant Fundy minority - and of course much less so the LNP rabble that passes for an Opposition. Indeed, it's precisely the kind of issue that the LNP is probably quite literally praying for.

So I guess we're stuck with it for now in Qld - but it's certainly worth agitating for Federal funding to be redirected into proper counselling and guidance facilities that have no religious or ideological barrow to push.

I think we just found one of those NRL CEO high fliers Antiseptic was talking about.

I've mentioned before that I attended a Queensland Catholic school. Interestingly, it was there that I participated in a comparative religion program. Study of Religion, a senior Authority subject, is a social science subject which examines the social impact of religion. It also introduces the idea of the 'seven dimensions of religion' - basically dissecting religious practice and belief to identify what makes religion tick. It was a very interesting subject. I learnt a lot about Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. I went on excursions to various temples and places of worship, spoke to many people of diverse beliefs and developed quite a good understanding of the world around me. While this subject is offered, to the best of my knowledge, by every Catholic school in Queensland, it is not on offer at many state schools.

I'm interested in this idea that state schools are required to teach religion. It appears that my employer is failing to meet his requirements. We have a chaplain, but his job is primarily to behave like a model Christian. He doesn't preach, he doesn't hand out too many brochures. He runs a youth group with voluntary attendance (in fact, students asked him to set this up), but otherwise he just teaches kids to be polite and to be nice to each other. The name 'Jesus' very rarely passes his lips. All this in a state school. While I don't really support the idea of a chaplaincy in state schools, I think that many of the objectors may simply jump to conclusions without too much information. Certainly the same job could be done by a non-religious person, but hell - Education Queensland doesn't pay his wages, so who am I to complain?

I can only add my voice to the above as Mander has been thoroughly routed. As I too have said before in this forum, I want my four primary school kids to learn about religion, but from an objective viewpoint. Ironically, it is often the religious private schools that provide “qualified” educators and balance on the subject, and the state schools that have to put up with fundamentalist voodoo administered by ignorant volunteers. As for the chaplaincy, rather than impartial and highly qualified counsellors offering “disinterested” and practical support—of the sort to be found in places like the Wesley Hospital, incidentally—vulnerable kids are targeted by a highly organised “mission” and opportunistically introduced into the blinkered world of these oleaginous zealots. It was a cheap solution for the Howard agenda to drag Australia back to the good old days of Christian hegemony, only too eagerly taken up by this overwhelmingly fundamentalist cohort. Where, Tim Mander, is this “overwhelming body of ‘opinion’ [no ‘evidence’ hey?] that affirms the value of mentors”, btw? You could use their support now.
In any case, as I say, I don’t object to “disinterested” and qualified mentors and counsellors; that would be great, just as it would be great for religious education to be part of the curriculum—that is, a global perspective on the teeming diversity of faiths, and their ‘effects’, through history. Government and government schools should be purged of religious bias. Religion is a private prerogative—indeed, even parents should respect that privacy, and stop imposing on the naive sensibilities of children.

Tim.
A very mild and reasonable piece but I see that you have attracted the usual cast of characters with outragious views. These people are not rational, they give a kneejerk response to anything that is positive of religion. So be of good cheer. There are those of us who appreciate your well reasoned attitude.
Peter Sellick

"...These people are not rational, they give a kneejerk response to anything that is positive of religion." -- Peter Sellick

And religion IS rational? Damn, I knew I should have paid more attention during those Scripture lessons! Have faith in your Sky Fairy, Peter -- he'll sort things out!

Eventually...

sells:

*) please point out how the posts in response to mander are "irrational" or "outrageous".

*) please identify where mander's "well reasoned attitude" actually addresses any of the substance of wilson's article.

put up or shut up.

Tim Mander seems to think that we wont see that his desire is to promote christianity. If it wasn't then there would be no trouble, just get the chaplains and R.I. classes out and put proper comparative religious studies in.

And yes, the chaplains can be nice folks. The one at my daughters school, that many parents fought hard to keep out, is a very nice lady. That doesn't mean the children don't know what the chaplains represent and are not influenced by the chaplains sanctioned position.

Further the schools have been bending and abusing the processes meant to protect the rights of parents that object. For example my daughter's school has pushed through a consent form for the chaplain against the objections of parents, and outside the intention of the legislation. It basically puts parents in the position of agreeing to the chaplain being present in major school activities or our kid missing out on those activities. Additionally kids are regularly sent to christian fundamentalist classes without parental consent where kids are given lollies as rewards for agreeing!

Finally, in the midst of all this we get the Gideons given free access to our kids, without consent or notification. This is all a bad deal.

I agree it is pretty much a consensus. I can only add my experiences in trying to educate my children to become good citizens capable of reasoned thought without the impediment of Religious Instruction.

during enrolment in primary school, I clearly indicated NO Religion, my children were to be involved in enrichment reading in the library during RI periods and were not to be punished by having to pick up rubbish in the playground.
I still had to confront the principal with an offending religious Zealot teacher to reinforce my wishes.
I attended to my children's spiritual development and they have turned out good human beings, without religious bias and raising their offspring similarly.
My eldest son has recently attended a church to satisfy his mother-in-law who wished to take his two year old to sunday school and confirm that neither he nor his spouse wish their daughter to have religious instruction. We balance her exposure by occasional visits to the local Islamic Community open days and take the time to talk about the experiences.

Although the article is about teaching religion in schools, it ignores the question of religion's being there at all.
Religion is a hugely diverse matter and a very personal practice.

It is a collosal social arrogance to require religion to be studied in any public school. Arrogant because it ignores the vast number of diffent religions followed in this country, each one of them as vital to believers as the next, yet only a very limited are favoured.
By whom?
There cannot help but be an amount of proselytising practiced by chaplains. This may affect the personal evaluation and decision-making abilities left uncorrupted in those students lucky enough to have escaped moral and attempted brainwashing thus far.
It is the traditional batle between hard facts and delusional belief.

I note with interest that Blue Cross reports the presence of just one Buddhist chaplain in just one state school in all of Qld.
This is possibly because Buddhists do not regard their lifestyle as a "religion", but rather a mix of philosophy, psychology and ethics.
Buddhism is scientific examination of causes and their effects.
Buddhism is atheistic, not recognising any god or supreme being as master of one's destiny or actions; rather that one is only answerable to oneself for the results of one's existence.
A study of that lifestyle is valid only by a sceptical, questioning mind not clouded by superstition.

Ponder wrote:

“Buddhism is scientific examination of causes and their effects.
Buddhism is atheistic, not recognising any god or supreme being as master of one's destiny or actions; rather that one is only answerable to oneself for the results of one's existence.”

No Buddhist school is scientific in the sense that they employ the scientific method of empirical observations, reproducible experiments, falsifiability and hypotheses which may be disproved by evidence. Buddha enjoined his followers to question all words including his own. Although that attitude is necessary for science, science is more than that. Some sects of Buddhism deify Buddha himself. Buddhist doctrines require belief in unprovable propositions the way other religions do. Buddha maintained that the way out of suffering is to renounce all attachments. He himself did it by leaving his family. Buddhist monks and nuns are enjoined to practice celibacy. One can label the foregoing as philosophical rather than religious beliefs. However, one accepts those beliefs on faith and not by any scientific process. A Buddhist sect uses mantras (mystic words) and mandalas (magical diagrams) for spiritual emancipation. That is superstition.

Some Marxists claim their ideology is science. Those who claim their beliefs embody some truth denied to others may use the word, science, to describe those beliefs. The religion called Christian Science does the same thing. However, these uses of the word, science, for philosophies, religions and ideologies which do not employ the scientific method should not be confused with what is generally known as science which concerns the investigations of the behaviour of both animate and inanimate matter using the scientific method.

Buddhists have faith in unprovable propositions, prescribed ritual not based on scientific reasoning and injunctions received by revelation along with mystical truths. Those are religious characteristics. My daughter is a Buddhist. She also has a good knowledge of science and regards Buddhism as a religion contrary to Ponder's statement that Buddhists do not regard their lifestyle as a "religion". Religions need not be theistic.

Madelaine Love,

I seriously disappointed in your repeated inability to provide any support for your positions. If you post again without independent references, I will assume your knowledge is limited to Greeny pamphlets.

Before I enter into email correspondence with you I would like to think that you have some substance. PS. I am not in politics but in a technical field.

As for my references, I doubt you actually read them. The science "blogs" are independent science journals the one chat site I referenced was a PHD discussing an independant news report:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/farmers-praise-gm-crops-in-eu-study-856907.html

The rest are Aus gov websites which are not known to be pro GM.

The CSIRO was established as an independent organisation to give unbiased research information, rather than selective information that companies might reveal, and prides itself on providing the facts free of bias. Your attempt to smear them because they have the word industrial in their name is pitiful.

Also I was not referring to the VFF.

As for food safety: "The Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) this week released reports for public comment recommending the use of a GM canola and a GM corn as foodsfor human consumption. ANZFA maintains that food derived from these two GM crops is as safe for human consumption as that derived from conventional varieties of the crops. These recommendations are contained in Draft Assessment reports, posted onthe ANZFA website, which contain details of ANZFA's safety analysis for the two commodities:"

OR are they also biased in a huge conspiracy plot?

bushbasher, you should know by now that Sells plays by his own rules, and is not required to justify himself to you, to me or to anyone else.

>>sells: please point out how the posts in response to mander are "irrational" or "outrageous". please identify where mander's "well reasoned attitude" actually addresses any of the substance of wilson's article. put up or shut up.<<

Incidentally, Sells actually thinks our views are "outragious",

>>...you have attracted the usual cast of characters with outragious views.<<

which he preumably spelled that way for a reason.

Probably a concatenation of "outrageous and "irreligious".

Which reminds me. Aren't we overdue for another of Sells' sermons? The last one was rather weak, even for him.

How is not wishing your child to be indocrinated into a religion not of yours (or their) choosing deemed to be outrageous?

What is outrageous about the idea that spiritual belief should be a private and personal quest and not one that is defined and mandated by the state?

Sells

How "outrageous" would you find the practice of religious study or the provision of chaplains in schools if the religion was, oh say, Muslim or Hindi?

Just a thought.

There is no such thing as a “private prerogative”; this view buys into the secular doctrine that there is such a thing as a private self. Every individual is of a culture; notions of autonomy within it are pure fantasy. By nurturing “individual integrity” in children we engender elitism/egoism/alienation at the individual level and perpetuate secular doctrine; primarily that the “free” individual may prosper by her own wits—such freedom is effectively a commodity rather than an ontology and leads to delusion, narcissism or disillusionment. Secularism can not claim to be “objective” or “rational”; its tenets rest on Enlightenment dogma, or positivism: a shallow and discredited materialism.
If secularism is to compete as an ideology, it will have to revise its corrupted humanist credentials and set about promulgating something more “meaningful”.

We often find the word "secular" and the word "atheist" badly defined or defined in a way to boost the argument of the definer.

According to my online dictionary:
Secular is:-
.....a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

"Secular" is NOT "atheist" and "atheist" is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods.
A good secular education system should neither instruct in religion or promote atheism. What it should instruct in is rational and logical thought processes based on evidence. This is what upsets most of our religious friends for religious belief and rational thought are uncomfortable bedfellows.

Priscillian said, "What it should instruct in is rational and logical thought processes based on evidence. This is what upsets most of our religious friends for religious belief and rational thought are uncomfortable bedfellows."

No, religious belief and rational thought are very compatible. What our secular friends don't wish to accept is that religious belief is rational to those who hold by those beliefs. The non-existence of God is just as unprovable as the existence of God. What makes secular humanism any more superior to any other religious 'rationality'? Where humanism falls short is in its non-acceptance of a God who can intervene in the 'logical' laws of nature. Without wishing to engage in intelligent conversation about such, they would rather focus on Sunday School-level arguments about bombs and war in the name of God as if it somehow proves that God is a nonsense. In that sense, theists are on a higher level of intellectual thought because they are able to think through those issues unemotionally and still manage to reconcile the idea of a Good God in the presence of (hypocritical) evil. This sort of 'critical thinking' is exactly what our students need to be trained in.

"..religious belief is rational to those who hold by those beliefs."

O dear!

Is it any wonder that Richard Dawkins unkindly termed this kind of thinking "delusional".

.....and by the way I have never attempted to argue the non existence of god/s. Similarly I avoid arguing against the existence fairies and UFO's

ausdag wrote: Where humanism falls short is in its non-acceptance of a God who can intervene in the 'logical' laws of nature.

Dear ausdag,

Humanism does not accept that for which there is no evidence. It is that simple. There is no evidence for any entity which can bypass what science has determined are the constraints which operate on the basis of the actions of matter.

The non-acceptance of assertions for which there are no proof is characteristic rational thought.

The acceptance of assertions for which there are no proof is characteristic of religion.

One can accept an assertion without any evidence to support the assertion. However, that is not rational.

[...religious belief is rational to those who hold by those beliefs.]

Of course it is, but is it actually rational? And it's very hard to determine which beliefs are rational and which ones aren't until we actually get specific about those beliefs.

[Where humanism falls short is in its non-acceptance of a God who can intervene in the 'logical' laws of nature. Without wishing to engage in intelligent conversation about such, they would rather focus on Sunday School-level arguments about bombs and war in the name of God as if it somehow proves that God is a nonsense.]

I'm not sure anyone has said "Religious people can be violent, and this proves there is no god". People generally don't believe in gods because no evidence has been presented to support such a belief. People cite religious violence to illustrate that religious belief can be dangerous.

[In that sense, theists are on a higher level of intellectual thought because they are able to think through those issues unemotionally and still manage to reconcile the idea of a Good God in the presence of (hypocritical) evil. This sort of 'critical thinking' is exactly what our students need to be trained in.]

That's not critical thinking. That's cognitive dissonance.

It is noteworthy that in the 1920s the Brits permitted religion based schools at government expense, in Cyprus. Well, we can all see the results of that little master stroke...

Poor old Tim, seems his shocktroops have yet to learn how to use the evil and ungodly Internet, or are they all just too scared to mix with the world outside the closed shop of the SU 'chappie' pages and General Jimbo's ACL forums for self-congratulation and Xtian backslapping?

But let's take a trip to Youtube, to see how the Godly in Noosa are shaping the lives of the young girls there shall we?

I've just watched a very informative video that confirms all the worst fears people have raised in this pair of articles.

Go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W-CnTcdFzQ

A woman calling herself 'Sunshine' speaks openly about the good fortune God has showered upon Christians by allowing them to get 'a foot in the door' in an ever expanding number of state schools in Queensland.

How? Via Hillsong's Shine program for teenage girls. This is really sad stuff, but underneath it is not as innocent as people like to make it.

This is what the other Wilson was writing about when he met with the Minister for Education to ask if our state schools could once again carry the mantle of secularity and drop the overt support for one religion over others.

This is serious recruiting material 'Sunshine' is talking about, done with Anna Bligh and Geoff Wilson's full knowledge and vigorous support.

Best if all dogma were left at the gate, and extremists were kept out of at least our state schools, if it is impossible to prevent them from running their own Christian madrassahs.

It's time for Geoff Wilson to send in 1000 words on why he supports Hillsong-in-state-schools, and explains why he believes Queensland should not enjoy a secular public education system.

And don't forget the disclaimer Geoff, your own Faith has no bearing on your ability to think straight as the Education Minister, advised by a DG who boasts her own religious beliefs on a state government webpage.

pericles, of course you're right. i don't for a minute expect Captain Preachy to actually return to defend any of his nonsense.

blue cross, that was a hell of a video.

WTF?

Just another case of the children
and parents of children in QLD
state schools being treated with contempt.

Indeed bushbasher and WTF, it is indeed.

But why do otherwise intelligent people like Anna Bligh and Geoff Wilson pretend there is nothing wrong with all this in our state schools?

Why is the Courier Mail only interested in beating-up stories about suspension levels in state schools and not investigating what actually goes on under the cloak of secrecy within the schools?

How come even the ABC radio and TV in Queensland is in-on-the-joke and keeping very silent about it?

Where is the Queensland Teachers Union, who have a very clear policy on supporting secular public schools still 'missing in action'?

And what about the P&Cs in all these schools? Do they consult with all the parents and students or are they all captive to a handful of evangelical extremists?

What does the president of the QCPCA have to say about all of this on behalf of those parents who are not happy to have their child/rens schools full of wide eyed evangelists?

The QCPCA also supports secular public schooling, although one could be forgiven for thinking the QCPCA was a breakaway extremist xtian cult with their track record so far.

Alas, Blue Cross, the warning comes too late. My daughter attended her first “Sunshine” indoctrination session today and is hooked, not on the god element, which barely got a mention—this mob is far too surreptitious to be up front—but on the fact that all her friends are going and it’s “fun”. And here is the really objectionable Trojan horse, these despicable bastards seduce young girls via the shallowest of means, by appealing to, and indeed nurturing, their vanity; what young female is going to refuse the attentions of a glamour sorority? But it doesn’t stop there; my daughter told me that the kids were asked first who had mobile phones (this upset mine because she doesn’t), and how much they mean to them. Then three of the 6! Women “teachers” present, that were married, flashed their rings (wedding rings) and were each asked how much these meant to them. Need I go on? The innocent subjects of these sickening exercises are being packaged into nubile stereotypes—obedient wives and brides of Christ! Oh yes, of course it’s really all about building their self-esteem, I imagine!
BTW I am feeling the “bad father” guilt thing, but when the form came home about this vile crap there was absolutely no mention that it had anything to do with religion. In any case, I would not have stopped my daughter from going, any more than I stop her going to RI (to be with her friends). Herein I can claim moral superiority to these deceitful and dangerous airheads: my daughter is encouraged to use her own mind, that is to subject the things I or anyone else says to her own healthy scepticism.
This cannot stop here! I encourage every thinking parent to take a stand and make a noise!

Indeed Squeers.. this must not stop here.. the rumble of resistance is becoming a roar!
Once more I implore you all to visit the site..
http://www.australiansecularlobby.com
Watch the movie..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8h4JJYDTfo
And the international version which is attracting hundreds of supportive emails from across the developed world.. the underdeveloped world.. even the undeveloped world..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r8ESBkr128
How far does this need to go.. Geneva?

As a teacher of comparative religion in a high school, I find my students come to classes because they are interested in ideas and hope to travel - as it is an optional subject for Years 10-12 where I teach.
My classes cover the four Abrahamic faiths and we visit their places of worship, as well as the Indic faiths. We are lucky to live in a multi-cultural society so we can visit them and they can visit us. Studies indicate clearly that there is more fear of Islam where people know nothing about the faith so we attend Friday prayers, meet Muslim students at the university and meet the imam at our local mosque.
I'm all for Religion in school as long as it's Comparative Religion and in today's society, I see it as a core subject.

squeers, that's a really depressing story. not sure i'd do the same in your situation, but i admire your approach.

pedr, i think most or all of the posters here would agree with you, that an introduction to comparative religion is beneficial. (i'd add, i'd like it also to be compared to an absence of religion). the question is, is there anyone here other than mander and Captain Preachy who condone the sleazy and deceitful indoctrination currently being practised? the answer seems to be no.

Pedr Fardd. In regards to "comparative religion". Once you have decided that an "intelligence" exists apart from the body then it is virtually open slather for fairy tale study in the class room. Why stop at the Abrahamic religions? How about Wicca? what about Cargo cults, Sun worship, Ancestor worship, Scientology, Moronism (sorry can't spell) ...the list of delusional practices is almost endless. A far better idea would be to study the causes of religious beliefs, the nature of delusion, the psychology of superstition and the history of the development of religious thought. Comparing religions is like comparing models of Fords and Holdens without a knowledge of engine mechanics.
For instance, how many of these Queensland Proselytizers and Evangelists have the faintest idea of the demonstrable history of Christianity?
Let us not encourage rubbish thinking by seeming to be reasonable and calling "religious studies" by use the euphemism "comparative religon".

I followed up Pericles' post on the Scripture Union ‘Father of the Year’ angle, finding this link below where SU says clearly that it expects its ‘Father’ to be of exemplary character with no ‘potentially comprising (sic) problems related to drug or alcohol abuse’: http://qldfatheroftheyear.org.au/terms-rules/

Imagine my absolute horror, when I reached for The Googles to enter ‘Tim Mander referee’ and found someone called Tim Mander had enjoyed a life ‘based around my next grog binge’ as he gambled, boozed and smoked his way through life! Even marijuana gets a mention in this confessional: http://www.changinglivesonline.org/timmander.html

I was mortified! Is this the same exemplary Scripture Union 2005 Father of the Year who wants to be trusted with ‘the kiddies’?

I reached for my Blue Card to touch to ward off any unwanted thoughts.

Is our Tim then simply a ‘reformed smoker’, keen to proselytise his adult awakening to all and sundry, and deaf, as only a reformed ‘anything’ can be, to those who have never felt the need to smoke, so no-support-needed-thank-you-very-much?

Or gave up smoking at age 11 when it became ‘bleeding obvious’ that this was a mugs game for people who enjoyed smelling like a pigsty and, prior to becoming a drug addict, continued because they were swayed by their, equally smelly, peers as they all worked at following a made-up character played by an actor called Marlon Brando?

Understandably, from the innocent stupidity of youth, had they confused all and thought Brando’s character was a living man, not just a story to learn from?

Such is life, as a child, but some of us grow up without the strutting props and flying buttresses that SU flogs.

Is there a parallel here with the Jesus story?

What further shock-horrors would these born-again school chaplains SU employs unload in a similar confessional, as those who have infiltrated our state schools with their Sunshine-endorsed ‘foot in the door’ sales pitch purge their sins?

Never mind the obsession-riven Christian mentors Geoff Wilson encourages to wander, free as a wafting daffodil cloud, throughout Queensland state schools, gathering up our children, Pied Piper style.

Blue Cross. Thank you. We all thank you for your research. It is not often we get a really good belly laugh on this forum but you have provided one. I would note however that arm waving born-agains have a habit of overstating their previous litany of sins. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the same story of the atheistic, boozing, gambling, dope smoking, morally vacant and aimless sinner suddenly finding god. It's all part of trying to relate their own life to scripture. Just another aspect of the same 'ol fantasy.

Further on the “Shine” proselytisation scandal. The girls in the class were asked if they knew a song called “Mirror”, and were told that they soon would as it was taking off in Europe (Alleluia!). And then the song was played and they all rocked along to it (as you do). They got the expurgated version (for now), but check out what I found on utube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpVRgye2ihk
Charming stuff, hey; here are the song lyrics: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/barlowgirl/mirror.html

See how it ties into the theme of beautification? These girls are being groomed (literally and spiritually): come in girls, we’ll make you beautiful; and later, “but hey, that ain’t what it’s all about, man! God sees through all that ...”
And to reiterate, when that innocent looking form came home for me to sign there was nothing in there about the slavering zealots I was authorising to brainwash “my” child. And this in a State School!
This is beyond the pale. Even the spineless apologists for these parasites, like Sells, should blanch with embarrassment at this kind of paedophilia!

Priscillian, I take your point, and I agree that even comparative religion has no place in “primary school”; but I was in a mind to compromise as discretion is the better part of valour. No more! These hounds have no scruples—and no place in our public education system!

Amazing Squeers, I wonder what Tim Mander would say to all that?

Just a blip in the Shine program? This is not what we support? Oh no, this has nothing to do with religion? I am sure that is not what really happened, your daughter must be making it all up?

Or would he be true to his Father of the Year status with the honesty-baton he carries from there and say,

'Oh well, we've had a good run but you're quite right, it is a pernicious program designed to snare vulnerable kiddies and unwitting parents while their children are open to suggestion and shows of authority from adults, it's a fair cop and we will stop using anything from Hillsong Church'.

It's always good to have a look into the history of these debates.

How come Lyn Allison from the Democrats knew all about this program, but Gillard did not?

http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6595

How come the Commonwealth agreed to examine Shine, but Bligh and Welford, the then Ed Qld minister, and now Geoff Wilson, could totally ignore it all?

Should we be wondering if there is any sort of brown-bag 'under the counter' stuff going on in Qld on this very cosy and supportive relationship between the Church and the State?

We've just seen one Qld ex-Minister go to jail for corrupt dealings after all.

It is hard to imagine an article that more adequately portrays the problem in its own presentation.
An outrageous hodge-podge of straw man arguments, non-sequiturs, paternalistic pseudo-morality, and unfounded assumptions far too numerous to receive individual attention. I would simply assert that the fundamental purpose of an adequate education is to teach children to THINK, and to provide accurate factual information - ie in line with modern day scientifically validated knowledge - so that the thus developed thinking process finds ample scope. The various religious representatives who infest the various state school systems would soon be out of work and public funds presently misdirected to so called 'faith based' schools would soon dry up if children were taught to think and thus question the outrageous rubbish thrust down their throats in the guise of revealed truth.
The author of this article would undoubtably benefit even at this late stage from some open-minded reading of elementary philosophy, biology, archeology etc - if of course he develops the guts to open his mind in the first place and let go the security blanket of medieval superstition and arrant nonsense collectively known as religion.
Failing that, he should simply stick to football.
Fat chance.

Well said GYM-FISH. Now try to imagine..

A. That the author of this article was the CEO of the Queensland branch of an international organisation that exists for the sole (soul?) purpose of evangelising to children—particularly in the Third World.

B. That the then Howard government provided the same Queensland organisation with a pre-election bribe of over $50,000,000 (and the State government a further $10,000,000) along with a platinum access-all-areas pass to the State schools of Queensland.

No need to imagine..

A. He is
B. They did

Pericles is dangerous in his dreamed-up linkages of Mander & Qld Father of the Year awards. He is correct in saying Mander was Qld Father of the Year in 2005. But it wasn't until earlier this year - 4 years later - that Mander's SU Qld began hosting the awards. The Courier Mail ran a story on this over a month ago. So Pericles, please use this forum for more intelligent discussion and less imagination.

You're reading stuff that isn't there, PNG.

>>Pericles is dangerous in his dreamed-up linkages of Mander & Qld Father of the Year awards. He is correct in saying Mander was Qld Father of the Year in 2005. But it wasn't until earlier this year - 4 years later - that Mander's SU Qld began hosting the awards.<<

I stated, quite specifically, that I had failed to identify the elapsed time between Mander's award and his accession to the stewardship of Queensland SU.

Here are the very words:

"Couldn't be more than a couple of months, I thought, and wondered for an uncharitable moment which of the two events had been decided first. Only I couldn't find the announcement, anywhere."

I certainly don't see that I made anything of the timing either in my summary:

"But I did have a quick ponder on the linkages between:
i) Queensland's Scripture Union,
ii) their involvement in - nay, vigorous promotion of - schools' chaplaincy programmes,
iii) the selection criteria for the Queensland Father of the Year award, and
iv) the self-serving banality of the article here on OLO."

>>So Pericles, please use this forum for more intelligent discussion and less imagination.<<

I would suggest that it is in fact your imagination, PNG, that is running away with you.

Why might that be?

Thanks, Tim, for your reasoned and balanced view. Although I fear that many here are not listening no matter what you might say. I agree with Sells (I think that is the first time I’ve ever said that) that your piece is fair and moderate.

When Bushbasher starts calling you dishonest for giving your opinion, you can know that you’ve probably hit some good notes.

Many have discussed the meaning of the word secular. I’ve always thought it meant that the government doesn’t favour one church or religion. The other side of the same coin is that it doesn’t exclude anyone either.

People of all faiths pay tax and have a right to full participation in the state system.

I understand from my teacher training (Victoria) that when the school system first termed the motto “free, compulsory, and secular” that secular was not meant to exclude religion. It was meant only to not favour one religion, neither protestant nor catholic, as were the majority of the population at the time.

But Bible readings were accepted as normal, as this was the majority consensus. Common sense prevailed, and the tail did not wag the dog.

Dan, I completely agree with your definition of "secular". As you know in Victoria the Education Act of 1872 made the state school system "secular" (under your definition) with 1/2 hour per week devoted to religious instruction with an opt-out option ( which some schools have changed to opt-in). As a non-Religo I can handle this compromise ok.

The problem is the the Queensland system is not like this at all and are allowing things to go on the schools that would be illegal here in Vic. "Bible readings" (indoctrination) is NOT permitted during normal class times in Vic and religious instruction cannot be delivered by normal state employed class room teachers. Kennett made the the "celebration of festivals" (i.e. Christmas and Easter etc.) legal during normal class hours (again with opt-in/out).

Dear Dan

Yes, secular was and is intended to mean that the state does not take sides in an institution such as a public school: it neither supports nor denies religion.

It seems most here take the view that some form of 'education' concerning religion would be OK, but not 'instruction' in specific sects and cults, as now.

Only Qld has legislated away 'secular' from its Education Act, and that was specifically to allow free entry for 'selected passages from the Bible', not 'reading from the Bible' as now happens with the so-called 'Good News' Bible. That was to prevent the warring cults from getting too upset with each-others take on the more disputed and unbelievable aspects in the readings.

In the 1860s, the Christian folk of Qld, in their first parliament, ended funding to faith schooling and by 1875 had created a genuine 'education revolution' with free, secular schools.

But now we have Christian chaplains paid with tax dollars, state and federal, openly evangelising, praying and recruiting for Jesus, as well as Christian mentors, sanctioned by Bligh and Wilson, no training required, allowed to wander the schools.

On top of which, Bligh-Wilson are now encouraging the low rent Christianity of Hillsong free acceess to run sad and pathetic classes such as Squeers has described, and giving students time off sport to 'study' make-up (and sing songs of praise to Jesus).

The long standing problem is that the Qld Government ignores state laws on RI, and allows Ed Qld to ignore its own policies on evangelising and proselytising, and Gillards too, while pretending to parents who do raise objections that the lies and deceit are not happening.

It seems that those who support their religion do so by the most dishonest and underhand means possible, which is a 'sort of' slap in the face to Jesus, so I would have thought anyway.

These evangelisers hear no other voices but the whispering ones in their head, believing no alternative approach to theirs exists and that we should not be allowed freedom from their noisy proselytising in a public space.

dan, don't be ridiculous. i know that's hard for you, but do please try.

i didn't call mander dishonest for giving his opinion. i called him dishonest for grossly misrepresenting wilson's article and the issues that it raises.

you and Captain Preachy trumpet the moderateness and reasonableness of mander's piece. what you refuse to do is to actually address the real substance of real occurrences: the god-awful indoctrination of the type wilson and squeers and blue cross document. you don't deny it, you don't challenge it, you don't debate it. you simply ignore it, content to fiddle with your straw men. it's pathetic.

The issue here with both sides of the argument is one of rights and freedoms. I agree that in our society that one should be free to practice any manner delusional behavior. UFO's, spirits, gods, Thebans and magic mushrooms. It's all ok by me.
The problem is the impact some people's whacko ideas are having upon those that don't hold the same superstitious mindset. If these arm wavers would be happy with the delivery of classes in schools on, say, Satanism, Wicca or magic crystals then I would at least admire their tolerance, alas like all people of "faith" they are only accepting of their own subset of magical thinking.
With wisdom gained from years of religious intolerance and division our forefathers decided that a secular form of government and schooling is the only way to go. Mind you most of these people had religious viewpoints of their own but overcame it for the common good. Even the Northern Irish are beginning to realise (eventually!) that secular education is the path to democracy, peaceful co-existence and tolerance.

I guess that's what makes these people fundamentalists; they are deaf to reason and above any argument we throw at them. Their bible, and the god they "choose" to infer within it, is the only authority they bow to. The rest is lip service. All our protests are merely evidence of the benighted state that we occupy in Babel. They will sometimes play the reason game, as with intelligent design--whose reasoning is anything but intelligent--but this is purely to impress the impressionable. Every political or scientific dalliance, they are no more than that, that they engage in is merely an opportunistic dialogue through which they can add to their numbers. By all means let these besotted dullards congregate, and let them recruit, but not among innocent children; at least let children gather their wits before they throw them away. We have to re-establish secularism in our schools. Religion should be taught like any other subject--impartially! After that let these people do their worst, but not with public funding, and deny them the oxygen of publicity, as we do Nazis.
It is the government that is at fault. These creatures are merely exploiting a breech.

Bushbasher,
I don’t see how Mander has misrepresented Wilson’s article.

After reading both articles, I see two people who hold strong views. One is an atheist, one is a Christian. It seems that one of them is a lot more tolerant of the other’s view, and more open to a range of influences within a multi-faith society. That is why I described his view as balanced.

Personally, I like secularism as a concept. I don’t like the way it is interpreted by some as synonymous with atheism. The pendulum swings around the definition of that word.

Much of Wilson’s article was set around Queensland politics. I live a long way from Queensland. I will never vote in Queensland, and I am not particularly interested in politics. I don’t understand why the law should be different in Queensland than other states of Australia. Perhaps it’s because people vote the way they do. If you want to lobby to change the law to bring it more into line with the rest of Australia, then good luck to you.

From where I sit, it seems like the people there have voted. Perhaps they’re concerned that if the word secular is brought in, then those with the hard nosed definition will push the pendulum too far their way.

Queensland's sectarian public education system is an international human rights issue. Not addressing this 100 year-old outrage and dismissing it as political/idealogical fluff can no longer be accepted.

Utilising the tragically unique theocratic Queensland Education Act, and more recently in excess of $60,000,000 in Federal and State government lucre, the Pentecostal/Chrismatic cults have been allowed to all but usurp our once sane Queensland State education system.

And yet all personnel within Education Queensland from the Minister downward cringe when confronted with the enormity of this catastrophe, and cannot bring themselves to publicly or privately dispute one fact contained within this international plea for help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r8ESBkr128

Further reading here:

http://www.australiansecularlobby.com

Dan m'boy

"From where I sit, it seems like the people there have voted. Perhaps they’re concerned that if the word secular is brought in, then those with the hard nosed definition will push the pendulum too far their way."

They did 'vote'. In 1910, with the franchise available at that time, with a voting electorate of less than 250000 people.

Queensland has a larger population these days. The dominant Christian church remains Roman Catholic, followed by Anglican, not Hillsong-clones and mad-screaming fundie Baptists.

And no one has ever voted on 'chaplains' or 'Christian mentors' being allowed in to schools.

But what they 'voted' on is not any longer in place, with the Qld Government changing the rules without any new referendum or consultation with Queenslanders.

When it comes to 'tolerance' and Christians...hmmm, that's a joke.

Didn't you read about the Muslim schools in NSW being opposed by hordes of fearful angst ridden Christians?

Have you ever visited the home page of Scripture Union? Their role is to recruit school chidlren directly into the Jesus camp, as is the role of all Christians, being an evangelising and proselytising brand of religion.

There is no 'tolerance' allowed. Either you are 'saved' or 'damned'.

Either Christian or burning in Hell.

Tim Mander put up the 'multi-faith, multi-cultural' angle as a joke. He certainly does not believe that. And neither do any 'real' Christians. They are not allowed to.

You heard Bush, 'you are either with us, or against us' in his Holy Crusade against the Islamic world that Howard and Blair also happily supported.

There is another way, in fact there are many, and Christians like Tim are absolutely intolerant of it/them, insinuating themselves and their blind acolytes into every nook, every tiny crack in the secular world, to destroy it, and return us to where General Jimbo at the ACL wants to take us, into the glorious End Times, led by Danny Nahlia and the magnificent Famly First 'Albert Fielding' (and Senator Barnaby Rubble no doubt) back into the warm and snug arms of Jesus, and his unfathomable Daddy.

Indeed, Blue Cross. Christianity is a profoundly negative and otherworldy religion. As Nietzche observed, it offers no hope in "this" world. It's all very well ingratiating yourself with God and getting well set up in the hereafter, but what about now? Secularists as a group, I would deign to assert, are not entirely gloomy about the terrestrial prospects of the human race, if it be guided by reason, equality and humanitarian values rather than voodoo! Sectarian strife, around the world, is surely the single most virulent cancer afflicting possibly the otherwise healthy human organism. If we would be guided by genuine values based on our biology, and sympathy for all creatures that suffer, who knows what stature the human race might achieve? And that achievement doesn't have to be immortal to have been worth the effort! If the human race kills itself off in its current primitive state it might be no great loss; but were we to achieve our potential, the universe might then be said to have meaning--God might smile with pride. Surely Christianity in one form or another has had a fair go in the West--2,000 years seems reasonable? So all you Christians who enjoy the bounty science has provided, even as you drag it down, leave our kids alone! Bugger off by yourselves and fret about Hell and the hereafter. Secularists have better things to think about.

Blue cross,
Your argument might be clearer if it was less crowded by name calling.

And I’m not your boy.

You say the Queensland government implements rules without consulting the public. So why do you vote them out?

Did I hear what was happening in NSW? No, not recently. But on the face of it, you are saying that Christians are complaining about the proposal of Muslim schools.

Can I ask you, what do you think about the creation of Muslim schools? I’d say that if you’re allowed to start Christian schools, then you must allow for Muslim schools also.

If your point was that we need more tolerance, then I agree. We’d all be less fearful of others if we were open to learning more about each other’s values and beliefs. That was one point that Mander was trying to make.

Could you point out for me the elements and aspects of tolerance found within Hugh Wilson’s article?

Come back to the plot Dan. Although the education minister Geoff Wilson denies its existence, we need the dogma of a cult — along with the legislated right of Queensland public school teachers to give ‘lessons’ relating to it — removed from the Queensland Education Act and the Education Queensland curriculum. http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/inclusive/religion/ri/faqs/docs/bible_lessons.pdf

Further reading.. http://www.australiansecularlobby.com

Come on, Dan S de Merengue - the Queensland legislation is an anachronism that needs to be removed to reflect 21st century community values. As a parent of a child who attends a Queensland State School, Hugh Wilson's organisation has my support in its efforts to bring this anomalous situation to an end.

With respect to its pernicious activities in public schools in Queensland, Mander's SU is using the ill-advised chaplaincy program as a vehicle to brainwash impressionable young people into their particular version of religious ideology. They only get away with this because most parents are unaware of the extent of their insidious activities.

No government is likely to change the legislation unless there is a strong demand to do so from the electorate, and I think that Hugh Wilson's organisation should be commended for working to alert parents to what is happening in State schools.

I'm also personally grateful to Squeers for alerting me to the nauseating 'Shine' program. I talked to my 12-year old daughter about it, and while she's aware that some kids at her school have been sucked in by similar activities, she thinks that stuff's "totally uncool", and besides which she decided independently that she wants nothing to do with God some years back.

I’ll grant that you guys know more details of what’s happening on the ground than I. You live in Queensland and I do not. But on the face of it, the fuss seems more political and the differences philosophical than any kind of urgent human rights issue.

The reason I respond is mostly because Bushbasher accuses Christians of not wanting to debate. Now he hasn’t said anything in the days since I responded.

It seems the problems with Scripture Union are that they are religious (heaven forbid), insidious, pernicious, voodoo, and a few other choice adjectives. According to the complaints I’ve read above, Hillsong is sponsoring a program called Shine that, I’m guessing, encourages chastity before marriage. CJ Morgan’s daughter used her democratic freedoms to choose not to attend, as she thought it sounded decidedly uncool. I’m sorry, but I don’t see here the need to alert the council for human rights abuse.

This is the way I see it: In this world there are plenty of people who are religious and plenty who are not. This state of affairs is not going to change in a hurry. Kids growing up are inevitably going to be exposed to many influences, be it through friends, TV, ad campaigns, as well the philosophies within the formal study courses.

To be educated means to be prepared. We don’t prepare kids by hiding them away or cutting them off from certain influences. Rather we give them a safe and stable environment in which to process and evaluate the trends and influences in our world [end of sermon].

SU and Shine are not merely "religious", they are "fundamentalist", hence the "choice adjectives". We are asking for a secular education in which any kind of religious content is presented impartially, or preferably not at all in primary school, where kids should be learning how to "think", not what to believe. I would object just as vehemently if a load of rabid atheists, or Satanists, were encouraged to take up residence in our schools and proselytise. As you say, kids are exposed to many influences, and learning to negotiate them is part of growing up. But there is often precious little balance in a child's life, with powerful biases often exerted from one quarter or another of its family circle and circumstances. During these formative years, school at least should be a sanctuary from vested interests, in which a child develops his or her own discriminatory intelligence. And this is where the chaplaincy and Shine programmes are richly deserving of the epithets accorded them above. They are predatory and deceitful, proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing. Similarly, Chaplaincy posts are typically manned by ecstatic Baptists dressed in sober garb--passed off as disinterested "confidantes", no less! Similarly, the Shine agenda is embarked upon by cunning and stealth--specifically designed to catch not only the children, but their parents unawares as well! Christians are not in a position to debate these issues, hence the deafening silence; the pernicious and underhand practices that have been exposed have not been and cannot be gainsaid. However, if you want to continue to defend the indefensible, to rationalise the unreasonable, we'll go on rebuffing it, and with understandable dudgeon!

According to Dan: "We don’t prepare kids by hiding them away or cutting them off from certain influences".

Surely Dan, they should be 'cut off', or at least protected from certain Scripture Union influences such as this one on the wires this morning:

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/jul/28/chaplain-suggestive-msn-chats/

Oh Danny Boy, no need to get upset old chap.

"Did I hear what was happening in NSW? No, not recently. But on the face of it, you are saying that Christians are complaining about the proposal of Muslim schools.

"Can I ask you, what do you think about the creation of Muslim schools? I’d say that if you’re allowed to start Christian schools, then you must allow for Muslim schools also."

Yes, well, that's part of the point isn't it? If we are to waste public monies on religious schools, then it seems somewhat intolerant of so-called Christians to object to an Islamic school does it not?

I wouldn't give any of them a cracker, Islamic or Christian, nor any other religion.

'Tolerance'? Haven't you detected an undercurrent of lies and deceit in the world of 'Christian love' as described by Squeers?

As I recall Wilson's article, he was merely pointing out that we need to have secular public schools, and surely nothing can be more tolerant than that?

Most posters agree that it would be beneficial to educate the community 'about' religion, but they do not seem to subscribe to 'indoctrination', as with Shine-and-Squeers daughter.

Please read the 'misbehaving chaplain' Deepnortherner posted.

What a hoot! Tim Mander, Father of the Year, Protector of the Innocent, has gone into 'damage control'. No doubt to be passed off as just 'one rotten apple'.

But Education Queensland? They are hiding as far in the darkest corner as they can possibly go. What was their considered response? 'Scripture Union employs chaplains, not us'.

Well,well, well. Of course, when the acting DG and Minister are so blatantly biased towards 'Christians' and so clearly antagonistic towards people of 'other faiths' and 'none', what can we expect?

I want to know why the Queensland Teachers Union is so silent on this, and the QCPCA, who should be on the dognbone right now to Geoff Wilson demanding SU removes this chaplain immediately, while a full investigation is carried out by the CJC, or whoever has jurisdiction in this matter

Thanks for that link, DeepNorthener.

“Trust me, I’m the chaplain.”

Says it all really, doesn't it?

"If the belief in god were natural, there would be no need to teach it. Children would possess it as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the heathen as much as the missionary. We don't have to teach the general elements of human nature; the five senses, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so would religion be were it natural, but it is not. On the contrary, it is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are Atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. Even as it is, they are great sceptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon by which religion has ever been propagated, namely, fear - fear of the lash of public opinion here, and of jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No; there is no religion in human nature, nor human nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the result of education, while Atheism is natural, and, were the human mind not perverted and bewildered by the mysteries and follies of superstition, would be universal."

Ernestine L. Rose, "A Defense of Atheism" (1878, Women Without Superstition ed. Annie Laurie Gaylor, Madison, WI: FFRF, 1997), p. 82.

dan, you were debating? (what about mander and Captain Preachy? were they debating too?)

i agree you've stepped up from ignorance to denial, but i didn't see much to respond to in what you'd written, and thought others had done the job admirably. in any case, i simply hadn't had time to look at OLO for the last week.

if you are still here, and want me to respond, i will.

Priscillian

That quote from Ernestine L. Rose, "A Defense of Atheism" was superb reasoning and eloquently written, will have to track down a copy of the book if I can.

We are not born hating, although the evidence is there in a baby's smile we are born loving; religion and other forms of bigotry teach us to hate. Thank you for that wonderful quote.

My wife wrote the following

Religious Education in Queensland - Marie Fisher

Xiao Xiao was six years old and spoke no English when she came to stay with us. When we enrolled her in the local State School we were asked, "Do you want her to receive religious education? David and I looked at each other. "What the heck!", said our eyes, "She's not going to understand it anyway, but at least she won't be isolated from her classmates."

Still, I was curious to know how present day religious education was taught. Mrs. M, the class teacher, said I was welcome to sit in on any class so I turned up one Wednesday morning in time for Religious Education and squatted on a tiny chair at the back of the classroom. Mrs. M took a seat nearby after she had got the children settled quietly on the floor at the front.

Now - onto the scene, in an aura of bottled springtime, silk skirts swishing and high heels clicking, swept Mrs. Religious Education looking more like a company executive than a teacher of first graders.

The class began with her reciting a prayer after which she told the children, "Now you all say 'Ay - men'."

As I scribbled down notes on the proceedings I was aware of murmuring and wriggling at the front of the room. Attention was waning even before the lesson had properly begun.

"And God said," Mrs. RE's voice was growing shrill, "Sit down everyone!"

"And God said..........Sh! - Ex-cuse me!"

The lesson for today was this: If you love God and serve him, HE WILL ALWAYS PROTECT YOU. It was repeated many times.

Here are some excerpts I managed to get down:

"This is a true story. Noah's ark was as big as an ocean liner even though they didn't have the technology they have today. God drowned all the people in the flood because they were VERY NAUGHTY, but he saved Noah and his family because they loved and served him. Look at the rainbow."

continued

continued

Abraham and Lot "They loved God and served him so he blessed them. They had sooo many sheep and cattle. God wants to bless everyone, but he can't because they won't listen to him."

"In those days (Abraham's) they didn't have a Bible, but the people knew that God loved them because Abraham told the children stories every day about Noah and Moses and Jesus, no, excuse me. So they just knew just like you know that your Mummy and Daddy loves you."

"Ruth and Naomi lived in a country where they worshipped many different gods. All I can say is yucky yucky yucky. Naomi wanted to leave and go to her own people and Ruth said, 'I love you so much I will go with you and love your God too.'"

I doubt that the children managed to absorb even as much of the word flow as I managed to scribble down. Wriggles and clamour were met with ever more irate "Ex-cuse mes", and several times Mrs. M had to step in with quiet authority to restore calm.

Now came the story of Ruth, Boaz and the barley with the children chaotically acting out barley harvest.

"So Ruth and Boaz got married and had a baby and that was very special because out of their line Jesus would be born one day. So you see how God always protects his people who love and serve him.

Next we came to Gideon. Mrs. RE handed out paper trumpets with the instruction, "Don't blow them yet!" Everybody blew madly.

"Stand up a couple of you!" The whole class was on its feet instantly. Two children were chosen - one to be Gideon and one an angel with flapping wings. Chaos reigned. Mrs M again restored order. More chaos.

"If you can't behave we can't finish the story!"

Now there was just time for a final prayer amid noise and
wriggling - no "Ay- men."

Adults love to patronise kids and feed them all the same stuff they were fed and struggled to believe in. Many adults persist in believing in fairy tales, but more often, I suspect, the stories are told from habit and apathy, rather than conviction. We pass stuff on in the same uncomprehending spirit with which we received it. I wonder if MRS RI ever tried deconstructing Bible stories, or her reading of them, or her motives in disseminating them as truth. Why do we “religiously” pass on so much bunk to children, exploiting their innocence with nonsense about Genesis and Noah’s Ark and magical men in red suits and giant Bunnies, or incomprehensible tales of the crucifixion and how Jesus died for our sins, and of Hell and its eternal torments, and of the loving God who presides over it all.
We shouldn’t exacerbate innocence or retard a child’s progress. Children are endlessly curious about the world, and genuinely want to know; and there is very little that we can’t discuss with them truthfully but sensitively when they ask (this includes often saying, as I do, “I don’t know, sweetheart. No one does”). Instead we discourage their natural curiosity and foist nonsense upon them, setting them up for a lifetime of confusion and disillusionment; or of subjection to the terrifying vagaries of an ideology they lack the strength to rebel against; or if they do rebel it becomes their life’s theme; or they just pay the whole thing lip service and pass on the habit ad nauseam. Who benefits from the prolongation of innocence, and from the imposition of fairy tales, scary or otherwise? Children don’t, their innocence is their weakest point, and it is exploited by all those who would prey on them, whether corporate, religious, or actual paedophiles.

Fracelle, thanks, I have a more quotes but that one sums it up.

The lobbying of Evangelical Christians are paying dividends.

Years ago I knew a minor politician who attended church and functions at the RSL. Having known him for years I knew he was a lapsed Catholic and an atheist and held the (then ) RSL in contempt. Why did he compromised his beliefs? His answer was "votes".

The problem with me and others commenting here is that we are unorganized and complacent. Basically we should lift our game and make a noise in defence of secular education. I have of late made a pest of myself on the email to various members of parliament. One of my favourite targets is Greg Hunt (Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au). Now Greg seems to me to be a particularly nice guy living in a fog of religion induced delusion. Greg was an instigator and apologetic of this program. When I wrote to him about the program in 2007 he gave me well considered reply regarding "mentoring" and "counselling". I asked him why the people involved in this program HAD to be religious. He refused to answer this.
No matter, his silence confirmed that these programs have more to do with the promotion of religion than the welfare of the student.

What can we do about this situation, especially the problems in Queensland?

My immediate suggestions are:-

Visit web sites like Defence of Public Schools D.O.G.S.( http://www.adogs.info/)

Use your email to lobby politicians.

If you are faced with an evangelical "Chaplain" politely explain to them (in writing) how you hold their belief system in contempt and refuse them any contact with your child.

Advise the principal that contact with between this person and your child may result in litigation.

Get on the school council and make a pest of yourself.

As per davidF's post attend religious "education" classes if you possibly can and make notes. Generally evangelicals amateurs do not have a great knowledge of their own religion. Revel in their ignorance. Give them a very hard time.

Priscillian... good work.

We had a head-of-school called 'Hunt'. He was known as 'Sticky' because he was so objectionable. I am reminded of your e-pal.

I have a speech Greg Hunt gave about 'religion in foreign policy' somewhere. Yes, apart from being trite he was quite missing the point of the topic he thought he was talking about:
http://www.aiia.asn.au/associations/8220/files/Greg_Hunt_Religion_Foreign_Policy.pdf

As always, Lyn Allison was better prepared:
http://www.aiia.asn.au/associations/8220/files/Lyn_Allison_Religion_Foreign_Policy.pdf

Tim Costello's World Vision missionaries were there to, showing why we do not need these 'faith driven' people let loose wandering around our public schools looking for 'at risk' students to convert to their brand of Baptist evangelism, as Bligh-Wilson are currently happy to allow:
http://www.aiia.asn.au/associations/8220/files/Fiona_McLeay_Religion_Foreign_Policy.pdf

I'd add another couple of steps readers could take.

Visit the Australian Secular Lobby to watch the video clip on the abysmal state of Queensland's non-secular public education system here: http://www.australiansecularlobby.com/index.html

And email Anna Bligh, asking her why she and her Education Minister, Geoff Wilson, whose electoral web page brags about his faith (http://www.geoffwilsonmp.com/about.php), do not believe Queensland deserves to have a secular public education system:
Anna Bligh - thepremier@premiers.qld.gov.au

It disgusts me that we are driven to these tactical manoeuvers just to get noticed, just to have our concerns heard! That these ideologically incumbent parasites complacently enjoy the patronage of government, unwary tax payers, and even fund-raising drives like "free dress day" at public schools. Without a doubt the vast majority of chaplains go about their assigned tasks with the best of intentions, but this makes them all the more plausible, and the agenda of their handlers all the more insidiously effective. If we must be saddled with unqualified "volunteers" as chaplains in our curmudgeonly public schools, they should demonstrate that there is no conflict of interest--as is the ideal in business and government--or affiliation with vested interests (including ideological, which is big business after all), or they should be a diverse cohort that reflects "all" community values, which of course will never happen.
Thanks for the tips, Priscillian--and Blue Cross (love the 4th R website and the "lets get secular back in the act" song.
Though I lament the necessity, I for one will be following through and writing to the relevant parties!

From the Dept of Education Employment website:- http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Pages/nscp_frequently_asked.aspx#01

"Chaplains will be expected to respect the range of religious views and affiliations, and cultural traditions in the school and the community, and be approachable by students of all faiths. While recognising that an individual chaplain will in good faith express his or her belief and articulate values consistent with his or her denomination or religious belief, a chaplain should not take advantage of his or her privileged position to proselytise for that denomination or religious belief."

...and

"Who can be a school chaplain?
For the purposes of this Program, a school chaplain is a person who is recognised:
* by the local school, its community and the appropriate governing authority as having the skills and experience to deliver school chaplaincy services to the school and its community; and
* through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution or a State/Territory government approved chaplaincy service."

It is interesting that the guidlines forbid the chaplain to "proselytise for that denomination or religious belief" but at the same time must be associated with "an accepted religious institution."

The inference here is quite plainly that a non-religious person does not have the moral credentials or ethical framework to carry out such a job. Can somebody please demonstrate to me that this is not the case? The "chaplain" is required to act in a moral and ethical manner without being permitted to explain to the student the basis of their morals.
This, I suggest, is impossible. In the wise words of Woody Allen the program is ..... a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."

Priscillian and Squeers

It is good to see someone read the totally ignored DEEWR guidelines at last. DEEWR of course, pay no attention to what they say, and failed to even police the NSCP application forms, just handing out money to each and every school that sent a form in.

Schools were entered for the cashcow by evangelical principals, or lazy ones, or weak ones, who gathered up a clutch of evangelical parents and pushed ahead with little or not community consultation.

All objections were raised well before the flag went down, and all were totally ignored because the imperative was a base political one of Howard's and had nothing to do with 'the kiddies' at all.

Now of course, Mander's mob has grown so large they have no intention of shrinking again, and via the Australian Christian Lobby, and the Australian Prayer Network, that hive of busy bees in each of our (hardly) democratic parliaments, they beaver away nibbling at the ears of populist driven goons like Gillard and the Christ-like Kevin Rudd to ensure we get one of these 'Christian' monsters in each and every school in Australia, paid at the highest levels.

Imagine how much these unqualified, unprofessional, non-proselytising Christian missionaries will cost with their wages set at at least $60k, plus on costs, and paid as 'fringe benefits' they will give back no income tax at all, unlike any school teacher or school councillors, all while Manders Empire grows ever larger.

But why do the ALP support all these community fringe-dwellers when they vote National and Family First? Clearly the ALP is as infiltrated by Baptists, Hillsongsters, Pell-potters, and Jensen Anglicans as is the Liberal Party.

If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to think all these 'religiously pure' people are actually working for 'Old Nick' rather than Jesus, so low are their values, morals and behaviours as they run their inter-ages massive social and economic Ponzi scam.

CJ says that Queensland legislation is an anachronism that needs removal to reflect 21st century values, along with others who cry the need to return a secular status to public schools.

So can I describe my experience of secular education, Victorian style. Some of this relates to the 21st Century, while secularity in the Education Act dates from the 19th.

In recent years, in a high school close to my house in Melbourne, a local church began running a weekly voluntary lunchtime program for students. I heard it was generally well received by the school community, and has been allowed to continue for several years.

When I was in high school, the only time I remember hearing God mentioned was when the Gideon’s came (once), and the few times I attended the lunchtime program run by the local Baptist church (I only attended when it was raining).

My point being that some of what people are complaining about above happens just as well in other states. So by changing the law you might not achieve your apparent goals.

In six years of high school, I was never given one lesson in any form of philosophy, religion (comparative or otherwise), nor sex-education. I never heard any teacher say the words God or evolution (I took year 11 biology).

Some may say that that was an ideal, classical, form of secular education. Though I thought it was a good school, I would describe the approach shallow, perhaps cowardly. It’s not neutral. But it is rudderless. It risks communicating that life is unfathomable, or possibly meaningless. God is unknowable or perhaps not worth knowing.

I would agree with some here that comparative religion classes might be a good idea. But Squeers’ search for an impartial teacher, I think he/she’s realising is nearly impossible. People can try but they’re never totally impartial, not on this subject.

What’s left is people with the courage of their convictions. Davidf scorns those who don’t connect and communicate, and the rest want to run out of town those like Shine who obviously do.

Dan's state school experience was similar to mine, but I also went to a church school for 5 years as well (the one that performed psychological and physical abuse based on religion).

Dan suggests that a secular school system ... "risks communicating that life is unfathomable, or possibly meaningless. God is unknowable or perhaps not worth knowing."

Dan, welcome to 19th century Philosophy 101.

What bothers you and your ilk that life is unfathomable. The size of the universe and the number infinity are also unfathomable. The quaint 4th century idea of a "Trinity" is most certainly unfathomable. Is perpetuating first century myths and superstitions going to change this or simply give an appearance of meaning? Is your god knowable? If you claim your god is then how about giving us something other than reference to a series of contradictory texts written by unknown people, at the latest, 1700 years ago.

Is life meaningless? Well I don't think so and have quite easily got to my age (60) without needing god/s to give it meaning. Dan I suggest contemplating life without god/s. It is quite OK you know. Us heathens are not the bunch of amoral nihilists like you might think we are, and, if you can't get your head around these concepts then we are sorry for you but please don't foist your superstitious nonsense on our kids.

Hey Dan..

I'll give you 1000 $ecular dollars (worth their weight in truth) for every Australian State or Territory (other than Queensland of course) you can nominate that grants staff teachers the statutory right to "teach Bible lessons" in school hours using a Government recommended Good News Bible and a Government-authored worship-ridden 'curriculum' covering Year 1 - Year 7.

This 'curriculum' Dan..

http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/inclusive/religion/ri/faqs/docs/bible_lessons.pdf

Watch the movie and weep Dan..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r8ESBkr128

Poor fellow my Queensland public education system.

This isn't going to go away Dan.. it's not a matter of 'if' anymore.. it's a matter of 'when'.

DeepNortherner,
In regard to changing the Qld education laws, if your goal is to bring the law into line with other states, as you believe those laws in other states to be appropriate and workable, then you have my support.

However, if your aim is to expel all influences of Christianity or other religions from public schools, then you’ll find yourself not only fighting God but also public opinion, and you still won’t be in line with other states, which in practice are more tolerant and temperate than that.

Priscillian, to your set of questions:

Is life meaningless?

No, I don’t think it is. Definitely not so when viewed in the context of eternity, when all things are brought to just conclusion.

I think you are jumping to conclusions about me, or putting words in my mouth, if you think I view you as amoral nihilists. I’m not sure where you got that idea, and I’m sorry if you got that impression from anything I said. Are atheists other than regular people who find meaning in their own set of values? You tell me.

By the way, I liked your Woody Allen quote.

Is God knowable?

Yes, that is the essence of Christianity. God is knowable, not by our own cleverness, but because he has shown himself to us. God does this in ways of his own choosing. In particular, he showed us who he was by adopting human form and likeness (God with skin on, as one child put it) at a particular point in human history. That it was over 17 hundred years ago is not something that any of us had a say in or can change.

What bothers me about life being unfathomable?

As I just said, life is not unfathomable. Does it profit the student for a teacher to tell him that it is? Though there are many mysteries to which we will never understand, there are some things that we claim to know for certain.

In the context of the current discussion, that is, education in public schools, what can we impress on kids to have confidence or certainty about?

We all agree about science and the scientific method. That is why it’s a standard school subject. Though it wouldn’t hurt for kids to learn about the history of science and the religious and philosophical underpinnings that came about historically to allow for science to work.

You call what we believe superstition. In your attempts to expel from the school that which you don’t understand, be careful that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Dan,
Life has meaning to anybody who attempts to step out of the way of an oncoming car.

I appreciate your views on the metaphysical and I am tempted to join in but perhaps we are straying from the point with our theological ramblings.

Let's see if we can agree on something. We would both agree, I assume, that freedom of religion, as enshrined in our constitution, is a good thing. I hope you would agree that freedom from religion is equally desirable.

May I pose a hypothetical.

Let's say the "Church" of Scientology managed to gain access to state schools using political support and other sneaky means and got to our kids introducing weird concepts like Dianetics, Auditing and Thetans. How happy would you be with this situation?
They could argue like you that they were "educating" children about the "mysteries" and giving "meaning" to their lives. They too would claim that far from being a superstition their beliefs have been revealed as truth by guru L Ron Hubbard. You "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water", they could argue, just because it is "something you don't understand".

Would you suddenly be siding with us?

Great hypothetical, Priscillian. I attended a scientology seminar many years ago, and read Hubbard's text book (never fell for it though). I might just add to your scenario that the scientologists, like Christians in schools, would of course assert that they were not out to and would not proselytise anyone.
Should they be trusted? And if not, why not?

Priscillian,
No, I wouldn’t be suddenly siding with you, because I’ve already been siding with you for quite a while. You just haven’t been reading my posts carefully enough to notice.

If you look through what I’ve posted, you’ll see that I have already shown support for the principles of secularism. I and many Christians support the idea of a truly secular public education system as we don’t believe it is the role of government to be prescribing doctrine.

What I’ve been contending with others here is the general antagonism shown towards all religion, and the desire displayed by some to keep all forms of religious education out of public schools.

That Queensland prescribes a certain amount of Christian teaching is a matter for the Queensland electorate. I’m guessing that they vote the way they do because they see value in some amount of religious education, and are concerned that if the extreme secularists have their way, all forms of religious education, whether comparative or otherwise, would be expelled.

To totally ignore all religion, or teach only, for example, 19th Century post enlightenment philosophy, is in effect teaching a form of atheism by default. This should not be the role of the government education system.

With regard to freedom of religion, I don’t think this is mentioned in the Australian constitution, which only speaks of religion being neither a requirement nor impediment for holding office. However, I agree with your sentiment. Freedom to follow or not follow a faith amounts to the same freedom.

Would I be happy with the teachings from the Church of Scientology in schools? Probably not, for I agree with you that it sounds a bit strange, and also doesn’t have nearly the same levels of acceptance in the wider community. However, it may be of value for the senior kids when studying the presence of alternative beliefs in a multi-faith society. If concerns arise over questions such as these, they are best dealt with by parent committees at the local level.

Dan,

Australian Constitution - Section 116 - Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Dan, the point of my codicil, re the hypothetical, is that scientologists could not be trusted as disinterested school Chaplains. Why should you object to them if they give assurances that they will not proselytise? And if they can't be trusted to keep their religion out of their counsel, how can Christians? Sure, you're right that no one can give impartial counsel, but when a person is an active member of a fundamentalist religion with strong missionary ideals and, frankly, irrational beliefs, like scientologists and Baptists (the vast majority), surely their counsel is bound to reflect those beliefs?
And the fact that Christianity has broad support makes no difference; Today Christianity is an umbrella title that comprehends untold sects as well as diverse mainstream denominations, many with little in common. I have no figures, but I would think that most so-called Christians are a sober set who follow a Christian "tradition" rather than a rabid ideology, who accept the tenets of science and reason alongside their faith. Indeed many Christians are probably damn near secularists!
But these are not the ones infiltrating our schools!
All we are asking is that kids are given as much clear water as possible; that they are educated in observable, accessible and evidential concepts, and that religion if it must be taught, be taught as cultural history.

Dan,
I do read your posts, it's just that you confuse me with your contradictions and logical contortions.

You say you support the principles of secular education, then, without hardly pausing for breath you complain that some of us want all forms of religious education out of our public schools.
Sorry Dan, you can't have it both ways.

To claim that not teaching religion is actually teaching "atheism by default" is just plain silly and non-sequitur. It's like saying that not teaching about the rise of 19th century Capitalism is like teaching about the rise of 19th Century Communism by default.

The main thrust of your argument consists of "begging the question" logic. You assume before you start that (your) religion is a desirable thing for all. I for one don't think it is desirable at all. I think all religion is mostly nonsense and the teaching of it to young children is tantamount to psychological abuse.

Let us assume Dan that you get your way and are charged with the task of constructing a course for young kids on the topic of religion.
Which religion? Which brand of your chosen religion? Which bits do you include? Which bits are "too hot to handle"? Which detached and disinterested party will teach this stuff and how do you stop a teacher from straying from the "true" path? Which ancient book will be your reference.? Which version/translation? Who will determine the interpretation of this god given work? The question could go on and on but these will be enough for now.

Squeers,
A discussion as to which beliefs are rational and which are irrational is perhaps for another thread (and a pretty long one I’d guess).

Yet you say that most Christians are a ‘sober set’ accepting of science and reason. Then you distinguish the good guys from the bad by the word ‘fundamentalist’, without really defining that word. All belief systems and systems of thought, religious or otherwise, hold to certain fundamentals. Do you know of any that do not?

A fundamental is just an axiom or premise, common or central to a system of belief.

Although words have a habit of changing their meaning. These days fundamentalist is often used on these pages just as a derogatory term to label someone you don’t like.

Your main concern with chaplains seems to be the issue of trust. I’d agree that that is important. Chaplains don’t come into their positions lightly. They must earn the respect of their organisation, the organisation holding a good name in the community, with the individual demonstrating their worth and personal qualities within their workplace.

Above this, chaplains don’t force their services onto people. So if you don’t trust them as individuals, or collectively for what they stand for, then you are not obliged to use their services.

You remark with some surprise that many Christians are near to being secularists. Such a comment comes from a misunderstanding of the word secularist. Many Christians or people of other faiths love secular principles, as with them they may find sanctuary from a dominant culture or doctrine. I might even go so far as to say that secular ideals are a Christian invention. I understand that the idea of separating church and state was initially a church initiative to keep the government from imposing unwanted doctrine on the church.

This thinking dates back to Reformation days, and in particular, the writings of one John Calvin, who was born exactly 500 years ago this year (for a bit more about him, see the OLO article about him last month on July 20, 2009).

Priscillian,
If you criticise me for believing my view is correct, then we may as well pack up this whole show now. Everyone writing to OLO thinks their view is correct. That’s why they call it an opinion website. Actually, this is one of the strangest criticisms I’ve ever read in postings. If I didn’t think my faith was desirable, I wouldn’t hold to it.

My post was not contradictory. Secular education would only be in contradiction with religious education under certain definitions of secular. Once again, we’ve run into the problem of definitions. Secular in the broad sense, as Tim says, does not mean the absence of all things pertaining to religion. (Though you claim to have read my posts) I stated earlier that when secular education was first enacted in Victoria in the 19th Century, Bible reading and Christian teaching were still considered normal and appropriate. Others above have concurred with me on that.

Kids learn by example. If we want to communicate by demonstration that there was no god (atheism), then we ought never mention god and act as if the idea of a god was irrelevant to practical life and all studies. That is some people’s idea of secular education, and that is what I mean by teaching atheism by default.

You ask me what I would do if I was teaching religion. I’ve never taught a religion subject but plenty of other people have. My wife tells me that she took a course in comparative religions at her Anglican Girls school. As for many of your questions, these could be addressed by school and parent committees. But I would suggest, for example, that a comparative religions class could cover an overview of the history and central teachings of the major religions. If my kid was being taught maths, I would expect the teacher to have studied the subject to a high level, have a deep appreciation of the subject, and be good at communicating concepts to an appropriate age level. The same could be said for religious studies or any subject.

Dan,
I am not critical of you at all. I disagree with your ideas and beliefs but you seem OK to me and your intentions are obviously honourable.

I am critical of your logic and method of argument. Your argument is of the type often called "begging the question". (although this term is often misused in meaning "....it raises the argument".

Begging the question: "Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly)."

You are doing this by assuming that teaching kids religion is a beneficial course of action. You have failed to demonstrate this before you proceed to other arguments.

As for your ideas about ways of teaching religion in schools well....what else can I say?

I wish you well.

Dan

Priscillian rules.

You are too generalised here, "I stated earlier that when secular education was first enacted in Victoria in the 19th Century, Bible reading and Christian teaching were still considered normal and appropriate".

That was true for Victoria, and NSW, but not for Qld. You need to read Qld history to understand that 'secular' here was more secular than 'secular' down south.

Early Qlders, mainly Christians, wanted to keep the Bible and 'religion' out of state schools.

Mander's mob got a foot in the door from the ALP, the same group who so opposed Bible lessons and RI up to 1875.

Of course, the ALP never thought to run a referendum to introduce chaplains, as in 1910 for Bible lessons and RI, they just imposed 'chaplains' on state schools.

But worse, without going back to a referendum they altered the intent of 1910, allowing anyone into schools, not just 'priests and vicars', watering down the principle of teaching 'those of your own flock'.

Qld schools ignore the current Education Act and impose religion on students through lies and calumny.... hardly very Christian... to achieve compliance.

As for 'avoiding' chaplains, you have no understanding whatsoever of the role of the chaplaincy consent form, nor how it fails to be policed in schools. Neither do you seem to have an appreciation of how insidious these people are allowed to be as they are given free reign to run programs to attract students to sport activities at breaktime- although no one bothers to check the consent forms or ask why an activity is put on for a select 'religious' group.

If broad student sport is a good idea at lunch time, why is it organised by the chaplain? "Oh, because s/he is a decent person"... not at all.

Read the literature about SU and understand how they regard 'evangelism'. Having the chaplain in contact with the students, playing sport at lunchtime, is an act of evangelism according to SU, which they are prohibited from doing in Qld schools-so why are they there?

Priscillian,
I understand where you’re coming from with the phrase ‘begging the question’. In addressing the question of how secular education should operate in government schools, my contention was that there was no reason for religious studies to be completely ignored. While it’s not the government’s role to decide which religion is superior, we also ought not encourage ignorance of this world’s realities or the beliefs our neighbour, relegating faith to the no-go zone. I offered several reasons for my contention beyond simply assuming it to be correct.

My comments were more aimed at the general question than the particular situation in Queensland.

But thank-you for your comments. Especially, thanks for that information on guidelines for chaplains and the Australian constitution, the type of information which can add objectivity to a discussion.

Tim Mander writes; "The majority of Queenslanders are not atheists or agnostics and many religious groups are represented in Queensland community life. It is reasonable that state schools should reflect this very real community diversity."
This assertion in itself is pandering to superstition and delusion on the assumption that majority belief confers rationality and scientific legitimacy. The many religious groups represented in Queensland have a plethora of private schools and an unrivalled network of institutions called churches or other names with which to cater to religious faith. How reasonable is it to provide for this diversity in state schools by incorporating every religion in Mander's precious "reflection"? Then consider how much easier it is to provide the option for a Comparative Religion section in a broader Philosophy subject.
Religions have invested vast sums in edifices of faith and fiercely maintain their inviolability before the ministrations of government and rejoice in indiscriminate tax-payer funding of diverse natures.
In fairness, in the the universal promotion of tolerance and ecumenism, surely such funding requires that equality of proselytising be respected and that opportunities to introduce counselling in secularism, agnosticism, humanism, extropianism/transhumanism and atheism be allocated a weekly class in institutions of faith. Or does Mander's inviolability operate in only one direction?

http://www.secular.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:art-creating-a-better-australia&catid=29:main
South Australia was the first colony to abolish state aid to religion in 1851, followed by NSW in 1865 and Victoria in 1870. Beginning in Victoria in 1871, each colonial government during the 1870s passed legislation establishing the principle that education should be “universal, secular and free”. In this, in other innovations like women’s suffrage and the secret ballot, and in social wages and benefits, Australia led the world.