In a move to protect Generation Snowflake from 'triggering anxiety' a Sydney public primary school (Elanora Heights Public School) has now banned clapping in a policy named 'silent cheers'.
Also on the banned list are the terms 'girls, 'ladies' and 'women'.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/nsw/2016/07/20/sydney-school-bans-clapping.html

Cheltenham Girls High School also placed a ban on the terms, and acknowledged the discussions occurred during Safe Schools program discussions.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/calls-for-intervention-over-sydney-girls-school-gender-neutral-language-policy/news-story/37c0d140a109d9c6a592b1a80ec0af6e

In a later story however, the NSW Education Department said that gender-specific terms would continue to be used.
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/nsw-girls-school-wont-ban-gendered-terms/news-story/a6a322e1b07864eaf16f541dbe3f1e42

Feminists, LGBTI campaigners and other social justice warriors from the progressive left have tirelessly been pushing their agendas, and education is becoming hardcore indoctrination on behalf of these minority groups.

Do others think this politically correct trend is ok?
Or have these groups taken things a step too far?

"Teachers at Cheltenham Girls high school in Sydney were never told they should avoid referring to students as “girls”, “women” or “ladies”, despite claims in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday that they had been asked to use gender-neutral language.

The front page story by Miranda Devine claimed the request to use gender-neutral language at the all-girls school in north-west Sydney was made at a staff meeting to discuss the implementation of the Safe Schools program earlier this year."

"But Guardian Australia understands there was never any instruction given to avoid use of “girls”, “ladies”, “women” or other gender-specific terms at Cheltenham Girls high school, and there was no basis to the Daily Telegraph’s report.

In a post to Facebook on Wednesday afternoon, the school said it had “a proud ongoing tradition of providing high quality education for girls”.

“The school has not and will not change the way students’ gender is referred to.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/20/teachers-at-sydney-high-school-never-told-to-use-gender-neutral-language?CMP=share_btn_tw

Just poor old Miranda Devine tooting her horn for a bit of attention - again...

Not so sure about the banning of clapping...which seems pretty stupid.

The Left's cultural wars being waged against school children. Tragically, that has been going on for years.

The NSW Education Minister is missing in action again.

With the Marxist-oriented Safe Schools Program anything is possible,

"Damien Tudehope, the Liberal MP for Epping, had told the Daily Telegraph that parents of students at the school had told him their daughters were “ostracised” for objecting to its pro-equality events.

He also told other media that he had received four complaints and a petition with 19 signatures, though it is understood that these were about the Safe Schools program in general, not the alleged instruction at Cheltenham Girls high. Tudehope declined to comment to Guardian Australia"
[from OP link]

1957 vs. 2017.

Scenario 1:
Jack, the year 12 Dux nominate, goes rabbit shooting before school. Afterwards pulls into the school car-park with his grand-dads shotgun visible in the ute gun rack.

1957-Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's gun, goes to his car and gets his rifle out & chats with Jack about guns.

2017-School goes into lock down, TRG called. Jack is hauled off to gaol and never sees his ute or shotgun again. Trauma counselors, Department of Children’s Service and psychologists costing tens of $1,000’s per day are called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight at the bus stop after school.

1957-Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and they end up mates.

2017-Police called, TRG team arrives, Johnny and Mark are arrested, charged with assault. Both are expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3:
Faisal fails year 10 English.

1957-Faisal’s mum & dad work their holidays to get him extra tuition over the school break. He repeats year 10 and graduates 3 years later as Dux of the high school. 4 years later he enters his articles of clerkship as a solicitor with a prestigious Sydney law firm.

2017-Faisal's cause is taken up by an ethnic rights group. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist.

Rights group files a class action lawsuit against state school system and Faisal's English teacher. English is banned from school’s core curriculum. His English teacher never teaches again.

Faisal is given a school leaving certificate anyway, & gives up studies altogether. Ending up in a factory in Auburn, sweeping floors for a living because he cannot speak English.

onthebeach wrote: "With the Marxist-oriented Safe Schools Program anything is possible,"

How is the Safe Schools Program Marxist-oriented?

To a member of the rabid right like Beach,anything with a "progressive" slant is viewed as having a Marxist orientation. The type of schools program Beach would approve of is the likes of School Cadet Units, where children can be taught the finer art of killing.
As for Miranda Devine and the 'Daily Telegraph' both are well known for when no facts exists, they simply invent them.

//Not so sure about the banning of clapping...which seems pretty stupid.//

Not if you're autistic, in which case it might well seem like a blessed relief. For a lot of people with ASD, excessive noise can induce panic attacks, outbursts of rage and even induce pain.

Is it really worth maintaining a practice for no more reason than tradition, when it might be adversely affecting some students? Especially when there already exists the well-established method of silently displaying appreciation through 'visual applause', which the deaf community have been doing for years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOxT5P7YvUI
http://libguides.gallaudet.edu/content.php?pid=351741

Nah, you're probably right Poirot. We should keep inflicting cruel & unusual punishment on kids with autism, because that's what is traditional. All this 'progressive' pandering to the disabled nonsense is just political correctness gone mad, right guys?

Toni,

What's your solution for the traffic noise when the kids are going to or coming from school; silent horns, silent engines?

Within the class rooms and elsewhere we could introduce silent music, and that would stop the suffering of many more.

"Not if you're autistic, in which case it might well seem like a blessed relief. For a lot of people with ASD, excessive noise can induce panic attacks, outbursts of rage and even induce pain."

Well that can be true...although it's more like sudden machinery noise, sudden loud clanging or high pitched sound is likely to induce those reactions.

Clapping, less so.

Myriad things can upset an autistic person's sensory process - even lighting in classrooms...depending on the person.

Clapping is such a universal human trait - it's more than "tradition" - I still think it's an odd decision,

"Nah, you're probably right Poirot. We should keep inflicting cruel & unusual punishment on kids with autism, because that's what is traditional. All this 'progressive' pandering to the disabled nonsense is just political correctness gone mad, right guys?"

Don't lecture me on autism...I have plenty of experience with a high-functioning son who does have issues with auditory perception and reactions to certain sudden noises.

I will point out to you that, although "HFAs" do have issues and needs, they also in most cases are attempting to fit into mainstream life...banning clapping is dumb.

It doesn't surprise me at all, as we live in a world that seems more focussed on issue like 'gay marriage' than real issues like the hard renewables is doing to the SA economy. Or the fact that we have a PM who is wanting to punish those who have paid into their super, as per the laws, by making his ruling retrospective dating back some nine years, although there are some within who are bucking the idea, so hopefully this 'dud' we seem stuck with will change his views. Remembering, this is the same idiot who played cat and mouse with the states over taxes.

So to have these types of things happening at school level just goes to show how weak as a nation we have become, and leaves one wondering if they will ever tackle the real game changing issues.

Is Mise,

"What's your solution for the traffic noise when the kids are going to or coming from school; silent horns, silent engines?"

Good point.

I remember when my son was about six years-old, we were walking down the street and a Harley Davidson went past at the precise moment the rider decided to rev up with no muffler.

The sound was so loud that my son fell straight onto his back with his hands up to his ears - totally flattened he was.

I'd never seen anything like it.

We do what we can for folks with that sort of sensory sensitivity - the sound was even disturbing for me - but what can one do with traffic.

The sound of a car driving on the tarmac is often enough for my son to put his hands up to his ears...but he just has to live with it because we live with cars.

I have to warn him if I'm going to vacuum, etc...but he manages quite well with the sensitivity in general.

Dear Paul1405,

I do not appreciate you explaining to me what onthebeach meant by his remark. I asked him not you and hope he will tell me why he wrote what he did. You have previously explained onthebeach to me. The most qualified person to explain why onthebeach wrote what he did is onthebeach.

"the announcement reveals teachers at the school have found the practice to be 'a great way to expand children's energy and reduce fidgeting'"

Does this mean all children or just children who are sensitive to noise?

Isn't the 'friendship seat' just another way of making a child a target for bullies? It also seems to be counter productive in helping kids develop skills of interaction. There will be no friendship seat when they go to work or college.

Hi Paul,

Unsafe Schools program. Roz Ward. Marxist. QED.

And by the way, gender fluidity ? DNA.

Joe

Hey Toni,
You did make a valid point, but then so did Is Mise.
Check and Checkmate? Not sure.

A parent of a child without ASD might argue that their child's behavior is being policed (and that their child may potentially be punished) in relation to issues that do not apply to them which is unfair; in the same way a parent of a child who doesn't have gender identity issues might oppose aspects of the Safe Schools program.

If one truly thinks about it, these politically correct social changes are not really democratically based; minority groups deciding aspects of social behavior over the majority.

Some may argue that if a child who exhibits such a medical disorder that would require blanket special treatment of all students should then in fact go to their own specialised school.

The rise in Autism rates is concerning however and their probably are a lot of kids currently in regular schools with ASD.

Yep the homosexual lobby fixated on sex now wanting not only to flaunt their habits but to sexualise kids in the name of safe schools. How dumb can our uni's reduce people to be. One of the founders of 'safe'schools in Canada now in prison for molesting kids.

What rot. There is no way mere school teachers can ban anything as innocuous as clapping. If the kids want to clap when it's appropriate, what can the idiots possibly do about it? Schools are part of the community, and there are no laws in the community banning people from clapping or, referring to each other as girls. This is the stuff of April Fools' Day. I hope the idiots are being slow clapped whenever they appear appear in the school yard. The hole thing is so stupid that I doubt that it is even true. More likely to be the invention of some media moron.

Banning clapping in a school does seem a bit odd.

However what Miranda Devine writes?
She does not have a reputation for getting her facts
right. I don't bother reading her.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, it does seem to be a step away from allowing children's spontaneous creativity and expression.

On the other hand, since it's clear that children should be seen and not heard, (and not often seen either), and short of confining them to some sort of homes or reformatories until they are 18, or preferably 25, perhaps a compromise could be found: no clapping, of course, and fitting them with soft shoes, banning any talking in hallways, no fraternising except during Unsafe Sex indoctrination, and close monitoring in segregated playgrounds at recess and lunch.

Well, if school was no fun for me, why should they enjoy it ? Smelly, noisy, little beasts.

Joe

david f,

I took Roz Ward at her word and quite seriously.

Dear onthebeach,

I looked up Roz Ward who I don't remember hearing of before. She is indeed a Marxist. There may or may not be something of her Marxism in the Safe Schools program.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the 'Safe Schools Programme' about protecting children from all manner of unseemly people and bad influences ? Similar to the 'Safe House' signage we used to see attached to the front of some homes, dotted about the suburbs in our major cities ? Ostensibly to protect our vulnerable children from drug pushers, pedophiles, and youth gangs, etc. A most laudable initiative in my view. Can't see any relationship between protecting the innocence of our precious kids, and a ban on clapping ?

Parents and carers need to understand that they cannot go on auto pilot where their children's schooling is concerned.

Cut the emails and mobile messages and go in person. Volunteer on a regular basis, even where the attendance must be kept short.

Although I must say that some, many, parents could attend more if they really wanted to and the first step would be cutting those discretionary hours on the PC at home and definitely at work.

Few people are aware that interested members of the local community are welcome to take part in P&Cs, School Councils and volunteering and yes, you are listened to. Some of the most valuable support comes from seniors who want to put something back and the lessons of their life experience are valued and a stabilising influence. It is a good way to keep in touch with life, be active and stay young at heart. Just phone the school for the number of the Secretary of the P&C.

Teachers are in dire need of parental and community support. It is not unusual for single interest activists to attempt to disrupt school administration and even the AGM.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'm so sorry that you feel that way about children.
I am surprised by such predictable responses that reinforce
negative expectations.

My views are different from yours.

david f,

Thank you for your reply.

I'd just like to see more parents and carers and the local community getting involved in schools.

That along with freedom and speech and democracy, should deliver the best for students.

Foxy,

I cannot pass up an opportunity to agree with you. Miranda has always been a loose cannon. Even though she is supposed to be a conservative, I gave up reading her drivel long ago. Her old dad had a similar problem.

Hi CDavid F.,

Good one: "I looked up Roz Ward who I don't remember hearing of before. She is indeed a Marxist."

Yeah, right.

My dearest Foxy,

Sorry, I was being a bit facetious, taking an argument ad absurdum.

Apologies,

Joe

Dear ttbn,

Thank You for your supportive words.

They are greatly appreciated.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thank You for your explanation and apology.

I take the education of children seriously.
That's why I was surprised by the words in your
earlier post. I cringe at labelling and name calling.
And teachers need special skills in dealing with
all sorts of situations because -

A teacher's reactions have crucial consequences. They can create
a climate of compliance or defiance, a mood of
contentment or contention. It affects a child's conduct for
better or for worse.

But enough said. Thanks again for explaining.

No one has worked harder for the 'Safe Schools' program than Roz Ward. Ms Ward, always controversial, a Marxists yes, but does that in itself exclude her from contributing to society in a positive way, I don't think so. I can sometimes agree with those I would generally disagree with. The other day in a TV interview Barnaby Joyce let it slip he attends Catholic Mass on at least some Sundays, I though another bible basher running the country. Then on the question of should CCTV be installed in Mosques for surveillance purposes (Pauline Hanson idea) Barnaby was totally opposed. we can agree on somethings.

As an atheist I was pleased that the Federal Government has stopped the waste of $60 million per year on the 'Schools Chaplaincy' program. The money can be better spent elsewhere. There will be others who will disagree with me

Paul1405 wrote: “Ms Ward, always controversial, a Marxists yes, but does that in itself exclude her from contributing to society in a positive way, I don't think so.”

Dear Paul1405,

One could also write: XX, always controversial, a Nazi yes, but does that in itself exclude her from contributing to society in a positive way, I don't think so.”

A Nazi or a Marxist may be a decent individual and contribute to society positively, but one can still look with suspicion on them. We probably differ in that I regard Marxism in roughly the same light that I regard Nazism, and you possibly don’t.

The Marxist program is described in the Communist Manifesto. Like Nazism it favours the destruction of the society that I hold dear. One of the values of the society that I hold dear is the right of free expression. Look at what the Communist Manifesto says about free expression in the ten point program.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

All means of communication are either in the hands of the state or monitored by the state. Chinese government censorship is carrying out what the Manifesto suggested. Marxists tend to excuse the masses of corpses produced by the Marxist states as a perversion of Marxism. The corpses were no accident. They were the result of following the recommendations promulgated in the Manifesto.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 points you to “Why so many corpses”, an essay I wrote which relates the massive piles of corpses produced by Marxist regimes to the recommendations in the Manifesto.

You characterised onthebeach as hard right. To me the issue is not whether you are right or left, it is whether you are for a free society or a totalitarian society. Marxism on the left and Nazism on the right both produced totalitarian societies.

I have to agree with david f here,
"To me the issue is not whether you are right or left, it is whether you are for a free society or a totalitarian society. Marxism on the left and Nazism on the right both produced totalitarian societies.Posted by david f,"
Islam is equally totalitarian in its political world view.

Josephus wrote: Islam is equally totalitarian in its political world view.

Islam does not have one worldview. It has many. It is as unfair to characterise Islam as totalitarian because of some of its manifestations as it would be to characterise Christianity as totalitarian because the Christian Inquisition was totalitarian.

From http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-3-number-5/islam-and-freedom

“For Christians who believe that their religion mandates a free society, there is a commonality between their understanding of Christianity and Qur’anic Islam that is of fundamental importance: the value of human liberty under a rule of law. This idea is unmistakable in the fundamental teachings of Islam. Further, there is circumstantial evidence that contact with Islam in the Middle Ages triggered the awareness among Western Christians of these inherent factors in their religion. This idea has been touched on in, for example, Rose Wilder Lane’s chapter on Islam in The Discovery of Freedom1 and my book, Signs in the Heavens.2 The practical subordination of the “divine right of kings” to a higher law in the West is commonly dated to the Magna Carta. Were not the nobles, persecuted by King John, impressed by what King Richard’s troops in the Holy Land saw in the example of Salahuddin (Saladin) who, following Islamic principles, subjected himself to the Islamic law?”

Josephus, please read the information in the above site. I think you are merely writing from prejudice.

In my opinion as an atheist I think Islam has a purer concept of deity than Christianity since it neither worships a humanoid god nor divides God into three parts as Christians do.

Hi David F.,

Islam prescribes what is basically totalitarianism NOW, today, in 2016. I don't think many Christians, especially those who suffered under it, would stick up for the Inquisition today.

Christianity has undergone, probably in all its myriad variations, many transformations since, say, 1520. The Inquisition of one branch of it has never commanded any allegiance among the many other varieties. Salah-ud-Din, a Kurd from Tikrit, is hardly a paragon of free thought, if what you describe is true. The vast majority of Christian denominations today, no matter how backward they may seem to atheists such as you and me, zaffre streets ahead, unless you hold totalitarianism to be some sort of virtue.

Try to keep up with reality as it is in 2016.

Joe

hatred has certainly warped your views David f.

Dear davidf,

Some musings if I may.

While I certainly wouldn't want to see all media and communication in the hands of the government I'm not sure we are being served by capitalism in this regard either. The media in Australia is now highly concentrated into the hands of a few particularly one Mr Murdoch.

Indeed this completely echos Marx's predictions of the accumulation of capital.

I was watching the Channel 9 news the other day regarding the Nice killings. Their 'terrorism expert' was asked the reason behind the attack and his reply was along the lines of 'They despise our freedoms and want to take them away'. On Channel 2 there a far more expansive reply discussing the situation intelligently and openly.

I would fear for our country without a strong government broadcaster.

You wrote;

“To me the issue is not whether you are right or left, it is whether you are for a free society or a totalitarian society. Marxism on the left and Nazism on the right both produced totalitarian societies.”

Whenever I hear about America being free (I note you personally did not specify a country) I really do struggle with the fact that it has the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars compared to any other country in the world. This is most certainly a product of the system.

My question is whether you consider as I do that incarceration rates as a significant measure of a system. Though simplistic the notion that a more equal distribution of resources may well lead to less crime and therefore less incarceration is not without substance. If someone like onthebeach proposes policies that would increase incarceration rates why would that not be considered totalitarian?

Hi Steele,

Where you been ?

You propose: "Though simplistic the notion that a more equal distribution of resources may well lead to less crime and therefore less incarceration is not without substance. If someone like onthebeach proposes policies that would increase incarceration rates why would that not be considered totalitarian?"

When I was a kid, there were machines supposedly designed by Heath Robinson, vastly complicated things, with wheels and belts and axles and pulleys, for things like shaving, or eating Weet-Bix, or scratching one's arse.

You have suggested a similar machine to link capitalism (ptuh ! ptuh !) with totalitarianism, via many subsidiary 'machines' such as structural inequality, welfare programs, racism, unemployment, idleness, opportunity, crime, the justice system and incarceration, to 'prove' totalitarianism in capitalist societies.

As with Heath Robinson's machines, there may be other explanations for high incarceration rates, such as Black-on-Black crime, poor education opportunities, a gun culture, the attractions of petty crime rather than work, etc. You haven't really proven your case :)

Joe

Dear runner,

Both Christianity and Islam are delusional systems postulating a deity and an afterlife when there is no evidence for the existence of either.

DavidF,

There is no evidence that there is not an afterlife, either. Just because something is hard to believe, it is not necessarily untrue. I'm a fence sitter on these things, but whatever you say to runner and others with faith can be bounced back at you, who have no more idea of happens when we pop our clogs than anyone else.

Steele,

I'm sure you just forgot to mention Fairfax and other ardent pushers of wreck the joint politics. Just joking. You would prefer state control, as long as the state was on your side. None of that balance and free speech nonsense for you.

ttbn,

"There is no evidence that there is not an afterlife, either. Just because something is hard to believe, it is not necessarily untrue..."

There is no evidence that there's not a Celestial Teapot orbiting the sun either...as Bertrand Russell pointed out.

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Steele Redux wrote: “While I certainly wouldn't want to see all media and communication in the hands of the government I'm not sure we are being served by capitalism in this regard either. The media in Australia is now highly concentrated into the hands of a few particularly one Mr Murdoch.”

I agree with the above. However, the state has the power to limit monopolies in the media and other areas. It is up to the citizenry to push the state to do so.

Steele Redux also wrote:Indeed this completely echos Marx's predictions of the accumulation of capital.

Marx implicitly denied the possibility of a democratic state controlling the influence of capital and the power of organised labor to advance the interests of the worker in a free society. He could see only the possibility of a totalitarian state as outlined in the Manifesto to achieve these ends.

Steele Redux also wrote:I would fear for our country without a strong government broadcaster.

I agree.

You also wrote;

(Citing me) “To me the issue is not whether you are right or left, it is whether you are for a free society or a totalitarian society. Marxism on the left and Nazism on the right both produced totalitarian societies.”

"Whenever I hear about America being free (I note you personally did not specify a country) I really do struggle with the fact that it has the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars compared to any other country in the world. This is most certainly a product of the system.

My question is whether you consider as I do that incarceration rates as a significant measure of a system. Though simplistic the notion that a more equal distribution of resources may well lead to less crime and therefore less incarceration is not without substance. If someone like onthebeach proposes policies that would increase incarceration rates why would that not be considered totalitarian?”

continued

continued

Dear Steele Redux: The percentage of citizens behind bars marks a deep flaw in the US society. I think the main cause is racism. I was riding on a freeway in California with my son driving considerably above the speed limit when a state trooper ordered us to pull over to the side of the road. My son is blond and blue-eyed like me. My son and the cop had a friendly talk about baseball, and the cop told my son he really shouldn’t be driving that fast. He drove on observing the speed limit. Had we been Latino or black I doubt that we would have got away without even a citation.

The US has learned from the massive mistake of Prohibition to treat alcohol addiction as a health problem and to regulate its legal sale. However drug usage, sale or possession, unlike alcohol is treated as a crime. This is also related to racism since drugs seem a greater problem in the black community than in the white community. If drugs, like alcohol, were legal and regulated the prison population would be much smaller.

I believe that crime is largely due to economic inequity. However, there is a distinction between speech and action. In a free society one is free to advocate anything. One is not free to do what one wills. Whether what onthebeach advocates will increase incarceration rates is debatable. However, it is not totalitarian for him to voice his sentiments. It would be totalitarian not to allow him to voice his sentiments.

david f,

"I agree with the above. However, the state has the power to limit monopolies in the media and other areas. It is up to the citizenry to push the state to do so."

Which could or should be the case.

However, we've reached a point in late capitalism where the opposite appears to be the case.

Mainstream media has a lot to answer for where this is concerned.

A good example is Brexit where the media faithfully reported the utterances of the "leave" pollies. Politicians say stuff, reporters report it...the fact that it's wall-to-wall lies is not important.

The populace can only act on the information it's presented with.

The populace may be downtrodden and under educated so that demagogues like Hanson, with a very poor intellect, but who pushes the right buttons, is elected.

Same with Trump.

True democracy relies on truth and on a reasonably educated and enlightened population...if these are found wanting, then we are all the poorer.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, the Romans had a saying, "Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis", that what is asserted without evidence can be set aside without the need for evidence, i.e. one does not have to disprove somebody else's assertion, it can be ignored. He who asserts must prove, is another version.

As for the link between capitalism and incarceration, via inequality, lack of opportunity, etc., I note that, between my late wife's family and my own, all up sixteen kids, all of us growing up in what might be euphemistically called straitened circumstances, none of us were ever incarcerated. Fined yes, but not jailed. Nine of us graduated from universities, one Ph.D, six of us with Masters'. So far, eight of our kids have graduated from university.

Life can be very hard for some people, but there are usually alternatives to crime. In my limited experience of it, criminals have usually either buggered up their earlier education, or have been just too lazy to try hard, believing, as one of them commented, that only mugs worked or studied. They had 'street smarts'. And usually were dead before fifty, doing what they could to destroy their kids' life-chances in the process. Real smart.

Joe

Poirot wrote: However, we've reached a point in late capitalism ...

Dear Poirot,

The phrase, late capitalism, implies that capitalism has a certain life span, and we’re near the end of it. It is a standard bit of Marxist doctrine to predict the imminent end of capitalism. It is somewhat like Christian predictions of the Second Coming of Jesus. That of course means he couldn’t get it right the first time he was here. There are many Marxist writings predicting the imminent demise of capitalism. Actually we’ve reached a point in late Marxism. China appears to have a Marxist party with the accompanying repression presiding over a capitalist economy. How long the Marxist overlords will last is moot. The first communist state, the Soviet Union, no longer exists and its predecessor and successor state, Russia, now has much of the former Soviet economy in the hands of a capitalist oligarchy consisting to some degree of former Soviet bureaucrats. Marxism, not capitalism, is disappearing.

Capitalism has a protean ability to survive by adapting to circumstances. One of the manifestations of capitalism is in the Scandinavian countries. The Scandinavian countries have a low rate of corruption, a fairer distribution of resources than in most countries, great political freedom along with a terrific health and education system. The Finns possibly have the best education system in the world. The thrust of Bernie Sanders’ political campaign in the US was to adopt some of the Scandinavian practices.

I wish Sanders had succeeded in his efforts. I see much more hope in the Scandinavian model of capitalism than I see in a possible resurgence of Marxism.

My father’s brother was an old Bolshevik arrested by the czarist police before the revolution. After four years of Lenin my father got him out of the Soviet Union in 1921. He died at 98 in California long cured of Bolshevism. He was in his bedroom in full dress since he was going to a wedding. He fell back on the bed dead all dressed to go, but he had a great life in the USA.

ttbn,

I do hope you take my belief, that the Pink Unicorn created everything last Thursday, seriously; and that all your memories were implanted to make you think that the planet is millions of years old.

<<There is no evidence that there is not an afterlife, either. Just because something is hard to believe, it is not necessarily untrue.>>

After all, just because my claim is hard to believe, that doesn't mean that it's untrue.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy?

Just wondering.

Poirot,

Given satellite cameras and modern technology, not around in Russell's time, I think we can put aside the tea pot as a myth.

I don't have to prove anything, as I do not claim the existence of a god; I'm an agnostic, not arrogant enough to sneer at people who do believe in their God. I know for a fact, that a human being, Jesus Christ, spread Christianity, and Christianity is the basis for Western culture and way of life, and nobody can deny that.

I can't say how a committed believer would regard your reference to the need for him or her to provide scientific proof of of his or her God, when spirituality and belief is so remote from, and far above science; you would have to put the musings of a dead, eccentric philosopher to such a person. I think that Russell, like many people then and today, was saying that only people who disagree with him have to provide empirical proof of their position; his opinion was a given, no further discussion, or proof, needed.

AJ Philips,

I am not a creationist. How could I be, as an agnostic? But you go with the unicorn theory by all means.

I think I accept the standard monkey to man thing, but wonder who decided which monkeys would be promoted to humans and, more importantly, why did some beings get to enjoy the privileges of being humans, while others were stuck with being monkeys. It doesn't seem fair.

ttbn,

Yes, in Russell's days, there were no telescopes that could disprove his teapot like there are now.

However, what about my Pink Unicorn? You have not provided evidence against it; therefore, according to your logic, there's every chance that it exists.

I'm glad you acknowledge its existence to that extent at least.

That's very gracious and tolerant of you.

Pink Unicorn bless.

Damn, ttbn. Looks like we crossed over with posts there.

I never suggested for a second that you were a creationist. Where did you get that idea from?

It appears that you missed my post with regards to atheism and agnosticism too:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18350#325780

You see, the two are not mutually exclusive (i.e. Long story short, you’re an atheist).

<<I think I accept the standard monkey to man thing…>>

Why would you when we didn’t evolve from monkeys? That's just a steaming pile of creationist BS. And you told me you weren't a creationist!

*tsk, tsk*

So, not only do you not understand religion. You don’t even understand evolution.

Sheesh, you’re not doing too well here, are you?

SteeleRedux, "If someone like onthebeach proposes policies that would increase incarceration rates why would that not be considered totalitarian?"

If someone like SteeleRedux proposes to poison the well against another poster and spins a fabrication to suit.

Your Marxist tactics eh, SteeleRedux?

Been away for a couple of days, my partner got rushed off to hospital. still there but all good now.

This tread has certainly grown in a day or two, so I believe all the contributes deserve a big round of applause, including the pink teapot and the unicorn, clap, clap, clap!

Here's on for you. At our grandkids primary school, being an Olympic year, and having children of many ethnic backgrounds, someone thought it would be a good idea to have a playground Olympics. Not sure if it was suggested by a Marxists, Nazi or just one of the teachers, no matter it sounds a good idea anyway. There is a twists, you can't be in the team for your country of background, but another country, random draw. Both our kids are in the China team. When the teacher was calling for names of countries of origin to put in the hat, our granddaughter, aged 10, nominated her country of origin as Aotearoha, this was met with howl's of kids saying "no such country". The teacher to defuse the impasse said "you mean New Zealand", our granddaughter said "No, I come from Aotearoha!" something grandmother has always told the kids, your ancestors migrated from ."Hawaiki" (not to be confused with Hawaii) and settled in the land of Aotearoha (no to be confused with New Zealand).
One good thing is the kids have to do a project on their team's country, and our grandchildren are now enthusiastic Chinese. Compromise, since some children said their origins were New Zealand, the playground Olympics now has a new country called Aotearoha/NZ. EVen 10 year olds stand their ground, could have said country of origin Hawaiki, that would have been interesting?

david f,

Scandinavian countries have a large factor of social democracy threaded through their capitalism...which is the reason they are so well functioning for their citizens.

Please don't patronise me with your "Marxist" clarion.

You know that most powerful Western capitalist countries have a brand of rapacious capitalism which now appears to be funnelling most of the profits in the direction of the 1% and attempting to ditch post-WWII social advancements. I know that's cliché, but it's also true.

ttbn,

"Given satellite cameras and modern technology, not around in Russell's time, I think we can put aside the tea pot as a myth."

It's not a "myth" it's an analogy....he could have replaced teapot with little green pixies or pink chenille dressing gowns.

"....to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others..."

Paul1405,

Gosh, what exciting politically correct stories you tell. One or several for every occasion and so 'progressive' and instructive.

Your creative writing teacher might comment though, that except for the omission of a requirement for two dads or two mums, they can take their pick of either, it could have been a lift from the ABC's Play School.

Since you say it was 10yr olds(?!), what better example of the low expectations of pupils in State education. Any wonder Oz State School education lags so far behind other countries, particularly Asia.

Trusting you can find your own way back to the thread topic before 'little lunch'?

Beach, don't insinuate I am a liar, we all have personal stories, some choose to post them, and some don't. You try to hide behind a mask of moderatcy, but it slips every so often. The only fallacy on this forum is when a member of the rabid right such as your self post;

"I'd just like to see more parents and carers and the local community getting involved in schools.

That along with freedom and speech and democracy, should deliver the best for students"

Does that dovetail with your private armed 'Citizens Militia' you support, a case of get them while they're young!

As for; "what better example of the low expectations of pupils in State education. Any wonder Oz State School education lags so far behind other countries, particularly Asia."

The only problem with that is the kids attend a Catholic School! Ignorance. You should stick to ripping off city slickers in property deals.

Dear Poirot,

I have not patronised you. 'Late capitalism' is Marxist jargon, and I called it for what it is.

The prediction of the future is inherent in Marxist theory. When the future does not accord with the prediction Marxists either make new predictions or denigrate the person who points out the incompatibility of reality with the theoretical prediction. Marxist theory postulated that social revolution on a Marxist model would come first in the industrial advanced countries. When the first country to go communist was the mainly peasant society of Russia the prediction was shown to be false. Later analysis in hind sight explained why Russia was the place where it was logical that there be a communist revolution. Analysis in hind sight is more accurate than prediction.

Eduard Bernstein held that socialism is the final result of the liberalism inherent in human aspiration, not the mere product of a revolt against the capitalist middle class. He no longer believed in capitalism’s imminent collapse, nor did he any longer regard the bourgeoisie as exclusively parasitic and oppressive. He also believed that the concentration of productive industry was not taking place in all fields as thoroughly or as fast as Marx had predicted. Citing such reforms as factory legislation and the freeing of labour unions from legal restrictions, he pointed out that, under pressure from the socialist movement, a reaction had set in against the exploitive inclinations of capital. Thus, he argued, the prospects for lasting success lay in steady advance rather than violent upheaval. For pointing out the contrast between Marxist prediction and reality Rosa Luxemburg had Bernstein read out of the party. Bernstein was a social democrat, and the capitalism of Scandinavia has been modified by social democracy as you pointed out. There is no reason that other capitalism may not be modified by social democracy if there is a democratic society which allows change. That is what Bernie Sanders tried to do in the US. It may yet succeed.

continued

continued

One problem with predicting the future from current trends is that current trends don’t continue. Developments in technology produce unexpected changes. The actions of effective sociopaths such as Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin and Donald Trump do the same. Unexpected change can come from many causes.

As I said, capitalism is protean and comes in many forms. Some of the forms are quite rapacious. That can be most horrible. The form that capitalism takes in Scandinavia is quite benign. I don’t go for the rapacious capitalism that increases the gap between rich and poor, cuts back on social benefits and disregards environmental considerations. That’s why I am a Green. However, I also am for an open society. That’s why I oppose Marxism which in the Manifesto prescribes a closed totalitarian society. I think a democratic socialism is possible. The Marxist statement that the state will wither away was a sop to Bakhunin who predicted that a society founded on Marxist principles would be a tyranny. It is a dicey matter to make predictions about social directions, but in regard to the character of Marxist societies Bakhunin was spot on although he was wrong about other matters. The First International split in 1872 between the followers of Marx and of Bakhunin. In 1876 it dissolved.

devid f,

"I have not patronised you. 'Late capitalism' is Marxist jargon, and I called it for what it is."

You forget that I, like you, have been around on this forum for a while.

I well remember in my early days here that you'd take any and every opportunity to drag your "Marxit spiel" out onto the stage and give us a ring-a-ding performance.

Got boring after a while....

"...I don’t go for the rapacious capitalism that increases the gap between rich and poor, cuts back on social benefits and disregards environmental considerations..."

Well of course you don't, but that's where we are. Th UK has done a job on its citizens of late. Wages have stalled in the US to 1975 levels...our own govt attempted to do the same as the UK Tories, etc...

Yes, so being a Green would point to an antidote for capitalism's rapaciousness. Things don't look promising.

Capitalism's very life-blood is "growth" on a finite planet - the two are mutally exclusive.

And shrieking "Marxism" every five minutes isn't going to solve anything.

'How is the Safe Schools Program Marxist-oriented?'

only Marxism is deceitful and dumb enough to realise that a child with a penis is a boy and a child with a vagina is a girl.

If clapping is banned to accommodate those who are upset by it, I wonder what will happen to those unprepared children if they go to a theatre to see a play or other live entertainment?

Dear runner,

What about a child who has both?

Ah, the wonder of it all.

Dear Poirot,

Why are you so sensitive about Marxism? Capitalism can be horrible and rapacious, but I am very afraid of any more Marxist experiments.

I don't shout about Marxism every five minutes, but if someone uses Marxist jargon, I will point it out. You are free to use the language, and I am free to point out when you do.

Dearest Foxy,

They're pretty thick on the ground, are they ? We all know many, many people with both ? Really ?

Best wishes,

Joe

devid f,

"....if someone uses Marxist jargon, I will point it out. You are free to use the language, and I am free to point out when you do."

Certainly you are...and you're not alone these days...."Marxism" - or to be more precise - "neo-Marxism" is the right-wing shriek du jour.

Seems like you are a trend setter : )

Hi David,

Thank you for your analyses of that period between the Paris Commune and the Bolshevik 'Revolution', which have provoked me to go looking. I knew too little about Bernstein and Bebel and Luxemburg and Liebknicht, let alone Bakhunin or Kropotkin or even Plekhanov, and thde vafrious struggles to revise Marx's prescriptions.

It's fascinating that that search went off in so many different directions - to anarchism, to social democracy and democratic socialism, even, after 1905, towards some sort of Christian and mystical socialism.

And most foreboding of all, to Bolshevist Party elite control, terror and repression, a course that was to be followed by so many 'socialist' parties once they gained power. Can there ever be a socialism without its degeneration into totalitarianism ? It hasn't happened yet.

And meanwhile, the cornerstone of Marx's creation was a 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which, of course, requires a large proletariat to justify it; at the present time, the proletariat, rather than capitalism or the State, seems to be withering away.

It's no coincidence that so many 'conservative' philosophers, Hayek, Berlin, Popper, turned away from their initial socialism and spent their lives trying to devise other ways to explain society and to propose alternatives to socialism - in Popper's case, to BOTH capitalism AND socialism.

We seem to have travelled similar roads :)

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Joe

Dear Joe,

So glad that you do admit to individual differences
between people and that you are not disturbed in
the slightest by any ambiguity in sexual or
religious matters. That you don't see the world in
very rigid and stereotypical terms.

"School imposed clapping ban because ‘teacher has hearing aid’, minister says"

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/school-imposed-clapping-ban-because-teacher-has-hearing-aid-minister-says/news-story/0115683a6e047fbe776e11faa11f0412

Maybe s/he could stand back a bit instead.

I've been to many a school assembly, music, sports and other school get togethers. It is a fact that children's hands make little noise when clapping. Nothing like large, dry adult hands that easily cup air.

Any wonder parents might suspect that there is some other BS behind this unnecessary over-control.

I'm not sure what religion has to do with multi-organicity, but thanks anyway, Foxy. I also have a fairly healthy Irony Detector :)

I confess that I've never come across anybody with both sets of genitals. Of course, they may keep it private. But how many might there be at an average school ? Fifty ? Ten ? Three ? How many says might there be to make such children feel comfortable with their schoolmates ?

So at what age should the attention and curiosity of all the other children be drawn to the uniqueness of a particular child in their midst ? With or without their permission ?

Bullying 1; Child comfort 0.

Joe

Google and yeah of course the usual suspects are found.

Problems of First World Feminists

<POLITICS
10 Most Absurd Things Banned On Politically Correct College Campuses
NATHAN WOLD AUGUST 25, 2015

College campuses across the country used to be arenas for debauchery and loose inhibitions, but many these days function as micromanaged zones of political correctness where students and faculty alike walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone. Political correctness on college campuses has gotten so extreme in some cases that comedians like Jerry Seinfeld have stopped performing there altogether. Seinfeld claims the rampant political correctness will “destroy comedy.” The outrageously autocratic zeal for political correctness sometimes bans downright commonplace activities and censors everyday sayings, and that’s just no fun at all.

Clapping
The National Union of Students Women’s Campaign, a feminist college student group in Britain, announced in March 2015 that they would ban clapping at their future conferences held at UK colleges.The feminist group claimed that the act of clapping could “trigger some people’s anxiety,” and therefore should be banned from all of their conferences. Instead, the feminist students instructed those who attend conferences to use jazz hands—to wave their hands silently in the air—when they wished to display approval. A delegate of the group said that replacing clapping with silent jazz hands was a way to create “a more inclusive atmosphere.” You never know what sounds might trigger anxiety...>

http://listverse.com/2015/08/25/10-most-absurd-things-to-ban-on-politically-correct-college-campuses/

Hi OTB,

What utter bullsh!t. I go to a singing group each week, 80-odd people, mostly oldies. The conductor and many of the blokes (I don't know about the women) have hearing aids and I've never heard or seen any negative reaction whatever to clapping, which we do a lot. We sometimes sing very loud too, if we like a song. The conductor loves it. We sang 'Cwm Rhondda' the other night and he was spellbound, he said we should record it.

Of course, this idiotic move - if it's genuine - is about control. Control of the behaviour of children, subtle moves towards new forms of regimentation and control of any spontaneity of children, from as young an age as possible.

Hearing aids. For god's sake.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I responded to runner's quote about male -female genitalia.
And the clear distinction between the two. My point was that
not everything in life is as clear cut as he maintains.

As for your additional comments? Nothing further needs to
be said

Regarding clapping - the following is a favourite:

"An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick
Unless soul clap its hands and sing,
And louder sing for every tatter
in its mortal dress."

William Butler Yeats.

Bertrand Russell's parents were Catholic and when his father he believes was destroyed by the Catholic Church he became antagonistic to the Church so invented ideas to satisfy his mind.

I take your meaning, those old feminist crones have not undergone any personal growth at all, now have they? Any wonder they hate growing old and come to resent their lost opportunities. Their own choices though and not the fault of the young.

That they waste their declining light on their jealousy (of their own lost youth) that rears its hideous head as restrictions and control (physical and mind control) of the young.

Regrettably that is the way of the those feminist dinos of the previous century and Millennium.

Any wonder that girls and young women run screaming from the carping, dominating, egocentric, censorious feminists, eh what?

http://womenagainstfeminism.com/

Josephus,

As you and others would realise, our posts crossed in the mail.

My post was directed to the poster before you.

AJ,

Well, I got the idea from you. You said your Blue Unicorn CREATED everything last Thursday, and said I didn't believe that because I am not a creationist.

"In short", I am not an atheist. An agnostic isn't sure if there is a god or not. An atheist is sure that there is no god. And, if there is a god, I would be quite happy about it.

If we didn't evolve from monkeys (siminians, apes, whatever) what actually happened if that idea is BS, as you assert?

david f,

Didn't Marx predict that doing things his way would be more efficient?

If so, why would Marxists think a totalitarian system is needed?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,

"Can there ever be a socialism without its degeneration into totalitarianism? It hasn't happened yet."
What about in Britain in the late 1940s?

otb,

"I take your meaning, those old feminist crones have not undergone any personal growth at all, now have they? Any wonder they hate growing old and come to resent their lost opportunities. Their own choices though and not the fault of the young.

That they waste their declining light on their jealousy (of their own lost youth) that rears its hideous head as restrictions and control (physical and mind control) of the young.

Regrettably that is the way of the those feminist dinos of the previous century and Millennium.

Any wonder that girls and young women run screaming from the carping, dominating, egocentric, censorious feminists, eh what?"

Lol!...nothing more hilarious than a desiccated old waffler speaking on behalf of "girls and young women".

Speaking of "carping, dominating, egocentric and censorious"... where's your accompanying spiel on the evils of Marxists and Trots?

Sorry, Aidan,

I was using the term 'socialism' in the old Marxist sense of 'communism'. The post-war Attlee government was, from that point of view, social-democratic. And probably vastly more democratic too.

None of Marx's predictions seem to have worked out. And perhaps he knew that was on the cards, even in his own lifetime. If only he had lived for twenty more years, and advised the comrades "Chuck it, boys, it's all bullsh!t."

Joe

One mob who DON'T CLAP are conservative Mid West Christian Fundo's from the United States of America. True I;ve seen them at shows where everyone claps the performance except them.

Hi Poirot,

I enjoy reading your posts.

I have to confess that I've never really been afraid of
"aging." Possibly because I've been too busy enjoying
life and also the fact that - I am basically a happy and positive person.

Of course, there are things that I miss about being younger,
such as - I wish I had the eyesight I had ten years ago. I miss
the friends who've died. But I consider myself lucky to have known
them.

The fact is I am happier now than I have been at any time in my life.

I have a wonderful husband, I adore. I've watched 2 amazing children
grow into delightful adults. I have had some grand life experiences.
I am proud of the work I have done. I've been fortunate enough
to do good for things I care about. I have real, true, glorious
friends.

And, as my husband tells me - the best is yet to come.
And I believe him.

cont'd ...

The following link may be of interest (I quoted from
Yeats earlier):

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_to_Byzantium

I'll try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_to_Byzantium

Hi Foxy,

Hope you're getting better fast : )

"The fact is I am happier now than I have been at any time in my life."

Precisely!...otb seems to imagine that women "of a certain age" are far unhappier than they are. If I could go back twenty years, I don't think I would want to. I feel physically and mentally at the top of my form.

Strange that : )

The problems of First World Feminists. What about you do your Marcel Marceau 'jazz hands' then and leave children alone to enjoy their childhood.

You can see where the ABC gets its leftist PC skew from. Here is the BBC, wasting UK taxpayers money popularising 'jazz hands' for looney, overbearing Feminist dominatrices.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32032291/students-swap-clapping-for-jazz-hands-at-nus-event

"I've (OTB) been to many a school assembly, music, sports and other school get togethers."

Exactly why we need a 'Safe Schools' program, to keep the nutters out of the playground.

Dear Poirot,

I knew it.

You, like me, are far too busy, enjoying and living life
to the hilt.

May we continue to do so. ;-)

Joe,

"I was using the term 'socialism' in the old Marxist sense of 'communism'. The post-war Attlee government was, from that point of view, social-democratic. And probably vastly more democratic too."
But it was regarded as socialist by itself, its supporters, its opponents, and indeed the general public. It did a lot of nationalisation and there was a high degree of wealth redistribution. In what way is that not socialist?

It looks to me like you were using a strawman definition of socialism. Of course you won't find an example that avoids totalitarianism when you virtually build totalitarianism into your definition! But it would make far more sense to use a definition that socialists would accept.

"None of Marx's predictions seem to have worked out. And perhaps he knew that was on the cards, even in his own lifetime. If only he had lived for twenty more years, and advised the comrades 'Chuck it, boys, it's all bullsh!t.'"

Possibly, but I doubt it. Marx was famously overreliant on the labour theory of value, even though that was known at the time to be flawed, and he failed to properly engage with criticism of his work. I doubt another twenty years of life would've collapsed his cognitive dissonance.

Having said that, his prediction that under capitalism much more of the wealth would be claimed by the richest seems to have come true in my lifetime. Some of his predictions about how society responds to that may yet be vindicated.

Hi Aidan,

I suppose there is a difference between nationalising some major industries (social democracy), and nationalising all means of production (communism), across the board. I've never associated the Attlee government with totalitarianism, but that seems to inevitably accompany the communist version of socialism.

Marx might have been changing his mind; in his letters to Engels, one wrote to the other (I forget which) something like, "Britain is a strange country. Not only does it have a bourgeois bourgeoisie, and a bourgeois aristocracy, but it is in the process of creating a bourgeois proletariat." They also made ironic comments about the Italian communist's love for the Virgin Mary. So they may not have taken themselves completely seriously.

In his decades of industrial management work, from 1840 to 1890, Engels would have noticed not the simplification and homogenisation of work (as Marx predicted) but its increasing complexity and differentiation and need for more and more skilled workers in fields hitherto unknown, which goes right against Marx.

And one doesn't have to be a genius to predict that the rich will keep getting richer, and vice versa, that may even go back to Christ. With hindsight, I suggest that Marx's theories are what one might call these days, the 737 version of history: that one could throw a dozen Cessnas in bits into the air, and just perhaps, they might all come down in a perfectly-formed Boeing 737.

In other words, if you don't really know how to get from A to B, it's unlikely you will ever get to B.

Life's too short, Aidan :)

Cheers,

Joe

I looked up the Safe Schools program. It is a national program to protect homosexual students from bullying.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald the program helps schools stamp out homophobia and celebrate diversity through moves such as same-sex formals, gay-straight student alliances and expanding reading lists to include books with gay and lesbian narratives, including “Brokeback Mountain” and “Stone Butch Blues”.

Whether or not Roz Ward who designed the program is a Marxist it seems a good program with a good purpose, and her Marxism seems completely irrelevant.

According to the same Sydney Morning Herald article the National School Chaplaincy Program conflicts with the Safe Schools Program. “Some chaplain providers have been linked to homophobic views, and critics claim the government's decision to scrap funding for secular student welfare workers is directly at odds with its funding of the Safe Schools Coalition, to be rolled out nationally on Friday”.

Since I think religious indoctrination has no place in the public schools and protecting all students from harassment is a proper function of any school I think it would be good if the chaplaincy were scrapped, and the Safe Schools program were implemented everywhere.

Is it so that in Queensland there are more homosexual students who could benefit from the Safe School program, than there are Christian students who could benefit from Chaplaincy? More importantly do the two programs have to clash?

Does homophobic include being against same sex marriage? Then a few decades ago most everybody, including atheists, were also homophobic. And that at a time when homosexuality was accepted as a fact of life and discrimination - at least in theory - did not exist anymore (at leat where I lived).

I have not seen the Safe School program; my knowledge of it is only second hand.
However, I would think the Chaplains are nor against protection of LGBT victims of bullying but against gender ideology as presented e.g. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler. The same as a century ago they were not against the proletariat that was exploited by the capital but against dictatorship of the proletariat.

David, your thoughts are in accordance with mine on this. We (society) often concentrate on the negative aspects of our education system and fail to give real encouragement to the positives.
A little feel good positive project in schools I was reading about is the 'Solar Buddy' program, where Queensland school students are making a simple but potentially life-changing difference in the lives of their peers around the world. Students make solar reading lights for children in developing countries.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-24/solar-buddy-lights-off-made-queensland-students-off-to-png/7649964

david f,

That subject could easily hijack this thread.

Suffice it to say that the program is highly contentious. See here for example,

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/17/seven-things-you-must-know-about-the-safe-schools-program/

It would be wrong to suggest that objections were limited to religious institutions - which was an oversimplification anyway by the program's advocates.

Following concerns from parents and the public generally, an independent review was conducted and amendments have been recommended.

OLO has had at least one article and a long discussion devoted to the subject and recently.

I will leave it at that.

Hi David,

When you write

" I think religious indoctrination has no place in the public schools and protecting all students from harassment is a proper function of any school .... "

I would go further and suggest that NO indoctrination of any sort has any place in ANY schools - public or private, Christian , Buddhist, Callathumpian or Moslem.

[Your second suggestion goes without saying, but there would already be a host of mechanisms to do that, such as teacher vigilance.]

I'm surprised: don't you think it may be possible for good old-fashioned Marxist indoctrination to go on, under the guise of other programs ? Is it possible that such indoctrination has already happened elsewhere in the world ? How did that work out ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear George,

Parents who want their children to be religiously indoctrinated can send them to religious schools which get government subsidies. They can also teach them of their religion at home or send them to their religious institution for such instruction outside of school hours. Public schools are meant for all children, and no child should feel excluded. When there are classes in religious indoctrination those children whose parents do not wish them to attend those classes either have their wishes ignored or have their child excluded. Neither is good. The chaplains are ubiquitous. They lead sports programs and other activities. They are supposed to neither proselytise nor counsel since the schools should be religiously neutral and, in general, the chaplains do not have the training to counsel. However, they do both. In Queensland almost all chaplains are hired by Scripture Union and in Victoria almost all chaplains are hired by Access Ministries. Both are Protestant fundamentalist. To be a chaplain one must agree by abide by the principles of SU or AC. Since those groups have as one of their aims to proselytise it is reasonable to expect the chaplains hired by them to do so even though such activity is supposedly prohibited. As Ron Williams wrote it is like sending in the clowns and asking them not to be funny.

Since you are a Catholic I doubt that you would care to have them in charge of any child of yours. The Queensland education Act of 1873 specified that public education be free, compulsory and secular as they wanted all children to receive a secular education. There were also religious schools not funded by the state for parents who chose them. In 1910 the Queensland Bible Society succeeded in getting the word, secular, removed from the Education Act. The Catholic Church opposed removing that word; apparently because it did not want the public schools to be a happy hunting ground for Protestant proselytising if the word was removed. Their fears have been proven justified.

continued

Catholic schools are now subsidised from the public purse. The Catholic Church gets its market share and does not seem worried about the chaplaincy. Catholic schools are for a Catholic education. Public schools are not for education or indoctrination in any particular religion although courses in comparative religion can be acceptable. Chaplains and religious indoctrination do not belong in public schools.

Homophobic means more than being against same-sex marriage. It means regarding homosexuals as sinners, as something less than human and as a group it is legitimate to persecute. However, one can be against same-sex marriage and not be homophobic. The view of both SU and AC is to regard homosexuality as a sin to be eradicated and condemned. There have been suicides among teenagers due to difficulty in dealing with an uncertain sexual identity. Although the Catholic Church does not and is unlikely to conduct same-sex marriage Pope Francis recognises that homosexuals are human beings, is against their persecution and accepts their humanity.

In my opinion the chaplains do not consider bullying of LGBT children a problem, and some might even consider their suicide as eliminating a problem.

Dear onthebeach,

I looked up Bill Meuhlenburg’s spiel and did not find it persuasive. He wrote: “The safe Schools Coalition is not about anti-bullying. If it were, it would talk about the main cases of bullying: those who pick on those who are too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, too ugly, too pretty, too smart, too dumb, etc. But instead it is all about one thing only: the promotion of homosexuality and related sexualities.”

Muehlenberg falsely equates the acceptance of homosexuals with the promotion of homosexuality. Bullying of young people of uncertain sexuality is a prominent cause of their distress and even suicide. My oldest son was bullied in the first grade because he was the only blond in his class. It was unpleasant, but he was able to deal with it himself. All bullying is not a worry. An anti-bullying program that concentrates on a prominent cause of bullying is legitimate.

Dear Joe,

If a child is sent to a sectarian school one can expect that the child will receive indoctrination in the religion of the group supporting such a school. In my opinion it would be an inadmissible infringement of freedom to close those institutions although I think they should not be publically funded.

From http://billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/17/seven-things-you-must-know-about-the-safe-schools-program/

”At a conference on Marxism last year in Melbourne she bragged about how she developed the SSC for the express purpose of implementing Marxism in the classroom. She has repeatedly spoken about how she wants to use the school system to agitate for Marxist economic and social policy. Said Ward:

To smooth the operation of capitalism the ruling class has benefited, and continues to benefit, from oppressing our bodies, our relationships, sexuality and gender identities alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units.

And again: “Apart from social stigma and discrimination, almost every single structure in society is set up to accommodate only two possible genders, male or female. Everything from the toilets we use, the school uniforms, changing rooms, all official documents, passports, the process is that you go through airports, everything is divided into these two limited gender options.””

Ward blames the ills of the world on capitalism as Marxists do. She neglects the fact that the Marxist tyrannies were puritanical and most unforgiving of non-heterosexual relationships. The rigid dichotomy between male and female and their relationships stems from the Abrahamic religions not capitalism. Pre-Christian Athens accepted same sex relations as a matter of course as evidenced in the Platonic dialogues. However, her insight into the rigid sexual dichotomy forced on a species whose members have a great degree of sexual diversity is valid.

Dear Joe,

Here you go mate;

“The main conclusion of this paper is that income inequality, measured by the Gini index, has a significant and positive effect on the incidence of crime.”
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Dear davidf,

These are taken from the Communist Manifesto 1848;

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
 
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
 
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
 
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
 
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
 
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
 
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
 
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

They are what were regarded as essential to bring about a communist state.

What has always intrigued me was how rigidly the Kibbutz movement in Israel adopted and practiced all of these measures, possibly with the exception of point 4.

I'm wondering if you regard the movement was an example of Marxism not ultimately sliding toward totalitarianism? Also there was evidently a deep infatuation of many Jewish intellectuals with Marx. Do you believe there are cultural influences that contributed?

Dear david f,

Your arguments about “indoctrination” (a word for teaching things, e.g. culture dependent models of reality and skills the person who uses the word does not approve of ?) would apply to, well, teaching e.g. under the subject of Religious Education. However, I read in https://www.suqld.org.au/chaplaincy that they provide a kind of service for students who seek a Christian COUNSELLING, not teaching: “QLD chaplains, or 'chappies', provide spiritual and emotional support to school communities. They are in the prevention and support business: helping students find a better way to deal with issues ranging from family breakdown and loneliness …”

Of course the Chaplains' counselling should not be forced on children from non-Christian families, and (if the resources allow for it), there should also be a Muslim counsellor, an atheist (or no-religion) counsellor. I could even see them cooperating, since they all are supposed to be (semi-)professional psychologists.

If this is not so, or if they are not only in the “prevention and support business: helping students find a better way to deal with issues“ but also in the proselytising business to students whose home background is not Christian - you know the situation better than I - then one should ask to have the situation remedied not to ban counselling at schools to students who (or whose parents) prefer a Christian approach. The same for other worldview backgrounds.

You can teach a student mathematics and your worldview does not come into it at all. This is hardly the case with counselling young people, although many (including both Christians and atheists) pretend so, since in their mind their worldview is, of course, the right one.
ctd

ctd
Financial government support for Catholic schools is a different matter. As I wrote elsewhere to Yuyutsu, it is based on perceived mutual benefits. Should the Government come to the conclusion that this support is not for the good of the general public (that the Parliament is supposed to represent and the Government serve) - as maintained, for instance, by a number of debaters also here - then it will cease. Activists on both sides of the divide will try to influence the Government decision.

>>Pope Francis recognises that homosexuals are human beings, is against their persecution and accepts their humanity.<<

I agree but doubt that he is the only Christian with this rather obvious attitude. As I wrote, Christians were not against the proletariat but against the IDEOLOGY built on the dictatorship of proletariat. The Catholic Church is not against homosexuals - this she repeats ad nauseam - but used to put a rather high demand on the Catholics among them, compulsory lifelong celibacy, which the present Pope is finding a way around (c.f. his recent “exhortation” Amoris Laetitia). The Catholic and other Churches are against the (consequences of the) IDEOLOGY of gender fluidity.

>>It means regarding homosexuals as sinners, as something less than human and as a group it is legitimate to persecute.<<

As I understand it, for an atheist being a sinner is meaningless, and as for Christians even the Pope calls himself a sinner. You would have to quote which twenty-first century Christian of any influence said that homosexuals are “less than human and as a group it is legitimate to persecute”.

>>In my opinion the chaplains do not consider bullying of LGBT children a problem, and some might even consider their suicide as eliminating a problem.<<

That is a very strong accusation, and if true, the chaplain who pronounced such things should be immediately dismissed and punished for (promoting) abuse of children

Dear George,

The chaplaincy program and homophobia:

http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/national/chaplaincy-program-to-fund-groups-with-links-to-homophobia-13835.html

“Darren McMahon is the Director and Presenter of Your Dream Incorporated in Sydney and runs chaplaincy programs through NSW, and has significant ties to Hillsong Church.

Hillsong Church has had a controversial history with the gay community regarding their involvement with the now dismantled Mercy Ministries and the recently abolished Living Waters Australia, which ran ex-gay and conversion camps."

“LGBTI activists are also questioning the qualifications of chaplaincy workers in dealing with same-sex attracted youth. It is understood that the training can be as little as a five-day intensive course in ‘Chaplaincy Essentials’ and is all that is required by some chaplain organisations."

"Studies on LGBTI youth have consistently shown that they have higher rates of suicide and depression than their heterosexual counterparts and Jacqui Tomlins, a founding member of the Australian Equality Party and parent of three, told MCV she was appalled at the allocation of funds to the Chaplaincy Program."

“Young people – especially those who might be questioning their sexuality or sexual identity, need access to good, non-judgemental counsellors who can provide advice and guidance that is not based on any religious foundation.”

[Not only does the government fund chaplains, but it only does not fund non-religious counsellors.]

“The funding is a continuation of the Chaplaincy Scheme introduced by John Howard, but the Abbott Government has changed back the conditions to prevent School Principals from being able to elect a secular student welfare worker instead of a chaplain.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-05/school-chaplain-posts-homophobic-comment-on-facebook/5650640

Chaplains in prisons and the army serve people who are away from their sources of spiritual comfort. Public school students live at home, and their parents can see to it that they receive what religious connection they desire. Since they are living at home they are part of a community and can access the local church or other religious organisation. Separation of religion and state demands that public schools be religiously neutral. That means to me that neither religious indoctrination nor chaplains belong in the public schools.

We differ.

Referring to Parents as 'Mum' and 'Dad' Banned Under School Guidelines.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mum-dad-banned-under-school-guidelines/news-story/da5a31c4c6b15c16c4ee41a339655eac

Transcript from Media Watch on articles printed in
The Daily Telegraph:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4507191.htm

This paper is not known for factual information.
Just the fact that Miranda Devine writes for them says it all.

Dear david f,

You have a point there about the difference between the function of a Chaplain/Counsellor in “live-in” institutes like prisons, and at public schools where the affected student’s parents can seek counselling (unless a professional psychiatrist is required) according to their worldview preferences.

As for the “LGBT community’s” pressure, I can only repeat that I have learned to distinguish between ordinary workers and the Party claiming to speak for them. I sense a similar difference between ordinary people with a minority sexual orientation (whether or not they have a problem with it) and activists from the “LGBT community” who exert all sorts of pressure (see e.g the controversies about the right of a man who says he is a woman to use women’s toilets and locker rooms in the US) on the general public thus creating new aversions that keep the activists in business.

So after all, government support for school chaplaincy should be subject to the same rule that I outlined above for (Christian) RE: Keep it as long as it is perceived as being of benefit for both the school and the wishes of the (majority of?) students, i.e. their parents.

For instance, here in Germany the Government pays for Muslim counsellors (imams) in prisons, and as the number of Muslims grows, it is about to pay for the teaching of religious education for Muslims in public schools, provided it can find the Muslim organisation (of which there are many) whose supervision of the teaching will be acceptable not only to the Government but also to the variety of Muslim organisations. If Catholic or Protestant RE is not offered at a particular school it is not because “state demands that public schools be religiously neutral” (i.e. atheist) but because of lack of sufficient interest among parents. One does not observe this lack of interest in religious education among Muslim parents, but for now it is still being left to the imams teaching at Centres around mosques.

After all, it is this civilisation, successor of Christendom, that is demographically in decline, not Islam.

@Fox, Tuesday, 26 July 2016 3:43:41 PM, re Media Watch

What you conveniently ignore is that Media Watch itself omitted (censored?) more recent details. Also, why was it so careful to avoid checking for influence of the already discredited Safe Schools program?

See here for a lengthy and detailed follow-up by Miranda Devine, who you obviously hugely dislike and make a point of sledging, suggesting that you are taking a partisan position anyhow, which is no better than what you are accusing her of doing,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/girls-who-are-girls-but-not-girls--its-time-to-stop-the-safe-schools-subterfuge/news-story/bf3a5633c20dbfee6a6a57596b153cd8

Dear George,

I see no difference between a Marxist state pushing atheism on students in a school and Queensland public schools having classes in which students are told they should believe in a particular religion.

I have no objection to students being told about the belief systems, history and actions concerning a religion or being told about those who have rejected religion without advocating either course.

The first paragraph describes indoctrination. The second describes education.

A school should educate not indoctrinate.

Hi David,

Yes, spot-on. But as a non-believer, I don't have any qualms about schools tracing the development of our current value system back to their Judeo-Christian-Hellenistic roots, and to the historical struggle to initiate and develop the human rights and freedoms that are the formal pillars of society today, through all their twists and turns.

If possible, teachers could familiarise themselves with any similar social developments in Islamic societies and in other societies - to the extent that there has been any such development, so without gilding the lily.

Perhaps schools should be teaching basic logic, values and morals from the beginning, or at least drawing their kids' attention to the logic, values and morals in every story that they read.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear david f,

>>I see no difference between a Marxist state pushing atheism on students in a school and Queensland public schools having classes in which students are told they should believe in a particular religion.<<

I have had no personal experience with Queensland schools, only with a Marx-Leninist school. I gather your experience is the other way around, although I doubt the overall political situation in Queensland is comparable to that in Eastern Europe under Stalin.

There are totalitarian and tolerant versions of Christian education as there are of atheist (no religion) education. When Christianity was the default standard for worldviews, the temptation was great to keep the Christian education intolerant towards alternative worldviews. The same now, when the default standard is atheist or non-religion. The transition from default Christian to default non-religion cultural environment cannot happen overnight as your case with Queensland schools illustrates.

It is not easy to keep your child afloat of what worldview orientation it gets at school. I was lucky enough to have a father who could counterbalance the atheist education, but how many parents are intellectually fit enough to keep their child within a worldview that the school says is not worth learning to understand from within?

>>I have no objection to students being told about the belief systems, history and actions concerning a religion or being told about those who have rejected religion without advocating either course.<<

I agree in principle but this is knowledge from “without” hence my emphasis on “within” (e.g. in the sense of Michael Polanyi’s “indwelling”) in the paragraph above. Like a blind man can learn everything about electromagnetic radiation but will never enjoy the beauty of a colourful scenery. I am trying to understand atheist inspired worldviews, also by reading the posts here, but I know my “understanding” is only from without.

I know, some people call ANY education - totalitarian or tolerant of others - whose worldview orientation they cannot identify with, “indoctrination” (although today most often the word is reserved for ANY introduction for children into a Christian oriented worldview).

That may be true, George.

<<I know, some people call ANY education - totalitarian or tolerant of others - whose worldview orientation they cannot identify with, “indoctrination” …>>

But that’s an emotive use of the word. What actually distinguishes indoctrination from education is the element of indoctrination whereby individuals are taught to accept ideas uncritically.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indoctrinate

Thus, according to the definition, david f’s use of the word was accurate and not necessarily emotive.

Dear George,

You wrote: "There are totalitarian and tolerant versions of Christian education as there are of atheist (no religion) education. When Christianity was the default standard for worldviews."

You have explicitly equated atheist as no religion. That is what those who are pushing religious instruction in the public schools of Australia do. Absence of religious indoctrination is not the same as teaching atheism.

Regardless of whether a version of Christianity is tolerant or intolerant the public schools have no more business teaching that their students should follow one or the other version than they have teaching that their students should be atheists.

Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism are all opinions. My opinion is that atheism seems most reasonable. I think your opinion is apparently that Catholicism seems most reasonable. Public schools should NOT be teaching opinion as fact. As part of education it is reasonable to teach what these differing opinions are and the part they have played in history.

I think it wrong to have classes in public schools teaching atheism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism or Buddhism as something their students should follow.

I object very strongly to your equation of schools not adopting a religious outlook with atheism. The default standard in a secular state should be neutrality in regards to any religion or disbelief in any religion. I say disbelief in any religion rather than atheism since not all religions postulate the existence of any deity.

Dear david f,

>>You have explicitly equated atheist as no religion. … Absence of religious indoctrination is not the same as teaching atheism.<<

No, I wrote atheism (meaning “absence of religious beliefs” in distinction to anti-theism as a negative belief) OR no-religion, meaning whichever you want to call it. What I had at school was called “scientific atheism” but I have learned even on this OLO that one should have called it anti-theism. You are right that one can TEACH anti-theism but not atheism in the sense of no-religion. However, if the teacher tells children - and they will ask if they come across the subject - that he/she does not care one way or another, that is the same as EDUCATING them into no-religion, though not necessarily anti-theism. Like decades ago even outside/without a subject RE the child was EDUCATED into the Christian cultural environment. This is fine but not an argument against offering RE as an optional extra if there is enough parental demand.

>> Regardless of whether a version of Christianity is tolerant or intolerant the public schools have no more business teaching that their students should follow one or the other version than they have teaching that their students should be atheists.<<

I agree but that would be the case if a particular RE was compulsory. There are situations - like in Germany with the teaching of Islam as described before - when the society finds it to its advantage to offer an optional subject, like this or that RE, a foreign language, extra maths, etc. Of course, it should not go against what is TAUGHT in other subjects unless they also try to educate the child into a particular worldview without saying it explicitly.

So I agree that a particular worldview should not be taught as something all students should follow, but why not make such a subject available, like a foreign language, it there is sufficient parental interest?

George,

Just a slight correction. Anti-theism is the belief that religion is harmful and that it must be must opposed. What you have referred to as anti-theism is actually ‘strong atheism’ (as opposed to ‘weak atheism’, which is the lack of belief).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg

Sorry George, I should clarify. You only made that slip up in definitions in your first mention of anti-thiesm. Your second mention of it ...

"What I had at school was called “scientific atheism” but I have learned even on this OLO that one should have called it anti-theism." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7387#228511)

... was correct.

Dear George.

You wrote: "So I agree that a particular worldview should not be taught as something all students should follow, but why not make such a subject available, like a foreign language, it there is sufficient parental interest?"

Public schools have no business using class time for indoctrination even if parents want the schools to indoctrinate. If parents want their child indoctrinated into some belief system they should send their child to a school dedicated for that purpose, teach them themselves or send them to classes devoted to that subject.

You keep making false equations. Teaching a foreign language is a legitimate subject for a public school. Learning Spanish does not bring with it a belief system. It is a very poor analogy to compare learning a foreign language to religious indoctrination. It is a better analogy to compare indoctrination in Marxism, Nazism or astrology to religious indoctrination. Regardless of parental demand none of the types of indoctrination mentioned in the previous sentence have any place in a public school.

Dear david f,

>>Public schools have no business using class time for indoctrination even if parents want the schools to indoctrinate. <<

You are right, this is a tautology: If you describe a subject pejoratively then of course you would not want the school to offer it. Some people assign all sort of pejorative terms to some forms of sexual education and then naturally demand that (their or even all) children be not exposed to them.

This is certainly not the case in Germany as I mentioned before. It is not (mainly) Muslim parents who demand that Islam be taught also at schools to counterbalance what they are getting at some Mosques but some politicians (e.g. the Greens), mostly atheists themselves.

You are right, we have to differ on this, so we better leave it at that.

AJ Philips,

You are right “anti-theism” was my invention to satisfy those on this OLO who were unhappy about how the Communists used the word “atheism”.

“Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. … Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism [in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. CUP, 2007”] entirely in terms of belief. For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.” (https://archive.is/E7cAe).

So Martin calls positive/negative what you call strong/weak. Probably I should have used “positive (or strong) atheism” instead of "ani-theism” to describe the "asserted disbelief in God" presented to us by the teachers.

Dear George,

It is not pejorative to describe teaching religion as something one must follow as indoctrination. it is an accurate designation, and there is nothing pejorative about it. It is defensive to call something pejorative when it is not pejorative.

Dear david f,

I do not know of a teacher - of RE or other subject - who would describe his teaching as indoctrination. Hence my reference to pejorative when applied to ALL forms of RE.

Indoctrination in my dictionary is “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically”. Indeed, there are many things that a child has to be taught into by accepting it first uncritically (English or foreign language grammar, history, classics of literature, even some parts of science) until it develops the skill to evaluate critically (where necessary) the knowledge he/she acquired as a child. Some people never do, and so uncritically accept (or “critically” reject} things they learned as children but failed to understand at a level appropriate to an adult age and education. However, in practice the term “indoctrination” is usually not applied to other subjects only to RE by those who disapprove of any form of it. Sorry, I am repeating myself.

>>It is defensive to call something pejorative when it is not pejorative.<<

Maybe so. Since your English is better than mine you know better than I whether or not a word is meant to be pejorative. However, it is equally defensive to reserve the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself.

I think whether we like it or not, we (at least here in Europe) are advancing (also thanks to the impact of Islam) into what the atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html) calls “post-secular society”. Away from a society that accepts only one worldview orientation - be it Christian (as in Europe’s Christendom stages) or non-religion/secularist (as gradually developed after 1968) - alternative orientations mostly tolerated as being of lesser value for the society.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Maybe so. Since your English is better than mine you know better than I whether or not a word is meant to be pejorative. However, it is equally defensive to reserve the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself."

Who reserved the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself."

I certainly didn't reserve the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself."

Please don't put words in my mouth and then argue with something I haven't said. I called putting forth religious views that one is supposed to accept indoctrination. I never maintained there are not other forms of indoctrination. That was you putting words in my mouth and even capitalising the 'only' that I didn't say. Whether parents want it or not or whether it is done in Germany or not putting forth religious views that one is supposed to accept is indoctrination. It is not the ONLY form of indoctrination.

Dear George,

I should like to repeat my post of Wednesday, 27 July 2016 9:05:11 AM.

I see no difference between a Marxist state pushing atheism on students in a school and Queensland public schools having classes in which students are told they should believe in a particular religion.

I have no objection to students being told about the belief systems, history and actions concerning a religion or being told about those who have rejected religion without advocating either course.

The first paragraph describes indoctrination. The second describes education.

A school should educate not indoctrinate.

Is that clear? I am against indoctrination by the public schools of any worldview - yours, mine or that of someone else.

Dear david f,

I have to apologise: In my anyhow clumsy sentence about reserving the term indoctrination the word “all” (meaning sweeping) somehow fell out after editing. Of course, there are all sorts of indoctrination, into a religion or into other things. What I meant was that only where RE is concerned is it used as a sweeping allegation. There are forms of atheist education that deserve that charge, as you yourself admit, but I would certainly not call indoctrination all forms of education into a no-religion (or atheist) worldview, even when it is usually offered only implicitly within other subjects, not as a separate subject.

I also apologise if that unfortunate sentence sounded as directed personally at you. It was not meant to be that, only a general observation, also from posts on this OLO. Should I feel offended when sweeping statements about RE imply that also my worldview is based on uncritically accepting something as a result of indoctrination?

All I am after is a fair play approach when considering different worldview orientations (not all worldviews as such since e.g. the Nazis and Communists had also their worldviews) and their interaction for the benefit of the whole society.

I do not believe in a completely worldview-free education, if teaching is not to degenerate into a mere presentation of universally accepted facts. Having RE, (and eventually also a reciprocal subject on atheist “philosophy and ethics” or so) at school as an option might or might not be a solution, I must concede. You certainly know the situation in Queensland better than I.

We have now come full circle since I would have to answer your http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7387#228407 again with http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7387#228469 etc coming to my last post about the meaning and use of the word “uncritical”, and the views of Habermas about where Europe (perhaps not Queensland) is going, whether we like it or not.

I think we should leave it at that and agree to disagree as you already suggested in an earlier post.

Dear George,

We neither have to agree nor disagree. Perhaps we differ in the notion of the legitimate powers we grant to the state. A public school is a government institution and as such is an expression of state power. I would limit the powers of the state to asking that its citizens and residents obey its laws and not take on any official worldview. However, civil disobedience informed by conscience justifies breaking the law so even that power is limited.

You grew up in an authoritarian state which impressed a worldview on its citizens. Since you were subject to other influences you did not accept the worldview the state tried to put on you. I do not think it is a legitimate power of the state to promote any worldview. I think it is legitimate for parents or other non-state agencies to promote their worldview.

Dear david f,

I agree in principle, although I think making something available as an option is not the same thing as promoting it or even granting the state some extra powers.

Dear George,

I have never opposed making any worldview available and telling children and others about any worldviews. I have only objected to an agency of the state not only making a worldview available but also advocating that worldview.

Dear david f,

I agree that an agency of state should not advocate a particular worldview, but as far as education is concerned, as I said, I do not believe - this is just a personal belief - that it can be completely worldview-free even if it does not advocate explicitly one particular worldview.

Dear George,

Of course education cannot be worldview free. However, the public schools should not explicitly advocate any worldview recommending either a particular religious belief(s) or the denial of any religious belief.

You wrote: "Having RE, (and eventually also a reciprocal subject on atheist “philosophy and ethics” or so) at school as an option might or might not be a solution."

There is no problem so no solution is necessary. Having either RE or atheism as something one should follow is indoctrination. Telling students about those worldviews without advocating either course is education. I believe I have made that point before. However, it is possible for a person to be educated without either worldview being presented in the public schools.

Acquiring the tools to make a living, going on to higher education, learning to think critically and integrating into the community are legitimate tasks for the public schools. To achieve those ends it is not necessary to either promote or deny religion.