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.