*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.