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.