In NSW, where up to 50-80% of pupils in some public schools 'opt out' of scripture lessons, it has been proposed to trial an ethics course to coincide with scripture classes. Apparently the NSW Education Act currently "prohibits non-scripture students being taught while others receive religious instruction" due to a 19th century deal between the NSW government and the churches, so those pupils who opt out of scripture waste that part of the school week watching videos, or in some cases being forced to sit outside the principal's office.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/26/2697351.htm

While I don't think that it's actually illegal for kids in Queensland and other State schools to be taught something useful instead of religious instruction, in my experience the situation for those pupils who opt out of scripture classes is similar to that in NSW. As a parent I've long found this to be unsatisfactory, and I'd welcome the introduction of a well-designed and delivered ethics course as an alternative to 'religious education' for students in State schools who wish to opt out of it.

Given the somewhat 'unholy' alliance between the Qld Education and Christian organisation such as the Scripture Union I don't think it's likely in the near future, but perhaps the NSW proposal may get the ball rolling interstate as well. I certainly hope so - what do others think?

CJ

Your ethics idea sounds a much bettter proposition than what we currently have in Queensland, which is very much as you describe. You're right, Scripture Union has gained enormous influence over schools here - through its growing stranglehold on religious 'education' and through its goal of placing chaplains in all public schools.

Personally, I'd go a step further. I'd ban religious 'education' in all public schools and introduce philosophy instead. It's already been done very successfully in several pulic schools. It would cover ethics and as well encourage a deeper and more reflective form of thinking than currently exists in most educational institutions.

CJ MORGAN,

How dare you!

We thoroughly enjoyed our free periods twice a week. In summer we used to spend it playing cricket in the playground which, come to think of it, is the best ethics class you can imagine.

You, sir, are a KILLJOY!

A KILLJOY I tell you.

Dear CJ,

I think the study of ethics would be very useful
to any student, as would Bronwyn's suggestion
regarding philosophy. It would teach students
to think. And as we know the authority of the
thinker can surpass that of the warrior.

The philosopher Julian Baggini has this to say:

" A philosophical approach to life is not about
developing a philosophy of life, nor about
constructing one's own metaphysical system in the
privacy of one's own mind. It is rather about
subjecting all our beliefs to clear, rational
scrutiny, including our belief about what
constitutes clear, rational thinking. This is something
best done in conjunction with others, not ourselves,
which is why philosophers sometimes come across as such
argumentative souls. Whereas often our conversations
tend to be really no more than exchange of ideas, the
philosopher wants to examine their ideas and probe
them more. To those unfamiliar with this approach, such
scrutiny can be seen like a challenge or a threat.
But the aim is not to quarrel, it is to pursue the truth."

Shouldn't this be the purpose of
education?

I fully agree with CJ and Bronwyn on this one, in fact its a subject
I've raised before on OLO.

The problem remains that the small but loud religious fraternity
want to claim anything associated even vaguely with morality,
as their little patch and would see this as the thin edge of the
wedge, which I hope it is.

Only parents protesting loudly will eventually change things.

An ethics class is an excellent idea in both public and private schools. Many children attending even religious run private schools do not necessarily attend them for purely religious reasons.

Children would be far better to learn about the rights and wrongs of common ethical and moreal dilemas in our current society and way of life, than to learn about any particular God or religion.

Religion should be left outside the school curriculum altogether.

Imparting ethical values in schools by the teachers is absolutely essential in order to see that the children develop good character.Lack of moral values in the societies is the primary reason for the conflicts we see the world over.Though morality is first learnt from parents, schools can certainly play a synergistic role in this as children have a high opinion of their teachers.Modern day education prepares children only for some careers and in the process attention to ethics is given a go bye.We all must realise that "education is not just career guidance but building conscience!"

Oh hell, I'll join the love-in: good idea, CJ and even better one Bronwyn. Teach kids to think, not just regurgitate whatever drivel they're told.

I'd go further and get rid of the stupidly restrictive rules designed to make it easier for teachers to supervise playtime while stopping kids from doing what they've always done, including learning to negotiate their way out of conflicts.

I wonder how much of the current rash of violence in young men and women is down to them never learning alternative means of resolving issues and perhaps, never learning how ugly violence is as a young child? If a kid grows up thinking the worst thing a bully can do is call them names, what preparation do they have for dealing with the inevitable aggressive behaviour when they're older?

We (yes, me too, although I work hard not to) do too much to wrap our kids in cotton wool. Some lessons can only be truly learnt the hard way.

Ethics--whose ethics?
Balderdash!

When it comes to life skills I’m rooting for Game Theory and perhaps a period or two of Tae Kwon Do.

I would say an ethics class is a no brainer. I would go further and suggest that if we must have religious classes, they should be comparative religion; where teachers of all religions take turns espousing their particular cause to the same class, and allowing students to choose freely between them -or reject them, as the case may be.

Thanks people - clearly the NSW proposal is a good one. However, I think that Bronwyn's suggestion is better: a basic introductory philosophy course that incorporated ethics would fill an existing hole in the curriculum.

I'd even go as far as some others have suggested and advocate the ditching of 'scripture' and 'religious instruction' altogether from public schools, and replacing them with a subject of the kind that Bronwyn suggests, which could of course cover elements of comparative religion.

Children whose parents want them to receive religious education can always send them to religious schools, provide it themselves, or send them to Sunday School or whatever.

Steven - if kids who opt out of Scripture or R.E. classes were given the option of playing sport instead I wouldn't be so concerned. However, that's certainly not the case at my daughter's Qld State school. Also, I think an introductory philosophy unit would be much more beneficial to a child's overall education than more sport - which features pretty prominently in primary school education anyway.

Balls to religious classes, and also balls to ethics classes. Take a look at this piece on corporate ethics.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26077827-25192,00.html

"Underlying these curriculum decisions is a simple proposition: business people behave better if they study more ethics.... All the moral reflection and inquiry that is presumably part and parcel of being a professional ethicist had no observable effect on actual behaviour."

I see no reason why this doesn't apply to ethics on the broader scale.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if we really want a valuable subject being taught in the curricululm, go for critical reasoning classes. They'll provide a much more concrete basis for decision making.

Some of responded that it's merely categorizing different logical flaws into their respective groups, but I respectfully suggest that these people have no real understanding of what critical reasoning represents. It enhances our ability to cut through propaganda and would be the best possible antidote to manipulation I can think of.

If you really want to give students both a head-start and some kind of decision-making framework, go for critical reasoning. Leave the ethics to parents.

Dear CJ,

I came across this quote from the economist and
author Tor Hundloe who I thought gives a very
good outline for why teaching philosophy would
be an excellent idea in our schools. He writes:

"At some time in our distant past we started on a
never-ending journey of asking questions about the
world we live in. As the enduring myths from the
four corners of the globe show, two matters exercised
pre-modern people. One was nature. We needed rain.
We needed sunshine. We didn't want destructive storms
and floods and droughts. There were in all societies
gods who made these things happen. The other thing to
exercise our minds were human relationships.

Theft, murder, incest and many other human possibilities
were detrimental to the human pursuit of health and happiness.
We invented gods who would tempt us, and others who would
turn us away from uncivil behaviour. As in our minds, we had
those gods fight with each other. We invented gods who were
benevolent and those who were malevolent. Slowly, gradually
our brains grew in size, as our knowledge accumulated,
we moved from the mystical to the empirical; and then
philosophy was born.

Today our understanding of the world we live in, our
understanding of our social, economic and political
relationships, and our understanding of our personal
relationships (how we should live) are all traceable back to
the early days of philosophy...All of us practice philosophy
at some level when we consider how we should relate to our
fellows, who we should vote for, or what to do about the
threat of climate change. We have been thinking about issues
in a rational way since the time of the first philosopher..."

The hole in CJ's argument, from my perspective is assumption that RI classes teach anything but dogma. Which was both my and our children's experience ...they opted out after 1&2 lessons. The youngest simply refused to attend lessons.

Bronwyn's idea doesn't make the dubious assumption that Christian children in all schools don't need ethics.

However, the practical implementing the of exclusion of RI is unfortunately almost impossible.

I do believe a prerequisite of practical Philosophy (as opposed to Learning about the various schools there of, techniques and jargon etc.)would help the children to think and benefit Australia would be appropriate.

Another option might be a unit of a structured comparative religions wouldn't go astray. It was available as an HSC topic some years in Victoria. From memory it was an interesting topic.

My favoured option could be current events but from different national and regional perspectives. e.g. Rupee News (http://rupeenews.com/ a Pakistani take on the world. The difference between what our media tells us and the details on this site says about the Afghan war compete with reports related facts, attitudes, interrelations and effects of the various 'stans is fascinating.

The hole in CJ is not in his argument but the gaping hole in his mind, brought about by a total misunderstanding of the Holy scriptures, and how they cover the field, when it comes to ethics and morality. In this respect many Pastors and Chaplains come in for accusations of serious dereliction of duty, because they are like the people referred to in the Holy Bible, Jesus said that the blind lead each other into the ditch. Blinded to reality, they have allowed the people to be led into believing a corporation is a desirable state, and that legislation can exempt people from the necessity to have a soul. The very essence of a soul is a conscience, and the essence of ethics is to give the soul peace.

The State by legislation has created corporations of us all, whereas we are in reality living individuals. As corporations we can have no mind of our own, but must blindly obey the dictates of Parliament, and Statute Law. This is necessary for the heartless State must be able to steal to sustain itself, or it will perish. It can only steal from a corporation, because an individual, by reference to the Holy Bible, has a soul, and can only be judged by the Holy Ghost.

This week I met a Muslim, whose argument that he is a living breathing individual, outside the jurisdiction of State Magistrates, has all of them confused and unable to deal with him. He says that the State has made him a corporation, and this is against the teachings of Allah. The conscience of the magistrate is engaged, and he must let the Muslim go. If Christians were taught the basis of Christianity, as thoroughly as this Muslim has been taught, there would be no poverty in Australia.

There is light being cast upon reality, by the million or so Muslims in Australia. They do not like being treated as corporations, entities as defined in Queensland, and they are confusing State Magistrates by their theology in its similarity to Christianity. Jury trial is Christianity

It isn't a bad idea to establish a generic Philosophy class to encourage and stimulate students to think about ethical issues.

If religion once provided a framework for morality/ethics (albeit rigid with it's own intolerances) there is a good argument for some more formal/informal lessons on Ethics ie. replacing formal religious instruction using 'fear' with a better way to, as PTB put it, to nourish the soul/conscience.

However, there is no point in teaching children to think if we don't also raise the bar on social expectations for behaviour. Having been exposed to both the public and private school systems there is much room for improvement in expectations in behavioural standards among students.

I am not arguing zero tolerance in the cases of children, but a more rigorous solution to reducing the level of bullying, disrespect and bad language. Manners and behaviour may sound trite but it is the foundation to creating a more tolerant and respectful society. Religious intolerance probably topping the list.

"Jesus said that the blind lead each other into the ditch."

I couldn't help laughing. Tell an atheist to walk into a ditch and they'll ask why. Tell a fundamentalist god wants them to walk into a ditch and they'll offer to blind themselves on their way in.

What would a modern 'ethics' class consist of?
Topics such as 'Your legal rights at 16'; 'Safe Sex and Contraception'; 'Consent: the essence of Morality'; 'Friends, the New Family' etc...
I'm attracted to the idea, but at High School level I feel the topics would be rather shallow.

I remember scripture lessons in my NSW school days. The Anglicans stayed in class, the Catholics went to another room and watched old cartoons of Bible stories and the Muslim and the Jew sat in the corner. Even then I thought it was unreasonable. I enjoyed Catholic Scripture time, but didn't learn much from it.

Really, though, I object to religious education at state schools altogether - especially the insidious chaplaincy program that is worming its way into QLD schools. Our chaplain is a really nice guy, but I always feel like we are violating kids' rights when we ask them to 'bow their heads and pray' at assemblies. Why should they? There are plenty of good Catholic schools, a good Anglican school and a couple of good generic Christian schools in Townsville. If the kids (or their parents) wanted religion as part of their education, they could have it. Sometimes I think the Scripture Union is trying to take the easy way out - rather than building, funding and running its own schools, it is trying to convert the state schools. That's not what we are about.

As for a comparative religion subject (which, I agree, is perhaps a 'Plan C' behind ethics and philosophy), the QSA has one, taught primarily in Catholic schools. I learnt more about Buddhism and Islam in high school than I learnt about Catholicism, and I think the experience was enriching. They left the religious doctrine to the church, and taught a sociological subject focusing on the social construct that is religion during schooltime. It worked.

Otokonoko,
It stands to reason that the subject would become progressively complex/in-depth in sync. with the year level's average capacities.

It seems to me that there are two primary objective in my selection are;
a. to foster greater understanding between different peoples. As this is the most achievable
b. to teach children HOW to reason.
c. to remain relevant to the upcoming generations to encourage informed and reasoned involvement as adults.

I guess thinking more deeply about it the solution is " a little from option column a. current event from different national perspectives.
a little from column, b. Philosophy and c. comparative religion.

While I object to RI for probably the same reasons as you I don't underestimate the 'proprietary' ferocity of the Scripture Union on behalf of the churches. First law of organizational practice is 'to ensure its own longevity and prosperity'.

From some of the posts I am given some concern as what is meant by ethics. Some of out the currently understood "ethics" are simply legal codified religious doctrine by way of 'culture'. The problem is that some of these are either 'outgrown' religious control (conditioning) mechanisms or that allow unnecessary victim stigmatising and facilitate/encourage power abuses.
What do you think?

Pelican

As stated many time I have no problem with personal private religiosity or spirituality et al. but what practically does that mean? Have you ever tried to discuss esoterica with average adolescents? They're just not engaged or interested.

I would suggest that the only realistic way to raise the level of public behaviour is to work with realities.

This is fun.

We have a dysfunctional over-bureaucratised school system that cannot effectively teach relatively straightforward subjects like high school science and mathematics. Don't even talk about grammar!

And yet the posters here think the state school systems are capable of teaching ethics and philosophy to primary schoolers?

I hope this goes ahead. I am DYING to see what sort of syllabus they come up with and what sort of buffoons they get to teach it. At my age I've learned to take my laughs where I can get them and this would be a good one.

However, to me, cricket still seems a better option.

Steven makes a good point. Examinator, your suggestion of discussing current events would effectively mean it's impossible to create a syllabus for this to be taught.

With no universal standards for teachingt the subject, it's going to become one of those boring pointless classes that quickly loses all value. Who is going to teach this?

I've still yet to see anything convincing that would show that 'ethics' classes would in any way improve the moral character of people. That link I posted earlier shows that there has been no link between knowledge of ethical frameworks and people behaving in a moral way.

Nobody has shown anything that gives me the slightest reason to believe that teaching people about ethics in any way makes them more ethical.

As for your comment about reasoning, Examinator, that's why I'd suggest classes in critical reasoning instead. We can lay out quite a specific framework, focusing on particular fallacies and we can actually outline methods to deconstruct particular arguments step-by-step. It's not light material, but it can be made very specific and it can be standardised.

CJ, instinctively I love the idea. I wish you could persuade me the kids would like it as much as I do. As it stands it seems most of the adults on OLO have trouble with grasping the concepts behind ethics, so methinks the kids would have no hope.

Still, it is far too attractive idea to give up on easily. So how about civics? Expose the kids to Fredrick Toben thoughts and debate the idea of whether we get to shut him up, drag them along to the local council sittings, force them to sit down through an hour of parliamentary debate, pick up the newspaper and discuss the stories - hell even get them to write responses to OLO posts. In other words if they aren't interested in how God's kingdom is run, teach them how we run ours.

Hmmm...this one is a good one and is bound to bring out some 'interesting' responses to say the least. I hope mine is one based on reason rather than rhetoric, prejudice and unsupported assertions.
It is a bit of a false dichotomy here.Rather than having all those who opt out go to an ethics class, I strongly advocate for the introduction of ethics/morality classes as a compulsory subject for every school student.
Yes, my dream would be to cut out all religious instruction in school and leave it to the parents, but if we did that some valuable ethical/moral ideas would be lost. However, by having ethics/morality classes as part of the core curriculum, we would be introducing students to some of the worlds finest thinkers, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim etc.
A lot of people continue to have the view that all of our ethical/moral reason is based upon religion especially the Christian based ones, therefore views like mine do suffer plenty of flak, albeit poorly supported.
With the teaching of ethics to kids we would be introducing them to a great many tools especially that of putting together an argument that is based on sound reasoning and consideration of all viewpoints, rather than unsupported assertions.
So yes, at the moment, bring on alternative classes in ethics. Hopefully one day the need for spiritual 'education' in schools will be a thing of the past.

*I am DYING to see what sort of syllabus they come up with and what sort of buffoons they get to teach it.*

Now that IS being cynical!

Sounds like the pilot has already been developed, with some reasonably
qualified people involved. No point knocking it, until the full
details are out.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/almighty-row-over-ethics-class-in-schools-20090925-g6a0.html

After all, the Catholic nuns used to teach me that if I was not
a good 5 year old, I would burn in hell forever. It can't get much
worse then that.

Steven,
Trolling isn't normally your thing. What's with the idiotic generalised extremes in lieu some lateral thinking? As stated the level of the topic would match the year level.

TRTL

Of course it could be formulated/curricula concepts. Every topic has multiple aspects. The teacher has a concept to teach (according to the year level) then selects a topic from the current events and then directs the efforts of the class.

A reasonable question was raised i.m.o?

" ... Whose Ethics? ... "

Well, why not Australian ethics?

..

I personally favor composite learning modules. So for argument sake, at a time when I used to jog, I did so in a green, nature rich environment, whilst studying foreign language vocab via audio, encoded with brain frequency following response beat technologies for an enhanced experience, though would pause occasionally to watch and listen to the the galahs sicking up and feeding their babies.

..

The legislative enshrinement of Australian individual rights, ethics, morality and philosophy juxtaposed against the international system and of course, something of the criminal code, the history of the consequences when group and individual behavior departs from same, and various contributions to the future development of same from a large cross section of special interest groups.

Of course, these are all large areas in and of themselves but I am quietly confident that highly skilled Professors could break it all down into "simple, pertinent, intellectually digestible info-packets."

Exam: I agree we have to work with realities but we can also be the instruments of change if we want it badly enough.

Personally I think ethics and morality is the domain of the home . But I guess the reality is that many parents these days are AWOL and kids are left sorting out many of these realities for themselves.

We have dropped the ball in relation to standards of acceptable behaviour - and at the risk of sounding like a fogey - I don't believe that the problem is insurmountable, challenging yes, but not impossible.

The problem with any sort of ethics program is that it will only be as good as the person 'teaching' it and while most teachers will present the subject in an open manner of debate, many may bring a strong agenda. How will the discussion be presented appropriately to various age groups? I would personally hope it only be directed to Yr11/12.

My daughter, when in Year 1, came home one day from school saying the teacher said she could do anything she wanted to do - literally.

YeGads, it transpired that there was a motivtional speaker (heaven help me for year ones) who talked about her athletic career and the number of personal obstacles and handicaps she had to overcome to achieve ie. you can do anything you want to.

Took me ages to sort that one out in terms of meaning.

Have you heard the one about Harvard business school considering including ethics in their curriculum? Questions are being asked about how culpable the schools are, for the GFC.
Serving Mammon, instead of God?

Why not go one step further and offer LAW and Ethics as a subject for high school students?
I did this subject at college and it certainly made me think more deeply about the consequences of peoples actions.

It was a fascinating subject that I am sure could be taylored to the needs of adolescents, and could also help to steer them away from crime as well- who knows?

pelican,
>> My daughter, when in Year 1, came home one day from school saying the teacher said she could do anything she wanted to do - literally.<<
Another eight year old when asked what they were learning in maths replied “empty sets” and when further asked what then was an empty set, she rejoined “a green cow”. She obviously missed the teacher’s explanation that “the set of green cows is empty”.

I think to teach maths you not not only have to be knowledgeable about what you are teaching, but also about what language and topics are appropriate for what age. The same with other abstract topics like philosophy, ethics, comparative religion, Christian exegesis (Scripture), RE (whatever its aims), etc.

Throughout past centuries there were many examples where Christian RE served the common good by holding the society together. And there are many examples in recent history where the teaching of RE obviously failed its purpose. Also, former Communist countries provide an abundance of examples where “religion-free” education missed its purpose of completely eradicating religion from people’s “life philosophies”.

It remains to be seen to what extent will the suggested new (and, I think, inevitable) replacements of RE be successful in serving the common good in the sense, and to the extent, that its - good-intentioned, though sometimes naive - advocates expect it.

On the question of who teaches the ethics classes, I would suggest this could be covered in the comparative religion classes; perhaps the visiting cleric could act in concert with an ethics teacher; a 'moderator' who could encourage pertinent questions about the ethics and morality of the religion in question.
I and (thirty years later) my children were struck by the contradictions between the message and the messenger in scripture classes. I thought my teacher was an unforgiving, dictatorial martinet who refused any discussion on his subject; my children reported their scripture teacher 'was just nasty'.
I think religions have dealt with ethical and moral questions for centuries -although some of their advocates were and are selective in which parts to emphasise.
Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater, in the name of secularism?

pelican:"I would personally hope it only be directed to Yr11/12.
"

I think you're being a little cautious, but I take your point. Children are poorly developmentally equipped to understand broad ethical concepts, being predisposed to "doing what they're told" by authority figures. At the end of grade 8 my school held a special end-ofyear assembly and I can very clearly remembed one of the speeches, in which we were told: "you're moving into a new stage of life. You will incresingly be expected to make decions not because someone says "you must" do this or that but because you say to yourself "I ought to"".

I beieve my teachers and principal were very wise; many 13 year olds are still children needing strong supervision and guidance, whereas by 14 most should have started to apply what they know to determine what they "ought to" do. In other words, they're developing a sense of obligation and of ethics. Perhaps it's that point where we most ned to offer them the guidance they need to ensure what they think they ought to do is based on something more than just "I want to".

pelican:"My daughter, when in Year 1, came home one day from school saying the teacher said she could do anything she wanted to do - literally."

There are stickers all over my chuildren's primary school saying "girls can do anything". What message do you think those grade 1-7 girls are taking away from that? Do you think it may have any bearing on the massive increase in violence being perpetrated by slightly older kids who've been exposed to the same stickers and posters and so on for their entire school career?

Our ethics is based on the information we receive when young. if the way the message is presented is flawed, the message becomes distorted, leading to further problems. Perhaps a middle high ethics/philosophy/critical thinking course would help to untangle those issues.

Examinator,

I am not trolling. We have state school systems that are so dysfunctional they cannot teach basic literacy and numeracy effectively. Now we want them to teach ethics and philosophy!

All I can see is the "history wars" being replaced with the "ethics and philosophy wars".

Cricket is looking like a better option all the time.

George
Agreed, that is the risk with the teaching of broad and sometimes complex subjects like ethics - consideration of the needs of your audience in terms of age and maturity.

Anti
I think my caution comes purely from that premise. I agree with your post entirely and have always been uncomfortable with the "you can do/be anything" phrase. Particularly in your example for girls. Nothing is more divisive nowadays in terms of overt gender specific 'marketing' and would provide nothing positive for boys while having no genuine impact on girls.

I had that phrase drilled into me at school in the late 70s and after a while it became trite and meaningless and most of us knew damn well we could not do ANYTHING (as in everything). There are too many factors including demographics, level of education, aptitude and motivation. Humans are not homogenous we all bring different abilities and aptitudes to the table.

It is a cliche' I know, but these sorts of phrases that may have had their roots in good intentions, merely highlight the "all rights and no responsibiities" tag of the modern age. Probably largely assisted by the mindset of baby boomer conditioning about perceived desirable parenting trends.

We also set our kids up for greater disappointment if they really start to believe they can do ANYTHING. Encourage and provide positive support by all means, but sometimes these trends do more harm than good.

Suze's idea of law and ethics might be more appropriate in terms of giving context or a framework for the subject matter. University is probably the better domain for more esoteric discussions about Philosophy. That is not to argue that we cannot open the door to new ideas to get kids thinking about their responsibilities as human beings. I believe human beings are naturally altruistic but with nuturing, loving support and guidance - particularly using positive role models.

stevenlmeyer:"We have state school systems that are so dysfunctional they cannot teach basic literacy and numeracy effectively. Now we want them to teach ethics and philosophy!

All I can see is the "history wars" being replaced with the "ethics and philosophy wars"."

You're being unfair to the school system, I think. There is an obsession with metrics that may or may not have any relevance to the post-educational outcomes for people. As an example, I was an indifferent maths student, achieving slightly better than passes most years, but an excellent English student, regularly topping my class.

Most of my post-school life I have used maths of varying complexity, whereas my use of the language has been largely technical, using little of the skill that I developed as a student. Today, I'm pretty competent at maths, including the calculus, complex geometry and vector algebra (which I didn't learn at school), while my English has no doubt stultified.

The point, of course, is that schools can only provide the basics and a broad sense of what can be done with the techniques or data they teach. It is after school that we use the basic toolkit we have acquired and develop our own interests.

If a basic ethical / philosophical /critical thinking toolkit can be developed and passed on, at least people will not have to work out the basics for themselves within a context that is often very contradictory.

Yes, parents should be doing it, but with the changes in society that have occurred over the past 50 years or so many seem to have missed out on their own basic grounding. We have to start somewhere and perhaps in another 50 years the inhabitants of OLO can discuss why we should get rid of the program because it is so little needed any more, what with parents taking it on...

The basis of our attitudes and values are learned by observation and experience by the age of seven. Try teaching a formal subject of ethics, law or philosophy to this age group if you want to make a difference. They have already learned who you are before any headway is made in the formal subject. Parents have the final responsibility to teach these values that structure our society.

I agree with Pelican and Antiseptic in their criticism of the cliched 'You can do anything' philosophy which seems to be endemic in schools these days.

Not only is it clearly false, as Pelican has pointed out, but I think it has arguably contributed to the narrowing and self-centredness of students' life choices over the last decade or so. Students see the world as their oyster and as being there to serve them. They've moved away from studying humanities and arts subjects and trended towards instrumental choices like business, IT and any number of mickey mouse and narrowly-based vocational streams.

The teaching of critical and philosphical thinking needs to be returned to a central position in all school curricula. It would enable students to widen their focus beyond their immediate world and to guage an understanding of the problems facing humanity and of the part they could play in alleviating them.

Regarding who teaches this way of thinking, it must definitely be a qualified teacher. Those associated with specific religions should be kept right away from all public schools. Very few of them in my experience have the ability to hold their audience and to command any real level of respect from students. Ideally, critical thinking should not be a stand-alone subject, but an integral part of all teaching.

Steven, it's easy to throw around cheap shots about a dysfunctional state school system. Public schools are required to accept all students, irrespective of the huge discipline and learning problems many of them have today. Private schools have the luxury of vetting which students they want, which they do rigorously. Most are also very generously resourced as a result of the hefty fees they charge, all the while topped up by government funding. Any 'dysfunction', Steven, is a result of long entrenched inequity. Your flippant remarks are uninformed and unhelpful.

*SuzeOnLine*
" ... Why not go one step further and offer LAW and Ethics as a subject for high school students? ... "

Yes, an evolving fusion as a subject. I would also add "1st Aid" into the curriculum mix.

And to draw an element from *Philo* I would concur that that it must be done at an early formative age, and of course can still be tailored to the audience, all aspects considered. At least in the international jurisdiction where I am, this is already being done. Concepts of tolerancey, what does and does not constitute "appropriate" behavior etc, etc from age 6.

I also believe that it is important to do our best not to impose our own limitations on our kids, and I for one at least am hopeful that my step daughter will surpass me in more ways than one. Accordingly, I would argue that to suggest that aspects of law, medicine and ethics/philosophy are only appropriate to tertiary level is a complete irresponsible nonsense. Now that she can read, my child's thirst for knowledge grows daily, demanding me to quicken myself to keep pace.

I myself had a classical education at a methodist college and came out clueless as to the fundamentals of the legal system and the value of money and independent living.

And we may all care to note that some kids are let loose before they are even 16. In my view, it is neglectful to arm kids up with enough capacity to unwittingly get themselves into trouble and risk them being thrown into the not so tender mercies of the "school of hard knocks."

"Heaven forbid" that they hear certain words from a wiggy!

"Even though it is accepted that U r a silly poppet, poppet, ignorance of the LAW is no excuse and I sentence you to bankruptcy and psychic distress for a duration up to the point that you are capable, with or without assistance, of getting yourself out."

Why leave it up to parents who are often clueless themselves?

It isn't April 1 is it? Secularist teaching ethics? How to kill the unborn and reduce the guilt. How to have sex with as many as possible and not catch a disease? How to break your marriage vows? How to create a panic about the earth being overheated while ignoring the values of our Creator. No wonder people are deserting State schools as they see the fruit of this stupidity. I am sure the 'true believers are absolutely sure they are right in teaching non absolutes. Talk about rational!

Runner, as usual you have to bring your particularly unhelpful brand of sarcasm to the debate.

I have no doubt there are plenty of so-called God-fearing Christians and other 'religious' people out there who also have abortions, marriage breakdowns, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases and who believe in global warming.

These actions and beliefs are not the sole domain of the secularists, as you well know.

As to the '...values of our Creator.', well we can only take the words written by ancient fishermen in a 2000 year old book that there ever was a Creator, or his son, who may have said all that!

Teach ethics, morals and law at schools, not religion.

suzionline you write

'Teach ethics, morals and law at schools, not religion.'

Whose ethics do you suggest?

runner: "Whose ethics do you suggest?"

That seems like a genuine question runner, so I have a go at answering it.

Underlying it is an assumption that ethics are arbitrary things, meaning that anyone can write down a set of rules and call them their ethics. Certainly that does happen. The Bible, the Koran, our system of law, and Hitler's justification for the Holocaust are all examples of it. If you look at ethics purely in that light it does become a question of whose you adopt, or perhaps of whether you invent your own.

However there is another way of deriving ethics - or at least some of them. There are some things most of we humans can universally agree on. Take the rule of thumb "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". I think (although I have never checked), this rule is accepted as a good one by just about people in all cultures. Collect a few of these universal rules of thumb, combine them with mathematical rigour and you can start building up a moral code.

This is (I hope) the sort of ethics being talked about here. It has lots of holes - it doesn't about what sort of sex priests can engage in, how we should handle global warming or a whole host of other issues. But can it can tell us simple things like stealing is wrong and rape should be punished.

Although simple, moral codes derived in this have one huge advantage over those from the Bible, Koran, Confucius and any other "arbitrary" source: we can agree on them. Yes they are incomplete, perhaps in your view hopelessly so. But because they are incomplete we don't end up in fights over cows being sacred, serving fish on Fridays or whether you should play football on Good Friday. If we are going to force ethics down the throats of kids in a multicultural society like ours, these are probably the only ones we could all actually stomach.

More interesting comments.

While I'm still quite taken with the idea of a basic introductory philosophy subject that could incorporate elements of comparative religion, critical reasoning, ethics etc, the scope of such a subject would necessarily be somewhat broader than could be delivered in an hour a week during Scripture/RE time. Also, such a course should also be available to children of religious parents - and I doubt that there's room in the curriculum for such a subject without the abolition of something else to make way for it. Of course, we could do away with Scripture altogether and reduce sport/PE - but I can't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

A trial of a one-hour ethics unit for non-religious students to coincide with Scripture/RE therefore still seems to me to be a good idea, and I'll be following its implementation with interest.

As for stevenlmeyer's assertion about cricket and ethics - on the basis of some of the stuff he posts here the ethics that he derived from playground cricket leave a fair bit to be desired, I'm afraid.

runner: << Whose ethics do you suggest? >>

Certainly not yours on the basis of your comments at OLO, which are possibly the poorest manifestations of Christian ethics that I encounter regularly. Fortunately, fundamentalist Christians don't have a monopoly on ethics and morals, as you might know if you had been exposed to a basic philosophy subject of the kind that some people have suggested here.

They've moved away from studying humanities and arts subjects and trended towards instrumental choices like business, IT and any number of mickey mouse and narrowly-based vocational streams.'

When I was at university, it was the humanities and arts subjects that were considered the 'Micky Mouse' subjects.

I think stevenlmeyer is right. Look at the goings on about teaching history, and apply that to ethics.

Left wing or right wing ethics?

I think Cricket SHOULD be taught. So many life lessons are to be learned in cricket.

The game where a younger player pits his physical superiority
against the older player's guile and experience.
Where a 50 year old can dismiss a 20 year old and vice versa.
Where you can be given out wrongly, and are taught to cop it on the chin and walk off.
Where you are even encouraged to 'walk' when the umpire errs in your favour.
Where mental toughness often trumps superior skill.
The game of endurance, concentration, tactics and teamwork.
Where you can shine even when others around you fail,
and where you sometimes fail when all around you shine.
Where you can bowl slow or fast, hit the ball hard or 'tickle' it and nudge it around.
Where pressure is built slowly and methodically, and broken by the fearless.
Where fortune favours the brave!
Where the line between courage and stupidity, and bravery and recklessness is thin.
Where the player who knows his game and plays within his limitations often prevails.
Where patience and perseverance is rewarded.
Where you can make a lucky 50 when playing badly and an unlucky 20 when playing brilliantly.
Where you can toil away for hours for one wicket, or have 5 handed to you on a platter
Where the elements change over 5 days, with the condition of the ball, the pitch, the weather, or
the toss of a coin bringing luck or adversity.
Where you're only as good as your last innings.

H,
Most of your argument had nothing to do with ethics. If my memory is correct he isn't a big fan of sport.
I doubt that was what Steven was talking bout anyway.

Runner, what ethical guidelines do you think were used before the supposed arrival on earth by the Creator's son, who apparently is the only one able to give us sinners any ethical values?

If mankind was running around being extremely unethical and amoral all over the earth before we were apparently 'enlightened' by the new Christian religions, then I doubt the human race would have survived!

But then again, many people like you completely ignore any other source of ethical or moral human values that do not believe in exactly the same things as you do!

I too like "cricket" or competitive sport played by a group of people according to a set of rules and ethics agreed to by the majority in advance.

Not all sport is practiced "ethically" of course though and I recall one "mate" in p.s., a lefty, who made an art form of attempting to intercept short balls and hook them at both high degree and speed in the direction of any wicky who had the "temerity" to stand too close.

Cross seam cut backs from outside off aimed for the ribs and throats of opposition schools on volatile WA turf pitches with a new ball was also considered good sport by some. I could go on but alas I digress ..

In this regard, as opposed to divisive some do and some don't religious studies, cricket/a practical competitive activity practiced "ethically" is too me a good thing.

But my memories of primary and high school are that we already did copious amounts of p.e. and sport.

Is not what we are discussing here the potential redressing of an arguable deficiency in the curriculum and the elimination of a divisive practice?

My view, as some are aware, is that indoctrinating children with religion of any description is wrong period and the practice in schools should be banned by the various states.

So, CJ, when you say:

" ... A trial of a one-hour ethics unit for non-religious students to coincide with Scripture/RE therefore still seems to me to be a good idea, ... "

I can only partially agree I suppose it is better than nothing. If we are to have an overall harmonious society then there should be a base line which is acceptable to the majority, as learnt by shared and applied practice.

I am personally not opposed to a "Law and Ethics" unit which includes a glancing appraisal of the world's religions comparatively, provided it is not performed by religious practitioners, and is treated with the same qualified professional degree of analysis and critique pre-delivery that any other subject on the curriculum is.

I knew it would be too profound for someone like you to grasp pontificator.

So ethics is a 'he' aye? I think ethics would like sport.

bout
Noun
1.
a. a period of time spent doing something, such as drinking (lucky sod)
b. a period of illness: a bad bout of flu
2. a boxing, wrestling or fencing match [obsolete bought turn]

I don't think Steven was talking bout.

about/'bout perhaps.

'Cross seam cut backs from outside off aimed for the ribs and throats of opposition schools on volatile WA turf pitches with a new ball was also considered good sport by some.'

In sport, as in life, aggression has it's place. That's a perfectly valid tactic to stop a batsman lunging onto the front foot. The art of manoeuvring a batsman around the crease, and the courage of a batsman in the face of the intimidation of a ball flying near his (these days very well protected) body are also part of life.

Oh how the cerebral deplore the physical challenges and instinct in life. I think some of you need to watch that Northern Exposure episode about the fist fight that the Chris character philosophises over for days, then enjoys the sheer cathartic rawness of the physical contest between men.

Oh don't be fooled by the neanderthals like pontificator, Cricket has much to offer in the way of philosophy and ethics, self knowledge, and dare I say it, eroticism!

That's not even to mention the opportunity for men to escape the wife for an afternoon in the sun. I'm sure nail salons serve a similar purpose for women. I think that shows up the differences in the sexes quite nicely. Now I'd like to hear about the philosophy of nail salons, but I'd be doubtful if it was an all encompassing cognitive metaphor of life that you get on a cricket field.

rstuart you write

'take the rule of thumb "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" Interesting the only one you come up with comes straight from the bible. Teaching this is one thing but helping people to see that they have no hope of achieving it with their adamic nature is another.

you also write

'But because they are incomplete we don't end up in fights over cows being sacred, serving fish on Fridays or whether you should play football on Good Friday.'

I could not agree more. Friday fish, Friday football have about as much benefit as earth hour or the celebration of Darwins fantasy.

Suzionline you write

'Runner, what ethical guidelines do you think were used before the supposed arrival on earth by the Creator's son, who apparently is the only one able to give us sinners any ethical values?'

All men lived in darkness before the Light came. It was only God's long suffering and mercy that prevented man receiving his just deserts for his wickedness. Israel obviously had the 10 commandments but were incapable of keeping them like you and me today. The laws of the Jews were but a poor shadow of the law of liberty and love found only in Christ Jesus.

You write 'But then again, many people like you completely ignore any other source of ethical or moral human values that do not believe in exactly the same things as you do!'

The fact is humans can't live up to their own values let alone God's. From priests, to sports stars, to teachers, to artist we see how hopelessly flawed humanity is. Christ Jesus Himself was the only exception. I notice you don't mention any of these so called sources of ethical human values. Having trouble finding a few are we?

Too right runner!

Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool

http://www.asklyrics.com/display/king-missile/jesus-was-way-cool-lyrics.htm

Actually something I missed in my post on cricket was the spirituality of cricket. Alone with one's thoughts in the outfield, with the view of the country side, the contrast of the whites and the green grass, the sound of the birds and the leather on willow.

I'd say cricket is just as valid as any one of the worlds religions. It has stories, and myth, and ETHICS, and morals, and a unique philosophy and way of seeing the world.

Talking to an older leg spinner the other day about my brother who is also a leg spinner but considering giving up for medium pace, he said to me 'Oh, I'd advise him to reconsider. Leg spin is a life long journey you know.'. My brother was heartened, and even though they didn't know each other, they were 'connected', by their bowling style and approach to cricket.

The various tactics and styles in cricket are a metaphor for how we go about life. The timid can miss out, and the fortune often favours the brave. Arrogance at the crease can intimidate, but can also be punished and put in it's place. The steady accumulator can get as much runs as the flashy stroke maker. The wiley spinner and the conservative seamer and the raw pace bowler all have their place. All the characters of life are there, everything seamlessly fitting together.

The umpire's decision is always correct, even when he's wrong, he's right!

Ethics have always been human constructs, religion just provided the medium to deliver the message.

Houlley
Someone with your obvious intellect and incisive analysis (albeit cynical) on all things cannot see the philosophical relevance of nail salons. Shocked I am. That is where you go to learn the bend and snap.

Would those who think that religion should be taught “comparatively“ provided it is not taught by religious practitioners, would also think that e.g. children should be taught the rules of football and soccer “comparatively”, provided it is not done by those who have actually played football or soccer themselves?

Do you think one could teach children “linguistics“ without oneself speaking any language (which the children either understand or are being taught to understand)? Do you think children would e.g. understand the difference between a noun, adjective, verb, without reference to a particular language they all speak or are learning to speak?

“Any attempt to speak without speaking any particular language is not more hopeless than the attempt to have a religion that is no religion in particular.” (George Santayana).

Perhaps the same about explaining religion (or differences between particular religions) without starting from an a priori world-view - be it Catholic, Muslim, naturalist, secular humanist or what you have - that is made explicit from the beginning. Or after having been asked by the children “Teacher, what do YOU believe?” which they certainly will. Is “I have no opinion (belief)“ a satisfying answer for a young child?

Pelican,
Religion is ONE of the ways it is delivered. Many of the philosopher/ethicist were not religious.
LOGIC is neutral.
Even if the nail salon is sexist. :-)

H
You can give it but you can't spot it can you? ....sucked you in

*George*

My concept of a teacher is one who is skilled in handling information at a raw level, one who is capable of taking complex issues and breaking them down into a coherent simple form and who also has the ability to express same to a huge range of people, depending on their level of understanding etc.

The "teacher" i.m.o. needs to be able to present in a clear, objective, analytical manner.

So, in the example at hand, and for arguments sake:

1. Ethics as enshrined in Local & International Law
2. Something of the background history of same
3. Criminal consequences
4. Sources of Ethics (Cultural, Religious etc)
5. A variety of different examples in practice currently and historically - e.g. The Egyptian Temples, The Jews, The Christians, The Muslims, The Hindus, The Pagans, Hedonism, Agnosticism, Atheism etc etc

What we don't need is an expression of personal interest, however valid, if it is to be acceptable to all.

If a person is qualified to understand, handle and professionally deliver this kind of material and also is, again for the sake of argument, of a particular religious persuasion, I of course have no problem with that whatsoever, but the individual's qualification stems from his professional abilities as described.

And whilst I could potentially agree that a specialist practitioner in say the area of Christianity could deliver a more detailed examination visa vi same, it is in my view, NOT what is required.

Rather, a concise over view, to empart awareness of and hopefully understanding and tolerance of, not just those of your personal preference, but of all the different varieties in the garden.

If people want to learn about the intricacies of say the ethics of a particular religion and its concept of the "Benevolent Heart" as expressed in its practice of martial arts, then go to a so called "Warrior God" training hall. Likewise, if you want to learn about Christianity as expressed in the practice of a particular denomination, then go to a church.

Oh, re your question and impressionable children. Even if you are into a Jesus concept, better in my view to say something like:

"I try to be open minded and always ready to learn new things."

Now how did I miss this thread. Ethics yes, philosophy even better!
There is so much agreement on this, in this thread, and yet school-kids continue to be prey to the narrow-minded ministrations of christian boneheads. I have four kids in primary school and it's a full-time job disabusing them of the crap that "qualified" christian school teachers feed them. Everything stops for RI too; my kids are sent to twiddle their thumbs in the library while the chosen ones are taught to have compassion for those they are meant to despise. It's like the blue eyes/brown eyes conditioning. Yet most parents don't sign-up for this; they just don't realise that the christians are the serpents in our state schools.

What the fundamentalist Christians such as Runner need to remember here, is that the Bible contains so many contradictions on morality, that we can’t possibly have got our morality from it. Otherwise, how could we possibly distinguish between the (mostly) peaceful sentiments of Jesus and the petty, irrational, murderous and blood-thirsty sentiments and acts of the Old Testament God?

How would we know which parts of the Bible to cherry-pick as being the good bits?

If our morality was derived entirely from the Bible, then we would have no objective way of knowing that Jesus was the more peaceful one of the two.

Therefore, our ability to distinguish between the two (and Runner's gonna love this bit) obviously comes from external sources such as products (or by-products) of evolution, like altruism.

Not to mention the fact that (and as I pointed out earlier in another thread) Secularism has helped drag the Christian church kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity.

So much for the “moral guidance” Christianity has allegedly provided Western societies with.

George,

<<“Any attempt to speak without speaking any particular language is not more hopeless than the attempt to have a religion that is no religion in particular.” (George Santayana).

Perhaps the same about explaining religion (or differences between particular religions) without starting from an a priori world-view - be it Catholic, Muslim, naturalist, secular humanist or what you have - that is made explicit from the beginning.>>

I don’t believe so.

Because (and I’m not sure what exactly Santayana was trying to say there because I don’t know where you’ve quoted it from) trying to teach a language without speaking any language at all is impossible.

But one can still teach a religion from an objective perspective. Granted it would take a lot of learning on the behalf of the proposed teacher.

Of course, religion has its subjective side, but that can’t be taught without “indoctrination”, and since it can’t be taught fairly, there’s little point in the teacher experiencing those subjective feelings.

<<Or after having been asked by the children “Teacher, what do YOU believe?” which they certainly will. Is “I have no opinion (belief)“ a satisfying answer for a young child?>>

I agree that young child would ask such a question. But let’s analyse why...

Children ask what their teachers/parents think/believe because of a survival mechanism that influences children to want to know what to think/do, and they unquestioningly believe the response they get because we Humans don’t have the time, or reproduction rates, for our young to go experimenting with curiosities such as, “What's going to happen if I go and pat the Saber-toothed tiger?”

It’s for this reason that those children who will inevitably ask the question: “Teacher, what do YOU believe?” need to be answered with: “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what you believe.”

Children readily and unquestionably take on the beliefs of those they look up to, and therefore, religion needs to be taught comparatively and objectively if we are to teach children in a way that is not unfairly influencing (or indoctrinating) the child.

Dear CJ Morgan,

You got my vote. Probably one of the best ideas in a long time.

FH,
So we teach ethics and philosophy from a background of shari'ah law? Certainly not the universal appeal of freedom secularist desire with prayers five times a day.

AJ, I fully agree.
Even the most fervent atheist must admit that religion has played an enormous role in the history of Mankind. Has there ever been a culture which didn't have a religion?
I quite often listen to 'the philosopher's zone podcast, presented by Alan Saunders. Each week he presents a different subject in philosophy, and brings in a guest speaker, expert in that subject. Saunders of course, asks the pertinent questions.
This, I think could be a reasonable framework for religious and ethical studies.

A.J. Phillips writes
'Otherwise, how could we possibly distinguish between the (mostly) peaceful sentiments of Jesus and the petty, irrational, murderous and blood-thirsty sentiments and acts of the Old Testament God?'

Once again AJ paints the wonderfully moral evolved man as the the good and moral while displaying the loving merciful God as the ugly One. When you are blind to your own corruption you tend to do this. It would be hilarous if it were not so sad to think that evolutionist believe that somehow man's character is improving.

The fact that AJ can't accept that God is God has not stopped millions from having their lives influenced and changed by knowing the Only true God and His Son. These people are able to 'think' beyond the dogmas continually preached by secularist like AJ. They can see that the morals of secularist inevitably lead to murder (abortion) suicide, drug taking, lying,immorality and perversion. An outward morality which often embraces earth worshiping and 'concern for the planet' is often used to mask the inward corruption and hypocrisy. The secularist High Priest are really one deluded bunch of self righteous men and women. The God of Abraham Isaac
and Jacob must be so merciful to allow these puny fists to continue to obey their father (father of lies) in discrediting His character.

DreamOn,
To children of what age does the teacher have to “present in a clear, objective, analytical manner” the five points you listed? To six, ten or twelve year olds?

I agree that it is not REQUIRED to be a practitioner in any particular religion to contribute as a scholar to the field of comparative religion. However, we are not talking about an academic audience but about teenagers, or even younger children, who need guidance. A maths teacher should teach children to think (and solve problems) for themselves, however they will need the teacher’s guidance, the more explicitly, authoritatively, the younger they are. The same about teaching religions, or religions “comparatively”, or “ethics” or “philosophy” at that level. Lest the teacher become completely boring to the young audience, his/her personal world-view will have to exert influence on them.

Also, you cannot be a good maths teacher if you yourself are convinced that learning maths does not contribute more to understanding reality than learning the rules of playing chess. The same with religion.

I am sure that e.g. Catholic teachers who teach “comparative religion” to teenagers think they offer objective information, as there will be secular humanist teachers who will think that they treat religion as a concept (and particular religions) fairly. In both cases the final test is whether they succeed or not in educating the young into intelligent, tolerant and worthwhile members of our society: the difference is only that we have had much more experience - good and bad - with the former than with the latter.

Do you really think that "I try to be open minded (about what to believe)" is comprehensible to, say, a six-year old? Will he/she not interpret naively “open-mindedness” the same way pelican’s daughter interpreted the exhortation that “she could do anything she wanted”? And for high school students, do you think they need an extra subject just to teach them to be “open minded and always ready to learn new things". Is that not an obvious background to learning most any subject?

AJ Philips,
>> one can still teach a religion from an objective perspective<<
I am sure not only aspiring secular humanist teachers of comparative religion, but also most teachers of RE will claim they teach “from an objective perspective”, whether the “objectivity” is defined as seeing the world from the perspective of “my” religion, or from a perspective that sees all religions only in their anthropological, pre-rational form and/or reduced to its private sphere. It used to be “truth” that everybody claimed to possess, now its is “objectivity”. In both cases - let me repeat this is not about scholarly discourses but about teaching high school or primary school children - the teacher’s attitude, including an attitude dismissive of ALL religion, will, and must, show through.

>>those children ... need to be answered with: “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what you believe.”<<
I am not an educator, I only know this would be a disaster if you taught maths this way, and I suspect even worse if applied to teaching of ethics. However, I do not know for sure, and as said before, only time will tell what the outcome will be, if/when these rules are implemented.

>> religion needs to be taught comparatively and objectively if we are to teach children in a way that is not unfairly influencing (or indoctrinating) the child <<
This depends on what you call “unfairly influencing” the child: By providing guidance towards a wold-view - based on Christianity, secular humanism or what-you-have - whence he/she can judge other world-views? Again, only time will tell, whether the approach to ethics and fairness placed above religion will lead to a better society. I have experienced an education system, where all religions were dismissed, at best seen as private matters, and even twenty years after its collapse its repercussions are still being felt.

AJ Philips, DreamON,
I do not want to argue against an inevitable, compulsory RE-replacement subject. I am just sceptical about your expectations from it.

George,

<<I am not an educator, I only know [answering children with: “It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what you believe.”] would be a disaster if you taught maths this way, and I suspect even worse if applied to teaching of ethics.>>

I don’t think it’s fair to use maths or ethics as an analogy here.

Firstly, with maths, you’re dealing with facts, proofs and theorems. So it would be absurd to tell a child that what they believe is all that matters. Religion has no right or wrong answers and holy books are too open to interpretation.

Secondly, people don’t form radical beliefs based on maths. No one blows themselves up based on the absolute belief in the accuracy of pi. No one shoots-up abortion clinics and leaders don’t base their decisions on, or declare war in the name of mathematics.

With ethics, there are no dogmatic doctrines that are so blatantly contradictory and open to interpretation, and ironically, being taught as the absolute truth (in most circumstances). Nor can I see how ethics could inspire the hatred and violence we see from religous radicals.

<<I am just sceptical about your expectations from [an inevitable, compulsory RE-replacement subject].>>

So am I, George.

I realise that what I’m suggesting is an unrealistic expectation. It is for this reason that I think religion should be kept away from small children (and the parents get a babysitter for when they go to church if they have to), and if parents want to teach or introduce their children to it, then they should wait until their children are old enough to think critically for themselves.

But that, to most Theists, would be totally unacceptable - for obvious reasons.

George - correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you said once you were a maths teacher. How then could you say now that you're not an educator?

I thought that too, but assumed I must've been mistaken.

CJ Morgan
I used the term “educator” in the given context. I indeed never taught maths at a primary or secondary level. I just lectured in Pure Maths (and in service courses for science and engineering students) at the Uni.

AJ Philips,
Let me repeat, we are not talking about university level maths but about primary and secondary schools. There maths and ethics courses (within, or without, a religious context) are both about rules (of algebra, geometry or acceptable conduct) that the student has to be persuaded are not arbitrary (like chess or football rules) but that he/she has actually “subconsciously” always known them to be “reasonable”.

Of course, there are differences between maths and ethics, and I used the maths example firstly because the situation there is much simpler (there are no quarrels about what are the “right rules”) and secondly because I was more familiar with it.

>> No one blows themselves up based on the absolute belief in the accuracy of pi.<<
There are many other things that a fanatic cannot base his action on, in distinction to distorted patriotism, distorted religion, ideology, lust for power, hallucinations, etc.

>> No one shoots-up abortion clinics<<
Well, a couple of lunatics did, and other lunatics assassinated (or attempted to) other public figures they did not like. This has nothing to do with any mainstream ethics, only an insane interpretation of some.

>>leaders don’t base their decisions on, or declare war in the name of mathematics <<
Again, there are many things that you cannot proclaim war in the name of, in distinction to (as before).

>>Nor can I see how ethics could inspire the hatred and violence we see from religous radicals.<<
I don’t know what you call ethics (“moral principles that govern a person's or group's behaviour” in my dictionary). Do you call ethics only those moral principles your world-view approves of? Didn’t the nazis have their own ethics?

I do not know what your political preferences are, but your second last paragraph is “totally unacceptable” not only to “most Theists” but also to most democrats.

George:"I do not know what your political preferences are, but your second last paragraph is “totally unacceptable” not only to “most Theists” but also to most democrats."

I think not. Democracy implies protection for the vulnerable, as well as assertion of the rights of those able to make their own decisions.

Children are vulnerable and profession of a belief in an imaginary creator is delusory. It is within the most basic remit of a democracy to protect the young and impressionable from being subjected to indoctrination of any kind other than that associated with living in a civil society.

The Abrahamic religions rely on a suspension of disbelief and a rigid form of "approved" delusion for the very existence, so it is critical for them to indoctrinate the young, before the ability to think critically and to analyse the merits of an argument are developed. As the Jesuits were fond of saying (paraphrased):"Give us the boy and we'll give you the man".

The US model of "freedom of worship" is fatally flawed, based as it is on the dissatisfaction of a group of malcontents forced out of the England of their day because they preferred their version of their imaginary creator to the officially-approved one and were prepared to cause civil strife to get their way. By entrenching religion in the national polity, the US has had and will have enormous problems to face in future as crackpots of all sorts use their "right" to do as their imaginary creator demands.

Let's face it, religions are a primitive form of explanation for the inexplicable. Since we now have better explanations, those who seek to use indoctrination of the young to proselytise their delusions should be constrained. Their behaviour constitutes an assault.

Democracy 'implies' that all individuals are equal to all other individuals; at least before the law (in theory). This means the beliefs of all individuals must also be equal. If one man believes in God, and one does not, who can say which is right?
The invidious aspect of Christianity is the notion that a child cannot enter Heaven without embracing Jesus as his/her saviour. This strikes at the very core of parenthood. What Christian believer would jeopardise the eternal life of their children?
The Bible offers a supposedly offers a clear choice between two 'opposites'. But does it?
Two or three millenia ago it might have been obvious that God was Good, and Satan was bad; even if only because God entered into a legal, binding contract with his chosen people. In this age, God's supposed 'goodness' is rather less obvious; the Bible depicts a rather brutal, ruthless patriarch determined to have his own way at any cost, and more than willing to sacrifice the innocent.
The choice then comes down to Heaven and Hell; a much more black and white decision.
For those determined to believe in an afterlife, indoctrinating their children becomes a matter of some urgency.

Grim:"This means the beliefs of all individuals must also be equal"

Not in the slightest. Some beliefs are not to be encouraged, however fervently believed. They are dead ends on the road to understanding the world, not a way to greater knowledge.

Grim:"For those determined to believe in an afterlife, indoctrinating their children becomes a matter of some urgency."

Thus perpetuating the delusion. How far do we go in asserting their right to assault their child in the name of their delusion? We saw recently the case of the couple who allowed their belief in the delusion of homeopathy to cause them to avoid seeking easily-available treatment for their baby child, who died of an infection brought on by severe eczema. They were jailed.

Delusions are dangerous. Democracy does not imply the freedom to hold dangerous delusions. Our State regularly locks people up for doing so. Belief in an imaginary creator can also be dangerous, as a glance at the US or any part of the Middle East will clearly show, while belief in an afterlife has created the suicide bomber.

As a secular democracy we should not be permitting the indoctrination of our children with such delusions. If they come across them later in life, let them decide then, just as people do with all their hobbies.

Antiseptic, Grim,

Yes, I might have read into the statement

“religion should be kept away from small children (and the parents get a babysitter for when they go to church if they have to), and if parents want to teach or introduce their children to it, then they should wait until their children are old enough to think critically for themselves”

more than what AJ Philips actually intended to say. Namely, I was under the impression he meant it should be enforced by law and non-compliance punished.

If it was meant only as an advice that e.g. a Christian parent can ignore, then, of course, it does not result in a totalitarian infringement of democracy. In it every parent has the right to educate his/her child into a world-view of his/her choice (provided it does not lead to breaking the law), including those who wish to teach their children (or have them taught) to build their world-view along the lines you both described in so many words.

It would have to be seen whether this attitude will make them grow up more tolerant of other people’s life styles and world-views.

I have admitted many times in these forums that I do not believe in a personal God who demonstrates such blatant favouritism. Like the 'two men of religion' depicted in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Christian God appears to spend much of it's time crossing to the other side of the road.
Having said that, I would never suggest that such a God does not, or could not exist, just because I don't believe in it.
I agree that it does -to some extent- perpetuate the delusion. On the other hand, AJ Philips claims to come from a 'fundamentalist' background, and I was forced to attend Sunday School up to the age of fourteen -when I was large enough to physically rebel.
We both appear to have managed to overcome our indoctrination, at least to some degree.
As a parent and husband, I regard my first (arguably, only) priority to be the protection and nurture of my family. To attempt to deny that most basic instinct to Christian parents, deluded or not, is arrogance of the first degree.

George,

Yes, you did read too much into what I said. I was only stating my opinion of how it should be done.

Better than instituting laws and creating more of a police state, would be to try and reach these people with reason. Granted though, that would take a few generations at least.

<<Let me repeat, we are not talking about university level maths but about primary and secondary schools.>>

Okay, but I still think religion should be kept well away from children entirely until they’ve developed some critical thinking skills.

<<There are many other things that a fanatic cannot base his action on, in distinction to distorted patriotism, distorted religion, ideology, lust for power, hallucinations, etc.>>

I’m not sure what your point is in stating that there are many other things that fanatics cannot base their actions on. That, if anything, strengthens my point.

Distorted patriotism, ideologies, hallucinations and such, are dangerous, but the danger they present is dwarfed by the havoc that has been wreaked by religion over the millennia, and the promise of eternal life and divine reasoning for evil actions ensures that this will always be the case.

I agree that ethics are “moral principles that govern a person's or group's behaviour”, so yes; even the Nazi’s had their own ethics. I can only go back to my point about the promise of eternal life and divine reasoning.

An important distinction between religion and ethics though, is that religion has definitive truth claims that can help to harden the belief of a fanatic.

But I’d prefer not to go down this road any further as I respect that you grew-up in a Stalinist country and don’t wish demean the unpleasantness you experienced.

" ... Our State regularly locks people up for doing so. ... "

My memory from some legal studies is that a delusional religious belief alone is not sufficient grounds to be incarcerated pursuant to mental health laws in this country. The pre-requisites for such action needs be substantiated by additional facts.

Thus, the reality of the present situation, at least in terms of the legal system, is that not all so-called delusional beliefs are considered to be dangerous.

To put it another way, a person may be a reasonable and rational, law abiding member of the community but also hold a belief, designated as such, in some particular God concept or so called Spiritual belief.

An appropriate search of the publicly available databases of legal judgments would likely produce specific definitions of relevant terms.

Hallucinations also are not necessarily dangerous, and at least so far as I have read tend to be an "echo" of sorts of the consciousness of the individual. So, if you were to say make a cursory examination of some famous people who are alleged to have experienced "divine revelation" by way of say visions, if their so called revelations are little more than a pictorial manifestation of their pre-existing belief system then there really ought be no surprises there.

To the contrary, it is of course most often the case that people who hallucinate are suffering from some sort of pathology, which may indeed include a fundamentally altered state of cognitive interpretation, say a state conducive to the formation of delusional beliefs where in say, again for example, the mind extrapolates meaning from the co-incidence of internal thought and external phenomena of nature.

" ... and the cock crows as he speaks in denial of his Lord ... "
(I can actually conceive that the historical JC,if he indeed existed, may have been a very forwarding looking and interesting character, but the amount of b.s. the church have coated him in for the purpose of enthralling the masses beggars belief)

...cont:

Consequently should a person thus afflicted also hallucinate, that is they experience an emanation of consciousness which "appears" to be the product of their external senses but is in reality a product of their own internal mind processes, it is likely that their hallucinations will also be those of the delusional variety, thus re-enforcing the compulsion to behave in an aberrant manner.

e.g. "but God said so" or "the Devil told me to do it," etc etc.

The legal system recognizes the distinction in these cases in theory and has different remedies for criminal behavior based on the individuals state of mind when they breached the law.

Having said that though, our prisons are alleged to be full of individuals with inadequately treated mental and intellectual problems, not to mention those who had not the benefit of
"Law and Ethics" studies.

;-)

Grim,
>>I was forced to attend Sunday School up to the age of fourteen -when I was large enough to physically rebel<<
I did not grow up in Australia, so I can be just sorry to hear that it used to be that bad. I grew up in a Communist country, where the pressure to attend all sorts of “scientific” (meaning anti-theist) “schoolings” - in addition to normal school - was not dependent on our physical size. Nobody “forced us” physically. Rebellion would be punished e.g. by parents being transferred to menial and less paid jobs (of course, there was no formal unemployment), seldom even jailed. At that price it never occurred to me to “rebel” since I always saw my father as intellectually superior to the teacher or “schooler”, who could easily neutralise or correct the anti-theist “indoctrination” - if that is what one wants to call it - I received at school. Unfortunately, not all children were that lucky.

For a while I thought that all who call themselves atheists were as narrow-minded and short-sighted as these “schoolers”, however I soon learned not to generalise just because of bad personal experience. Like those who grow up hating maths just because they had a an incompetent teacher at school who “indoctrinated” them into something they were unable to understand. After all, also children in Nazi Germany or Communist China were indoctrinated, which does not mean that any education towards love of your country of birth should be called indoctrination.

AJ Philips,
Thank again, for your thoughts.

>>Granted though, that would take a few generations at least.<<
An impotent man cannot become a rapist, but neither can he produce offspring. That is obvious, however we do not have enough experience yet with a society that became totally “religiously impotent”. The Communist attempts at that failed, leading to a society unable to produce vital (in the cultural sense) offspring generations. This, of course, does not imply other attempts must also fail. What is certain is that I shall not live that long to see the outcome.

You are right that teaching of religion has also cultural, historical, metaphysical etc. components, not just ethics, however I was comparing only the teaching of the rules of ethics and those of maths.

I agree that probably without “promise of eternal life” there would not be suicidal terrorists, though as far as I know the kamikaze pilots did not believe in afterlife. It is open to speculations (at least I do not know of any psychology studies of that) how many of the crimes committed in the post-Christian West would have been prevented had the perpetrators been brought up to believe in afterlife punishment.

>>I respect that you grew-up in a Stalinist country and don’t wish demean the unpleasantness you experienced.<<
Thanks for the concern but - as hinted at in my post to Grim - it was not that bad: as a young person I actually enjoyed the living in “intellectual catacombs” of that officially pagan world. Whatever the “dangers”, in distinction to the first Christians, I did not have to fear being thrown to the lions.

I feel more worried about the new generation growing up in a world whose artefacts (material as well as “spiritual”) are better able to fill the existential void and anxiety than what the Communists had to offer. Will they be happier than their Christian ancestors (who were used to all sorts of hardship) also when things go bad?

*George*

I recall something about the *Kami Kaze* from an old martial arts book.

Kami in Japanese means *God*
Kaze means *Wind*

Legend or mayhaps real history suggests that during one of the attempted Mongol invasions of Japan that when their fleet was poised to strike, that a great wind/storm manifested and laid waste to them.

So, if not in "after life," it was still bound up in
"God Concept."

George, I thank you for your sympathy, but like you I didn't find my childhood 'that bad'. I rebelled and rejected Christianity, simply because I saw too many inconsistencies and contradictions in the argument. Most parts to me appeared to be clearly manufactured to be acceptable to a more superstitious, primitive culture; a young maiden pregnant out of wedlock in a culture that stoned women for adultery claims a miraculous birth. The classic argument, 'the world is a wondrous and intricate place, must have been designed' is too easily rebutted by 'who designed the designer'; even by a 12 year old.
I'm afraid I have always been too sceptical (perhaps too arrogant) to simply accept what I'm told, without question.
My mother was a domineering woman. I had to wait until I was bigger than she was, to win my first argument with her.

Be very careful when you make leaps of logic, DreamOn.

>>Kami in Japanese means *God* Kaze means *Wind* So, if not in "after life," it was still bound up in "God Concept."<<

The reality is that at the time pilots were crashing their machines into their targets, they were called "tokubetsu kogeki tai", which translates to "special attack units". Specifically, the attacks by air were "shinpu tokubetsu kogeki tai", which mutated to "kamikaze" as an alternative pronunciation rendering of the character formation of "shinpu".

So the "God concept", as you so picturesquely describe it, was certainly not bound up in the word "kamikaze" itself.

If you examine Japanese history a little more deeply, you will find that the concept of attacking in battle with only winning or dying as the outcome was deeply rooted in the bushido code. Which has no concept of either God, or an afterlife.

Pericles,
When I did Japenese history at Tafe we were taught the Emperor represented the Sun God of Shintoism - the supreme being from whom we have life.

Research,

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/shinto.shtml

SHINT&#332;. Japan’s indigenous folk religion can be traced back to at least the Yayoi &#24357;&#29983; period (400 BC - 250 AD). The character SHIN &#31070; (also pronounced KAMI) is the generic term for god, goddess, divine spirit, and countless demonic and semi-benevolent nature spirits. The character T&#332; &#36947; (also pronounced MICHI) means road, path, or way. Together, they are translated as WAY OF THE GODS (Kami no Michi &#31070;&#12398;&#36947;). This guidebook presents a condensed tour of the most important Shint&#333; concepts, deities, schools and sects, shrines, and other topics to help you better understand the beliefs, rituals, spiritual practices, and artwork of Japanese Shint&#333;ism.

To the contrary *Pericles* I think that you will find that *Philo* and I are correct.

Of course we now digress from the topic of the thread but however ..

Readers may also care to note that the Japanese have many different words for "suicide."

So for arguments sake, the word for ritualistic suicide is different from say Lovers suicide, as the concept behind the word as represented by the Japanese adopted Chinese characters is uniquely different.

And no, its not "Hurry Curry" but rather Hara Kiri (pron KeeRee)
The Hara is a point just below the belly button and kiri is a type of cut, which forms part of the "Sepaku" suicide ritual.

Some of these concepts of course can be traced back to both religious and martial traditions and the blending of the two.

So *Pericles,* in the case of Bu from Budo/Bushido, which is also

Mu in Musashi no Mu

from right to left, what would you say the component parts of the character means, and when compiled together what is the composite meaning that they form?

My view is that if you do not already know what the composite parts mean, or if you do not possess a Kanji dictionary, then you will only have a superficial understanding of the words in question, as indicated to me by your translation of:

"Special Attack Units"

Maybe we could teach Japanese history instead of scripture in public schools?

You're going to burn in Hell, Bugsy.

Well, you would if one existed...

Feel the breeze from my Divine Wind Morgan.

DreamOn, you might like to take your complaint to Google.

>>you will only have a superficial understanding of the words in question, as indicated to me by your translation of: "Special Attack Units"<<

http://tinyurl.com/ybe8v5a

Take a look at the material on this page, and perhaps you can make some alternative suggestions.

At the same time, perhaps you could educate Philo and myself a little more on the influence of deities on bushido?

http://www.shotokai.cl/filosofia/06_ee_.html

I live to learn.

Instead of teaching Scripture in public schools, accurately teaching history, which shows that Protestant Christianity is the traditional religion of government in Australia would suffice. As history the principles of the Holy Bible were adopted as their Constitution by the English Catholics in 1215, and from 1297, it was made into Statute Law.

If kids were accurately taught history instead of what some regard as politically correct potted and manipulated history, as a compulsory subject as it was in Queensland, in the 1950’s, then there would be no need to be debating whether ethics or scripture should be taught. History shows the establishment of Protestant Christianity as the State religion by the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) and what is regarded as the Glorious Revolution. The then King James was a closet Roman Catholic, so the English Protestants brought in one of his Protestant Daughters and her husband, to rule as William and Mary, and keep the Holy Gospels as law. A Bible with the Royal Seal is still published by Cambridge Press.

Australia was largely populated by protesters against this State Religion, particularly those of Irish Welsh and Scottish Catholic beliefs, and all Aussie kids should be taught the process by which the State of Australia was established, and how the Roman Catholics blocked the formation of Australia unless they were granted full equality. This was guaranteed by s 116 Constitution, and its history should be taught. They should also be taught the history of the word court, and its morphology to the illegal word Court, and how this happened. If the Constitution was taught from an early age, as living history there would be no need to teach scripture in State Schools or anywhere else.

The historical significance of the Royal Seal should be taught as history, and so should the origins of the Australian Courts Act 1828 how it was introduced by ship and the Charter of Justice granted to the embryonic Australia. Proper history lessons have to include Australia’s Christian heritage, and anything less is downright deceptive. In that both Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians share

Have to agree Peter, however history is distorted by points of view on motivation and it could only be interpreted benificially by agreed moral values of what is good in the absolute.

"accurately teach History"; that's a laugh. Historiography is a crock. Not only is it parochial and written by the victors, it employs all the same rhetorical devices as fiction. Christian history is an even bigger crock: an obscure sect gets lucky and their purblind perspectivism is taken up, or imposed, en masse.
Tradition is also a crock, cherished by conservatives as though its hallowed ignorance should impress merely for the sake of its antiquity--that's why we're still saddled with a monarchy; because its ignorant supporters suffer from pathological nostalgia for a past that never existed. Like Christianity, the "true history" of monarchy is a sordid tale of barbarism and viciousness. The supporters of these three crocks should logically use leaches to cure their distemper; but their love of tradition has its limits.
Anyone for crucifiction?

Hai *Pericles* (1/3)

Re your request, it needs its own thread really and it has been a long, long time since I did any Japaneezoo (Nihongo)
However, I had a look at your links and memories are being stirred. ThankU.

..

The "Open Hand" link a.k.a KaraTe re Bushido is not particularly interesting in terms of definitions but it does appear to have the the Bushido Kanji at the bottom right of the page embossed in silver.

..

I note also that "google" has facility to offer better translations.

..

I am without my reference materials, (though could search for some online ones) of which I have some beautiful old photo hard backs on the martial traditions. The history of the origins of the KamiKaze tradition that I referred to came from one in particular which from memory was written and produced primarily by a western photo journo and practitioner who lived in and did a grand tour through all the old temples and martial training halls, writing in detail on the history, the various "masters" of the respective arts and the interlink with their religions etc etc

However, the "Bu/Mu" character is one that I particularly remember as it was one that was given to me to represent part of my name by my home stay mother (a Japanese Olympian in her time) more than 20 years ago.

..

Adam --> A da Mu

Grim,
Thank you for the sincere confession. I know, you are not the only one who thinks that already at the age of 12 he/she could find faults with the concept (of God), “inconsistencies and contradictions in the argument” that for centuries has inspired, and still inspires, many creative minds without which our current level of understanding (also) of the physical world would be unthinkable.

I belive no system is so bad that it could not be worse. It is hard for us to compare two different worlds, two different systems of education - your experience with an Australian version of Christian education and my experience with a Communist version of atheist education respectively - since neither of us two lived through both of them. The only objective criterion one has is to compare the numbers of people who risked their existence (sometimes even life) to escape from the one world into the other, from e.g. Communist East-Central Europe to Australia or vice-versa.

Returning to the original theme of this thread, for those interested to compare:

“(The Russian President) Dmitry Medvedev met with the leaders of Russia's traditional religions, and ... agreed that the history and culture of the country's main religions should be included in the core school curriculum. .... Twice a week from the spring of next year, pupils in the fourth and fifth classes will study one of three new subjects. They and their parents will be able to choose between the religious culture of one religion (Orthodox, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism), the history and cultural background of the world's great religions, or the foundations of secular ethics. It will be compulsory for pupils to choose one of these three modules.

To start with, it will be introduced in 18 regions in six of the seven federal regions of Russia. The three-year experiment will be introduced in 12,000 Russian schools, 20,000 classes, 256,000 children and 44,000 teachers, according to the Ministry for Education and Science. From 2012, the new modules will be introduced to all Russian schools.
These three modules, "Foundations of religious culture", "Foundations of history and culture of world religions" and "Foundations of secular ethics",- will be taught by teachers who have taken a special training course, though most of them will probably have had  a secular education. The rector of Moscow's State University V.A. Sadovnichy has already expressed a desire to put the resources of the country's leading university behind the re-training of these specialists. But it is clear that at first the main problem will be a serious lack of qualified teaching staff.” (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/russia_looks_to_its_religious_culture/)

So, Mu or Bu as in Budo, as has been said can be simply translated as "The way of the Warrior"

*NOTE* Especially for Philo if he is still with us, what I will say next if distilled for essential meaning is one of the reasons I become critical when people start wanting to make "leaps of logic" as *Pericles* puts it relation to the english verion of the Bible and other Holy Books.

..

(I'm having overlapping thoughts at the moment and am imagining that the likes of *OUG* in particular would Luv to get his hands on copies of and teeth into some of the original Ancient Greek and Hebrew scriptures that he may suck out the meanings of his own accord.)

..

So, back to it then. You may care to note in the embossed representation in silver there are 3 kanji characters and we are focusing on the 1st. Now, please note the smaller element on the bottom left. You see this character in Japan these days all over the place on the "Stop" signs. On the literal level of interpretation it means "Stop."

The other part of the character "Bu" (and I'm a bit fuzzy here) is something like attacks/hurled projectiles/arrows & spears

Now when you put these elements all together it means
"the way of the one who stops attacks."

..

So, again, if one was to translate to say "the way of the warrior" or "the way of the bodyguard" it still doesn't quite encapsulate the meaning does it? And of course, when talking about "arrows/spears" it gives it specific historical context and denotes the specific job performed by the one referred to.

And to link back to your article with the general designation of "special attack corps" I see that they mention the Mongol Invasion and the Divine Wind. If I was to offer some conjecture, and do please note that this is educated guessing and I know not for sure, but mayhaps it is like this:

The Japanese had been pushed back and the urgency of defending the home land would have begun to grow large in their minds. Distressed, they would have begun to seek the guidance and protection of their "Gods" And mayhaps they indeed clutched to the idea that as in the time of the averted Mongol invasion, that if the ones "who stopped attacks" could become one with the *Divine Wind* that the war could be turned back in their favor and the attempted "allied" invasion" would be thwarted.

So,if we imagine ourselves in the cockpit of a "Zero Figher Plane" when you put one of them into a dive from the appropriate height at nigh on snap the wings off speed, that maybe you would be hearing one hell of a roaring wind just prior to impact, explosion and death.

So, in the ultimate sacrifice the pilots/the ones that stop attacks die attempting to save the homeland from invasion by becoming one with the *Divine Wind* and taking out invading battleships and in so doing fulfill there final duty.

..

Does that satisfy you *Pericles* as an enhanced alternative story to mere "special attack corps" alone?

..

As an after note you may also be curious to know that many of the questions that I had about the martial traditions and related subjects, the majority of Japanese that I spoke to were completely clueless about. "GrandMa" wasn't though - she had in her book collection a very old Kanji dictionary, and contained within its pages where the translations to the old inscriptions that I was curious about.

"Historiography is a crock", Squeers?

Historiography is the study of history as a 'thing', not as a series of events. When one studies history, one studies events, dates, names, trends, ideas, etc. When one studies historiography, one studies the ways in which those things have been recorded and passed down. One reads sources critically, identifying bias and selectivity of evidence to determine what might have ACTUALLY happened, rather than what we have been TOLD happened. The idea that 'history is recorded by the victors' stems from historiography - it questions the veracity of historical accounts. In reality, the critique you present in your post is an act of historiographical writing, critiquing the presentation of history.

History (as an area of study) may be a crock, but you haven't really explained how historiography is a crock as well.

Not that any of this has to do with the matter at hand.

Otokonoko,
yes, fair enough; historiography is the history of history--I threw it off in a hurry. Of course in these poststructural days I could argue that there can be no meta-examination of history, and that though the Herodotean (postmodern) perspective is an improvement on recent monolithic histories, history, per se, is lost forever---but I won't.
As you say, this is hardly to the point, but I was pursuing the tangent irresistibly as we've just come out of the culture wars, under Howard, when colonial history was in danger of being taught again as veracity.
To get us back on track, history, like religion, should be taught in schools from a philosophical, and indeed ethical, point of view.

I love the smell of Divine Wind in the morning.

George, I thank you kindly for a fascinating link(s).
Deacon Andrei Kuraev appears to be a very reasonable man, and a good choice for the experiment; I wonder if the exponents of the other religions will be as reasonable.
There are some great quotes in that article, not only from Deacon Andrei:
"The Patriarch has set himself the task of bringing the growing generation of Russians into the church and taking care of them, a generation whose spiritual, moral and physical health is now being sorely tested by the false ideals that are forced on it - vulgar consumerism, social egoism, and attainment of personal success at any price. For as the old Russian saying goes, "he who does not know the law does not know sin either".
If this attitude can successfully be balanced with the Deacon's words:
"The textbooks should not contain criticism of other religions, and there should not be a single line which could be used as an argument in the debate of the superiority of one religion over another. The subject should be treated secularly. It should be financed by a secular organisation, and ‘indoctrination' into any faith should be prohibited," stressed the author of the future Orthodox textbook."
That pretty much covers the subject of this thread, doesn't it?
On a personal note George, I don't doubt for a second your childhood was considerably tougher than mine. On sheer numbers alone, a dictatorial mother would have to be easier to bear than a dictatorial society

Almost forgot, George; one of those 'inconsistencies' (admittedly not so much with the Bible, as with Churches) is evidenced in the first hyperlink in the article you directed us to.
Military Chaplains.
How can that not be oxymoronic?
The quite reasonable sounding Patriarch I quoted in my earlier post is here saying:
'that the modern soldier must be "strong in spirit" and emphasized the importance of spiritual support for servicemen, noting that, "for warriors to be capable of that [sacrificing their lives], we must support them with our prayers, while clergymen should be working with the armed forces,"'
"For warriors to be capable of sacrificing their lives", sounds so much more reasonable than "for warriors to be permitted to break the 6th Commandment".

CJ
No accounting for preferences, I just thought it was last night's curry and not so good.

All
What concerns me most about most topic and these two threads seem no different i.e. they tend to polarise around two imperfect ideologies (human created = flawed/incomplete). This tends to interpolate as counter productive discussions of between extremes/absolutes gain saying (the media's influenced version of 'balance') as opposed to meaningful objectivity or fairness.

George et al
The problem I have with the comparisons between the current Australian system and the Previous Soviet system is one of definition and intent.
The soviet education system can't be seen either in isolation or as objective in that its intention wasn't separation of church and state but rather to replace the latter with the former. One can't ignore the state's both implicit/explicit suppression of religion.

Clearly to do this is defies the human nature/needs of some people for a simple explanation, purpose (if fanciful) and it's traumas of life.
To either implicitly/explicitly do so is both demonstrably futile and imposes on human rights for no good reason (from the perspective of the individual

I would not support that action. What I would support is the removal of religious indoctrination from the levers of power including in education.
NB I do not support its 'replacement' with the ANTI religion nor state approved alternative.
Many religious people are arguing that a secular govt = Anti religion or a replacement with Atheism. By definition it doesn't! It means that govt or education are non doctrinally religious. Hence comparative cultural studies (general understanding of others) *could *
include overviews of comparative religions in that CONTEXT.

I'm betting it was the Hurry Curry, examinator.

Timely, no, overdue topic CJ.

Found the following on New Matilda:

"Last week it emerged that they were opposing a plan to give kids who don't go to scripture classes something to do instead. At the moment, an archaic clause in NSW's Education Act prohibits students who opt out of scripture from being taught anything while others receive religious instruction. At some schools, that means more than half the students are basically doing nothing.

It's as absurd as it sounds. Responding to growing frustration, The NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens Association (P&C) has funded the St James Centre for Ethics to develop a pilot program to teach ethics to students who don't want to learn scripture. But the program had barely crossed the Education Minister's desk before the Government's religious education advisory panel sounded the alarm. Approving the proposal would require the Parliament to kill that archaic clause, and the churches clearly fear this may be the crest of a very slippery slope...

...The NSW ALP's track record of doing everything it can to avoid doing anything at all doesn't bode well. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that apart from the Government's own colossal policy inertia there is no credible community resistance to this program. The long silence from the churches looks very much like an admission that they're fighting a policy that even they can't argue against convincingly.

Getting kids talking about ethics instead of sitting idle? How can you argue with that? "

http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/06/dumbest-education-policy-australia

Can you imagine the hysteria if the Christian Religion was sidelined the way every other religion or philosophy currently is?

Or even, and this will bring out the bigots, that ethics was presented from an anthropological basis - OURstory as opposed to HIStory or PTB's "christian/judeo" basis which is just patriarchy combined with the supernatural.

Grim,
You certainly do have a point here, although I would not call the language oxymoronic only anachronistic. If anything, only a Christian Church explicitly supporting a war could be called oxymoronic. (In our times; it is too easy to judge the past with today’s standards.) Calling “warriors”, to defend fatherland etc is anachronistic to my mind, but then the Russians are not the only ones who still look at things this way. Would you tell the American mother - who consoles herself by thinking her son died in Iraq sacrificing himself for his country - that he died because his President lost his marbles, or what? Michael Novak, a Catholic member of AEI, tried to persuade the then Pope JPII that the Iraq war was “just”. Of course, he failed.

I think the Patriarch should have used the term “endangering” instead of “sacrfificing”: after all soldiers (and e.g. firemen) must also be “strong in spirit” when putting their lives in jeopardy e.g. during rescue work after a natural catastrophe (or terrorist attack).

Military chaplains have been around for centuries, and they played the role of counsellors, psychotherapists, to Christian soldiers. They are not the cause of the anachronism that, in my mind, is the military ethos, but a sort of therapeutic pain-killer (maybe just a band-aid) for the psyche of the soldiers involved. They should not force themselves on non-Christians (I do not think the Patriarch intended that) the same as I would not like to have an atheist counsellor near me when facing death.

examinator,
I was referring to ONE example of an education system that involved religion, and ONE example that excluded religion. There have been many examples of the first kind, but hardly any at all of the second kind (beside the one I experienced). It is easy to compare the shortcomings of an idea, that throughout history became reality in a variety of more or less acceptable forms, with the advantages of an idea (or ideal) that has not yet been fully realised.

Definitely no scripture- at least not compulsory scripture or 'guest speaker' scripture events.

Ethics classes- definite charms in implementing it (especially manners and proper behaviour in society- which is sorely, SORELY lacking these days)- yet at the same time it could end up being a brainwashing session in its own right when politics gets involved.