I prefer though that all religious, political (and in ways even social) dogma be kept out of schools, including social/politically inclined Humanist lessons… I don’t think even the simple atheistic *there is no god* should be *pushed* either as kids must also be free to believe in a god(s) if they are so inclined. I think it is a personal matter and to be kept out of the curriculum.

I think philosophy/critical thinking could possibly be taught in junior school along with their history and that may be better... with just a very "dry and unbais explanation" of each religion and the other beleifs like humanism and atheisim.

A big lesson on seperation of law and religion is what matters.. that is all that needs to be *instilled*

My main concern is that all are, prone to be used as vehicles to push personal POVs. This is why I prefer to work on getting it ALL out of the curriculum.

I don't want Left wing, Right wing, Islamic Madrasses, Zen Peace, Jesus Saves or God Bashing type schools either.

If a religion wants to fund a school, that is fine but no imputting of their POVs.

Ah runner in my life's role as an Aussie larakin, I love a day at the football, a bar b q, good company over a beer or glass of wine.
And a laugh.
Thanks for your reference to dogma, I leave now chuckling, breaking into full blown laughter.
in fact rolling on the floor, dogma!

For us.... it is great to have an opportunity to share Gods love with young people who might otherwise not have a chance to hear about it at home.

Still... R.E. should not be compulsory, and there will always be a kind of tugging between optional/compulsory camps. It will depend on the area and the ethos/culture of that area.

I imagine that a strongly Christian area would feel quite happy for some extra exposure at school to the Word, but they should be doing that at home and at Sunday meetings anyway.

As for Humanist education? my only question is.. "Can they provide a philosphical basis other than "we should be because... err because.. yeah.. because..."

Religious/Philosophical education at schools is probably best kept at the 'informative' level rather than driving towards commitment, though with the right information, commitment might come anyway.

If the Gospel is 'foolishness to those who are perishing'.... how can a structured class make any difference to this?

I think deep down, no matter how much we believers agree in principle to such things being 'informative' we are really hoping and praying that some will be saved as a result of exposure to the Gospel of Grace.

R.E. Is no substitute for we, the Body of Christ, making the Gospel known at every opportunity and in every available place.

TRTL
This is indeed an interesting subject.
What concerns me though is that most of the commentators thus far with the exception of FOXY (of course) and yourself have little or no idea of what humanism is. PC, runner, Gibo have difficulty with the basic premise that religion isn't the only source of 'goodness’, morality, ethics etc hence the idea that any other form could be useful much less desirable.
Likewise there are many different ideas as to what humanism actually is.
Even though I describe myself as a secular humanist I would be uncomfortable with teaching children the ‘secular’ bit (personal choice).
Having said that It would all depend on how the subject is approached i.e. ‘Aussie’ history as it was taught was hardly accurate or useful. A humanistic bent in that the class discussing how life was and what were the conflicts of the time then juxtaposing it to today’s problems is relevant.

As some one who has spent a lot of time on the front line of crisis management. I think that practical humanism would help in that it gives people worth. This lack of self perceived worth, by the way, is at the base of much of our social problems. Certainly gang mentality, teenage suicide etc. In many cases pushing god on someone in crisis is unhelpful…what they often want is help seeing a way through rather than avoidance.

I can see classes that look at practical real life issues and discussing human based solutions (humanism) i.e. how to improve laws.

Humanism as a principal is no more threatening that the PRE Christian golden rule
‘Do to others as you want then to do to you.’ (PC et al research before you explode). The subjects need not be dogmatic (in fact shouldn’t) but individualistic, positive and by definition empowering.

I raised 3 1/3 children with humanism and all are different save the fact that they all respect others and their opinions/rights. One is very pro law observance, one is environment happy, one is pro down trodden and the 1/3 is a Jewish hippy. Go figure.

A fair bit of what kids learn at school already has a humanist angle. They consider the thinking and attitudes behind literature, think about the attitudes that brought about particular bits of history, get asked 'how would you feel if this was you?' at bully training, that sort of thing.

Humanism classes would just bring that together as a philosophical system. Being thoughtful and mindful of others simply because they're fellow humans, as opposed to having to be nice to avoid nasty consequences.

Even quite young kids enjoy solving ethical problems. If it was done right it could be brilliant. If it's just god bashing it could just add to the problems we already have.

I think this is a major step backwards.

In order to get their message in front of schoolchildren, the Humanist Society of Victoria has dragged it down to the level of a religion, alongside other "approved religions" such as Judaism, Buddhism and Baha'i.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/religion-in-schools-to-go-godfree-20081213-6xxs.html?page=-1

"Accredited volunteers will be able to teach their philosophy in the class time designated for religious instruction. As with lessons delivered by faith groups, parents will be able to request that their children do not participate."

"Class time designated for religious instruction"?

Personally, I have no quarrel with RI in schools, particularly where i) the parent or child can opt out and ii) where there is a choice of topics from which to choose. Learning about the hold that religion has over many people is an important part of a rounded education.

But classifying Humanism in this fashion, in a space normally occupied by religion, seriously degrades the Humanist message to "just another idea".

Humanism is, at heart, about ethics unadorned by slavish devotion to a mythological carer-figure. It stands alone and apart, since it allows the responsibility to be taken by the individual, rather than be subsumed in some - not always particularly savoury - collective consciousness.

"Standalone" ethics may - and should - be taught in any number of non-religious ways. Parking it in a space normally reserved for dogma-driven belief systems can only be damaging in the long term.

The reason is simple. Ethics should not be a voluntary option. By bundling ethics into a religious framework - one which, you can guarantee, every religion enthusiast would insist that their child boycotts - you have turned the entire concept on its head.

As history has amply demonstrated, many times over, ethics and religion do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

They should not be conflated in the minds of our children either.