worldwatcher,

The choice to opt-out of ‘religious instruction’ (code for Christian indoctrination) is in most state-schools. It should at least be opt-in to make up for parents who haven’t a clue or are too busy trying to survive to think about it.

This is a separate issue from the Christian chaplaincy program which is in possibly thousands of state-schools.

Your experience with a chaplain, whilst interesting and informative for readers, is only a small part of the problem. There is a code of conduct which disallows proselytising on state school property but one has to wonder how that is enforced. It does not stop the out of schools meetings which have a distinct Pentecostal flavour and which are organised from school grounds by word of mouth or pamphlets. The biggest problem is that students see chaplains as a legitimate part of school procedure and therefore supernatural stories without evidence must have truth to them. That is the most insidious component to chaplaincy in state-schools.

You are correct, but Australia is not in a position as drastic as Islamic regimes. Of course, there is no denying Australia is a soft-theocracy more so than a democracy that works semi-okay because of the goodwill of government. There is also no denying that changed circumstance could lead us down the Islamic type path as we have no constitutional protection from religion, but it is unlikely.

Singapore is an interesting case and one religious people in Australia should take note of. I don’t think, but could be wrong, that there is a constitutional separation of church and state, the same as in Australia. The government there has banned certain written religious material with fines and jail terms applicable for infringement.

Given a change of political circumstances in Australia, the same or worse could happen here. Those not wanting there to be as Jefferson put it, “A wall of separation between church and state” are either unaware of the problems without such a mechanism or expect their particular religion to benefit from not having such a wall. This is a dangerous and selfish attitude.

David

The reason Religious Schools are increasing in attendance is because parents decide what they want their children taught. They do not want a ‘values free’ purely secular system taught to their children.

Chaplains are not teachers of religion in State schools they are there to give individual care to a troubled child. In many cases it also includes interviews with parents and teachers. Religion as a subject in State Schools is a subject chosen by the child, not enforced on the child and it is the study of comparative religion.

Religious education is an option to the child taught by volunteers on a set curriculum.

Josephus,

Parents in many instances choose private schools because they can afford to do so and the amenities are superior. As well as this, they think their kids are getting a better education. A dubious claim by all accounts. Of course, in other instances, indoctrinated parents also wish to indoctrinate their children. That’s how it works.

I really wish you would read what I said about chaplains and ‘religious education’. I have not said chaplains officially teach. But they are not equipped, nor do they have the years of training necessary to handle the problems faced by modern children. They can refer students to experts on various matters but minor (to them) stuff can and is mishandled. Zealotry has a way of escaping from zealots.

Children do not choose religion in state schools. If the opt-out form is not signed by the parent, they attend automatically. The teaching of comparative religion by teachers and not Christian volunteers is the dream we all want. It remains a dream at present as those 'teachers'are Christian volunteers.

Education bodies want a radical revamp of both systems. Why do you think that is so? Could it be for the reasons I have given. Let me answer that for you. Yes.

If you wish to continue this conversation you will have to answer this.

If the chaplains and volunteer teachers were Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, Environmentalists, from mining companies or the Nazi party, would that be OK?

I know you definitely would have a problem with the Nazi option, as we all would, but there would be a similar code of conduct not to proselytise. That should work fine, shouldn't it!

Your disapproval at that scenario is exactly why Christian chaplains should not be on state school grounds or anywhere near a school.

But, I'll wait and see how you answer the question.

David

"So, exactly what words did I place in your mouth?"

I wrote:" I wonder whether your applauding science for having defeated religion....". ie its was you applauding science, not science applauding itself. Or do you consider yourself to be the embodiment of science?

Actually, I've noticed this quite a bit throughout the thread. You appear to read what you think the poster would say rather than what they do say and then excoriate them for it.

" This argument is so weak as to be non-existent. What has this to do with atheism freely chosen in a democracy? I despair at your gullibility."
I have, throughout, only mentioned these atheist regimes as being the only examples we currently have of nations run by atheists. I've never drawn conclusions from that in regards your your fantasy utopia of an atheist democracy. I despair of your reading skills.
When/if we ever get an atheist democracy, we'll see how it behaves. I have grave misgivings.

"People in Australia and further afield are defeating religion by not be involved in it. They are voting with their feet and that is what is motivating you to be so opposed to atheism and me."

Actually that's completely wrong. I'm not at all motivated to oppose atheism. What I do oppose is your form of activist atheism whereby you seek to do combat with the theists with the vast majority of atheists, agnostics and quite believers caught in the middle.
Its you smarmy assertions you are educated, you are rational, you are adult and that those who don't accept your version of the world are uneducated, irrational, infantile.
This is why I don't accept that your atheist democracy will be as benign as you think. throughout the ages we see those who think like you, unable to maintain a benign stance. After all, if the others are uneducated, irrational, infantile its your duty to impose your views on them for their own good, right?
And its that type of thinking that we see throughout this thread and throughout the AFA website.

/cont

/cont

For example "Infantile concepts seriously hinder the full potential development of humans in a world with problems that require logical thought.". So, obviously, these infantile concepts have to be over-ridden so that logical thought can solve the world's problems, right?
I'm sure you sincerely believe that benign prompting will get the theists to see the truth as you know it. But we've seen plenty of occasions in the last century as to what happens when well-meaning folk find that their gentle prodding doesn't work. If you are as absolutely certain of the correctness of your views as you are, eventually that devolves into providing justification for all sorts of unwanted actions.

And that's why I'm opposed to your brand of atheism. I hold no special truck with the deity. I'm agnostic on the issue as I've mentioned several times.But, in your absolutism, since I don't agree with your views I must be implacably opposed to your views.

People who believe in truths beyond science aren't irrational, uneducated or infantile and its rank arrogance to say they are.... although when I pointed this out with a few examples I noticed you retreated with a good degree of alacrity.

mhaze,

Maybe you need a cuppa tea, a Bex and good lie down. You are right off the track.

I have continually pointed out the wrongs with religion and have never proposed that everyone should be atheists. If I have, can you point it out thanks? Atheism is a freely chosen position, unlike religion which is imposed in childhood.

Your fear of the Gulag state, not even imagined, intimated or mentioned by freely chosen atheism is a sign of paranoia.

You have the gall to speak of atheism being a possible problem when you live in Australia, one of the most godless nations on earth and one of the best.

If you want to have a hissy-spit, then that is OK, but pick some decent reasons for doing it because you haven’t come up with any yet.

You would like to silence me because I am effective in communicating a point of view. Oh, you don’t like the way I do that. Then don’t frequent thread I am involved with.

How easy is that?

David