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.