Many private schools, will have their own religions taught - nothing much in public schools.

The question for me is should we teach religions in public schools like Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhism, Catholic, Indigenous Aboriginal culture, Islam, Witchcraft, Sikhism and others coming directly from the people from the religions or spiritual groups themselves?

These people know the realities of their groups - and I feel it could be good for students to learn something different in our public education system - rather than just about letters and numbers in primary schools.

Probably right there. They should be taught how to be good atheists.
As in real life not fiction.

Should any sort of religion be taught in any school. The world is torn apart by religion.
Atheism has it’s own belief, Religion in public schools was disbanded yonks ago, and for good reason.

Come on Nathan, with the dills we have teaching schools today, the kids are lucky to know what 2+2 equals by the time they go to high school. We are having enough trouble getting the kids literate & numerate as it is.

Start expecting them to learn some totally superfluous & of little interest to most, would be far from helpful in them covering the necessary.

I believe, that rotation between all schools, leads to an even distribution of all beliefs.

Kat

Dear Nathan,

Religion plays important roles in some people's lives
and in our society - therefore we should know about
the various religions that exist to promote greater tolerance
and understanding in our society.
However there is a difference between education about
religion, and religious instruction.

Learning about
different religions is well and good, but actual religious
instruction should not occur in state schools.

For example it's one thing to say - "God Loves You!"
That's the language of religious instruction.

Whereas to say that "Some Christians believe that God
Loves You..." That's teaching about a religion and
that should be acceptable.

I'm of the view that at the scale involved for school based curiculum its to difficult to avoid at least some adherants given access to the classroom trying to use that access to evangelise. There was a large discussion on OLO some time back at a point when Scripture Union in QLD were claiming publicly that they did not evangelise but their web site was full of terms in relation to their school program that gave a very different message. The website changed some key content during the course of that debate (which was also to some extent being played out elsewhere).

I don't believe that our school get adherants in to teach key points of history in relation to their groups role in events that might be taught. No doubt teachers bring their own biases to the classroom on all sorts of topics, I don't know how that can be avoided but at least they have some training on what their role should be and maybe an knterest in keeping their jobs which might temper missiinary zeal a bit.

R0bert

Religious studies in a nation that overwhelmingly followed one religion were not an issue. Religious studies in a multi religious school system, as we have today, is an issue if racial issues evolve...it could be derived as exhibiting division.

I asked some of the teachers I live with and they said that Christian Scripture of a non denominational nature was in place in secondary schools in NSW, with every school having a chaplain. There is also a dedicated prayer room on Friday’s only for Muslims......they tell me that neither are well attended.

Do the kids care?

NO, no, no ! Keep that idiotic nonsense away from our kids. If as young adults they're silly enough then let them join some outfit but prohibit indoctrination at a young age.
Any religious nut hanging around schools should get the same treatment as a paedophile.
In many past cases they were one & the same anyway.

yep be dumb enough to keep teaching children that they evolved from apes and that moral relativity is quite acceptable. Then introduce useless programs to try and reduce std's , teen suicide, mental breakdowns, total disrespect for authority, out of control acholol and drug taking. Yep teach the kids the idiotic unscientific notion that we come from nothing and then ask dumb questions as to why. Yep teach them a little about all religion but don't dare mention that one day all will be accountable to God. Then all those pushing such dumb ideas might need to look at their own lives. And we could not have that could we. Just keep wasting millions on useless studies and remedies.

Foxy, I don't see your point.

I think our public schools need to have more vibrant philosophical attitudes, towards students in some ways to get a message out - that there are people of different lifestyles out there.

By having a range of people from religious/spiritual groups - these people can 'show' and 'educate' students at the same time.

If a student could see the activity of a Hindu, or Aboriginal, Jehovah's Witness, Christian or Jewish and what they believe - I don't think this is bad thing - say at a school - having a peaceful religious day? Students could understand there are some people that may live differently than they do.

There is more to a public school than just reading a book.

Properly taught, English literature covers all that needs to be known about religions and more.

It is the prevailing political correctness that should be challenged and removed from State schools. That and the busywork caused by heavy 'management'/administrative overheads in the education departments.

More male teachers would help but not if the sieve only allows simpering metrosexuals and 'male feminists'.

Religion is the last concern. There is much more to do to improve education for students.

Sorry Nathan but it would be frivolous to spend another minute on that old done-to-death topic. What about a thread on improving literature for boys, and how to give students some head space away from political correctness, endless indigenous stuff (someone has to say it) and the gender wars?

What I appreciate about your threads is that you don't usually get bent out of shape when some disagree. Young men should be heard more.

Oh come on runner,

You need a dose of reality. If you believe that religion teaches kindness, integrity etc then you really need to wake up. The most hypocritical, selfish & perverted people I have met have all had one thing in common, they're all religious.
Just stand outside a church on a sunday morning & you'll see all the crook business people, the crook bureaucrats & crooks in general making sure they're seen. During the week they're busy ripping off people, lying about their real motives & grab as much money as they possibly can. Yes runner religion, It's the last thing you need if you want to build a good society.
If there is indeed a God then it'll be the religious who will cop it in the end because they go against everything God supposedly told us we should do. Disgusting hypocrites most.
To ask religion be taught in schools is they height of hypocrisy.

The topic, I think is around the wrong way.
Should we educate people in churches?
Do not pray in schools and do not think in churches.
If people started to think in church, no one would attend.

Religious institutions, like the Catholic Church, have relied on schooling of children as a vehicle to perpetuate their phony religions. With fictitious tales of Adam and Eve, Moses and his Ark, etc etc these predatory parsons have been in the business of brain washing the young since Adam was a boy! What better place to find receptive minds for their phony religions than in our schools. I am no more in favor of allowing these charlatans into our public schools to spread their bogus messages, than I am to allowing used car salesmen into our schools to peddle their wares.
Schools should be into the business of teaching factual honesty, not a load of dishonest mumbo jumbo.

'Just stand outside a church on a sunday morning & you'll see all the crook business people, the crook bureaucrats & crooks in general making sure they're seen. '

yea individual and your moral basis for calling these things wrong? Use your brain instead of your dogma.

Every person has a value system by which they live, including atheists. However not all claiming to be atheists have the same value system. So which branch of atheists values should be taught? The Maoist, Stalinist, Putin or Individuals? Similar with Christians who individual watches outside Churches. Many who attend church do not live by the values Christ taught, they live by the values many who call themselves atheists also live by - "You are only here once get and enjoy as much as you can." This means selfishly ripping off other people - no where does Christ Jesus teach such attitudes. As far as pedophiles - Christ taught it is better that anyone who offends a child a mill stone be hung around their neck and they be cast into the sea. Not that Christians practice such punishment but it indicates his view of a social outcast.

This argument has become irrelevant.
Once I would not have cared about religion being taught in school but
things have changed,
We definitely should not allow schools that teach an antidemocratic
political ideology that masquerades as a religion to exist.
Watch what has happened in Birmingham which has now finally forced the
UK government to act.
The schools are teaching Islamism in an anti-British atmosphere.

It is an ongoing story that is incomplete.

In the UK some schools are mixed private and government ownership.
The government employs the teachers but the religion involved sets
the teaching program so long as it meets certain requirements.

Frankly we have no place here for Islamic schools.

Dear Nathan,

Kindly re-read my post on page 1.
You'll find that you have not understood
what I was saying. We are not in dis-agreement.

Bazz

it was and still is the idiotic athiest whose dogma is that 'all religions are equal ' 'all cultures are equal' who have created the situation in London, France, Germany and anywhere else where 'the religion of peace gets a foothold. To ignore that hospitals were largely built by Christians, schools introduced by Christians and people lived in harmony due to Christian teachings is ignorance and foolhardy. As soon as the Christophobes had bibles removed from schools, prayers banned and perversion promoted we opened the door to such nonsense.

runner "and people lived in harmony due to Christian teachings"

I suppose you think that your attitude to those who disagree with your worldview and beliefs is an example of that harmony.

It would be funny if it was not so sad.

R0bert

R0bert

yep typical, attack the messenger because you can't win the arguement.
You would qualify for a job at the abc.

I have a read a lot of the posts on this topic and what they don't seem to accept is that there are people with a range of different beliefs and religions out there - not just Christianity.

For example some local libraries have introduced a "Living Library" system - it's a special event, compared to what some may see as boring old books - http://www.lianza.org.nz/resources/promote-libraries/living-library . You get to speak to the people themselves.

I went vegetarian as part of high school project, so I think it is important to get the message out there, that people with different lifestyles do exist. Isn't this what school is about - learning?

Should we have a philosophy subject with religious leaders attending at public schools?

People can change for the better. After all you spend a lot of time at school.

Nathan.
Philosophy is the opposite of religion, there's no such thing as "religious philosophy", and no, that's not what schools are supposed to be teaching, the fact that so much of the curriculum is taken up with pseudo religious BS already is a big part of the reason many parents are sending their kids to TAFE or VET type courses as soon as they're old enough.

Nathan how do you determine which groups should get a special opportunity to present their beliefs/values?

Would you also have a die hard meat eater in to spruke the benefits of eating meat?

If you are going to have a repesentative of Islam in will it be a Sunni, Shi'ite or maybe some far smaller branch? I get the impression that the Sunni's are the largest branch so then someone needs to decide who represents that group best, perhaps someone from the ISIS (you might have noticed them in the news a bit lately). They do seem to be pretty enthusiastic about their beliefs.

A fairly rough example but I hope it gets the point across, there ar value judgements involved when you start doing what you are proposing. All well and good when those you agree with make the decisions but not so good when its those you disagree with (and to that extent I agree with runner to a point).

The education system does need to make some changes to gets more kids engaged, I'd be starting with hard questions about parts of the curriculum before bringing in groups to promote their beliefs. Eg forcing modern teenagers to study poetry for a subject thats essential for tertiary education is a pet hate of mine.

R0bert

iTS KEY/TO KNOW THAT KIDS NEED BE taUght/before the age of eighT
AFTER THAT/they wil only leaern what affirms with what they know.

so im all for rAISING KIDS WITH SANTA CLAUSE;CHARITY[not xmass gluttony]..so i see nothing wrong wiTH LETTING THEM LOOSE ON A FEW RABBIES OR priests..after that age/before then i would [refer we allowed them firmly to find a peace in the living loving good[with children knowing clearly/early..THAT ALL LIFE ALL LIGHT LOVE MERCY GRACE..COMES FROM GOD...[THAT GOD HAS SENT MANKINd many messengers..ITS HANDY IF THEY KNOW/The names.

sure there are good godless/atheists
but like most agnostics..many 'seem; to have emerged via the homes of believers/but simply rejected the good goDGION/MESSENEGERS/SAINTS OF/THEIR Pa*rentals.

FIRST..its ok to believe in the strer rabbit the satan clause and the good of god/thE FIRST TRINITY..IS GOD MUMMY DAddy ,ade you you/so we caN LOVE GOD THROUGH YOU..in time you will loose the lust for chocolate on christs re-birthday/on exodus eve..AND IN TIME YOU WILL LOOSE THe urge to give from CHARITY..EVEN ON THE DAY OF HIS BIRTH..BUT GOD WILL REmain with you allways.THROUGH EVERY REBIRTH.

IN TRUE HEAven/hell..there are nO RELIGIONS
JUST CHARITIES..INTRESTS/OCCUPATIONS WE ENJOY AND SHARE
we being by joining others.on goDS SABBATH DAY..TO FURTHER COMprehend our savious place and time.

its not complicated to give simply facts
ask questions without fear god WILL REJect us
its we alone who reJECT THE ALL LIVING ALL LOVING MERCYFULL GOOD

just let that be clearly understood.

I think that rather than being taught perhaps it should be offered as an alternative to say history, because let's face it, history is now just a 'google' away. Perhaps it already is.

The essence of Christianity is: God is revealed through character, actions and wisdom all of which entails pure motives intended to enhance the lives of people. God is not spatial but spiritual and of whose admirable character, pure actions and divine wisdom we were made to image. Religion should not be taught comparatively as a subject as it confuses young minds. The basis of Christianity is the study of the person i.e. Christ [Representing God on Earth]. So it is essential to recognize the character, actions and wisdom of Christ as lived by Jesus and unless the person accepts this they have not learned Christianity

@NathanJ, Tuesday, 17 June 2014 12:10:46 PM

We would be intellectually impoverished and denied the fullness (layers of meaning) of literature if we did not have a good appreciation of the beliefs and stories of various religions. There is a rich tapestry in all to be explored.

At the same time the coverage and depth of the necessary knowledge does offer alternative ways of perceiving the world and direction and choices for those who want to pursue them. Their choices and they should be personally accountable for those choices. Should a child have choice and when?

As well, I do believe that prayer and the belief in a supreme being can be of tremendous help, especially in times of personal strife and when those complex ethical decisions have to be made. There are reasonable, well-informed concerns though about certain religions and religious leaders/structures.

Reasonable tolerance must be our path, but tolerance does not extend to the proved noxious creeds that challenge our Australian Law or act to restrict or compromise individual's rights, particularly affecting children.

While not a church goer myself, through experience and especially voluntary work I would emphasise that I have met, know and would vouch for the many wonderful caring people who are parishioners of the mainstream churches.

We should not be too inclined to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should be very loathe indeed to countenance more State interference in individual lives and choices. The secular 'Progressives' for instance might believe that they always know what is best for others, but their record does not bear that out and they are most reluctant to be held accountable themselves.

We seem to have the balance about right in Oz ATM and we should not allow such nasties as Sharia Law.

When I was at high school, as part of our end of year school magazine I was the only year 12 student with a 'passionate' title with my name - all the others in my year level got funny titles next to theirs. What does this say about our community? There is a lack of philosophy, personal belief and value.

There should be at least some time set aside at school to talk about moral, religious and topical issues to get students minds 'thinking' outside the square.

People of all different valued backgrounds should be allowed to speak at public schools - including people affected by a range of issues worldwide - religious or not - and may have never studied as a teacher. This may include a person affected in a certain way because of their religious background for example.

Unfortunately too many people working within our education 'factory or supermarket' just want it kept the same - as it's easier to manage - but what about the future of the student, in terms of their 'whole' life?

Come off it Runner, <<To ignore that hospitals were largely built by Christians, schools introduced by Christians and people lived in harmony due to Christian teachings is ignorance and foolhardy.>>

For nearly 2,000 years people lived in fear of their lives because of Christianity, they were kept in a state of blinding ignorance, by the Church hierarchy. How many wars have be fought, and how many lives have been lost in the name of the Christian God?

Now, who is being ignorant and foolhardy.

Paul1405

u prove my point.

People will choose a lifestyle they at the time are convinced are right. Paul has chosen a lifestyle that he believes in that is deliberately antagonistic; but has not researched adequately outside his present convictions. I say educate the young in lifestyles that give social growth and harmony. The history of the Roman Church has not been one to meet that criterion. But has Paul read the ideas contained in the New Testament and understood them or just cherry picked things that suit his antagonistic bias

Children in all schools should be taught about the various religions and their claims.

Miracles, for example, could be studied by the students, and their refutation by science to show the kids just how the ignorant are taken in.

Yes runner, he did prove your point. Atheists are not smart.

runner, a link to prove what I posted is the truth about your Christianity;

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH;

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

You silly assertion that in some way,

"people lived in harmony due to Christian teachings is ignorance and foolhardy"
That would be true if you turn a blind eye to the mass killings that Christianity has been responsible for.

All very true, Paul, but you forgot to mention the education, the caring for the sick and the leprosariums which have been a feature of Catholicism.

We should have some balance.

Okay Is Mise, The Little Sisters of the Sick looked after the leapers I'll concede them a 'Brownie Point' for that. Balance would be the real truth of the countless crimes which have been perpetrated over the centuries in the name of the Christian god.

Paul, you are an anti religious bigot. Christianity has not killed one person ever, just like atheism has not killed one person ever. "Isms" don't kill, bad people kill. If you claim any Christian murders, then you are admitting the person is not a Christian (without realising it) as murder goes against ALL teachings of Christianity. You really need to educate yourself.

I'll repeat myself just in case you don't get it: If any person goes out and deliberately murders, that person is not a Christian.

Paul

your ignorance of Christ and His teachings show exactly why religion should be taught in schools. A generation with the amount of ignorance or deceit that you sprout is frightening. No wonder we have tens of thousands of guilt free baby murders each year in this nation.

We have Paul1405 pushing against one religion alone - and then some wanting a 'token talk' about religion in public schools (like Foxy). This to me is not good. There was a discussion on the ABC Q&A program last year with four to five different religions on stage and it was good to see them together as it breaks down the barriers about religion in principle.

Hateful or airy fairy principles are not what education should be about when discussing religion. I recently found a private Christian school with philosophy as a subject - but what about public schools? Not everyone student wants Jay of Melbourne's attitude - but still wants to stay in general schooling.

Dear Nathan,

I entered this discussion in good faith and at no
time did I suggest any "token talk." And it is mendacious
of you to suggest it. Afterall you might not agree with
my views - but don't infer something that I did not say.
That is not an acceptable form of debating. What I did
say was that teaching about various religions goes a
long way towards broadening out tolerance and understanding.
But religious instruction belongs in religious schools.
Not in state schools. There is a gap of difference between
the two - and there is nothing "token" about learning about other religions. The more we learn the
greater our understanding -
except of course for those with closed minds who think that
their religion is the one and only. And anyone with a different
point of view is "bad." Sounds a bit like my old teacher -
Sister Mary Virgilius.

Foxy,

You need a person with the passion and the belief of what they are talking about, not just having someone else in place. In my view, this doesn't work.

I was recently watching a youtube debate and one speaker referred to "mini vegetarian" in terms of the topic to try and add an element to their case. People in the audience laughed and thought it was funny.

However for myself being a vegetarian it is fuller to have a passionate person, (directly speaking to a group) who believes in something like vegetarianism and add some depth into the topic. Its not about force.

This can include any religion or spiritual viewpoint. For example I have a nephew who is Aboriginal. He has a four piece aboriginal name, with a spiritual background to it. I've been told (by my sister) the reasons why his full name shouldn't be said in full - as the damage it will cause to him as an individual.

Overall more in depth, face first discussion is needed in schools, including public schools, in areas such as religion, philosophy and other topics - by people with the 'belief'.

Dear Nathan,

Teachers are expected to reach unattainable goals
with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times
they accomplish this impossible task. Schools,
however cannot survive on miracles. Every teacher deserves
effective tools and skills. The question is can psychology
provide them? Can therapeutic concepts (like passion)
be translated into specific educational practices?
Is "passion" enough?

I tend to lean more towards techniqies developed in child
therapy and tested in the classroom, concrete suggestions
and practical solutions as offered for dealing with
daily situations and psychological problems faced by
all teachers.

Of course it is a teacher's personal approach that creates
the decisive element in the classroom. The teacher's
personal approach creates the climate for learning.
A teacher posseses tremendous power to make a child'e life
miserable or joyous. A teacher can be a tool of torture
or an instrument of inspiration. They can humiliate or
humour, hurt or heal. In all situations the teacher's
response decides whether a crisis will be escalated or
de-escalated, and a child humanised or de-humanised.

Many teaching problems will be solved in the next few
decades. There will be new learning environments and
new means of instruction. One function however, will always
remain with the teacher: to create the emotional climate for
learning. No machine, sophisticated as it may be can do
this job. "Passion" for teaching in general is important.
As is being experts in effective and affective education.
That is why I consider the teaching about all religions
as important. Whereas specific religious education should
remain in religious schools. State schools provide a broader
education - and that is as it should be. In my opinion,
at least.

cont'd ...

It's all very well to have a "passion" for religious
instruction - but usually that presents a narrow view.
And state schools need to have a broader approach and
cater to everyone. Therefore religious instruction
should remain in religious schools - for those that
want it. Teaching about religions is a different matter.
That instruction broadens out tolerance and understanding.
Those parents who want "specific" religious instruction -
should send their children to the "specific" schools that
will provide it.

Foxy,

There are so many students in schools today who are not changing their lives. The problem is that so many students today don't know themselves enough or where they want to move towards at a year 11/12 level. Why? Their education wasn't individually made - like an artist works - they were pushed through a lifeless factory.

Their future life, can be literally wrecked. The proposed budget changes to be brought in for students leaving school won't help either.

This is where people of a religious background can be very helpful alongside teachers as it can help students - in a classroom. I know when I went vegetarian, in year 12 as part of a project - it is the best thing I ever did - and it can be the passion and direction that can give a student some better looking at themselves along with "balance and soul" that is needed.

Our grades only school system, with exams and no real life or spirit is not in the interest of students overall - and I support the introduction of elements that boost a students future - including religious elements - which includes people directly involved - as they know and can tell their own full life story.

Dear Nathan,

The question should be "COULD religion be taught in public schools?" rather than "Should".

Seeing the confusion on this thread, where members of this forum have no clue what religion is and are happy to pass all sorts of aberrations for "religion", I suspect it's hopeless to expect public schools to even know what religion is, let alone teach it.

It is of course quite possible to teach about the shadow of religion, in other words on how religion reflects externally on physical/social life: these people believe such-and-such and feast on those days while those believe otherwise and fast on those other days, wear such-and-such and have such-and-such dietary restrictions - but that's all a matter of culture, not a matter of religion. While world-culture can be taught, it should not be thought/taught of as religion.

Sadly, there are not enough competent teachers living today who can provide religious education to all children, but those parents who care about their child's spiritual development are well advised to make the effort and find one for their children. Those who don't care, will continue to send their children to the wilderness of public schooling.

Dear Josephus,

I really enjoyed reading your superb explanation on the nature of Christianity (Tuesday, 17 June 2014 4:02:01 PM) - Thank you!

Dear Nathan and Josephus,

I can't speak on behalf of other people only for myself.
And my experiences with a religious School System of
Education has not been a positive one. It actually turned
me off religion for a while until I found that life
without a conscious awareness of God was difficult.
But I won't go into any details. It's a private matter.
I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I am not against
religion. I simply feel that it is a personal matter and up
to the parents to decide regarding their children's
education - and religious education belongs in private schools.

You obviously disagree with me. That's fine.
We can agree to disagree.

See you on another discussion.

I know Foxy you don't want to talk further on this topic - but I am 100% not in same category as Josephus.

In terms of religion and education - it is about for me weather there should be more education in public, wherever this is. Its not just left in a private school, an outback territory where an Aboriginal person may live or any place of religion where people gather.

This is where the misinformation gathers and people don't understand why certain people live the way they do. For example when I went vegetarian my mother threw a plate of meat in front of me and demanded I eat it - and I said no. My parents still don't 100% like the fact I'm vegetarian.

I had one woman speak to me and say the wearing of full middle eastern style of clothing that covers the whole body (from top to bottom) was an invasion of human rights. I said, if had the political numbers to force people to stop eating meat - would the majority of Australians say yes - no. There would be the biggest protests occur in Australian history. She understood my point - I was simply saying the clothing element is generally freedom of choice.

So for me its a question of breaking down the barriers of religion across the board - and Australia doesn't address that by avoiding it as a subject.

Dear Nathan,

Australia does not avoid the subject of religion.
I don't agree with you on that. On the contrary
all Australians are free to follow any religion
they choose, so long as its practices do not break
any Australian law. Australians are also free not to
follow a religion. As far as breaking down religious
barriers. That today is part and parcel of a student's
education. In the current educational environment
teachers are constantly expected to address issues in
the classroom which extend a student's own "world
view." They cover a range of topics such as -
the Australian character, migrants, Aborigines,
pressure groups, poverty, computers and technology,
unemployment,
energy, pollution, conservation, various religious beliefs,
human relationships, families, human rights, crime
and punishment, to mention just a few.

I think that your concern is commendable, but you need
not worry. We have experienced educators dealing with
the many necessary curriculum materials.
The students are in good hands.

Cheers.

Since it seems to be the basis of most aspects of culture, religion should indeed be taught in schools, but it should be an overview of ALL religions rather than just one.

A history of religion should also be taught, discussing how it evolves and changes to suit the times and the brutality and cruelty it has spawned over the centuries and not the Hollywood, spaced-out Sunday School mythology most accept as historical fact.

I believe a good grounding in ethics is a laudable outcome from schools. However, as an atheist, while I believe that chaplains are generally well meaning and ethical people, their faith gives their teachings a subtext that is incompatible with what many people believe, and as such has no place in public schools that are meant to cater for all creeds and cultures.

Good post SM. wobs if you support teaching of ALL religions in schools will you also support the teaching of BLACK MAGIC in schools. If not why not! it's a fair question, if your going to teach about Buddha etc.

Paul,

READ what I wrote. I did not at any time advocate the teaching of all religions or any religion. The easiest way to cater for all cultures and religions is to provide a secular education.

I do not have any objection to a public school providing on demand access to a chaplain outside of school hours.

Shadow Minister,

You seem to have no idea of the role of "School Chaplains" under the current arrangements.

The full title is "National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program".

SM I Agee with you. It was wobbles point that ALL religions should be taught in some way. I don't agree with. Fine with me in their own time, but not millions of dollars of taxpayers money on religious instruction.

Paul,

Sorry, I didn't read.

An over view of all religions ought to be taught in all schools as part of the State Curriculum as should an overview of all political parties.

Religions should not be allowed to proselytize in State schools and neither should political parties.

Political Parties are, in many ways, akin to religions and are often closely allied to particular views of a religious nature.

Dear Is Mise,

Teachers of English and Social Studies know
how difficult and time-consuming it is to
gather information and stimulus materials
which enables them to challenge students to
explore and understand the complex social issues
which will confront them both now and in the
future. That's why it is important that this
work is done by qualified teachers trained in
the job - who have the qualifications needed
to do the work properly. To provide
thought-provoking material, accompanied by
questions that encourage comprehension and
invite reflection. Teachers who are qualified to
use strategies to even further extend the
appropriate materials in the classroom to clarify,
analyse, discuss and research the issues with
students.

Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 22 June 2014 5:45:18 AM
"I don't agree with. Fine with me in their own time, but not millions of dollars of taxpayers money on religious instruction".

No religious instruction currently given in schools cost the Government one cent. It costs the RE instructor alone and his / her supporters [taxpayers].

On this topic since reading, I agree with the points recently raised by Yuyutsu, who asked if we had teachers who could teach religion properly as a basic subject. I think this also applies to some other subjects and also provides a spectrum for many subjects that do not exist in principle - and this is at the expense of students.

I would say this requires much further in depth work by the Federal Government in terms of University reform and teaching in terms of students learning to be a teacher, re a new subject.

However, I do believe we can have people directly from a religious or spiritual group come into a public school and talk to the students of a classroom - and add to the element of that classroom - alongside a teacher, with set standards.

I don't think we should be fearful of people just because they may be of a religious group and having them speak in a public school - after all they are part of our public life.

Nat

Since Tony chirstan is in power, and just to add..(10 out 10 for the pope demonizing the mob)...since all humans are religious.....quoting the jumbo in the room:)....

Gezzz its hard at the top.

Kat

'No religious instruction currently given in schools cost the Government one cent. It costs the RE instructor alone and his / her supporters [taxpayers]. '

Yes Josephus but with the moral relativism dogma of the Greens/secularist lying is ok. Another dogma they share with Islam when it suites their cause.

Runner...wash your mouth out with soap.....:)

Kat