CONFESSION TIME...... but it's already provided by.....chainsmoker...

He has wonderfully illustrated that:

"A fair bit of what kids learn at school already has a humanist angle"

No kidding :) I'd go much further.. MOST IF NOT ALL of what kids are taught is within a humanist framework. In fact it is not the lack of evidence about Christ Jesus that persuades many young people to opt out of faith and into hedonistic materialism..but the 'plausability structure' which is contrived by a humanistic education that befouls their impressionable minds.

If we want to sort out what is or isn't taught in schools.. lets immediately do the following:

1/ NO science or other class can make a declaration "the world came into being by chance" ..they may ONLY say "Many but not all,scientists 'believe' that such happened...various theories exist..
a)
b)
c) etc

2/ NO history class can say "Jesus Christ did not exist" or "was a mythological figure/did not rise from the dead"

The most they can say is 'SOME' historians and scholars believe.....such and such and OTHERS believe differently.

-The evidence is as follows:....... a) b) c) d)

In fact...this thread has opened up a great can of worms showing just how much children ARE ALREADY brainwashed by Humanism at level of their education.

NEUTRALITY seldom occurs naturally.

The greatest challenge facing education is 'which set of biases' will our curriculum be based on

It is quite fascinating, Boaz, following your trains of thought..

>>In fact it is not the lack of evidence about Christ Jesus that persuades many young people to opt out of faith and into hedonistic materialism...<<

Hey, I thought we had agreed on this before.

"Opting out of faith" does not automatically lead to opting "into hedonistic materialism".

Any more than becoming a priest automatically entitles you to mess with the choirboys.

But back to your main point.

I don't agree that any amount of "evidence" - either lack of, or superabundance of - is responsible for the individual's decision on whether they will be religious or not.

Religion is fundamentally an emotional decision, and perfectly resistant to any form of logic or intellectual reasoning.

I attended church schools where belief was not simply expected, but assumed. I don't believe that their approach had any significant impact on my eventual determination of what I did or did not believe, any more than if they had avoided the topic entirely.

But I must also take issue with your edict on what can and cannot be taught.

>>NO science or other class can make a declaration "the world came into being by chance"<<

Science classes should restrict themselves to scientific explanations.

To introduce the prospect of a deity creating the world along the lines of Genesis would be totally inappropriate. Examination of the many past, current and evolving scientific theories should, on the other hand, be mandatory.

>>NO history class can say "Jesus Christ did not exist" or "was a mythological figure/did not rise from the dead"<<

History classes should restrict themselves to history. Jesus as a historic figure might qualify as a topic, as might the legends surrounding him, but always within the bounds of normal historical constraints.

Classes on religion, on the other hand, can have free rein to discuss any - in fact preferably all - its variations.

That's their job.

But Humanism is not a religion, and should not be "taught" as such.

Many of its tenets would sit comfortably in an ethics class.

But not Religious Instruction.

Polycarp wrote:

1/ NO science or other class can make a declaration "the world came into being by chance" ..they may ONLY say "Many but not all,scientists 'believe' that such happened...various theories exist..

Dear Polycarp,

I am unaware of any science class in which such a statement has been made. It is the type of nonsense creationists talk in their distortion of science.

Evolution and creation are not matters of chance. They are the results of natural processes. To talk of what scientists 'believe' is more religious nonsense. Scientists look at the evidence and use reason to make the most plausible explanation on the basis of that evidence. If new evidence shows their previous hypothesis wrong they will form new hypotheses.

One of the principles of humanism is:

"Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions."

If people want to believe in nonsense contained in books with talking snakes they have that right, but that nonsense should not be part of science classes.

Dear Gibo,

I think you will find that Hilter was a Catholic and the Germans of the NAZI regime, Catholic or Lutheran:

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." - Hilter (Mein Kampf)

Of the Humanists, from the discipline of Psychology, I admire Carl Rogers, whom claimed words the effect we all should have "unconditional positive regard" for each other.

I think I would prefer Rogers' humanism, over Christians settling 2,000 year old religio-racist scores. Further, I would rather see pupils given the tools to ojectivity assess claims, be the claims religious or non-religious.

*A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.*

Last paragraph of humanist-mission-statement from DavidF. He then expresses hatred, ridiculing theism.

-DavidF: The above makes much more sense than using a book containing fairy tales about talking snakes, a psychopathic God who subjects his son to torture and other nonsense as a guide to conduct. Humanism encourages critical thinking and ethical conduct.-

He's intolerant… Religious parents/kids exist too, no matter what we think of it, they're allowed to be. Humanism is denying their *faith* in god(s) prefering their *conviction* in tolerance.

Also though… I believe that *tolerance for tolerance sake* is a very dangerous thing and DavidF is entitled to his disgust...as I am to mine in stuff.

It’s called discrimination or critical thinking. It's vital for everyone regardless of, stand, ethic or belief or whatever word you are.

-Spikey: A humanist course- if well taught- would do what proper religious education- if well taught- would do: encourage young people to think seriously about how religious claims are made and assessed.-

It’s good to think… people need form opinions about religion/politics… I don't trust *teaching* it to human-nature either.

I wouldn't like kids being taught to hate/write-off religion/god. Or if their *faith* being somehow wrong.

I am atheist too btw, I just don’t automatically hate religion or knock faith for others… There is good and bad in almost everthing.

-Pericles: Many of its tenets would sit comfortably in an ethics class.-
Alot wouldn't too, depending on your ethics, but it's less intrusive to put it in a seperate class.

-Polycarp: The greatest challenge facing education is 'which set of biases' will our curriculum be based on.-

Yes, agreed.

Also it's adults only stuff in a sense, these days these are bleak subjects...

Could these classes be kept until the HSC/University when one is almost an adult with more chance of making *own* decisions?

Which opens up debate of the political hijacking of universities.

Spikey, it works like this:
Teach little kiddies nonsense, if they play up, cane them.

OK on a more serious note, for the most part I agree with Pericles.
When I first read the article, it felt to me as if the humanists were fed left-overs or something. I find it a bit demeaning.

I'd love to have read that the humanists snobbed the opportunity.

Now that humanists have shown they are so eager to grab ANY opportunity to be included, the repercussions are that there will be even less people who oppose religious teaching at public schools.

Critical thinking and philosophy should be taught to ALL children, not just to those who have opted-out of Religious Education.
I dare say that children who come from religious backgrounds need critical thinking skills the most and should not miss out.
Little kids believe anything that adults tell them, that's why religious indoctrination should not happen at all!

I think that IF religions are to be taught at all in primary school, then all children should be taught an overview of world religions and atheism as well.

CJ, I think it's dreadful that your daughter has had to face the wall during RE. It's the school's duty to cater for all children. I've protested quite a lot about the lack of alternatives to religious education during my children's primary school years and solutions have always remained mediocre.