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.