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.