This idea was suggested by Mozz in the Cambden thread, shortly after he suggested restricting certain citizen's right to choose where to live.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1211882321/166#166

I am opposed to 'ALL' religious schools, and only think that they should be allowed NOWHERE, EVER.
School should be school, church should be church, if you want to brainwash kids with your crazy rat arsed religious mumbo jumbo, then do it on the weekend, on your own time, with your own money.

This suggestion is an attack on the separation of church and state and religious freedom. It is hypocritical in the sense that it is a form of militant, fundamentalist atheism that is no less dangerous than the more familiar forms of religious fundamentalism that atheists constantly cry foul over.

Separation of church and state does not just rule out state sanctioning of religion or religion taking over the state, it also rules out state attacks on religion. It is just as important to protect the church from the state as it is to protect the state from the church. They are separate institutions with different roles to play in society that must be kept at arm’s length from each other.

Whether a child receives a religious education is a matter for the child and their parent. The state has no role at all to play in this and should not try to interfere in the rights of people to practice their religion. It is also not the state’s role to enforce a single type of education on the public. It is reasonable for the state to set a minimum curriculum so that children are not deprived of basic knowledge, but it must not rule out extra education, be it in music, sport, religion, art, drama etc. The state has no role in dictating which days of the week parents provide religious education and whether this education is provided at home, at a church, at a private school, in a public park or wherever they choose. Denying parents the right to send their children to a private school where they will receive a religious education is no better than denying parents the right to send their child to a school that does not teach religion. It is just as dangerous for our society.

Communist regimes typically go down this path in their quest for total control over people’s opinions. A church is dangerous to an oppressive government that denies people basic rights because it provides a powerful institution through which people can demand their freedom. In order to deny people some basic human rights, a much broader range of rights must be denied, including freedom of religion. Whether it be democratic, economic, or religious rights, the abolition of any basic human right inevitable leads to the erosion of all rights.

Fundamentalist atheists would have people put in jail for teaching religion on the wrong day of the week. They would have the government decide whether religious beliefs are appropriate for people to pass onto their children and start interfering with parents who teach their children the wrong views. Just because atheism is the ‘new kid on the block’ in terms of organized belief movements does not mean that it is benign and that extremists do not pose a threat to society.

Atheists often try to play a ‘sheep in wool’s clothing’ by pretending to be someone who has no strong opinion regarding the existence of God. A person who lacks such a belief or strong opinion is agnostic. An atheist has a strong opinion and their view is no more rational, objective or evidence based than that of a religious person. They are just as prone to zealotry as religious people, but lack any kind of institution to keep that zealotry in check. Communism is the closest thing we currently have to an atheist institution. Atheist fundamentalists have no qualms about using force to impose their views on others as soon as they can gain control of government, whether it be via a majority denying rights to a minority in a democracy, or via a ruthless dictatorship. As with any fundamentalist, the ends justifies the means.

It is not a person’s views or beliefs that matter, but how far they are prepared to go to use force to deny people the right to share alternative views. Fundamentalists tend to fear such alternative opinions as dangerous and will try to paint everyone who shares that view with the same brush, for example by equating them with other extremists and refusing to distinguish an extremist from the other side and a benign alternative world view. To them, anyone who shares the alternative view is ‘the enemy’ and is a threat to them which must be countered by any means available. Fundamentalists will not be appeased if you give into their initial demands. The more you give, the more they take, until what were made to seem like reasonable restrictions turn into the complete erosion of your rights.

There is more than one type of fundamentalist out there, and they are all dangerous. The one thing they have in common is that they all constantly point to other fundamentalists to justify their position and to try to get you too scared to pay attention to their own extremism.

You must have been pissed to trot out that steaming pile of crap FD.
I will be back tonight to demolish your ridiculous and spurious claims.

I hope I am not infringing upon your right to be totally incorrect.

As a non-militant atheist, I think that religion should be taught in a balanced way. My only objection is to having publically funded schools that teach only the "One True Church' or "One true Mosque' version without allowing room for questioning. "Ok kids - We are all (say) Apostolics here, and this is what we as Apostolics believe. Everybody else is going to hell"

My personal take is that it's irresponsible and dangerous to teach a totally exclusive view of religion that has no respect for the beliefs of others.

On the other hand, I think it would also be irresponsible not to teach kids about religions at all. There is a fine balance and most religious schools in Australia seem to take that approach.

I'm not sure if that's already legislated, but I seem to remember one Islamic School in Perth being shut down for not providing a balanced education.


Quote:

Atheists often try to play a ‘sheep in wool’s clothing’ by pretending to be someone who has no strong opinion regarding the existence of God. A person who lacks such a belief or strong opinion is agnostic....

Sounds like a cardboard cutout caricature of an Atheist, as described by a Theist.  FD, I've no doubt you were provoked, but you seriously need to chill out :)


Quote:

Fundamentalists tend to fear such alternative opinions as dangerous and will try to paint everyone who shares that view with the same brush, for example by equating them with other extremists and refusing to distinguish an extremist from the other side and a benign alternative world view.

Read the paragraph that you wrote prior to that. Isn't that a prime example of painting everyone with an alternative view with the same brush?

This stuff is totally uncharacteristic of your other posts.

Institution can promote extremism probably just as much or more than a lack of institution. You just need to look at the Brethren or Islamic extremism to see that.

- Maybe you just had a bad day.

My only objection is to having publically funded schools that teach only the "One True Church' or "One true Mosque' version without allowing room for questioning. "Ok kids - We are all (say) Apostolics here, and this is what we as Apostolics believe. Everybody else is going to hell"

Public funding of various private schools is a genuine issue, but denying them any public funding is not the solution. To do so would be to apply a financial penalty to those who choose the private system, by making them pay for public education via taxes and for private education directly. You can justify public funding either from an economic perspective - because private schools reduce the amount of money spent on public schools and thus save the government money, or from a fairness perspective - in that those sections of the community who choose alternative schooling should not be made to pay twice.

So long as the government does not discriminate and treats atheist, nondenominational, Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc schools the same, then it becomes and issue of private vs public education, not one of religious vs atheist education.

public vs private education

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

My personal take is that it's irresponsible and dangerous to teach a totally exclusive view of religion that has no respect for the beliefs of others.

It is irresponsible and dangerous. But the thing about personal freedom is that it allows people to be irresponsible and dangerous, right up until they infringe on other people's rights (in a real sense, not in an imaginary or feared sense). You may not like it, but people are free to think you will go to hell for your beliefs, just not to try to send you there. The alternative is direct government control over religion.

Sounds like a cardboard cutout caricature of an Atheist, as described by a Theist.

Sorry, I left out the fundamentalist bit. Yes, plenty of athiests couldn't really care less.

Read the paragraph that you wrote prior to that. Isn't that a prime example of painting everyone with an alternative view with the same brush?

No, I remembered to include the word fundamentalist that time. Maybe there are different types of fundamentalist with different motivations, but I don't think that is what you were getting at.

Atheist = a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.

Agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

In other words, an Atheist doesn't believe in God. An Agnostic merely says that you can't prove God exists, therefore he doesn't.  ;D

On the last Census I listed myself as a Reformed Agnostic.  Try and work that one out.  :P

Neferti wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 12:48pm:

Atheist = a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being. Agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. In other words, an Atheist doesn't believe in God. An Agnostic merely says that you can't prove God exists, therefore he doesn't.  ;D On the last Census I listed myself as a Reformed Agnostic.  Try and work that one out.  :P

Neferti - We've been through this discussion before, but I classify myself as an agnostic atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in gods. An agnostic doesn't know if god(s) exist.

The term 'doesn't believe in god(s)' covers a wide scope, and is probably better representative of my experience of the diversity in Atheists. It includes the subset who don't believe that god(s) exist. It basically means that (whether or not they exist), gods have no significance in that person's life.

That's all it comes down to.  

So you can see that the two are compatible. An agnostic theist is also possible. That's a person who doesn't know if god(s) exist but has a faith in god(s) - and there are plenty of Christians who fall into that category. How often have you heard the phrase "If there is a God...." ?

Clear as mud?

- And before somebody imposes their own definitions, let me tell you about a friend of mine. She is involved in aged care, and has been all her life - well for the last 20 years or so at least. She even prays with people who are religious, but the prayers mean nothing to her. She doesn't go out of her way to explain that she actually doesn't believe in God. To do so would be counter productive in some situations. The last thing on her mind is to try to convince anyone that her view is right and theirs is wrong. Her main aim in life is just to help people.

I learned a great deal from her, as well as the examples of humanitarian atheists like Fred Hollows, who really made a difference. That's where we should be aiming, regardless of religious position. We need to accept people with tolerance and understanding.  

If you define atheist as someone who simply does not believe in God, then that would make agnosticism a subset of atheism, which is clearly wrong. If someone thinks that God's existence is unknowable, then they obviously don't believe. An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist, whereas an agnostic is someone who does not believe that God exists. There is no need to blur the distinction.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist, whereas an agnostic is someone who does not believe that God exists. There is no need to blur the distinction.

By you definition, where does that place me within the blurred distinction? I believe that there COULD be a god but I am not willing to acknowledge that there IS one for lack of convincing evidence.

That would make you an agnositc. You are pretty much a textbook example.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

If you define atheist as someone who simply does not believe in God, then that would make agnosticism a subset of atheism, which is clearly wrong. If someone thinks that God's existence is unknowable, then they obviously don't believe. An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist, whereas an agnostic is someone who does not believe that God exists. There is no need to blur the distinction.

No - agnostic is not a subset of 'atheism'. It's unrelated. An agnostic simply doesn't know if God exists. Knowledge and belief are two different things.

You're also twisting the definition of Agnostic. 'God's existence is  unknowable' is different from 'I don't know if God exists'. Not all Agnostics believe that God's existence is unknowable. That's like someone saying the Capital of Nicaragua is unknowable because he doesn't know himself.  

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 3:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2008 at 3:12pm: An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist, whereas an agnostic is someone who does not believe that God exists. There is no need to blur the distinction. By you definition, where does that place me within the blurred distinction? I believe that there COULD be a god but I am not willing to acknowledge that there IS one for lack of convincing evidence.

You're a typical atheist - You don't believe in God. End of story. You also happen to be an agnostic.

Just to confuse you further -

http://www.strange-loops.com/athwhatis.html

Actually I fit none of the definitions on that site :) I just don't believe in god(s).

To illustrate that, the sun is worshipped by a number of people. I know that the sun exists, but I don't believe it's a god.  

Even atheists argue about what an Atheist is. The important thing is what you believe - not the label.

muso wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 5:24pm:

You're a typical atheist - You don't believe in God. End of story. You also happen to be an agnostic.

However, I don't dont believe in god (a double negative, I know). I believe that god COULD exist. This is different to the implication that I don't believe in god absolutely.

I understand what you are mean when you previously mentioned "an agnostic thiest" (which I thought I was leaning towards but, can I be an athiest AND an agnostic as well? An athiest denies the existance of god absolutely, while my definition of an agnostic is one who questions the existance in either direction (eg. "there's a chance that god might exist" or "there's a chance that god doesn't exist").

If you say that because I question "the chance that god might exist" makes me an athiest/agnostic then in the same instance a person who questions "there's a chance that god doesn't exist" (implying that he does believe initially) to be a thiest/agnostic. Am I correct in your interpretation?

muso wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 5:47pm:

Just to confuse you further - http://www.strange-loops.com/athwhatis.html Actually I fit none of the definitions on that site :) I just don't believe in god(s). To illustrate that, the sun is worshipped by a number of people. I know that the sun exists, but I don't believe it's a god.   Even atheists argue about what an Atheist is. The important thing is what you believe - not the label.

I guess the closest for me would be....

(AT5) A person who lacks a belief in regards to the existence of gods.

and

(AG5) A person who believes that knowledge in regards to the existence of gods is impossible.

However...

(AT5) is compatible with (AG1-5).

That only says that they are comtaible but doesn't provide a definite idealogical interpretation.

It's sort of like saying tat I'm a fanatical Holden man but I kinda like the look of the XR6 therefore making me a Holden/Ford man.  ;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

muso wrote on Jun 12th, 2008 at 5:24pm: You're a typical atheist - You don't believe in God. End of story. You also happen to be an agnostic. However, I don't dont believe in god (a double negative, I know). I believe that god COULD exist. This is different to the implication that I don't believe in god absolutely. I understand what you are mean when you previously mentioned "an agnostic thiest" (which I thought I was leaning towards but, can I be an athiest AND an agnostic as well? An athiest denies the existance of god absolutely, while my definition of an agnostic is one who questions the existance in either direction (eg. "there's a chance that god might exist" or "there's a chance that god doesn't exist"). If you say that because I question "the chance that god might exist" makes me an athiest/agnostic then in the same instance a person who questions "there's a chance that god doesn't exist" (implying that he does believe initially) to be a thiest/agnostic. Am I correct in your interpretation?

I think so. I guess the question is - does God play a part in your life? If not, you don't believe in God. Don't confuse that with 'belief in the existence of God'. A Christian would answer that 'yes', and so would a Muslim, albeit with different gods.

Ultimately I don't even use the term 'atheist' to describe myself because my religious position is not a central tenet of earth shattering significance to me, and because there is so much confusion about the terminology anyway. It's much easier for me to just state what I actually believe and know without using ambiguous terms that nobody can agree on.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 6:05pm:

An atheist denies the existance of god absolutely,

LOL No. I don't even know any atheists like that. An Atheist doesn't believe in gods. No further explanation required.

'God's existence is  unknowable' is different from 'I don't know if God exists'.

That's a bit 'academic' isn't it? Are there any people who believe that God's existence is unknowable, yet know that god exists? Are there any people who don't know whether God exists, but consider it knowable?

The important thing is what you believe - not the label.

Not entirely. Effecive communication requires understanding, which cannot happen if the meaning of words is never clarified.

Ultimately I don't even use the term 'atheist' to describe myself because my religious position is not a central tenet of earth shattering significance to me, and because there is so much confusion about the terminology anyway.

So you see where the confusion leads - difficulty in communication. You have to explain yourself when a single word should suffice.

There is such a clean and simple distinction that fits the 'general understanding' perfectly - athiests, believe/know/have decided, whereas agnostics haven't. There is no need to surrender to the confusion. I suspect the problem is that people tend to use atheist as a catch all term if they are unfamiliar with the term agnostic. But that is no reason to let two different words lose their distinction.

Post deleted by muso.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2008 at 8:11pm:

'God's existence is  unknowable' is different from 'I don't know if God exists'. That's a bit 'academic' isn't it? Are there any people who believe that God's existence is unknowable, yet know that god exists? Are there any people who don't know whether God exists, but consider it knowable?

Yes - I don't know absolutely whether God exists or not, but consider that it could be knowable to others. I'm an Agnostic.

I base my belief on whether there is evidence or not. There is no evidence (for me). Therefore I don't believe in God - I'm an atheist.


Quote:

The important thing is what you believe - not the label. Not entirely. Effecive communication requires understanding, which cannot happen if the meaning of words is never clarified. The meaning of words depend on their context. THat's why you have to explain what you mean by them - contextualise them.

That's why we have language. Some words are not exact and are ambiguous, but we acquire the sense of what is being said based on the context.


Quote:

Ultimately I don't even use the term 'atheist' to describe myself because my religious position is not a central tenet of earth shattering significance to me, and because there is so much confusion about the terminology anyway. So you see where the confusion leads - difficulty in communication. You have to explain yourself when a single word should suffice. There is such a clean and simple distinction that fits the 'general understanding' perfectly - athiests, believe/know/have decided, whereas agnostics haven't. There is no need to surrender to the confusion. I suspect the problem is that people tend to use atheist as a catch all term if they are unfamiliar with the term agnostic. But that is no reason to let two different words lose their distinction.

Agnostics haven't believed/known/ decided ? I'm not sure that I follow you. Your definition sounds anything but clean and simple.

The fact is that other people, some much smarter than you or me have argued the point of definition of atheist and Agnostic ad nauseum. Now the various flavours of Atheist may not be important to you from the standpoint of a Christian, or a theist. Your world view in itself tends to simplify that which is quite subtle. In the same way, I probably don't quite get it right when I'm talking about Christians, Muslims etc.

but consider that it could be knowable to others

You consider yourself somehow inferior in these matters? I don't think that is what they mean by knowable.

Therefore I don't believe in God - I'm an atheist.

An atheist is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, not merely someone who lacks belief.

Your definition sounds anything but clean and simple.

It is based on the presence or absence of belief.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 7:57am:

but consider that it could be knowable to others You consider yourself somehow inferior in these matters? I don't think that is what they mean by knowable.

All I mean (as an example) is that I can't look inside your head, so I can't judge what you know or don't know. On the other hand I know what I know (LOL). Not inferior - just different. Some people are colour blind. Many animals can detect light frequencies that human beings can't. Maybe part of your brain is more highly developed - and that enables you to know that 'God' exists or have this illusion that God exists (take your pick). That's the other problem - God is a meaningless personal concept to me, but not to you.


Quote:

Therefore I don't believe in God - I'm an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes that God doesn't exist, not merely someone who lacks belief. Your definition sounds anything but clean and simple. It is based on the presence or absence of belief.

I'm not really interested in your personal definition of the word Atheist.  The essential thing is that I don't believe in gods, so can we just get along?

Now, you can call me anything you like, except a NSW Supporter  ;D  because I might take offense.

I pray that this will clear things up:

Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as Jainism, secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[7]

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[8] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
(Ok, it's Wikipedia, but it's succinct)

muso wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

....so I can't judge what you know or don't know. On the other hand I know what I know (LOL).

LOL, indeed

Donald Rumsfeld comes to mind.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

;)

You know what is needed? A set of guiding principles for dealing with people from different faiths and worldviews so that we can learn to live together in harmony.

It should work on the basis of "I'm ok and you're ok"

1. I understand that you have different beliefs to mine, and I respect your rights to those beliefs.

2. I understand that you know more about your own beliefs than I do, and I will consult with you before making statements about your beliefs that may otherwise be distorted.

3. I promise that I won't try to convert you to my beliefs.

4. I promise not to be judgemental.

5. I promise to be a tolerant role model to young people, and will actively acknowledge and praise tolerance whenever I see it.

6. I promise to actively discourage racial and religious vilification, even among peers representing my own beliefs.

What do you think? Brave New World stuff?

muso wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

You know what is needed? A set of guiding principles for dealing with people from different faiths and worldviews so that we can learn to live together in harmony. It should work on the basis of "I'm ok and you're ok" 1. I understand that you have different beliefs to mine, and I respect your rights to those beliefs. 2. I understand that you know more about your own beliefs than I do, and I will consult with you before making statements about your beliefs that may otherwise be distorted. 3. I promise that I won't try to convert you to my beliefs. 4. I promise not to be judgemental. 5. I promise to be a tolerant role model to young people, and will actively acknowledge and praise tolerance whenever I see it. 6. I promise to actively discourage racial and religious vilification, even among peers representing my own beliefs. What do you think? Brave New World stuff?

Careful muso, you might get acused of being a left wing hippy when you start sprouting idealogical mantra like that.

;)

However, I agee with you. I guess thats where the Interfaith network comes in - organisations such as the Interfaith Centre of Melbourne.

I'm against religious schools. Not because I think they 'brainwash' kids, or because I don't think parents have the right to pass on religious views to their children. I just think that the benefits of schools with children of various religious backgrounds provides a much better building ground for religious understanding and tolerance in the future.

Schools are the primary place of learning for the crucial time of development, where values are taught/developed, and opinions form. I think the benefits of exposing students during this time to diverse beliefs could only have a positive effect on society. I'm not trying to say that religious schools are evil, or that they breed hatred and close-mindedness. I went to a religious school myself and know from experience that this isn't the case. I just think that, as I said, the benfits of not having religious schools would be enourmas, particulalrly in a time when debates about religion are so intense, and religious differences have the potential to divide the world.

Welcome to OzPolitic balderdash.

When you say you are against them, do you mean you wouldn't choose them for yourself or your children, or that the government should ban them and take away people's choice?

Huh?

Thanks.

That's a good question. I wouldn't chose them for my children. I would like to see them banned by the government, but I accept that that will most likely never happen. In saying though that I would like the government to ban them, however, I'm not arguing for a sudden shut-down of all schools. A slow process would be needed. And an acceptable alternative. Parent usually send their children to religious schools either because they are private and offer what is seen to be a better education that what's available through the public system, or because they want their children to be taught in a particular religious environment. Thus a better public school system is needed, or indeed more non-religious private schools if that's what parents want. And another option in terms of religious education is needed - I know people who have seperate religious classes outside of school.

i

and?

And another option in terms of religious education is needed - I know people who have seperate religious classes outside of school.

I was under the impression that most modern religious schools do this anyway. That is, the school is pretty much indistuinguishable from an 'unaligned' one, but the students do religious stuff outside of regular hours and it is clearly distinguished from the academic work of the school. For the majority of people who want a typical private school education for their children, the only difference your suggestion would make would be to make it far less convenient for them.

It would not be another option for them - it would be one less option.

Many atheists make me laugh, they always rant on about how even saying you believe in God is tantamount to ramming religion down their throats but in the same breath will aggressively insult you and ridicule you for believing in God in the first place.

But back to the idea of religious schools being banned. I disagree, we have freedom of religion in this nation and it's not for the government to tell people about how they should learn their religion, if the parents want to send their children to a religious school and they still receive a contemporary education at the school then it's noone elses business..

I also do not think however that government should be using taxpayers money on schools outside of the public system.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 6:00pm:

Many atheists make me laugh, they always rant on about how even saying you believe in God is tantamount to ramming religion down their throats but in the same breath will aggressively insult you and ridicule you for believing in God in the first place. But back to the idea of religious schools being banned. I disagree, we have freedom of religion in this nation and it's not for the government to tell people about how they should learn their religion, if the parents want to send their children to a religious school and they still receive a contemporary education at the school then it's noone elses business.. I also do not think however that government should be using taxpayers money on schools outside of the public system.

There is NO such thing as GOD.   Even if there was, the Christians and Muslims BOTH look at  SAME God as the Creator or some such nonsense.  According to some, Jesus lived on earth and so did Mohammed. Bullshit.

When you die, you die.  You do not come back, you do not  go anywhere, or have any influence on your descendants.  You are DEAD. There is no Heaven.  End of story.

Stop arguing about it.  >:(

It is true that most modern religious schools deal distinguish between academia and religion. However religious stuff is dealt with within school hours - whether it be through regular chapels/services, specific compulsory subjects dedicated to learning about said religion, as well as things outside of hours such as camps and bible studying for instance for those more keen on the topic.

And yes, banning religious schools can be seen as being anti-democratic, but I think not having religious schools would promote a much more democtratic society, in that religious tolerance (a vital part of democracy) would be promoted.

"...The only difference your suggestion would make would be to make it far less convenient for them. " I say what I said before - I think that on a broader social level it would go a long way towards building a much more open-minded, less segregated society. In reference to your claim that it would be much less conveniant for those who just want a typical private school education, I've not said I'm against private schools themselves, only that most private schools are religious. I guess you could argue that what's the difference between being against religious schools and being against private schools, as both can create segregations in society, which has been my main argument against religious schools. And to address this, all I would say is that if the public school system was a whole lot better, there would be no need for private schools.

I also do not think however that government should be using taxpayers money on schools outside of the public system.

Isn't everyone entitled to the same access to communal funds for education? Is it fair to make people pay twice?

And yes, banning religious schools can be seen as being anti-democratic

It's not really anything to do with democracy. Democracy is the will of the majority being imposed on the minority. It's about freedom and personal rights.

However religious stuff is dealt with within school hours - whether it be through regular chapels/services, specific compulsory subjects dedicated to learning about said religion

Maybe in some private schools, but none that I am aware of.

but I think not having religious schools would promote a much more democtratic society, in that religious tolerance (a vital part of democracy) would be promoted.

That doesn't make sense. You can't promote religious tolerance by imposing arbitrary restrictions on religion. It defeats the purpose. If you tolerate a religion, tolerate their right to a religious education. It's no different to claiming that banning Muslim Mosques and forcing all religions to worship together would promote tolerance. Tolerance is ultimately about allowing people their personal freedom, not taking it away. It's about tolerating the choices other people make for themselves.

Tolerance means nothing if it is achieved through removing freedom of choice. China for example 'tolerates' religion, but forbids proselytising. To some people, a religious upbringing for their children is what religion is all about. Just as for others, it is about proselytising. A society is not truly tolerant of religion if it does not let people choose for themselves how to practice their religion. It would be like saying we will now tolerate people growing marijuana, so long as they don't smoke it. Or saying you have freedom of speech, so long as you don't criticise the government. Or saying you will tolerate black people, so long as you don't have to share the bus with them.

Part of what the intolerant don't like about religion is that religious people sometimes or partially separate themselves from the broader society, or consider themselves better than 'heathens'. Changing religion to suit them better would not make them more tolerant of it, it would just make them want to impose more and more restrictions on religion until it is 'tolerable' to them. Changing something to suit you is not tolerance. Tolerance is accepting it as it is.

It's not really anything to do with democracy. Democracy is the will of the majority being imposed on the minority. It's about freedom and personal rights.

Freedom and personal rights go hand-in-hand with democracy. A democracy’s aim is to protect these rights through a system in which the power is in the hands of the people.

Maybe in some private schools, but none that I am aware of.

That’s weird, because most religious schools I’m aware of practice such things.

You can't promote religious tolerance by imposing arbitrary restrictions on religion. It defeats the purpose. If you tolerate a religion, tolerate their right to a religious education.

In no way did I advocate imposing arbitrary restrictions on religion. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to give their children a religious education. But does said religious education have to be within schools of the same religion? And comparing banning religious schools to forcing all religions to worship together is ridiculous metaphor to use. Worship is the act of religion. Education is learning, in this case about religion.

You claim that religious tolerance means accepting the choices others make for themselves. This is true. But do you really think that religious tolerance is best gained by segregating children into religions for up to 13 years of their lives is the best way to go about developing this? Tolerance doesn’t just happen. My main point is that by having people of all religions attending the same school, students would be able to mix with those of a different belief system to their own, thus promoting and encourging tolerance. An increasing trend of religious divisions doesn’t seem to be doing the trick at the moment, does it?

To some people, a religious upbringing for their children is what religion is all about. Just as for others, it is about proselytising. A society is not truly tolerant of religion if it does not let people choose for themselves how to practice their religion.

Once again, my argument against religious schools is in no way against religious practice of any kind. In what religion is a religious upbring at its core? I would have thought that in most religions, it is the actual faith in a certain set of beliefs, and the practice of said faith, that is what it’s all about. All of which would not be restricted by outlawing religious schools. There are other ways of gaining an education on certain religions without going to a school dedicated to that religion. Sunday school for example – it’s whole purpose is to provide children with an education. Parents seeking to educate their children on religion outside of school would in no way be restricted.

And the flaw in your argument is that you say that most religious schools you know of only offer actual religious activites outside of school. If that’s the case, what would be different about going to a school that isn’t fundamentally religious? It would be the same – religious teachings could be sought outside of school. In fact, if religius schools were to disappear, places that teach certain religions to children outside of school would inevitabley pop up as there would be demand for them. Thus, no child would be denyed the right to being educated in a certain religion. It would still be up to the parent to make choices about their children’s religious education, and with the added bonus that their children would get a taste of what life is like after school: a diverse society.

Changing religion to suit them better would not make them more tolerant of it, it would just make them want to impose more and more restrictions on religion until it is 'tolerable' to them.

You wouldn’t be changing religion. Nor would there be impositions put on the practice of religion. The point is that by exposing students to a variety of religions would allow a deeper understanding and thus acceptabce of them. Schools of the religious variety does nothing to promote tolerance. In fact it sometimes does the opposite – it encourages children to stick to people of a similar religious background as that’s all they’ve been exposed to, and allowing them to develop in an environment that is in no way reflective of the society they’ll end up being a part of.

In no way did I advocate imposing arbitrary restrictions on religion. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to give their children a religious education. But does said religious education have to be within schools of the same religion?

No it doesn't have to be. But people should be free to choose that. Denying them that choice is an arbitrary restriction.

But do you really think that religious tolerance is best gained by segregating children into religions for up to 13 years of their lives is the best way to go about developing this?

Tolerance is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Freedom is the ultimate goal. The only reason people get all hung up on tolerance is because intolerance inevitably leads to the erosion of freedom. Achieving tolerance by denying freedom defeats the purpose. Tolerance by itself is an almost vacuous concept, which is why it is so easy to lampoon.

An increasing trend of religious divisions doesn’t seem to be doing the trick at the moment, does it?

There is no such trend.

In what religion is a religious upbring at its core?

It is not for you to decide how people practice their religion. It is not for you to decide what is an important aspect of religion and what aspects can be discarded in the name of tolerance. Even if only one person considered religious education a key part of their religion, then you would be denying them a fundamental human right.

If that’s the case, what would be different about going to a school that isn’t fundamentally religious?

Where it is the case, it's largely a matter of convenience. On the other hand, if some people want their children to learn about religion between the hours of 10am and 11am instead of 5pm and 6pm, that is their choice. My argument does not hinge on this issue.

Nor would there be impositions put on the practice of religion.

Yes there would be. Education is part of religion. You would be imposing restrictions on that education.

The point is that by exposing students to a variety of religions would allow a deeper understanding and thus acceptabce of them.

And it is a noble cause, but one which should be adopted by choice, not imposed by the erosion of freedom of choice. It is not your goal I have an issue with. Rather it is your desire to use law to force it upon people. There are thousands of wonderful ideas floating around that would work wonders, according to their promoters, if only people were forced to adopt them. If an idea has merit, there is no need to impose it on people. The ultimate test is whether people will freely choose it. What is more important - a good religious education or exposure to other religions? That is an issue for families to decide, not government. Like it or not, many people choose the religious education, as is their right.

Neferti wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 13th, 2008 at 6:00pm: Many atheists make me laugh, they always rant on about how even saying you believe in God is tantamount to ramming religion down their throats but in the same breath will aggressively insult you and ridicule you for believing in God in the first place. But back to the idea of religious schools being banned. I disagree, we have freedom of religion in this nation and it's not for the government to tell people about how they should learn their religion, if the parents want to send their children to a religious school and they still receive a contemporary education at the school then it's noone elses business.. I also do not think however that government should be using taxpayers money on schools outside of the public system. There is NO such thing as GOD.   Even if there was, the Christians and Muslims BOTH look at  SAME God as the Creator or some such nonsense.  According to some, Jesus lived on earth and so did Mohammed. Bullshit. When you die, you die.  You do not come back, you do not  go anywhere, or have any influence on your descendants.  You are DEAD. There is no Heaven.  End of story. Stop arguing about it.  >:(

Case and point.. Atheists ramming their disbelief down our throats..

We can believe whatever we want.

Here's the trick though, you can't be sure that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove that He doesn't.. you can only say that there is no proof that He does exist. But I'm afraid that there not being 'proof' of His existence doesn't automatically mean He doesn't exist.

So here it goes further, based on that logic, that you cannot conclusively prove that we were not created by a higher being, a being obviously more powerful than us, thus worthy of worship. We are all making a big gamble here, but Sprint and I have the odds and risk in our favour. You see, even though we may disagree, both Sprint and myself believe in God and worship him. That means that if we live this life worshipping Him, and die and find that he doesn't exist then no big deal, you can't rub it in our faces because we're dead and will have no consciousness, so we lived good lives with the best intentions. But if we are right, and we spent our lives worshipping Him. Then we will be rewarded God willing.

Now your gamble here has the odds against you and has far more risk associated with it, because you're assuming that God doesn't exist, if you die and He doesn't then no big deal. You were right, but you can't brag about it because your dead. But if He does indeed exist, you're left without anything to back you up.. Because in your whole life were so arrogant in thinking that this world and we were created by accident and thus had no reason to worship anything that could have created you.. So for your arrogance, you will be punished.

I like my odds.. Do you like yours?

heres the trick malik.
"there is no compulsion to a religion"

hahahahahahha

I see it another way.
In the bible it says you'll be judged by what oyu have been given.
Which is fair.
athiests have been given athiesm. They'll be judged on that basis.
It's not up to me to judge, or i'll be judged by the same manner.


using your logic, you are believing in God cause it is a no-lose idea.
If i was him, I would not be too impressed with that.
Would you ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:36pm:

heres the trick malik. "there is no compulsion to a religion" hahahahahahha I see it another way. In the bible it says you'll be judged by what oyu have been given. Which is fair. athiests have been given athiesm. They'll be judged on that basis. It's not up to me to judge, or i'll be judged by the same manner. using your logic, you are believing in God cause it is a no-lose idea. If i was him, I would not be too impressed with that. Would you ?

no.. im not believing in God because its a no lose idea.. I believe in God because it is obvious to me that the fact that we are here, and and the sophistication of mankind, nature and the earth and universe is far too complex to be a fluke or accident. Thus something would have created us, that something is far more powerful than myself and should be acknowledged as our creator and respected and if it has orders for u to follow I will follow those orders.. That is my logic.

Will God judge me according to Islam then sprint and if I follow it will I go to heaven??

malik - i don't know what he will think of you.

I don't know what he'll think of me !!!
Well, imho, he won't be too impressed with me.

I don't see why God would hold anyones religion against him/her.
He's a bit beyond beliefs.

"All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. "
Psalm 21:2

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:52pm:

malik - i don't know what he will think of you. I don't know what he'll think of me !!! Well, imho, he won't be too impressed with me. I don't see why God would hold anyones religion against him/her. He's a bit beyond beliefs. "All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. " Psalm 21:2

thats very nice of you to say..

but having said that, if that was the case why do u give muslims and islam such a hard time if you believe judgement should be left only to God..

Sorry for the delay in replying, I have had a stinking cold, and have been very busy, but I am here now, so here goes.

1: Fd repeatedly claims that I am restricting peoples' rights of choosing where to live.

This is actually a distortion of what I said about being opposed to Islamic enclaves.
An enclave is a state or community, within another state or community, that separates itself from that community.
I used the term in the context of the Islamic school debate, because of the very nature of schools, where kids attend daily, families tend to try and live in close proximity, for convenience.
An Islamic school of 1,000 or more students would create a dramatic change to the cultural diversity of the area surrounding it, by encouraging a large monocultural influx, which then flows onto churches, and services specific to this single culture.
I also indicated how having kids from different cultures attending the same schools, would actually help with cross cultural acceptance and understanding, rather than creating a wholly insular community, where muslims do not need to interact with non-muslims.
We have seen the effects Islamic enclaves have had in Europe, and they do give rise to numerous legitimate concerns.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: To suggest that keeping Education, and Religion, separate is an attack on the separation of church and state is obviously ludicrous, it merely enacts the principle of that idea.
Religious 'Education', is only educative when it presents facts in an unbiased and crititical form, not when it teaches what some 'believe' through, unreasoning faith, as facts.
That is called "Indoctrination', and my assertion is that this is exactly what all religious schools do. They impose their 'beliefs' on to children, as often and as early as possible to help facilitate the continuance of the particular 'belief system' that they endorse.
I wonder how happy parents would be sending their kids to a Religious School, which was based around a different belief system than their own?
In that circumstance they would probably have concerns that their children may be indoctrinated with an incorrect set of beliefs, and that  would give credence to my concern that no child should be subjected to religious indoctrination at school.

3: FD then goes on to say how it is not the state's role to determine a single type of education, and qualifies that it actually is,  but only up to a certain level, and all extras like music etc. should be a parents choice.
That argument has some merit, but ignores the fact that a school does not need to have a religious theme/doctrine to achieve these outcomes, and the only argument for allowing religious schools at all, is for the propagation of their particular faith.
I fiercely maintain that schools should not be fulfilling that role, and strongly suggest that any teaching of faith based beliefs should be carried out by parents and churches, outside of school environments.
This is no more denying them freedom of religion, than not having prayer meetings at work is.

4:FD then goes on with silly claims, couched in pejorative language about Atheism being a radical and dangerous group out to strip away rights from religious groups.
He offers no evidence or argument which would support these claims, and even tries to confuse the issue further by categorising people as Agnostic, in the vain hope of having them then appear to be unsure of their beliefs.
Atheists merely exclude the need to externalise the concept of gods, as Theists do.
The majority of theists actually have no trouble discounting entirely, the beliefs of theists who choose a different god to their own, whereas an Atheist is far less discriminatory and is able to discount them all.

I have never met a fundamentalist Atheist, nor have I ever had one challenge me with the good news of No God.
My experience is that most Atheists are simply happy to accept responsibility for their lives as they live them, without the need to create a fantasy concept to determine what is right and wrong.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:22pm:

Case and point.. Atheists ramming their disbelief down our throats.. We can believe whatever we want. Here's the trick though, you can't be sure that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove that He doesn't.. you can only say that there is no proof that He does exist. But I'm afraid that there not being 'proof' of His existence doesn't automatically mean He doesn't exist.

Many people try to ram their beliefs down your throat. They don't have to be atheist to do that.

They are probably the noisy minority. 'Empty barrels make most noise. '
The silent majority are tolerant. As I said before, I can't get inside your head, and you can't get inside mine to understand my point of view. So why argue?

I agree with you - You can believe whatever you want.

To suggest that keeping Education, and Religion, separate is an attack on the separation of church and state is obviously ludicrous, it merely enacts the principle of that idea.

No it doesn't. The state does not 'own' education and is not entitled limit it to what atheists see as legitimate. This right ultimately rests with parents. They can define education however they want. The most the state can do is insist on a basic minimum of which children should not be deprived.

but ignores the fact that a school does not need to have a religious theme/doctrine to achieve these outcomes

It depends on the outcome. If parents want their children to get a 'Christian' education, then that 'theme' is necessary to achieve that. You do not get to decide for other parents what outcomes are suitable for their children. You do not get to impose your view on others.

FD then goes on with silly claims, couched in pejorative language about Atheism being a radical and dangerous group out to strip away rights from religious groups.

No I don't. The radical and dangerous atheists who want to strip away rights (as you do) are a radical and dangerous group. Most atheists appreciate the hypocrisy of trying to force their views on others, when their forebears have worked so hard to stop that.

My experience is that most Atheists are simply happy to accept responsibility for their lives as they live them

Same here, but I have met some who want to take over other people's lives as well and deny them their right to choose. Actually, just one, but I'm sure there are others who want to, but just haven't said it so explicitly.

Mozz, your whole argument comes down to a belief that your world view is right and other people have it wrong. You have no rational objective basis for this. You are just trying to ram your views down other people's throats and deny them fundamental human rights. You are no different from people who try to force their religion on others, or deny them freedom of religion.

The government has no place in deciding that all religion is dangerous and no right to take children away from their parents because their parents insist on a religious education.

muso wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 10:07am:

The silent majority are tolerant.

Sorry to bring politics into this excellent thread. However, the "silent majority" does not exist. This was proven by the Howard huggers who were always claiming to speak on their behalf. However, JWH was sooo last year, and I've moved on since then and yet this "silent majority" keeps popping up.

How do you know that they are the majority if they are silent?


;) :)

I guess my objection comes down to one point, which is that taxpayers money is being using to indoctrinate children into one of many 'one true religions' according to what their parents want.

If parents want to indoctrinate their children in that way, I don't think it  should be at the expense of others. FD, even you agreed with me that such socially irresponsible teachings (the rest of humanity is going to hell) could be dangerous. So tell me - Why should society sponsor it?

Now my kids went to a Catholic school, but the religious education part was relatively liberal in that they were taught about all religions. They ended up making up their own minds when they grew up, both deciding that religion was irrelevant for them.  However, the school did hire the local priest to warble inanely as a prelude to particular events, unfortunately including events at which parents attended.  It was a total waste of funds, but I guess it did no real harm.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 2:32pm:

muso wrote on Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:07am: The silent majority are tolerant. Sorry to bring politics into this excellent thread. However, the "silent majority" does not exist. This was proven by the Howard huggers who were always claiming to speak on their behalf. However, JWH was sooo last year, and I've moved on since then and yet this "silent majority" keeps popping up. How do you know that they are the majority if they are silent? ;) :)

They are silent in that they wouldn't raise an objection in public, but speak to them privately and it's obvious that although they don't believe in gods, they don't think that most religion is harmful, and in some cases see the benefit in religion. I speak as a vocal spokesman for the silent majority  ;)  (just kidding)

- Howard? Who's that?  :D

mozzaok wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 10:07am:

I have never met a fundamentalist Atheist, nor have I ever had one challenge me with the good news of No God.

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

Remember this?  ;D

Episode Five

* John travels to Sicily to confess to a priest that he stole some batteries and masturbated in a bed owned by the priest during Race Around the World
* Again in Salt Lake City, Safran tries some atheistic door knocking to harass local Mormons
* In India, Safran tries out the spiritual teachings of several Hindu gurus

I guess my objection comes down to one point, which is that taxpayers money is being using to indoctrinate children into one of many 'one true religions' according to what their parents want.

Not really. Taxpayers money is being used to teach children maths, science, history, english etc, just as it is for those who send their children to public schools. Private schools cost significantly more in terms of out of pocket expenses for parents. The major role of these schools is still a basic education in things that religion doesn't touch. They tend to do that to a much higher standard than public schools also.

Obviously the government should not foot the entire bill, or even close to it, and the extent of government funding is an issue of economics and fairness, not rights.

Safran is not a fundamentalist.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:

Not really. Taxpayers money is being used to teach children maths, science, history, english etc, just as it is for those who send their children to public schools. Private schools cost significantly more in terms of out of pocket expenses for parents. The major role of these schools is still a basic education in things that religion doesn't touch. They tend to do that to a much higher standard than public schools also. Obviously the government should not foot the entire bill, or even close to it, and the extent of government funding is an issue of economics and fairness, not rights.

Point taken, but as well as getting a basic education, in some cases they get a single perspective on religion, which biases people against those with different views on religion and is a form of state-supported elitism.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that all religious schools provide a 'liberal' religious education as opposed to a fundamentalist religious education? I don't think so.

OK the taxpayer may not be paying for the whole service, but if the tax payer were not subsiding the schools, fewer parents would be able to afford this kind of 'elitist' religious education, and society would benefit as a result.

The tax payer is effectively making it possible for these schools to exist in a lot of cases.

Once again FD demands that we raise Religion up for special consideration, even to the point where he tries to equate the teaching of religion as being equal to learning maths, history, english, etc.
This is only acceptable for those who wish to have their children indoctrinated with religious beliefs from their earliest childhood, and once again unfairly attempts to make that indoctrination a significant part of their schooling.

This preferential treatment for religion has become so entrenched in peoples' psyche, that we even have some who claim it as some divine right, as FD attempts here.

He then adds to his previous claim about extreme atheists forcing their views on others, you have to be smacking out of your mind to think that line of bulldust will fly.

Your assertion is that by keeping religion, and education separate, that this is forcing children to be Atheistic?
There is no possible reason to accept that a lack of indoctrination, is in fact indoctrination to a non-belief in god, which is your totally incorrect assumption.

It merely allows all children, from all faiths, or lack of them, to learn, and mix socially, in a non-denominational environment, what do you find so frightening and confronting about that concept?

To keep demanding we make special allowances for religious preference is unjustifiable, and offensive, as it has no legitimate benefit, apart from using school to further indoctrinate children with religious beliefs.

I will restate my point.
That teaching religion is not the correct role of education, religion is something that should be taught through family values and church, and keeping that separate from schooling should not be an issue for any who do not wish to demand special treatment from the state, for the propagation of their faith.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that all religious schools provide a 'liberal' religious education as opposed to a fundamentalist religious education? I don't think so.

No, but I think freedom of choice is more important than these other goals you have.

Mozz:

Once again FD demands that we raise Religion up for special consideration

Freedom of religion is not a special consideration, it is a fundamental human right.

even to the point where he tries to equate the teaching of religion as being equal to learning maths, history, english, etc

Quite the opposite actually. Perhaps you should read my post before you respond next time.

This is only acceptable for those who wish to have their children indoctrinated with religious beliefs from their earliest childhood

Well it sounds like you are starting to grasp the whole freedom of religion thing. Good for you.

He then adds to his previous claim about extreme atheists forcing their views on others, you have to be smacking out of your mind to think that line of bulldust will fly.

But it will fly. You are an extremist trying to force your views on others. The law, and even human rights charters, are firmly on my side and you have no hope of succeeding in your crusade to take people's rights away. Even most atheists would baulk at your suggestion.

Your assertion is that by keeping religion, and education separate, that this is forcing children to be Atheistic?

No. That is not my assertion. My assertion is that it is up to individuals whether religion is an integral part of their children's education. You are not forcing atheism onto people, you are forcing your view that religious education must be separated from education.

It merely allows all children

No, Mozz, it forces them. It takes away their rights. They are already allowed to. This is not good enough for you, because people make different choices to you, so now you want to force them to make the same choice as you.

religion is something that should be taught through family values and church

Again Mozz, you do not get to decide for others what their religion entails.

Mozz, you have this very odd idea that religious education has nothing to do with religion, and that religious education only takes place on certain days of the week, at certain times of the day, or not in certain places. You do not get to decide for others what their religion is or how to practice it. You are of course entitled to your view and to control over your own children. But luckily for everyone else we live in a free country with freedom of religion. If a parent wants to send their child to a school where they chant the hare krisna every hour, on the hour, that is there right. You will not be riding in on your high horse to take their children away from them.

One question FD, did you go to a religious school?

I spent one year in a private, religious school.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2008 at 9:55am:

No, but I think freedom of choice is more important than these other goals you have.

Freedom of choice is important. Those people who choose to indoctrinate their children should be free to fork out the money themselves instead of looking for handouts from taxpayers who don't share their elitist ideas.

Taxpayers should have freedom of choice - freedom not to contribute to the growing division and alienation of other sectors of society by religious extremists.

Well I unfortunately spent my whole time in catholic schools, and I will let your imagination fill in the blanks, just think of the worst stories you have heard then appreciate that you have not heard a fraction of it.

So I fully accept that my personal experience leaves me biased against religious schools on a practical level, but that is not why I oppose them.

I strongly believe that the rights of children, not to be indoctrinated with unreasoning, and unreasonable, faith based ideologies whilst attending school is a very important freedom.

If people are feel compelled to force their beliefs on their children then that should be done by providing a good example of those principles in their own lives, and supplemented with church and church based activities.

I believe that religions really just want to increase their base numbers, and the easiest way is to indoctrinate children before they can reason for themselves, the validity, or lack of validity in what they are being taught.
That is what I find offensive in religious schools.
If the religion is really so good, they can make an informed choice when they are old enough to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 15^th, 2008 at 11:11am:

I strongly believe that the rights of children, not to be indoctrinated with unreasoning, and unreasonable, faith based ideologies whilst attending school is a very important freedom.

I guess you have to balance that with the freedom of parents to bring up their kids as they see fit.  What I saw of the catholic education system as a parent was not that bad, but I hear that schools where nuns or brothers (?) predominate can be pretty horrific places. These  people are highly restricted from fulfilling a normal sexual appetite, and as we know the frustration often leads to some terrible perversions.  

Unfortunately society in general doesn't always agree with the rational view on this, and of the 48% of couples who actually bother with marriage, about half of them get their marriage sanctified by a religious official. I guess if they don't have a problem with a pervert sanctioning their marriages, they won't have a problem with perverts educating their kids, or in some cases with their kids being misinformed with a distorted view of science seen through the dark veil of religious prejudice.    


Quote:

I believe that religions really just want to increase their base numbers, and the easiest way is to indoctrinate children before they can reason for themselves, the validity, or lack of validity in what they are being taught. That is what I find offensive in religious schools.

Well they want to retain their shrinking numbers anyway, and that's why they dare not risk leaving it all to adulthood. They need the brainwashing, the confirmations, bar mitzvah's and all the rest of it to preserve the order.  Despite all that, they are losing ground very rapidly.  Eventually they won't have the numbers in society to maintain tax-payer sponsored brainwashing, and  religion will collapse even more rapidly. The reason that the issue is so immotive is that religion is already in its death throes. The biggest single religion in Australia (Roman Catholicism) is currently outnumbered by those who have 'no religion', and the latter group is climbing by 3 percentage points every census.

The best thing we can do is ignore the issue and not give it any publicity.  

I believe that religions really just want to increase their base numbers

Duh

I guess you have to balance that with the freedom of parents to bring up their kids as they see fit.

Exactly. Children have rights. But if it comes to a choice between government making choices for them and parents, let it be the parents.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to go to church on Sunday mornings. It means freedom to practice your religion without arbitrary limitations imposed by self appointed do-gooders like Mozz, eager for the state to take children away from their parents. Mozz does not want to ban religious schools because they provide an inferior education. Rather, he wants to ban them in order to impose arbitrary limitations on people's right to practice their religion.

Mozz, if you are still bitter about your catholic school experience, you should seek justice against those that harmed you, not lash out against freedom of religion. I think you'll find that private schools have changed over the years, just like the rest of society. The year I spent in a private school was marked by a lot of talk about how things had changed and how we had it so easy compared to just a few years earlier. If they are actually harming children, you have every right to intervene and protect them. But you have no right to ban religious education, or limit it to certain hours. The harm has to be real, not imagined in the embittered minds of those who took to long to stand up for their own beliefs.

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to go to church on Sunday mornings. It means freedom to practice your religion without arbitrary limitations imposed by self appointed do-gooders like Mozz" FD

I nearly always find that when somebody uses the expression "do-gooder" in an attempt to deride, they usually stand on very shaky ground whilst doing so.

The point is that religious education is by definition inferior, because it teaches unreasonable belief as fact. We have seen the ongoing debate overseas where science teachers were asked to teach "Intelligent Design" as an alternative and valid theory, when it is no such thing.
Religious people allow their unreasonable beliefs to colour their views on many areas, and passing on those erroneous and unreasonable views to impressionable children as facts, is precisely why religious education is not something we should see in schools.

Schools should be a place to facilitate a child's desire to learn, and hopefully to learn things of truth and value, and based in fact and common sense.
But once more we see religion demanding that their unreasonable, and personal belief systems, be imposed on to the next generation.

I noticed that you refused to respond to my point about how a parent, say a devout fundamentalist christian, would feel about his child being educated in a devout fundamentalist Islamic school?

Ill at ease?
Over his dead body perhaps?


Or, no worries, it is religious education and that is never inferior, I have no fear of my child being indoctrinated with false beliefs?

The fact that each religion demands a school of their own, to teach their own brand of personal belief indicates just how facile the educative desire outside of the religious context that those who would demand religious schools, actually has.

I nearly always find that when somebody uses the expression "do-gooder" in an attempt to deride, they usually stand on very shaky ground whilst doing so.

Not in this case. Freedom of religion is very firm ground. You are a do-gooder whose only basis for taking children away from parents is that your belief is somehow better than their belief.

The point is that religious education is by definition inferior

According to you. Not according to those who choose it, as is their right. You can define it any way you want, but that doesn't mean it actually is inferior. The academic standards of religious schools are well above average. As for the relgious part of the education, you just don't like it because you don't like religion. But that is hardly objective or rational. It's just you trying to impose your views on others.

I noticed that you refused to respond to my point about how a parent, say a devout fundamentalist christian, would feel about his child being educated in a devout fundamentalist Islamic school?

You still don't get this do you? Obviously I would oppose that. I support freedom of religion. I'm not sure why I have to explain it. It's got nothing to do with who is right, as the government has no place to decide that for people. It's about freedom of choice. How would you like it if your child was forced into an Islamic or Christian school? That's part of what freedom of religion is there to stop. Once you undermine freedom of religion, you have no way of stopping the government from deciding that atheism is no longer the one true belief and that something else is. Why you cannot see how this is a bad idea even for you is beyond me.

If your belief really was better, you would be able to convince others and they would choose your way. Instead you feel the need to try to force your views on others. People are free to choose what to believe and how to teach it to their children. That levels the playing field.

You keep spouting "Freedom of Religion" as if it is some unquestionable mantra which allows people of any religious belief to take any course of action, if it suits their religious purpose.

School should not be about RELIGIOUS PURPOSE!
School should be about EDUCATION!
Religion is not education.
It is you who does not get that.
I do not seek to restrict peoples rights to believe and follow whatever religion they choose, but neither do I believe that they should be accorded any extra rights because they choose to follow irrational beliefs.
That includes the right to seek any special treatment including setting up schools to indoctrinate kids.

I would like to see kids free to make their own moral and ethical choices based on the best information available, in order to do that, not having an irrational faith based ideology crammed down their throats at school, would give them back at least some of the freedom to make their own life choices, which religious organisations seek to deny them, through lifelong indoctrination.

You keep spouting "Freedom of Religion" as if it is some unquestionable mantra which allows people of any religious belief to take any course of action, if it suits their religious purpose.

It is an unquestionable mantra. So long as people's actions do not infringe on your rights, there is nothing you can do about it.

School should not be about RELIGIOUS PURPOSE!
School should be about EDUCATION!

Religion requires education as well.

Religion is not education.

Religious education is education.

but neither do I believe that they should be accorded any extra rights because they choose to follow irrational beliefs.

How is this an 'extra' right?

That includes the right to seek any special treatment including setting up schools to indoctrinate kids.

But it isn't special treatment. Anyone can set up a school, so long as they can get a blue card.

Exercising a right you already have is not an 'extra' right or special treatment.

I can't help but feel that there is a hidden agenda for religious schools, and that hidden agenda is to ensure the future of the religion. It's probably not even hidden to be quite honest.

FD mentioned a good point, which is that some of the religious schools provide better standards of education than the public schools.

For most religious schools there is a waiting list which attests to this fact. In Queensland the highest 'OP Scores' come predominantly from Private Schools including religious schools.

In many cases, the parents of the children attending have  no affiliation with the religion concerned, but there is no possibility of opting out of the religious education.  The schools try to get an optimal mix, so that some of the religion rubs off on the non- religious rather than the other way around.

I don't think it's a question of a Catholic plot to produce more Catholics or a Muslim plot to produce more Muslims, but as long as society continues to believe that religious instruction = higher morality, then the current pattern of education will continue.

Personally I found the infiltration of the public school system by Scripture Union sponsored Chaplains to be far more insidious than private religious schools. They are meant to be there as counsellors perhaps, but when I went to our local public school's awards night recently as a presenter, there was the new Chaplain warbling his inane nonsense as a prelude to the event. Under the Howard government, they managed to weevil their way back into the public education system. Now that's a subject more worthy of debate.

I don't share the concept of 'irrational belief' by the way.  People have 'irrational beliefs' regardless of their religious persuasion. People need to have half baked ideas sometimes just to survive. Not everything in life is clear cut.

One final comment on Neferti's definition towards the beginning of the thread:


Quote:

Atheist = a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.

- By that definition, a Hindu is an Atheist.

An atheist doesn't believe in gods.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 9:16am:

One final comment on Neferti's definition towards the beginning of the thread: Quote: Atheist = a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being. - By that definition, a Hindu is an Atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in gods.

They weren't my definitions, I got them out of the Dictionary.  ;) :P

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 9:16am:

- By that definition, a Hindu is an Atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in gods.

A buddhist would be an athiest as well.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 9:16am:

Personally I found the infiltration of the public school system by Scripture Union sponsored Chaplains to be far more insidious than private religious schools. They are meant to be there as counsellors perhaps, but when I went to our local public school's awards night recently as a presenter, there was the new Chaplain warbling his inane nonsense as a prelude to the event. Under the Howard government, they managed to weevil their way back into the public education system. Now that's a subject more worthy of debate.

I was listening to The Religion Report on Radio National last week where they touched on the subject of Scripture Union and pastors/chaplains in schools. Within the program it was mentioned that many pastors/chaplains are not trained counsellors. Most are not trained to counsel kids on school bullying, teenage relationship, suicide, self harm. Pastors and chaplains are not required to be qualified in child psychology, child mentoring courses etc which a bona fide counsellor or any career that involves children must be.

So, what are they really there for? Their qualification is religion so one would assume that whatever guidance they give will be laced with religious doctrine. Imagine a pubescent boy struggling with his identity confiding with a chaplain saying something like:

Boy: "Father, I'm confused. I think I like boys. It that wrong?"

Chaplain: "Well, the bible says that it's an abomination, and goes against the very fabric of nature. It is an unnatural and unholy act. You will have to fight those feelings or you will burn in hell."

Who would deny that should the boy commit suicide 2 days later that that conversation would be the trigger point?

I can't help but feel that there is a hidden agenda for religious schools, and that hidden agenda is to ensure the future of the religion. It's probably not even hidden to be quite honest.

This is their agenda, but it is not hidden in any way nor is it sinister. It is the goal of all forms of education - to pass and and thereby preserve the knowledge.

but as long as society continues to believe that religious instruction = higher morality, then the current pattern of education will continue

Only the religious believe this. I'm not sure why the 'current pattern' would depend on society as a whole believing this. I suspect it's more a case that those non-religious parents who send their child to a religious school see religion as benign and think their child is capable of making up their own mind, and appreciate that this can only be done if the child experiences religion from a faithful perspective.

re: chaplains in public schools - I think this is just stinginess. They are probably willing to do it for free, which saves the government the price of a counsellor. When I was in a public high school I'm pretty sure we had a professional counseller at some point.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 12:30pm:

re: chaplains in public schools - I think this is just stinginess. They are probably willing to do it for free, which saves the government the price of a counsellor. When I was in a public high school I'm pretty sure we had a professional counseller at some point.

Exactly! In fact, the guest on The Religion Report program cited cases of some schools letting go of professional counsellors and replacing them with chaplains. Why pay for a fully-qualified professional counsellor when the govt is going to pay you $20K to have a chaplain (a half-trained counsellor)?



"....you can only get access to the $20,000 that's on offer to each school if you agree to have a religious chaplain. If that money was available to schools to engage a counselor who might do similar pastoral work, then I would be in favour of it, but it's not.

....Hillsong 'Shine' is designed for at-risk girls - and girls in regional areas - is my understanding. And the basis of that program is to build self-esteem, through make-up and discussion about being pretty, being attractive, making yourself beautiful. Now we know that at-risk use whilst they may engage in that kind of activity, will be further at risk by that being seen to be the only way in which they can fit into society. So I think any woman will tell you that problems run a bit deeper than just how to do make-up and how to make up your nails, that it is much more important that some more fundamental work is done on these young people who are at risk to uncover if you like, some of the problems that they might be having, and to deal with that in a professional way. And I don't regard exercises in make-up as being professional for these kids.

....I find it difficult to imagine a chaplain who is engaged with students and young people who have problems, and that's where they will largely be used, to not be involved in counseling. But the Commonwealth does not require chaplains to have any particular level of qualifications, in fact I've heard that chaplains are recruited who haven't even finished Year 12, let alone a course in counseling. So I think that once you bring people into schools to work directly with children who may be at risk, maybe troubled, maybe having a bad time for whatever reason, you've got to be very, very careful about the people who deal with them in that environment."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2271288.htm#transcript

Back to the government funding issue:

Muso, p4:

Taxpayers should have freedom of choice - freedom not to contribute to the growing division and alienation of other sectors of society by religious extremists.

People never have freedom to decide how their tax funds are spent, on an individual basis. That would defeat the purpose of communal funds. Your money goes into the same pool as Christians, atheists, whatever, and the government has to come up with a fair way to distribute it.

OK the taxpayer may not be paying for the whole service, but if the tax payer were not subsiding the schools, fewer parents would be able to afford this kind of 'elitist' religious education, and society would benefit as a result.

The tax payer is effectively making it possible for these schools to exist in a lot of cases.

See the figures below. The schools would still exist to a similar level if funding was cut entirely - they spend many times more per student but only get about half the government funding. Yes the funding does make some of these schools possible, or at least allow some borderline students to attend. But each student represents a $4000 saving to the government. Not only are they exercising their freedom to choose, they are also saving the government money. If you are going to tax the parents of these students just as much as everyone else, then they should get a fair cut of the education budget. It's not like atheists are propping up religious education - it's the opposite.

The alternative - government making it impossible for a school to exist by treating the parents unfairly or discriminating on the basis of religion, would undermine people's rights.

It should be fair and equal treatment for all, regardless of religious affiliation. The government's role is not to decide whether religion is good or bad, then set about propping it up or dismantling it. A religious school should be considered the same as an unaffiliated private school. The fact that it is religious is a matter between the school and the parents and students who choose to attend. The level of funding should be judged on issues like cost (economics) and fairness to taxpayers, but not used as an opportunity to discriminate against religious groups.

Public school funding short by $8.4bn

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23869281-12332,00.html

GOVERNMENT investment in public school facilities is about one-third the amount spent by the private school system, representing a shortfall of $8.4 billion, equivalent to $1.2 million for every public school, a report commissioned by the Australian Education Union has found.

The report estimates $22billion on top of current levels of state and territory investment would be required over the next 12 years to enable public schools to match the average expenditure in the private sector.

Federal and state governments allocate more than $10,000 a year for each public school student, compared with $6000 for each private school student.

However, in a comprehensive look at national capital expenditure in both public and private schools, Mr Rorris found that while private sector investment grew substantially in that period, government spending was static.

Over the three years the report's authors studied the issue, the average amount spent by private schools rose from $1380 to $1560 per student in 2008 dollars, while spending by the states and territories only increased from $537 to $542 per student.

In 2005, the NSW Government spent $426 per public student on capital works, while private schools in the state spent $1492 per student.

The report's findings also highlight research in the US and Britain that found school facilities had a significant impact on the performance of students and teachers, and noted that both countries had embarked on significant programs for school building.

Mr Rorris called for a rethink on the way Australian schools operate, pointing to trends in the US and Britain where schools are becoming hubs for a range of community services.

"Schools need to be redefined and repositioned as more than just 9am-to-3pm school facilities," he said.

"There's a historic opportunity to extend the role and position of the local public school."

He said British schools would offer a core set of extended services by 2010, including childcare, parenting support and community access to IT, sports and arts facilities.

You keep repeating the same fallacy FD.
You keep saying that a school not being religious, makes it Atheistic.

It is just not so.

It merely means that no religion is taught whilst at school.
The fact that you find so terrifying, the idea of kids having the right to be educated without having a religious philosophy crammed down their throats, is very telling.

If people really held decent views they would not impose their beliefs on impressionable kids, but would serve their religious principles by providing a good example in how they live.

Religion is a dangerous subject because while the majority may be quite moderate, the actual teachings, when explored, are rather less moderate, as exampled by Acid Monkey's scenario.

We see the PM, in Indonesia, committing money to support 'MODERATE' Islamic schools, in the hope that this may reduce the tendency of future muslims to embrace terrorism, as taught by less moderate schools.

I would just prefer they left a school as a school, and keep religion where it belongs, as a private philosophy between a person and the god of his choice.
Promoting religion in the public domain of education, is morally repugnant to me, kids rights should transcend those of religious imperialists trying to promote their religious "team"s" beliefs.

You keep saying that a school not being religious, makes it Atheistic.

Please quote me.

The fact that you find so terrifying, the idea of kids having the right to be educated without having a religious philosophy crammed down their throats, is very telling.

I do not find it terrifying at all. I am standing up for this right. It is a right they already have. What I am against is the government taking away this choice. I'm surprised that after five pages you still haven't grasped such simple points. Stop pretending that taking away people's right to teach a different philosphy to yours equates to giving people more rights. It doesn't.

Religion is a dangerous subject because while the majority may be quite moderate, the actual teachings, when explored, are rather less moderate, as exampled by Acid Monkey's scenario.

So an imaginary scenario is evidence that religious extremists have taken over our private schools? Get a grip Mozz.

I would just prefer they left a school as a school, and keep religion where it belongs, as a private philosophy between a person and the god of his choice.

But it doesn't belong there. Religion belongs where religious people place it in their lives, not where atheists allow them to place it.

You do not get to decide for other people what religion is, only for yourself. You do not get to impose your views on others.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 2:27pm:

I would just prefer they left a school as a school, and keep religion where it belongs, as a private philosophy between a person and the god of his choice. Promoting religion in the public domain of education, is morally repugnant to me, kids rights should transcend those of religious imperialists trying to promote their religious "team"s" beliefs.

Hi Moz,

Please note that I was being extreme (and fictitious) in my scenario. I'm not suggesting that such cases occur (nor do I have any evidence for it).

Re above: are you getting muddled up? Religious schools are private institutions not public. What do you mean by "public domain of education"? As far as I'm aware there isn't a public religious school. Also, education provided by private religious schools are often by secular teachers under their employment. Of course, religious rducation (RE) is often conducted by a priest, brother or a nun and often there are "classes" where one goes to chapel for mass and prayer. Being private institutions, the choice of children going to such schools is a personal one. School is compulsory. If one can't afford a private school they would opt for a public school which is secular. I have no problems with private Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (whatever) schools. Voting down the construction of private (Muslim) school or banning all religious schools outright goes against freedom of worship and religion. Banning one schools of one strain of religious doctrine over another is religious discrimiination. Why not have a Muslim school when there are Catholic schools around?

The problem I have is the unbalanced public funding of public schools in favour of private schools and the insidious nature of "bribing" schools to accept chaplains into secular public schools. There is a similar debate the US is having where the religious right is lobbying hard to have school prayer and Intelligent Design included in the public school curriculum.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 2:08pm:

Back to the government funding issue: Muso, p4: Taxpayers should have freedom of choice - freedom not to contribute to the growing division and alienation of other sectors of society by religious extremists. People never have freedom to decide how their tax funds are spent, on an individual basis. That would defeat the purpose of communal funds. Your money goes into the same pool as Christians, atheists, whatever, and the government has to come up with a fair way to distribute it.

My problem is not with all religious schools as much as the ones who teach the 'One True Religion' as right and don't even discuss other religions. The Catholic school where we sent our boys was not in that category, but I'm pretty sure that they do exist.

I don't believe that the taxpayer should be sponsoring the more extreme forms of religious education, that's all. I don't think I'm in a minority as far as that view is concerned either. If we allow complacency there, what will be next? - Oh they're just teaching that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth. It's part of their religion, and we must be tolerant of their rights to fill their kids' head full of.... whatever they choose.

...but as long as society continues to believe that religious instruction = higher morality, then the current pattern of education will continue


Quote:

Only the religious believe this.

I'd suggest that it's much more general than that. There are many people who believe in religion but personally don't believe in gods.

I was talking to a friend at a barbecue a couple of months ago, and the subject of religion came up for some reason. He had to ask his wife what religion they were, and he hadn't drunk too much either. We all knew that his real religion is fishing, because that's all he does on a Sunday.

Re chaplains in public schools - That would not even be tolerated in the US (In God We Trust) of A. Their public school system is necessarily secular. For once, that's something they got right.

If we allow complacency there, what will be next> - Oh they're just teaching that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth. It's part of their religion, and we must be tolerant of their rights to fill their kids' head full of.... whatever they choose.

So long as they taught the dominant paradigm as well, this would not bother me. No school is going to teach their students this because the students would walk out.

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 3:31pm:

I don't believe that the taxpayer should be sponsoring the more extreme forms of religious education, that's all.

What is your definition of extreme?. And, who gets to decide whether a particular brand of religious education is extreme?

I mean the ones that don't discuss anything other than one religion, except perhaps to call them heretics.

Exactly Acid. The government only has a right to set basic standards of what must be included (not excluded) or to intervene when they pose a real and imminent danger to the innocent. Anything based on faith will seem extreme to some, as Mozz demonstrates. There is no objective way to differentiate it, and the last thing we want is the government making subjective judgements on what beliefs are acceptable.

Muso, calling others heretics is part of religion.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 3:36pm:

If we allow complacency there, what will be next> - Oh they're just teaching that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth. It's part of their religion, and we must be tolerant of their rights to fill their kids' head full of.... whatever they choose. So long as they taught the dominant paradigm as well, this would not bother me. No school is going to teach their students this because the students would walk out.

That's the crux. That's all I'm asking. (I think we might actually agree)

Let's turn the discussion on it's head, and allow me to ask what benefits that people believe there is for kids, in teaching them a particular religious dogma, is the one true and correct one, from the age of five?

Re; Acid Monkey's scenario about homosexuality, the bible does teach that it is an abomination to god, and only those who claim that they actually use a self serve, pick and choose variety of christianity, claim that they only need to believe the bits of the bible they agree with.
So the scenario may be very possible, depending on just how true to their faith, and religious text they choose to be.
The movable feast of teaching this uncertain and individual interpretation, religious philosophy to kids, is fraught with danger.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 4:44pm:

Let's turn the discussion on it's head, and allow me to ask what benefits that people believe there is for kids, in teaching them a particular religious dogma, is the one true and correct one, from the age of five?

Assuming that religion is an intergral part of the parents lives of which they believe that their religion is the one true religion and their god is the one true god> Wouldn't they want to educate their children of their "enlightenment". You have to accept that what these people believe is accepted by them to be the truth. What good parent wouldn't want to teach their children the same "truth" they "know"?

Using someone elses analogy, I know that the earth is round. Therefore, I will teach my child that and send my kids to schools that taught that "fact". If some schools is teaching "lies" such as the earth is flat I would remove them from that school to a more appropriate teaching doctrine. However, if I was a flat earth theory parent, no doubt the opposite would happen. The point is thhat I am free to choose which doctrinal school I wish to send my kids to.

Benefits? Religious schools would teach my kids to consider spiritualism and that there is more to life than what's on earth (materialism vs esotericism). This education would of course run concurrently with the secular education such as science, maths economics and arts offered by the same schools etc.

I'm just throwing it out there. I don't have kids, but I imagine that what I'd do if I was religious (and have kids).

Let's turn the discussion on it's head, and allow me to ask what benefits that people believe there is for kids, in teaching them a particular religious dogma, is the one true and correct one, from the age of five?

They get exposure to the one true faith.

Mozz, people do not have to prove the beneift of freedom in order to demand it. Freedom is an end in itself. You may think the risks are obvious, but you seem blind to the risks involved in government making judgements on issues of faith. Sure it would be nice if the government was on your side, banning the teching of views you disagree with, but think about where that could lead. Separation of church and state, and freedom of religion are fundamental to our society.

My main issue was not related to freedom of religion. Basically if you restrict a religious education to the one true religion with no exposure to other alternatives and then expect taxpayers to contribute towards that, I think it's a misuse of taxpayer contributions.

If on the other hand, they were exposed to some alternatives presented in an unbiased fashion as well as the 'one true religion' I would have less objections to taxpayer money being used to contribute partially towards the school.

FD, It's exactly like the flat earth example you agreed with. As long as they are provided with more representative alternatives, there is no problem.  

It's a necessary compromise for the general taxpayer and the 'flat earth society' parent.

So to give an example (and playing devil's advocate  8-) ), a Satanist School can teach their brand of religion as long as they include some alternatives in their curriculum?

Do you mean like the view from fundamentalist christians that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old, and god planted dinosaur bones just to trick us?

Is that a "legitimate" thing to be teaching kids?

If they stuck to the unchallengably wonderful teachings of "love thy neighbour" etc. then we would not have any concerns, but they do not.

They teach five year olds if you do not worship god you will go to hell, to burn in agony forever, and that my friends is irresponsible as well as repulsive.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 7:01pm:

Do you mean like the view from fundamentalist christians that the earth is actually only 6,000 years old, and god planted dinosaur bones just to trick us? Is that a "legitimate" thing to be teaching kids? If they stuck to the unchallengably wonderful teachings of "love thy neighbour" etc. then we would not have any concerns, but they do not. They teach five year olds if you do not worship god you will go to hell, to burn in agony forever, and that my friends is irresponsible as well as repulsive.

If the last point is true, it amounts to child abuse.

Re the 6000 year old universe - I don't think we have schools in Australia that teach that intelligent design/creationist stuff, but I'm only too happy to be corrected.

Basically if you restrict a religious education to the one true religion with no exposure to other alternatives and then expect taxpayers to contribute towards that, I think it's a misuse of taxpayer contributions.

Not if the people who want it done for their children also pay taxes, and the education covers the basics that the public system does. Private schools spend far more on the 'secular' aprt of the education than what the government gives them, and the parents deserve their share of the tax pool for that. It is not a case of the government funding religious education. It is the case of government funding an education in the basics, regardless of religious affiliation. It would be wrong to deny a student funds to learn maths just because that student also studies the Bible.

FD, It's exactly like the flat earth example you agreed with. As long as they are provided with more representative alternatives, there is no problem.

That's not what I said. I said so long as the dominat paradigm was also presented, there is no problem. There is no dominant paradigm in religion. My concern was depriving children of a 'basic' education, not the quality or breadth of the extra education. It's like you are saying that students may not learn cognitive psychology unless they learn all seven or so paradigms.

So to give an example (and playing devil's advocate   ), a Satanist School can teach their brand of religion as long as they include some alternatives in their curriculum?

No, so long as they teach maths, science etc. They can teach satanism as the one true religion if they want, and pretend the others don't exist.

They teach five year olds if you do not believe in god you will go to hell, to burn in agony forever, and that my friends is irresponsible as well as repulsive.

Whatever concerns you have, it is still their right to teach their children that. The only thing worse would be if the government took the chidlren away from such parents. Freedom means freedom to do things that make you feel uncomfortable. Not freedom to do as you please as long as the sticky beak do gooders don't disagree with it. Get over it.

---

Muso, your argument would hold water if they were getting 'special' treatment, but they aren't. You are suggesting we deny a group of people fair and equal treatment on the basis of religious affiliation, on the grounds that treating them fairly might enable them to practice their religion. That is religious discrimination, because your only argument for withholding their fair share of the funds is the practice of their religion.

This issue is only going to grow, with the mushrooming numbers of religious schools.
New, Muslim, Scientologist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jewish, Opus Dei, Ananda Marga, Exclusive Brethren, Assyrian, and more, all popped up after Howard and Co. changed the rules on funding for schools.

The Howard years strongly backed getting more religious schools, and even put chaplains into state schools, to their eternal shame, thereby facilitating the push by the sanctimonious to gain more influence over impressionable kids.

The simple truth is that school should be somewhere that children can receive the most unbiased and valid information from which to learn, and religion offers neither.

That a school can teach that we came from aliens from a volcano, or whatever rot that scientology claims is plainly obscene, yet because it calls itself a religion, we must allow it the freedom to pervert truth and brainwash kids, is the claim from the religious freedom lot.

I believe it's founder , L. Ron Hubbard, said words to the effect that starting your own religion is where you will make really big money.

But it is a religion, it must be respected.
F' that, it is a load of the most unbelievable drivel and worthy of only derision and contempt.

It is bad enough that deranged parents can force this rot on their kids at home, but school at least should be a beacon of reason ans truth, where they can at least gain a semblance of an unbiased view of life and the world, without it being coloured by religious bigotry.

Coincidentally, Radio National Australia Talks is focussing on The national school chaplaincy program
|

The National Schools Chaplaincy Program - a controversial initiative of the Howard Government has been under attack from a number of prominent parents and teachers organisations and is under review from the Rudd government. What do you know about what chaplains are doing in our schools and would school counsellors be a better investment of the $25,000 available to every school under the plan? Indeed this is what the Rudd government intends to do when the current funding expires.
Guests
Terry Aulich - Executive Officer of Australian Council of State School Organisations

Simon Wright - publisher of Stop the NSCP website

Tim Mander - CEO Scripture Union Queensland

Rev Dr Evonne Paddison - CEO Access Ministries

Presenter
Paul Barclay

17 June, 6.00pm EST on ABC Radio National

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 7:09pm:

I don't think we have schools in Australia that teach that intelligent design/creationist stuff, but I'm only too happy to be corrected.

We came close. It was certainly endorsed by the Howard govt However, it took too long to implement. Fortunately, JWH & co were voted out in time.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 7:11pm:

Muso, your argument would hold water if they were getting 'special' treatment, but they aren't. You are suggesting we deny a group of people fair and equal treatment on the basis of religious affiliation, on the grounds that treating them fairly might enable them to practice their religion. That is religious discrimination, because your only argument for withholding their fair share of the funds is the practice of their religion.

All I'm saying is that they should set a minimum standard before allocating Taxpayer's funds - for maths, science, english - and for religious studies. All these subjects are important. The extra 'one true religion' training that they give is fine, as long as they maintain the core subjects.

Do you disagree that general religious studies is important?

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 9:45pm:

Coincidentally, Radio National Australia Talks is focussing on The national school chaplaincy program | The National Schools Chaplaincy Program - a controversial initiative of the Howard Government has been under attack from a number of prominent parents and teachers organisations and is under review from the Rudd government. What do you know about what chaplains are doing in our schools and would school counsellors be a better investment of the $25,000 available to every school under the plan? Indeed this is what the Rudd government intends to do when the current funding expires. Guests Terry Aulich - Executive Officer of Australian Council of State School Organisations Simon Wright - publisher of Stop the NSCP website Tim Mander - CEO Scripture Union Queensland Rev Dr Evonne Paddison - CEO Access Ministries Presenter Paul Barclay 17 June, 6.00pm EST on ABC Radio National

I will definitely tune in tonight. I'll be driving to the coast about then.

My assertion that this issue will grow is not without support, here is an article from earlier this year.

"Faith school boom 'creates division'

   *
   * Email
   * Printer friendly version
   * Normal font
   * Large font

Michael Bachelard
February 25, 2008


   * At the crossroads

THE rapid growth of faith-based schools under the previous federal government has threatened the social cohesion of the nation, according to Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's most senior education adviser.

The frank comments of Professor Barry McGaw, appointed this month to be the new head of the National Curriculum Board, contrast with the Howard government's celebration of the proliferation of small independent schools, encouraged by generous public funding.

"These people often form a narrowly focused school that is aimed at cementing the faith it's based on … If we continue as we are, I think we'll just become more and more isolated sub-groups in our community," Professor McGaw told The Age.

His comments are likely to worry the independent sector because the Government is reviewing the funding model, which Professor McGaw said had created the "worst of all worlds".

Professor McGaw's remarks reflect a profound shift in education in the past two decades, with more than 200,000 children — almost 40% of non-government school students — now attending a religious school outside the main Catholic, Anglican and Uniting systems.

The change has meant that, for instance, increasing numbers of children are taught creationism as part of their science classes.

And despite mainstream health experts arguing for a "harm minimisation" approach to sex education, many emphasise abstinence until marriage, asking students to sign "pledges" to remain virgins.

But the schools, many of which have rapidly increasing enrolments, say they offer a choice in education.

The principal of Chairo Christian School in Drouin, Rob Bray, said that both evolution and creationism were taught in his school's science class.

"We don't hide the fact that there is a theory of evolution, and that's how we'd present it, as a theory," Mr Bray said.

"We teach it, explain what it is, and at the same time we present clearly and fairly, and we believe convincingly, the fact that our position as a school is that God created the heaven and earth … There wouldn't be any point of being a faith-based school if we didn't think that God was the creator."

Under Victorian law, it is not compulsory for private schools to teach evolution, though it is recommended in the curriculum. In NSW evolution is a compulsory part of the syllabus.

Professor Rob Brooks, the head of the Evolution and Ecology Research Centre at the University of NSW, said the number of biology students holding "irreconcilably strong creationist viewpoints" had grown in recent years. "There's been a big move, big gains made by the creationist movement in the last five or six years," he said.

The two largest Christian school lobby groups, Christian Schools Australia and Christian Parent Controlled Schools, assert that God is the creator. Between them they represent 240 schools Australia-wide, including 38 in Victoria.

In the sex education curriculum, some Christian schools have adopted an abstinence-based program called "No Apologies", which highlights the dangers of sexual activity and encourages students to sign a US-style pledge to remain virgins until marriage. Chairo Christian College uses the program, which has been taught to 5000 people in the past 3½ years.

Faith-based schools say they also vet staff to make sure they are leading a "Christian lifestyle," and some say they would sack a teacher who admitted to being homosexual.

Critics such as psychologist and educationist Louise Samway say faith-based schools are balkanising the community.

"If we don't have agreed values that everyone can understand and respect … it leads to a whole lot of disparate sub-groups that are suspicious of each other," she said.

The two largest Christian school lobby groups, Christian Schools Australia and Christian Parent Controlled Schools, assert that God is the creator. Between them they represent 240 schools Australia-wide, including 38 in Victoria.

In the sex education curriculum, some Christian schools have adopted an abstinence-based program called "No Apologies", which highlights the dangers of sexual activity and encourages students to sign a US-style pledge to remain virgins until marriage. Chairo Christian College uses the program, which has been taught to 5000 people in the past 3½ years.

Faith-based schools say they also vet staff to make sure they are leading a "Christian lifestyle," and some say they would sack a teacher who admitted to being homosexual.

Critics such as psychologist and educationist Louise Samway say faith-based schools are balkanising the community.

"If we don't have agreed values that everyone can understand and respect … it leads to a whole lot of disparate sub-groups that are suspicious of each other," she said.




So we do see more than just what FD calls "Fundamentalist Atheists", recognising that what he calls "Religious Freedom", is actually really promoting Religious apartheid.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 9:56am:

Critics such as psychologist and educationist Louise Samway say faith-based schools are balkanising the community. "If we don't have agreed values that everyone can understand and respect … it leads to a whole lot of disparate sub-groups that are suspicious of each other," she said.

That's exactly what I was alluding to in previous posts. My own views are anything but fundamentalist atheist, and I think they represent a growing portion of Australian society.

I am totally shocked about some of the statements in that article. The irresponsible actions of the Howard Government will be difficult to dismantle given that these dangerous and divisive schools now exist and they are actually teaching creationism in Australia as the principal paradigm.

The main thing is to ensure that no more of them are allowed to be built. It's totally out of hand.

All I'm saying is that they should set a minimum standard before allocating Taxpayer's funds - for maths, science, english - and for religious studies.

But we don't have freedom of maths. We do not have freedom of science. We do not have freedom of english. We do have freedom of religion. That means no government interference or control over how people practice. Threatening to treat people unfairly because of hw they practice their religion undermines their rights.

All these subjects are important.

Religion is not important to the state. The church and the state are separated. The government cannot have an interest in religion.

The extra 'one true religion' training that they give is fine, as long as they maintain the core subjects.

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Is religion a core subject?

Do you disagree that general religious studies is important?

Yes. Some people may have an interest and get some value out of it. They can study it at university. There are far more important things to teach younger students. I would prefer they learnt some economics or basic philosophy instead. Your suggestion is like the people who want students to learn environmental studies instead of science. You learn the basics first (in school), so that you can understand the applied stuff, whatever your life throws up.

So we do see more than just what FD calls "Fundamentalist Atheists", recognising that what he calls "Religious Freedom", is actually really promoting Religious apartheid.

No Mozz. Apartheid is when the law forces people apart. Freedom is when they choose to be apart. There is a fundamental difference.

Yes I agree muso, and regardless of what FD says, I am no Atheistic fundamentalist, I could not care less about what people believe, until they start trying to force their own brand of idiocy on kids.

I think I must admit that it was the Islamic school issue, which seems to promote a much more alien and extreme view of the world that initially peaked my interest, but now after seeing the figures on the proliferation of extremist christian, and other fringe religion schools as well, I think the time has come to reappraise our whole approach to schooling.

Personally I favour, government funded community schools, that provide the standard of education that people believe they must go to private schools to attain.

Hopefully the Rudd, 'Education Revolution', may not be just political hot air, and we may see community based, secular, state schools being able to offer the very best education.

We may then see the many people sending their kids to faith based schools because they will receive a superior education there, returning to a reinvigorated state system.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2194,n,n


That link is to a UK, BBC, show called "THE BIG DEBATE", which discusses this subject, worth a look if you have the bandwidth.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 9:56am:

"We don't hide the fact that there is a theory of evolution, and that's how we'd present it, as a theory," Mr Bray said. "We teach it, explain what it is, and at the same time we present clearly and fairly, and we believe convincingly, the fact that our position as a school is that God created the heaven and earth … There wouldn't be any point of being a faith-based school if we didn't think that God was the creator." .... In the sex education curriculum, some Christian schools have adopted an abstinence-based program called "No Apologies", which highlights the dangers of sexual activity and encourages students to sign a US-style pledge to remain virgins until marriage.

It shows the far reaching influence of the christian right where US style abstinance pledges and Intelligent Design (aka creationism) tried to infiltrate into our society. It also show how susceptible the Howard govt was to influence from "outside forces" particulaarly the US neo-conservative christian right. I'm glad that that right winger was kicked out of office (and in the manner that he was). I once commented that the moment an Australian politician ends his/her speech with the US style "And God Bless Australia" I'm packing my bags and migrate to another country. ;)

I find it funny how christian would argue (ie: evolution) by saying "It's only a theory"; as if the scientific and layman definition are the same.

A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.

Of course, they know the difference but say it often enough and people (read: sheep) will start to believe and spew out the same shite. I guess that why they call their congregation "a flock".

So, while they are trying to reduce scientific theory down to hypothesis, at the same time they are trying to build creationsim (under the guise of Intelligent Design) as fact; as science in Biology classes thereby blurring the lines between fact and faith.

Scientific theories are not facts. They are generally considered to be wrong. They are taught as fact, but that's just part of the indoctrination.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 10:49am:

But we don't have freedom of maths. We do not have freedom of science. We do not have freedom of english. We do have freedom of religion. That means no government interference or control over how people practice. Threatening to treat people unfairly because of hw they practice their religion undermines their rights. All these subjects are important. Religion is not important to the state. The church and the state are separated. The government cannot have an interest in religion. Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Is religion a core subject?

We don't have freedom of "religious studies" either.

Now you're confusing religion and religious studies. In light of the conflict that has arisen in society and the fact that we live in a multicultural society, I would argue that the study of religion in society should be a core study.

The world has changed since the three r's. My view is that cohesion in society is of growing importance.  I was amazed when I looked up the statistics. Sydney is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world - even more so than Paris or New York.

Unless we promote cultural understanding by teaching about different cultures and religions at school, we run the risk of more and more Cronulla Riots type events.

Yes - religious and cultural studies should be core subjects.  

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 11:23am:

Scientific theories are not facts. They are generally considered to be wrong. They are taught as fact, but that's just part of the indoctrination.

Now your mischaracterising the word 'Theory'. I had to study Chemistry Theory and Electrical theory, as well as practicals.  Electrical technicians use electrical theory every day to repair and service equipment. They use Relativity theory to compute satellite orbits.

It doesn't meant that it's non factual.

We don't have freedom of "religious studies" either.

Yes we do. We have freedom of religion. Religious studies are part of practicing religion. Thus the government cannot force people to do it their way.

Now you're confusing religion and religious studies.

No I'm not. Freedom of religion means freedom to define and practice it how you wish. Furthermore separation of church and state means the government does not define religion or how it is taught. If the government forces students to study religion, they are going to ahve to tell them what Christianity is. For some people, this definition of Christianity will be wrong.

You would have to break religions down into smaller and smaller groups until people stop complaining and you would have to treat them all in such a superficial manner that it becomes boring and pointless. You would have to give every faction in the world equal weight so as not to offend. You would have to come up with some kind of definition for religion to stop star trekkies insisting that their religion be included.

There are very good reasons for separating church and state. People don't want some bureaucrat telling their children what their belief is.

It doesn't meant that it's non factual.

But it isn't factual. Scientists deliberatley avoid using the term fact, because their theories and laws are wrong. This is why I think philosophy is such an important subject.

"People don't want some bureaucrat telling their children what their belief is." FD

No, they only want teachers and clergy to tell them what their beliefs are.

What is wrong with just allowing them to decide what their beliefs are?

Kids should not have Religious beliefs imposed on them, by bureaucrats, parents, teachers, clergy or anybody else.

Faith and belief is something that can only rightly decided by adults, and only then on a personal level, imposing it on others, especially children is just wrong.

No, they only want teachers and clergy to tell them what their beliefs are.

That's what freedom of religion and separation of church and state are all about. No mandates. No taking children away from their parents.

What is wrong with just allowing them to decide what their beliefs are?

That is what my position is. That is not your position. Freedom is not achieved by the government taking away parents' rights. The government is not a better child raiser. Freedom of religion includes freedom to pass your religion onto your kids. The government has no right to get between parents and their children. It has no right to decide that the beliefs of a parent are dangerous to their children and that the children must be protected from their parents' ideas. It has no right to pass judgement on religion, because the church and the state are separated. The government's hands are off the children and their religion and their freedom to practice their religion.

Taking away a child's right to practice their religion is not the same as allowing a child to decide for themself. It is the opposite. Freedom to choose does not mean freedom to choose only after undergoing a government approved introduction to all the available choices.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 11:23am:

Scientific theories are not facts. They are generally considered to be wrong. They are taught as fact, but that's just part of the indoctrination.

Not so, scientific theory is NOT generally considered as wrong. Scientific theory begins as hypothesis. Then it goes through a virgorous discreditation process where they try and prove that the hypothesis is wrong.

A theory is not something a scientist thought up did some experiments proving it and it becomes so. Their peers then ty and disprove and when all manner of experiments and counter hypothesis are exhausted and the subject hypothesis still remains sound only then does it becomes a theroy. Sometimes it remains a hypothesis for years, decades (and sometimes centuries) because scientists cannot agree.

It is a fact that an apple dropped to the ground and has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet. The theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and the general theory of relativity. Modern experiments has verified (Newston theory of gravitation) that "falling" objects do indeed travel towards the center of the planet. To date no experiment have proven otherwise; beyond thiest saying that hell is down there and all things evil are attracted to the devil. If you can show that that might even be possible then Newton's theory will become a hypothesis. A theory can revert back to hypothesis at any moment when disproven.

Sure, it is not considered absolute fact but it is as close to fact as science can acheive without dwelving in myths, legends, opinions, conjecture or faith.

In science, a theory is not a trivial thing. Therefore, "it's only a theory" in relation to evolution is true but the implied twisting of the definition is false.

Quote:

The government is not a better child raiser. Freedom of religion includes freedom to pass your religion onto your kids. The government has no right to get between parents and their children. It has no right to decide that the beliefs of a parent are dangerous to their children and that the children must be protected from their parents' ideas. It has no right to pass judgement on religion, because the church and the state are separated. The government's hands are off the children and their religion and their freedom to practice their religion.

Apart from children educated in the Catholic system - many kids from religious schools have trouble fitting into mainstream life.  If the government has no right to pass judgement on religion - then they should not subsidise these schools.  

They should intervene where necessary.  There was a case recently in the US where this occurred and you would hope the same practise would be followed here.


Quote:

VANCOUVER — They were not much bigger than an outstretched hand when they were taken from their parents and given blood transfusions against their parents’ will and religious beliefs. The surviving four B.C. sextuplets have returned home but the fight is not over for their parents and it’s not over for Canadian courts. Two key battles, one in the Supreme Court of Canada and the other in B.C. Supreme Court, could soon give clearer directions on what are often decisions of life and death. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20446/jehovahs-witnesses-13 A PREGNANT woman with severely anaemic twins has objected to the babies receiving a potentially life-saving blood transfusion when they are born on religious grounds, the High Court was told yesterday. The HSE now plans to ask the court tomorrow for an order permitting it to give a blood transfusion to the babies after the birth if the woman carries out her threat.

As far as creationism goes - it is thriving in Australia.  


Quote:

Belief in the literal truth of Genesis, which we are told is near to 50% of the population in the U.S.A., is around 20% in Australia: still a disastrously high figure, but one which does give us greater confidence in the future of science and rationality here than in America. This figure remains relatively low despite the best efforts of the Creation Science Foundation [now called Answers in Genesis] of Brisbane.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cgcreationisminaust.htm

A "CHILD", is the critical phrase here FD.

Children have rights too.
Children's rights should be put before those of the religiously inclined to indoctrinate them into the faith of their parents at school.

They have their own example, their home life, and whatever activities they wish to pursue outside school hours to impose their religious fallacies on their kids, so leave school as a place for culturally, and religiously diverse kids to obtain knowledge free from Religious Prejudices.

It can only be a good thing, to promote understanding and integration, and is far from being the slippery first step of religious persecution that you so erroneously imply.

Not so, scientific theory is NOT generally considered as wrong. Scientific theory begins as hypothesis. Then it goes through a virgorous discreditation process where they try and prove that the hypothesis is wrong.

Yes, they are generally considered wrong. Because they are inevitably shown to be wrong. The process you described does not change this. Anyone who considers a scientific theory or law to be a fact is fooling themselves.

If the government has no right to pass judgement on religion - then they should not subsidise these schools.  

Discriminating on the basis of religion is passing judgement on it. All schools should get equal consideration, regardless of religious affiliation.

Children's rights should be put before those of the religiously inclined to indoctrinate them into the faith of their parents at school.

Chidlren have freedom of religion too. That means freedom to be indoctrinated. That means freedom to attend a religious school. You do not get to decide how to raise other people's children.

Parents decide what their children wear, what music they listen to, what books they read, What sport they play, what they eat, what TV shows they watch, what languages they speak, what instruments they learn to play, what church they go to, what school they go to, etc. This is the role of parents. It is not the role of government. The only thing they cannot control is what their children actually believe. If a child makes a choice they are free to make, the government has no right to question the influence of a parent in that choice. This is especially true for fundamental human rights, like religion. Parents make decisions for their children, not the government. Parents are free to decide what is good for their children. However good your intentions, you have no right to take children away from their parents because you think you know better. You don't. You are just looking for an excuse to impose your views on others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Scholarly_inquiry_regarding_scientific_fact

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

www.ozpolitic.com

Not so, scientific theory is NOT generally considered as wrong. Scientific theory begins as hypothesis. Then it goes through a virgorous discreditation process where they try and prove that the hypothesis is wrong.

Yes, they are generally considered wrong. Because they are inevitably shown to be wrong. The process you described does not change this. Anyone who considers a scientific theory or law to be a fact is fooling themselves.


HaHa, you crack me up FD, do not be too quick to dismiss theories, or your argument may float away.
If as you state that theories are wrong, Sir Isaacs' included, we may see a proliferation of floating apples. lol

You are really outdoing yourself on this subject, still it is good for a laugh.

If as you state that theories are wrong, Sir Isaacs' included, we may see a proliferation of floating apples.

Newsflash: Sir Isaac's theories are wrong. They have been disproven, as all scientific theories eventually are.

Of course, that doesn't stop them being taught as fact. It's all just part of the indoctrination.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 11:41am:

It doesn't meant that it's non factual. But it isn't factual. Scientists deliberatley avoid using the term fact, because their theories and laws are wrong. This is why I think philosophy is such an important subject.

Sure, scientitsts deliberately avoid the use of the term fact. In science knowledge is never static. As technology improves they are finding out new things all the time and the theories get modified.

Dark matter was put forth by by Fritz Zwicky in 1933. He couldn't conclusively prove its existance and has remain a hypothesis since then. However, scientific technology has enabled scientist to provide further corrobarating hypotheses that dark matter could exist. It is not taught as fact. It will always be refered to as a hypothesis until proven otherwise.

Nicholaus Copernicus was working on his hypothesis "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" as an alternative to the Ptolemaic system. When other scientists can corrobarate his hypothesis it became a theory - that the sun does not revolve around the earth; but that the planets orbit the sun.

Pythagoras first hypothesis that all celestial bodies are spherical in 600 BCE. Aristotel provived observational evidence to that hypothesis in 330 BCE. Erastosthene calculated the earths circunferance in 240 BCE. Geographer Strabo suggested in 10 BCE that the earth was spherical by observing and measuring the horizon which he noted had a circumferance. Chinese philosopher and astronmer Xu Yi summised in 330 CE that all clestial bodies are spherical by observing the moon and the various phases of lunar eclipses. With enough corrobarting evidence world wide over the centuries it became the accepted theory.

So how can theories be generally wrong? There are many theories I can cite for you, molecular theory, relavity theory, gravitational theory etc that forms the basis of theoretical physics (our world).

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 1:17pm:

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

So it this theory, fact or truth?
Or because it started out as a theory it must be genearlly wrong.

They are wrong because they are all inevitably proven wrong. It is just our experience. Only extreme arrogance would lead someone to claim that we now, finally, have it right.

Celestial bodies are not spherical. They are bigger across the equator than through the poles. Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Relativity has replaced it, but we are still groping in the dark on that one. Do you really think relativity will stand forever?

Or because it started out as a theory it must be genearlly wrong.

It has nothing to do with how it started out. It's just the nature of scientific enquiry to eventually destroy old paradigms.

Of course, that doesn't stop these things being taught as fact. It's all part of the indoctrination.

Dark matter was put forth by by Fritz Zwicky in 1933. He couldn't conclusively prove its existance and has remain a hypothesis since then. However, scientific technology has enabled scientist to provide further corrobarating hypotheses that dark matter could exist. It is not taught as fact.

As far as I know, dark matter is not taught in primary or high school. High school teachers are loath to present theories they cannot pretend are facts.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 1:22pm:

If as you state that theories are wrong, Sir Isaacs' included, we may see a proliferation of floating apples. Newsflash: Sir Isaac's theories are wrong. They have been disproven, as all scientific theories eventually are. Of course, that doesn't stop them being taught as fact. It's all just part of the indoctrination.

Newton's theory of gravitation is no longer taught as fact. It hasn't been since 1915 when it was superseded by Einstein's Relativity theory. If your history or physics teacher taught you that in school then your teacher was wrong. Newton's theory of gravity is still sound and he is taught as the father to the concept of gravity. Einstein's theory is taught as the accepted theory.This is due to a formula differentiation of Newton's Inverse Square law in the calculating the gravitational forces. Einteins theory corrected that when it was noted that Mercury did not fit in with the Law. Newton's law did not take into consideration the forces generated by neighbouring celestial objects affacteing the gravitation forces of the subject. Don't forget, technology has changed between 1687 and 1915. Einstein had better resources at his disposal.

That is why scientist avoid the term fact. However, as I've said that theories are proven as close to fact as science of the day can reason do with the process of elimination. Theories are not static but they are not generally wrong.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 1:42pm:

Celestial bodies are not spherical. They are bigger across the equator than through the poles. Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Relativity has replaced it, but we are still groping in the dark on that one. Do you really think relativity will stand forever?

Now, you're being pedantic. Of course, celestial bodies are not spherical. Next you'll be saying that the colour is not really "black" but RAL 9005 in the colour chart.

Forever? We'll never know. Maybe one day we'll have the technology for space travel via black/white hole (another hypothesis, I know) meet up with another advance alien race and compare notes. But as I've said theory is not static. It's is not fact, true; but it is not unfounded (layman) theory either.

We should start another thread to continue this methinks as it is taking away from the core subject of religious schools. LOL.
:)

Einstein's theory is taught as the accepted theory.This is due to a formula differentiation of Newton's Inverse Square law in the calculating the gravitational forces. Einteins theory corrected that when it was noted that Mercury did not fit in with the Law.

Wrong. It is not a mere formula difference. It is an entirely different paradigm. Mass, force, distance etc all mean something fundamentally different in relativity. The formula difference approach is taken by high school physics teachers so they can still start by teaching the wrong paradigm as fact, then pretend the correct paradigm is merely a different formula. It's a lot easier than teaching a paradigm they don't understand.

That is why scientist avoid the term fact. However, as I've said that theories are proven as close to fact as science of the day can reason do with the process of elimination. Theories are not static but they are not generally wrong.

Just because they are as close to fact as science can get does not mean they aren't wrong. Theories are not static - they are disproven. They are shown to be wrong. They are not merely altered. Rejecting one theory completely and replacing it with the other means it is wrong, not merely 'not static'.

Forever? We'll never know.

Yes we will, when we prove it wrong.

We should start another thread to continue this methinks as it is taking away from the core subject of religious schools. LOL.

Not exactly. This is an important point. Mozz keeps deriding religous education as indoctrination. yet all education is a form of indoctrination. The only difference is that he hasn't rejected the rest of his indoctrination. Mozz is concerned that people are getting indoctrinated into different schools of thought. He worries that one day they will disagree with each other and shatter his utopian ideal of a society of intellectual clones, ready to placate each other's frayed nerves with government approved mantras.

FD,

The Earth orbits the sun - fact or theory?

The earth is supported by four pillars  - Fact or theory (or perhaps article of faith) ?

Let me get this right. You're implying is that the current state of knowledge as determined by scientific methodology is just a theory, and that it is somehow equal to an untested hypothesis written on cured animal skins by xenophobic camel riding nomads who would use physical violence on their sons or daughters for all manner of transgressions, and who quite frankly had not invented soaps, antiperspirants and other forms of modern hygiene?

Maybe you're just arguing for argument's sake, but wake up to yourself.

Christianity is just a religion. Islam is just a religion. Religions have no rigorous testing methodology and they mostly don't even attempt to adapt to changes in society.

mantra wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:

As far as creationism goes - it is thriving in Australia.   Quote: Belief in the literal truth of Genesis, which we are told is near to 50% of the population in the U.S.A., is around 20% in Australia: still a disastrously high figure, but one which does give us greater confidence in the future of science and rationality here than in America. This figure remains relatively low despite the best efforts of the Creation Science Foundation [now called Answers in Genesis] of Brisbane.

38% believe in horoscopes.  "There's Nowt So Queer As Folk..."

The Earth orbits the sun - fact or theory?

Actually, the earth and sun orbit their combined centre of gravity. Unless of course you want to take other celestial bodies into account in which case it gets more complicated. Or, you may want to abandon Newtonian mechanics because it is wrong and say that space is actually curved, but that doesn't completely get you out of Newtonian mechanics because you haven't been indoctrinated into the more recent paradigm.

Of course, these are all just theories. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to declare one as fact. It is however, reasonable to declare direct observation as fact, but it takes a bit of practice to distuinguish observation from the paradigm you filter it through.

The earth is supported by four pillars  

Elephants, not pillars.

You're implying is that the current state of knowledge as determined by scientific methodology is just a theory

Not 'just' a theory. It is a scientific theory. Which means it's wrong.

and that it is somehow equal to an untested hypothesis

No.

written on cured animal skins by xenophobic camel riding nomads who would use physical violence on their sons or daughters for all manner of transgressions, and who quite frankly had not invented soaps, antiperspirants and other forms of modern hygiene?

Please don't launch into personal attacks against against other members just because they want to impose their views on others.

Maybe you're just arguing for argument's sake, but wake up to yourself.

No, I'm proving a point.

Christianity is just a religion. Islam is just a religion. Religions have no rigorous testing methodology and they mostly don't even attempt to adapt to changes in society.

True, but luckily we have freedom of religion, so they don't have to. The last thing you'd want is the government adapting religion to the latest teaching fad.

Ok, you've finally convinced me. Freedom of religion when interpreted in that way is entirely inappropriate. I don't think religions should have the freedom to misuse taxpayer funding to perpetuate their own archaic ideas.

Re the personal attacks - I didn't realise that you rode a camel, FD. My comments were meant to be humorous, surreal and Monty Pythonesque.   ;D::)

(edit) - Islam did not cross my mind when writing that, but I see it could have been construed that way. I was thinking more of "The Life of Brian"

There is no other way to interpret it. If you force all children to learn that all relgions are somehow equal and that not one of them is the one true religion, that is a direct attack on freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Freedom of religion means freedom to teach your children that yours is the one true religion, not one of a myriad of political correct world views based on accidents of history. There is no objective way to prove yourself right, but there is also no objective way for anyone to prove you wrong. Which is part of the reason why the government has no right to interfere (in addition to the untold misery that occurred every other time the government interfered). Of course you think you have it right this time and it is a good time for the government to discard freedom of religion and force people to learn what is obviously the right perspective, but that's what people thought every other time.

Freedom means freedom to do things that make you feel uncomfortable. That's the whole point of freedom. You can't take it away just because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 3:46pm:

The earth is supported by four pillars   Elephants, not pillars.

The earth is a flat disc, supported by four elephants that stands on the back of a giant turtle.
;)

Careful Acid, you wouldn't want the government to start banning books that indoctrinate children into the wrong philosophy. The earth travels on a curved trajectory in straight space without any strings^* attached, unless you get into university in which case it travels a straight trajectory in curved space.

* String theory has also been approved by the government for indoctrination, but is not recommended for children under 15 years old and may lead to drug references.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

Forever? We'll never know. Yes we will, when we prove it wrong.

Or proven to be correct. Copernicus and Pythagoras' theories are facts. The sun does not orbit the earth; and the earth is not flat but is sort a sphere with a bulge at the equator (for the pedants).


freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

Not exactly. This is an important point. Mozz keeps deriding religous education as indoctrination. yet all education is a form of indoctrination.

Oh ok. Well on that point, I concede and will agree with you that education is a form of indoctrination. However, the secular usage of the term doctrine is usually reserved for beliefs, faith based ideas, and often relates to religion. YoWhile technically true, indoctrination is not often used with regards to education or the uncritical teaching of knowledge in secular society.

You are being pedantic again. ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 4:26pm:

Careful Acid, you wouldn't want the government to start banning books that indoctrinate children into the wrong philosophy. The earth travels on a curved trajectory in straight space without any strings* attached, unless you get into university in which case it travels a straight trajectory in curved space. * String theory has also been approved by the government for indoctrination, but is not recommended for children under 15 years old and may lead to drug references.

I better keep that theory secret. Perhaps I should have written that in code for fear of being excommunicated by the church.

But the theory is sound? The turtle exist! They even a fossil of the Psephophorus terrypratchetti in New Zealand.

;) ;D

Copernicus and Pythagoras' theories are facts.

Pythagoraus' theory (if I'm thinking of the same one) is not scientific. I don't think it counts as a fact either.

The sun does not orbit the earth; and the earth is not flat but is sort a sphere with a bulge at the equator (for the pedants).

You left out Mt Kosciosko. Also, many people consider the interior to be part of the earth, rather than merely a massless surface area.

However, the secular usage of the term doctrine is usually reserved for beliefs, faith based ideas, and often relates to religion.

Yes, but the religious use of the term refers to taking children away from parents who do not send their kids to government approved schools that teach government approved views regarding religion, with parental advisory stickers on any books containing unapproved philsophical postulations.

But the theory is sound? The turtle exist! They even a fossil of the Psephophorus terrypratchetti in New Zealand.

That was a fabrication built around a fossilised tooth of a wild boar from China.

"The last thing you'd want is the government adapting religion to the latest teaching fad."

No we wouldn't, we have Hillsong for that. ;D

Lighten up FD, you are on a losing horse comparing the accountability and rationality of religious belief vs scientific theories.

That is not what I am doing.

You should take your freedom seriously, as there are countless other people trying to take it away and replace it with some limited set of choices you may not like.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 4:58pm:

Copernicus and Pythagoras' theories are facts. Pythagoraus' theory (if I'm thinking of the same one) is not scientific. I don't think it counts as a fact either.

What theory are you thinking of? Pythagoras hypothesised that celestial bodies are "spherical" and not flat as was the normal thinking of the day. He also hypothesised that the moon was a planet and he called it the "counter-earth".


freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 4:58pm:

You left out Mt Kosciosko. Also, many people consider the interior to be part of the earth, rather than merely a massless surface area.

You are going around in circles (and maybe deliberately so). We are talking about theories which have proven to be true. One of the theories being that celestial bodies are spherical as opposed to flat (ie: Flat Earth theory). In this conversation, I don't care that the actual terminology of sphere doesn't accurately describe the Earth - we are speaking in layman's language. Would you prefer that I said something along the lines of "a ovoid with a depressed equator"? And in context of the discussion spherical vs flat, the interior it irrelevant. To bring it up out of context is deliberately sabotaging the conversation overloading it with irrelevancy.


freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 4:58pm:

But the theory is sound? The turtle exist! They even a fossil of the Psephophorus terrypratchetti in New Zealand. That was a fabrication built around a fossilised tooth of a wild boar from China.

FD. You really got to lighten up mate. It was a joke! Psephophorus terrypratchetti? Terry Pratchett? The discworld novels? Flat round disc world supported by 4 elephants on top of a celestial turtle?
;)

Oh, and Psephophorus terrypratchetti does exist. They found a fossil of an ancient giant turtle in NZ. The palaentologist who found discovered it was a Terry Pratchett fan and named the species accordingly.

You are going around in circles (and maybe deliberately so). We are talking about theories which have proven to be true. One of the theories being that celestial bodies are spherical as opposed to flat (ie: Flat Earth theory). In this conversation, I don't care that the actual terminology of sphere doesn't accurately describe the Earth - we are speaking in layman's language. Would you prefer that I said something along the lines of "a ovoid with a depressed equator"? And in context of the discussion spherical vs flat, the interior it irrelevant. To bring it up out of context is deliberately sabotaging the conversation overloading it with irrelevancy.

The theory is kind of irrelevant anyway. It has been 'superceded' by all the theories that explain why it is round. So it is not exactly a theory any more. Rather it is a prediction, or even an observation.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 5:34pm:

The theory is kind of irrelevant anyway. It has been 'superceded' by all the theories that explain why it is round. So it is not exactly a theory any more. Rather it is a prediction, or even an observation.

True, and what of the other theories since then explaining them to be round? Theories that are Wrong? Fact? Or Truth?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Psephophorus terrypratchetti

An Eocene fossil turtle.

Found in New Zealand, and considered to be different enough from Psephophorus species found in Europe, Egypt, and the United States to be given a separate classification. This turtle is found in Tertiary sediments.

It was first discovered in 1995 and named by Robert Kohler, who was a fan of Terry Pratchett.

Pratchett himself has this to say about it:

"Of course I'm proud of it. It tickles my imagination. Forty millions years ago this thing was paddling around the globe, eating jellyfish, and now there's this link to this short bald guy whose own species, at that time, was still saying 'ook'

I use it as my Human Being test. We all have such a thing, even if we don't like to think of it like that- a little test of the imagination. I mentioned it to another author who immediately said, 'Who do I have to sleep with to get a species named after me?' and she passed. It's the people who look at you sideways and say, 'Is that good?' that you know are pod beings from the planet Zog."

Theories are supported by a preponderance of evidence, and to discount their value is unrealistic FD.
Some theories have a huge weight of evidence supporting them, and to discount their value over minor nitpicking is not helping your argument.

We started down this track because of Creationists absurd claim that any thing called a theory is equally valid, and not any fool would believe that, only a religious fool would, because doing so, in spite of all rational evidence to the contrary, suits their religious purpose.

This is an excellent example of why religion and education don't mix.

True, and what of the other theories since then explaining them to be round? Theories that are Wrong? Fact? Or Truth?

Wrong is a reasonable description, but not fact or truth.

Theories are supported by a preponderance of evidence, and to discount their value is unrealistic FD.

But I am not discounting their value. I am saying they are wrong. Some of the most valuable theories we have are wrong, while the less wrong ones that replaced them are more academic curiosities. This is why philosophy should be taught in school, so that people understand the difference between truth and value.

This is an excellent example of why religion and education don't mix.

But they do mix, quite well. Otherwise you wouldn't be getting all worked up about 'indoctrination' into belief systems you disagree with.

I sometimes wonder about religious fundamentalists and whether they have totally lost the plot, especially when I read diatribes that try to compare religious dogma and the current state of knowledge derived from the methodical process of scientific thought.

It's a question of the increasing rarity of common sense. No offense intended, but here's an example:


freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

So to give an example (and playing devil's advocate   ), a Satanist School can teach their brand of religion as long as they include some alternatives in their curriculum? No, so long as they teach maths, science etc. They can teach satanism as the one true religion if they want, and pretend the others don't exist.

You have got to be kidding. I'm referred to as an atheist, but there is no way that I would tolerate a Satanist school to be built, especially in my neighborhood.  You see I have limits, governed by common sense and common decency. There are certain things that go outside my threshold of tolerance.

The contribution of public funds towards 'hate' religions, including those that promote intolerance of other religions is one of those things that don't make it through my reality check. Our cities are becoming more and more cosmopolitan the world over. The last thing we as a society need are schools that divide us, and encourage sectarian based   intolerance and riots.  

If anyone honestly believes that taxpayers funds should ever contribute towards a Satanist school, then in my view they have already crossed the threshold of what is reasonable, have departed the  shores of reality and are floating somewhere in the doldrums of  Cloud Cuckoo land.

What exactly do you think Satanism is? Why do you unquestioningly swallow the religious dogma you claim to reject? Many Christians might regard you as a Satanist and a secular school as Satanist. I am defending your right to practice your beliefs. You should stop fearing alternative beliefs that make you feel uncomfortable and focus instead on real harm. It's a good thing we have freedom of religion, or your kids might get taken away from you because you indoctrinate them into dangerous beliefs.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

True, and what of the other theories since then explaining them to be round? Theories that are Wrong? Fact? Or Truth? Wrong is a reasonable description, but not fact or truth.

Ok. Let me try a different angle. But first, please tell me (not the dictionary definition) but your definition of scientific theory, secular theory, fact, truth and wrong. This is so that I know where you are coming from.

Scientific theory: this article in the evolution section should make it clear how I view a scientific theory. It is pretty much the same as what you (or maybe someone else) said earlier. I just don't equate it with fact.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Secular theory:

I don't attach and special meaning to theory in this context. I would attach a broad definition to both words.

Fact and truth:

I would go with the wikipedia distinction I posted earlier, which explains the meaning of both. I hadn't really though about the difference much. Basically truth is absolute, whereas fact is just what people agree on. In a scientific context, a 'scientific fact' is limited to direct observation, uninfluenced by paradigm or theory. This is because science has other words that convey the degree of agreeance on what are broadly considered theories. Facts don't really enter into the modern scientific method, just as truth doesn't, but scientists usually accept either term for observations, though in practice they would call them observations instead as it is never really possible to completely separate a direct observation from the paradigm through which you interpret it. Other terms would be misleading or academically dishonest, especially to someone who didn't understand the distinction, because it would imply some kind of certainty about theories, when the only certainty is that the theories will one day be shown to be wrong.

wrong

I'm not sure how to define this in a non-trivial manner.

FD getting into faith school?

---

And some more on "Intelligent Design"



Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball baat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 9:42pm:

What exactly do you think Satanism is?

Well it's a form of devil worship, or worship of evil,  that (as I understand it) involves some totally unwholesome acts, including mass orgies,  the sacrifice of goats.... messing around with pentangles (you can cut yourself badly on those), rotation of heads and regurgitation of green pea soup accompanied by reciting Christian prayers backwards and speaking in ancient languages. (I think that sums it up nicely)

Fairly distasteful stuff. Whether they take it seriously or not, I'd regard it as totally antisocial, unlike its meek and mild cousin, Christianity.  


Quote:

Why do you unquestioningly swallow the religious dogma you claim to reject?

I don't. It's enough if Satanists do.


Quote:

Many Christians might regard you as a Satanist and a secular school as Satanist. I am defending your right to practice your beliefs. You should stop fearing alternative beliefs that make you feel uncomfortable and focus instead on real harm. It's a good thing we have freedom of religion, or your kids might get taken away from you because you indoctrinate them into dangerous beliefs.

They'd obviously be wrong. A Satanist is basically a theist who barracks for the other team (presumably the all-blacks). He believes the same mythology as Christians, but prefers the side of evil.

Of course Satanism can do real harm. Try explaining that to the goat. It's a malevolent religion and can at least do psychological harm, just like Scientology and other such cults.

FD, maybe you should consider splitting the evolution/ID parts of the thread, although we've probably done the banning of religious schools to death.

I prefer not to get into the ID/Evolution debate because I have better things to do with my time than argue with the faithful.

Find a single National Academy that supports ID, and you'll be on a winner.

Well it's a form of devil worship, or worship of evil,  that (as I understand it) involves some totally unwholesome acts, including mass orgies,  the sacrifice of goats.... messing around with pentangles (you can cut yourself badly on those), rotation of heads and regurgitation of green pea soup accompanied by reciting Christian prayers backwards and speaking in ancient languages. (I think that sums it up nicely)

But there's nothing illegal there, so long as you aren't rotating someone else's head. People should be free to choose their religion, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you feel.

I don't. It's enough if Satanists do.

But do they? Do they really?

They'd obviously be wrong. A Satanist is basically a theist who barracks for the other team (presumably the all-blacks). He believes the same mythology as Christians, but prefers the side of evil.

Just as you don't get to decide for Christians what their religion is, Christians do not get tot decide for atheists what their religion is. Christians don't own the definition of evil. If they did, you would be evil.

Of course Satanism can do real harm. Try explaining that to the goat.

I eat goat. I have participated in the sacrifice of a goat for human consumption. Mostly just pointing and asking 'what's that thing?'. Does that make me a satanist, or dangerous to society?

It's a malevolent religion and can at least do psychological harm, just like Scientology and other such cults.

I would have thought, being an atheist, you would consider it liberating, but instead you merely regurgitate some kind of Christian indoctrination. Perhaps you should ask a Satanist what their religion is all about, rather than  relying on a stereotype from a group that is obviously hostile to Satanism. You will likely find that you have far more in common with a Satanist than a Christian. This is why freedom of religion is so important, because it is so easy to trick people into fearing alternative world views.

I have no intention of responding to Mozz's ID tangent, unless he can put it into context.

I did not expect a reply FD, I just used it to illustrate how at some point, reality pervades even the most obtuse views.
It is just preferable not to need to use a baseball bat to get there.

I appreciate your theories on individual freedoms, but you apply it far too simplistically, and without concern for the societal implications.
We also have duties, when we have freedoms, and if one freedom when taken to excess, creates issues for all society, it is not unreasonable to demand they reduce their excesses.

Yes it is unreasonable. Whatever freedom you have, someone will take 'issue' with it, even though it doesn't infringe on their freedoms. They just object to you having the freedom. Your objection is based on disagreeing with the particular indoctrination. It is a totally vaccuous objection and a weak excuse for taking away basic human rights. Once you start eroding human rights like that because of made up 'issues' you are on a slippery slope to demanding total conformity, because your motivation is fear of nonconformity.

The whole point of inalienable personal freedoms is that they cannot be taken away because of 'societal issues' like fear mongering.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

I eat goat. I have participated in the sacrifice of a goat for human consumption.

Well so have I, but I would object to leaving the head of somebody else's pet goat on a church altar. That's just sick.


Quote:

I would have thought, being an atheist, you would consider it liberating, but instead you merely regurgitate some kind of Christian indoctrination.

FD, I've got to hand it to you - You have a real talent of seeing through the eyes of others. (you can take that as a compliment)

I've already said that I'm not anti-Christian. I even see some benefit in the ethical infrastructure that is provided by religions such as Christianity and Islam. I sent my kids to a Catholic School and I've had an audience with the pope (John Paul II). I'm about as mainstream and boring as you can get, and I do believe in traditional values. I'm just an atheist, in that I don't believe in gods.

I have more of a problem with the hypocrisy latent in US society. Despite the fact that so many of them are Christians, their society is about as dysfunctional as it gets. They pay lip service to Christianity, even though they attend church a great deal more than the average Christian in Australia or Europe.  

If they really believed in some of the ideals of humility and material poverty (spiritual richness) that they choose to ignore (some of the good messages of Christianity), things would be much different in the world today.

Inalienable freedom?
So according to FD, anyone who claims any belief or behaviour as religiously based has the freedom to exercise any such behaviour at any time or place.
Sounds like your freedom of religion is the new "one true" religion.
Obviously it is far more important than children's rights,  or society's rights,  so everyone else must grant you respect and leave you to do what you want whenever you want because you have an invisible friend.

Well I am convinced.

Silly me, I did not at first understand how relinquishing total control over your kids for up to 30 hours a week, to experience views outside the realm of the limited reality of your invisible friend was such a huge violation of your inalienable right.

I will watch out for bolts of lightning, I hear your invisible friend is quite a wrathful friend.

Well so have I, but I would object to leaving the head of somebody else's pet goat on a church altar. That's just sick.

Were they satanists, or drunken pranksters?

I've already said that I'm not anti-Christian.

Yes, the devil takes pleasing forms, don't you? Satan!

I have more of a problem with the hypocrisy latent in US society. Despite the fact that so many of them are Christians, their society is about as dysfunctional as it gets.

I would put that down to factors other than religion. A more outspoken religion is the inevitable response. I think it may go back to the ancient Greeks and derision of the sophists, but much of our western education indoctrinates people into putting truth above all else. People can say something like 'beauty is truth, and truth beauty' and people don't even realise how absurd it is. They may even consider it profound. I think this may have a lot to do with what is currently called 'affluenza' and is at it's most extreme in American society. This indoctrination is far more insidious because it is not even recognised as indoctrination. It is so ingrained in western culture that we have difficulty even concieving of an alternative.

So according to FD, anyone who claims any belief or behaviour as religiously based has the freedom to exercise any such behaviour at any time or place.

No. Freedom extends only to where it infringes other people's freedom. That being said, you do not have some kind of right to freedom from views that make you feel uncomfortable, so your objection that there are 'societal issues' associated with freedom is vacuous.

Sounds like your freedom of religion is the new "one true" religion.

It is the foundation of modern society. It transcends religion. You would have us taken back to the dark ages. Our soldiers did not fight and die for Christianity, or meat pies, they fought for our freedom. They killed for the rights that you are trying to take away.

Obviously it is far more important than children's rights

No it isn't. It is children's rights. Children have freedom of religion also. You cannot deny them their right to practice their religion and attend a religious school. You cannot say that freedom begins only after a certain age and before that their minds are in the hands of the government to be shaped the same way as everyone else's. Until they choose for themselves, they are in their parent's hands, not the government's. You bring up your own children. You don't get to force your views on child raising on other people and take their children away because you are scared of the ideas they pass on.

or society's rights

A society cannot have rights. That doesn't even make sense. Rights are individual. Any 'societal right' you dream up is going to take the form of the government imposing the will of some people on others, by denying them their rights. It is forced conformity.

so everyone else must grant you respect and leave you to do what you want whenever you want

Now you are starting to get it. Live and let live. Or, mind your own business.

Silly me, I did not at first understand how relinquishing total control over your kids for up to 30 hours a week

You are not relinquishing control. You are choosing to delegate your authority. Just like your idea, except parents choose to do it, rather than having their children taken away from them by a faceless bureaucracy.

Do you actually believe any of this stuff you are spouting FD, or is it just debating for debatings' sake?

BTW, great ads on this page,Love that devil pic.

That would be good to show five year olds.
You could show that and tell them that if they do not accept what you tell them, then he will take them away and torture them for all eternity, that would not be an infringement of their rights would it?
It is their parent's right to teach them that if they want to.
No, that is not good enough, we should also make sure that when they are at school they are told the same thing.
We certainly would not want any reasoning outside of ideological extremism to be taught to them, would we?

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 11:03am:

Yes, the devil takes pleasing forms, don't you? Satan!

I take it that you meant that in jest. (I hope you did)

It is their parent's right to teach them that if they want to.
No, that is not good enough, we should also make sure that when they are at school they are told the same thing.

No, 'we' should not be making sure of it. We should be letting parents choose. If a parent has a right to teach their child something, then that right extends to sending them to a school where it is taught. There is no difference. Otherwise you are arbitrarily limiting their rights, by saying they can say it to their children but they can't let someone else say the same thing on their behalf. You do not get to decide how other parents teach their children religion. They are free to do it themselves, or whatever way they want.

I understand your point FD, but I believe we sometimes need to limit some rights for the good of society.
Education, and the raising of children is an area I take tremendously seriously, and I believe that all kids deserve the right to recieve an unbiased and balanced education.

In earlier times religious schools were less extreme, but now we are seeing a shift toward very fundamentalist beliefs being taught, this completely insulates those subjected to it from experiencing societal norms, and creates growing insularity, of an Us against Them nature.

Ultimately this could lead to severe social disharmony and conflict.

I think people have plenty of time outside of school hours to teach their kids values specific to their religious beliefs, but they also need to learn societies values, and secularising education would certainly help with that.

Limiting some freedoms for the greater good is a fair trade.
No one at school would be telling them their parents are wrong, their religion is wrong, they would just be receiving a normal balanced education, with any religious bias removed, how can that be bad?

Quote:

In earlier times religious schools were less extreme, but now we are seeing a shift toward very fundamentalist beliefs being taught, this completely insulates those subjected to it from experiencing societal norms, and creates growing insularity, of an Us against Them nature. Ultimately this could lead to severe social disharmony and conflict.

True and this is where any pacifist government will make changes.  Rudd is now going down the list of indulgances - Howard's legacies - and making changes.  Now that figures are coming out for the inconsistencies in public and private/religious education ie government funding per child - he will balance this out a bit more hopefully.

I believe that all kids deserve the right to recieve an unbiased and balanced education.

There is no such thing as an unbiased and balanced education. All education is a form of indoctrination. Freedom of religion is far more important than a right to what you see as an unbiased education.

In earlier times religious schools were less extreme, but now we are seeing a shift toward very fundamentalist beliefs being taught

No we aren't. We are seeing the opposite. What we are seeing is an increase in is scaremongering.

Ultimately this could lead to severe social disharmony and conflict.

Imposing conformity is not the solution to disharmony. Tolerance is. Taking away people's right to be different is the opposite of tolerance. It will not stop with imposing uniform education. Once you validate intolerance, people become more intolerant, not less. They start fretting over all the other little differences and demanding the government intervene and remove them also. Your solution would not lead to social harmony. It would lead to the opposite. People will not be harmonious when you try to take their children away from them because they practice their fundamental right to freedom of religion. They will try to kill you.

but they also need to learn societies values

Our society values freedom above all else. You do not teach that value by taking freedom away. You need to be re-educated in our society's values.  ;)

Limiting some freedoms for the greater good is a fair trade.

No it isn't. It is the reason why human rights are considered fundamental and inalienable, because there is always someone trying to take them away 'for the greater good'. It is a BS excuse to impose your views on others.

No one at school would be telling them their parents are wrong

You cannot impose secular views regarding religion without telling them that theirs is not the one true religion. You must treat them all equally.

Now you are back at square one FD, just being a goose for the sake of it.

"There is no such thing as an unbiased and balanced education. All education is a form of indoctrination. Freedom of religion is far more important than a right to what you see as an unbiased education."FD

Well thought out and well supported argument ?

"In earlier times religious schools were less extreme, but now we are seeing a shift toward very fundamentalist beliefs being taught"mozza

"No we aren't. We are seeing the opposite. What we are seeing is an increase in is scaremongering."FD

Well now you are being really silly, the shift has been to a proliferation of what would be considered more extreme, fundamentalist, or fringe schools proliferating since Howard changed the funding arrangements, as I posted earlier.
I did not make up the figure of a new faith school opening every six weeks in the early 2000's.

So you think tolerance will make evryone stop insularising themselves?
How does further insularisation not harm social cohesion and harmony?
We are a country built on egalitarianism, and that is unlikely to continue if people withdraw from society and create their own insular groups within it.

Anyway, I am sick of this, you really are being a total bluey on this subject, try coming down off your high horse for a minute and take a look at the real world.

Well thought out and well supported argument ?

Well I did give some examples earler. Science for example teaches demonstrably wrong theories as fact, merely because they are 'dominant' in the broader community.

Well now you are being really silly, the shift has been to a proliferation of what would be considered more extreme, fundamentalist, or fringe schools proliferating since Howard changed the funding arrangements, as I posted earlier.

That is hardly a trend. Now Rudd may reduce private school funding. No need to ban them.

I did not make up the figure of a new faith school opening every six weeks in the early 2000's.

Where did you get it from?

We are a country built on egalitarianism

How is it egalitarian to say your approach to child raising is better than everyone else's, so the government must take people's children away so they can be indoctrinated into your school of thought? That is the opposite of egalitarian. It is a superiority complex run wild. You look down on religious people. You make no attempt to hide your contempt for them. You think they can't be trusted to make choices for their own children. It is one of the most unaustralian concepts I have come across.

So you think tolerance will make evryone stop insularising themselves?

Sure. That has been the trend for a few centuries now. No reason why it should suddenly stop. You seem to be living in a historical vacuum, where nothing existed prior to 1990. And besides, freedom is more important than the 'societal issue' you project onto insularity.

Anyway, I am sick of this, you really are being a total bluey on this subject, try coming down off your high horse for a minute and take a look at the real world.

I am looking at the real world. You aren't. What starts as limited dismantling of human rights ends with gas chambers. We have seen the consequences of what you propose many times and we have rejected it. On the other hand the problems you complain about are not problems at all. It is pure scare mongering that has never caused anything like the problems that come with the erosion of human rights.

Putting 'society' before human rights and personal freedom is just stupid. It always ends badly. Societies are made up of individuals. It is not society you are putting first, but yourself, by pretending that 'my way or the highway' is some kind of improvement to freedom of choice. It is arrogant to think that imposing your choices on others will somehow improve things, merely by reducing people's freedom to be different.

Personal freedom has got us to where we are today, and only a moron would think going back to the dark ages is an improvement.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

It is one of the most unaustralian concepts I have come across.

Again, that word! What makes it unquely Australian that to defy it, is positively un-Australian?

;)


freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

Science for example teaches demonstrably wrong theories as fact, merely because they are 'dominant' in the broader community.

Not true. It cannot be disproven by science and therefore it is a theory. It is never taught as fact. I've never heard a lecturer say that "it is a fact that when you enter a black hole you will be transported to and exit via a white hole to another part of the universe." They will always say "Einstein's theory states that...." or "Newton's Inverse Square theory says....." You, yourself said that scientists always avoid using the term "fact".

Take the theory of the speed of light.

The speed of light in vacuum is now viewed as a fundamental physical constant. This postulate, together with the principle of relativity that all inertial frames are equivalent, forms the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity. According to the currently prevailing definition, adopted in 1983, the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 3×108 metres per second, or about 30 centimetres (1 foot) per nanosecond).

They use terms and phrases such as "viewed as", "postulate", "principles", "basis" and "prevailing definition".

Not true. It cannot be disproven by science and therefore it is a theory.

That's the opposite of what science is. Science is limited to the falisifiable. In this case what they are teaching has been falsified, or disproven.

It is never taught as fact. I've never heard a lecturer say that "it is a fact that when you enter a black hole you will be transported to and exit via a white hole to another part of the universe."

Nop, but you probably have been taught that F=ma.

You, yourself said that scientists always avoid using the term "fact".

I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about high school science teachers. Also, in maths II, though I think they call it something else these days. When your history teacher talks about the holocaust, it is presented as fact, even though they don't use the term fact. In science, students are indoctrinated into seeing the world a certain way, even though that 'way' is wrong. If they do physics through to grade 12, they are eventually mislead into thinking the correct way is the same view of the world with slightly different equations.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

Nop, but you probably have been taught that F=ma. .... I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about high school science teachers. Also, in maths II, though I think they call it something else these days. When your history teacher talks about the holocaust, it is presented as fact, even though they don't use the term fact. In science, students are indoctrinated into seeing the world a certain way, even though that 'way' is wrong. If they do physics through to grade 12, they are eventually mislead into thinking the correct way is the same view of the world with slightly different equations.

Yes, I was taught that F=ma. I've also been taught that a²+b²=c², and also that 2+2=4. Those are formulas and tools for calculating to achive a conceptual result. Yes, maths and geometry are concepts.

Newton's 2nd Law is a theory and not taught as fact. However, if you want to calculate force using Newton's theory then the formula is F=....

Re: holocaust. You are comparing history with science. History studies factual past event. There's no need to use the term fact because the name of the subject already implies that. Science is not a factual subject. It is a conceptual subject. When studying science one needs to differentiate hypothesis, theory, law, and observation.

I cannot speak for the good or bad high school science teachers out there. However, once they get to university level (where the serious learning begins) whatever misconceptions they were introduced to at high school would be unlearnt.

Re: holocaust. You are comparing history with science.

I was just pointing out that you don't have to call something a fact to present it as a fact. Even if they were told it is a theory, or law, that is still a form of indoctrination, because they are being taught to see the world in a way that is wrong.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 4:01pm:

....because they are being taught to see the world in a way that is wrong.

....because they are being taught to see the a concept of the world that could possibly be wrong.
;)

There's nothing 'possible' about it. Newtonian mechanics has been disproven. All science is 'probably wrong', but we teach it because it is the best explanation available and the best one that hasn't been disproven. That is not the case with NM.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 4:54pm:

There's nothing 'possible' about it. Newtonian mechanics has been disproven. All science is 'probably wrong', but we teach it because it is the best explanation available and the best one that hasn't been disproven. That is not the case with NM.

Ok, I concede - I should have said "probably".

:)

Newtonian mechanics is definitely wrong.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 8:55pm:

Newtonian mechanics is definitely wrong.

J H Christ, FD! You are getting on my nerves!
;)

You just like that race of people I mentioned in another thread who just can't seem to discuss the topic in context.

My post had nothing to do with NM. Let me spell it out to you in full....

....because they are being taught to see the a concept of the world that could probably be wrong.

Happy?

:D

But I guess there's no pleasing you.

Shite!

I was the one who introduced this tangent and I was talking about NM. Yes they are taught other theories that are only 'probably' wrong, but NM has already been disproven.

There is no such thing as an objective or unbiased view of religion. It is a matter of faith, not logic or evidence.

Atheists like Mozz for example might see religion as a mere academic curiosity, to be taught as a series of quasi historical factoids in the absence of spiritual significance. Or they may see it as a cultural meme, parasitising society’s consciousness.

A Christian on the other hand might see religion as more than what people believe, but as a revelation of absolute truth. To teach that it is anything other than truth is to deceive. The Deceiver denies the existence of God, heaven and hell, even his own existence. His agents practice hedonism and adopt pleasing or apparently benign forms.

A Christian might believe that you give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to the Lord what belongs to Him. Children do not belong to Caesar, they belong to the Lord and must be protected from evildoers. The Deceiver’s agents may try to use the law of man to take their precious children away from them, so that they can sink their vile claws into children’s souls. But like a good shepherd, they must shoot these agents, then forgive them their sins. For they know not what they do.

Many modern societies have a facade of peace and harmony. But just below the surface, bubbling away, is a violent rampage. What keeps this in check is not government imposed conformity, but respect for human rights and personal freedoms. If you want to release the monster, try chipping away at these rights and freedoms, one by one, bit by bit. The monster will hide itself from you, because it knows it is repulsive. Maybe you will get away with it for longer if you tell people it is for their own good, because society cannot possibly function if people think different thoughts or do different things. We mustn’t allow chaos to reign. But eventually you will strike the monster, and it will strike back. It will rear its ugly head and swat you and your society into oblivion.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 11:56am:

Many modern societies have a facade of peace and harmony. But just below the surface, bubbling away, is a violent rampage. What keeps this in check is not government imposed conformity, but respect for human rights and personal freedoms. If you want to release the monster, try chipping away at these rights and freedoms, one by one, bit by bit. The monster will hide itself from you, because it knows it is repulsive. Maybe you will get away with it for longer if you tell people it is for their own good, because society cannot possibly function if people think different thoughts or do different things. We mustn’t allow chaos to reign. But eventually you will strike the monster, and it will strike back. It will rear its ugly head and swat you and your society into oblivion.

The real problem is that there are so many 'One True Religions' and in the guise of personal religious freedom, we unleash some of the most reactionary paradigms of thought that have ever existed.  Freedom of religion means freedom to catch small children and indoctrinate them with some of these ideas in such a way as to stifle individual freedom of thought. At all costs that small flame of free thinking must be extinguished before it leads to the demise of the religion itself.

The overall result of this stifling of individual freedoms is dysfunction in society. It is all too obvious if we take the example of the USA, that paragon of religious virtue. It's true that correlation is not equivalent to causation, but the causation is all too obvious when individual freedoms are repressed. Contrast that if you will with the largely secular societies in Europe - including Norway, Sweden and Germany. Crime rates and all the rest of the factors are down. Is this Satan a peaceful and law abiding guy too?

We see these correlations time and time again. It's related to the more fundamental forms of religion.  Under 5 mortality per 5000 births, life expectancy, all age and 15-19 year old gonorrhea infection rates, syphilis rates, 15-19 year old abortions per 1000, 15-17 year old births and pregnancies - All show a correlation with fundamentalist religion characteristics including  "Take Bible Literally" and "Attend religious services several times per month".

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Any freedom of religion should, like the European Commission on Human Rights, contain a 'Freedom from Religion" clause as well as a freedom to leave one's religion clause.  

OK, fundamentalists will point out that such things are the work of Satan, that they practice hedonism and all the other things, but the true evil is much closer to home. Theirs is a religion of exclusion - of hate. If you want to find 'Satan', you need look no further than the TV evangelists and their religion of hate. Forget about the bible itself. You just accept Jesus into your heart (and send $50).

It's the same problem with Islam. At least they don't have the same evangelizing vitriol, but the treatment of women in Islamic societies, minority religions and minority groups such as homosexuals show the same reactionary zeal as the Christian Fundamentalists. As for those people who change their religion from Islam - well they'd better watch their backs.  

So to summarise, religious freedom is like any freedom. As soon as it starts to impinge on the rights of other people, it ceases to be a freedom. We don't as a society allow people the freedom to racial vilification or vilification based on age or sexual orientation, because such 'freedoms' work against the whole concept of freedom.

Freedom has to have its boundaries. People should be free to practice their own religion, or even teach it to their own children, but when it comes to using taxpayer funding to prop up faith based schooling and introduce real divisions as a result, that's where the problem lies.

Satan comes from an ancient Hebrew word meaning the opponent. To the US Fundamentalists, Islam is the great Satan. To Islam, the US is the Great Satan and Israel is the lesser Satan. One man's god is another man's satan.

Some might even call me Satan for stating the obvious. It just highlights their hypocrisy.

However as I've said before, I have no problems with the more mature forms of religion, such as the Anglicans and the Catholics. They have generally handled their religious schools very well. I'd probably add the Lutherans to that group. Unfortunately the new kids on the block display more than a little arrogance. The danger is that all faith based schools will suffer as a result of their selfishness.

muso wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 10:06pm:

Some might even call me Satan for stating the obvious. It just highlights their hypocrisy.

Is that you, Lord?

;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:

muso wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:06pm: Some might even call me Satan for stating the obvious. It just highlights their hypocrisy. Is that you, Lord? ;)

Damn no. I've already joined the local Chamber of Commerce Management committee, and I don't have time in my life now to play the role of Satan too. My wife would kill me if I took on anything else.

Besides, my ethical standards are too high for that.

If there was a devil, he'd probably delegate such tasks to the more fundamentalist faith schools. They would have more of a constitution for it, and they already have the experience of torturing poor school kids.

Freedom of religion means freedom to catch small children and indoctrinate them with some of these ideas in such a way as to stifle individual freedom of thought.

No, you have to breed them yourself. You can't go round catching other people's children. That's what Mozz wants to do.

All education stifles individual freedom of thought. The less educated a person is, the crazier the ideas they come up with. Education is about trying to limit people's perceptions to reality.

The overall result of this stifling of individual freedoms is dysfunction in society.

No it isn't. Society needs diversity to function. Creating homogenous societies always harms them in the long run. That's why for example, China had a minor spurt of technological advancement, then went pretty much unchanged for millenia, whereas Europe continued to develop. Both places had pretty much the same set of natural resources, the difference being that China's geography allowed people like you to impose their views on others.

Of course, China was much more peaceful than Europe throughout this time, but peace through imposed conformity is only one step up from slavery. Our society functions far better than those with imposed conformity.

It is all too obvious if we take the example of the USA, that paragon of religious virtue.

I've never heard anyone else call the US a paradigm of religious virtue. Blaming America's violence on religion is absurd. Not only are you confusing correlation with causation, but you are ignoring the far more obvious causes that have nothing to do with religion. And besides, it is not religion you have a problem with, it is competition between them. You could achieve the same peace and harmony by imposing a government approved form of Christianity on others. Your idea of what should be imposed is no better.

Any freedom of religion should, like the European Commission on Human Rights, contain a 'Freedom from Religion" clause as well as a freedom to leave one's religion clause.

That's just stupid. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. You are free to choose. Imposing your choice on others does not grant them freedom, it takes it away.

So to summarise, religious freedom is like any freedom. As soon as it starts to impinge on the rights of other people, it ceases to be a freedom.

Attending a religious school of your choice is not impinging on the rights of others.

Freedom has to have its boundaries. People should be free to practice their own religion, or even teach it to their own children, but when it comes to using taxpayer funding to prop up faith based schooling and introduce real divisions as a result, that's where the problem lies.

Are you now saying you oppose this ridiculous ban on religious schools, and prefer to rely on discrimination based on religion? If religious people are going to get inferior treatment from the state, should they be paying less tax? Or should you drop this absurd discrimination and treat everyone equally, regardless of their religion? Taxpayer funding arrangements are not propping up these schools. They already get less funding per student. Rather, religious schools are propping up secular education. By any objective measure, secular education is still inferior. But further discrimination is not going to improve the situation, just make both religious students and secular ones worse off.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 8:37am:

No, you have to breed them yourself. You can't go round catching other people's children. That's what Mozz wants to do.

Children have rights too, or at least they should have. At one of these 'born again' schools, what would happen if a 14 year old or a 16 year old decided that they didn't want to attend religion classes? At what age should they be free to choose for themselves? -  18?  

Should kids be entirely subject to their parents wishes right up until they reach 18 as far as schooling is concerned? I know that the family court will usually consider what children themselves want to do in cases of divorce etc, so it's not exactly some revolutionary concept that children have rights.

I can tell you the answer as far as Catholic schools are concerned, but I'm not so confident that the same would apply to Islamic schools or Baptist schools.

Children have rights too, or at least they should have.

Yes they do. Mozz is trying to take those rights away.

At one of these 'born again' schools, what would happen if a 14 year old or a 16 year old decided that they didn't want to attend religion classes?

They would probably get kicked out.

At what age should they be free to choose for themselves? -  18?  

At any age they choose. That is a matter between parents and children. It has nothing to do with government. Where a child is too young to decide for themselves, parents make the choice. Not some sticky beak do-gooder who thinks that their indoctrination is somehow superior to someone else's indoctrination.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 3:57pm:

At any age they choose. That is a matter between parents and children. It has nothing to do with government. Where a child is too young to decide for themselves, parents make the choice. Not some sticky beak do-gooder who thinks that their indoctrination is somehow superior to someone else's indoctrination.

At the Catholic School my two sons attended, they had the option to opt out of religion classes, albeit with parental approval. I only found that out this week. My wife (the Roman Catholic) gave this approval for one of my sons. He didn't ask me, because he knew that I would not have given approval at the time, because I knew the course material, and understood that it provided an overall view of the main world religions. I considered it to be important.

As far as choice is concerned, the parent is not the sole arbiter, especially when they are in their teenage years. In fact once they reach 16, they can legally have sex without talking to their parents. That may vary slightly between States.

It is a basic human right to be treated fairly by others, regardless of your age, race, religion or where you were born. If a student decides that they do not agree with the religion being taught, they deserve to be treated with respect. Being treated with respect does not mean being kicked out of school.

That should equally apply to a teenager who has decided that they do not share the same religious values as their parents. To do otherwise is a serious infringement of basic human rights.

These basic rights are legislated (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986) and enforced by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.  Australia is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 26 of this declaration states that:

"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

That's all I'm asking. It's basic stuff.

With your son's school, are you saying that you supported the particular subject, but your son didn't want to do it? Was this just because he couldn't be bothered, or did he have a religious or ethical objection?

If a student decides that they do not agree with the religion being taught, they deserve to be treated with respect.

Fair enough. I'm happy for a child to have a right to refuse religious education, against the wishes of the parent. I think that's a bit of a moot point though, as either the parents or the priest are going to take a step back long before it gets to the point of legal action.

Being treated with respect does not mean being kicked out of school.

I think a private school should be able to choose who can attend. That's one situation where religious discrimination may be appropriate. Respect is not a human right. Obviously your school's example is the more mature approach and should be encouraged, but never mandated.

However, none of this points towards banning religious schools or discriminating against them by distributing the education budget unfairly. None of it points towards forcing students to undertake a government approved course on religion.

"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

This sounds a bit wishy washy. I'll respond to it again when I'm sober.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 6:54pm:

With your son's school, are you saying that you supported the particular subject, but your son didn't want to do it? Was this just because he couldn't be bothered, or did he have a religious or ethical objection?

We went through the subjects with him at the beginning of the year. I strongly felt that he should do religion because I think kids deserve to get as much information as possible on the subject so that they can make up their own mind as they grow up. He was less enthusiastic than I was, but agreed to it. He always had problems with religion. When he found it wasn't working out, he asked his mother to sign the papers opting out of the classes. She was the soft option. He knew that I would have a problem with it because I have always tried harder than most not to impose my own beliefs.


Quote:

However, none of this points towards banning religious schools or discriminating against them by distributing the education budget unfairly. None of it points towards forcing students to undertake a government approved course on religion.

I don't want to ban any religious schools. I just want to make it compulsory to provide factual and objective teaching about other religions to increase awareness of other members of society. The reason is that there is too much division, and I feel that we need a way to improve the cohesion in society. The segments on the major religions could be sanctioned by the major religions, and perhaps have a humanist segment. The government need not be involved with the content.

This kind of thing has been in operation at many (if not all) Catholic schools, but I can't speak for others.  

I'm not sure if you've come across the Toledo Guiding principles, but they have been widely adopted in the US for public teaching of religions. Many private schools have adopted the same principles.

They make for interesting reading and reiterate some of the principles that I brought up in my previous post.

http://www.oslocoalition.org/documents/toledo_guidelines.pdf


Just an extract from the European Parliament (Recommendation 1720)
- again it's worth looking it up:


Quote:

Recommendation 1720 (2005)1 Education and religion 1. The Parliamentary Assembly forcefully reaffirms that each person’s religion, including the option of having no religion, is a strictly personal matter. However, this is not inconsistent with the view that a good general knowledge of religions and the resulting sense of tolerance are essential to the exercise of democratic citizenship. 2. In its Recommendation 1396 (1999) on religion and democracy, the Assembly asserted: “There is a religious aspect to many of the problems that contemporary society faces, such as intolerant fundamentalist movements and terrorist acts, racism and xenophobia, and ethnic conflicts.” 3. The family has a paramount role in the upbringing of children, including in the choice of a religious upbringing. However, knowledge of religions is dying out in many families. More and more young people lack the necessary bearings fully to apprehend the societies in which they live and others with which they are confronted.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:

muso wrote on Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:06pm: Some might even call me Satan for stating the obvious. It just highlights their hypocrisy. Is that you, Lord? ;)

Actually, I should have said....

"My Lord? Is that you?"

;)

Muso, should scientology be included in the madatory teaching? How many Christian groups should be included as separate entities? What about atheist groups, and religions without a clear representative bidy?

He knew that I would have a problem with it because I have always tried harder than most not to impose my own beliefs.

He thought you would try to coerce him into doing the class because you don't try to impose your views? That doesn't make sense.

I just want to make it compulsory to provide factual and objective teaching about other religions to increase awareness of other members of society. The reason is that there is too much division, and I feel that we need a way to improve the cohesion in society. The segments on the major religions could be sanctioned by the major religions, and perhaps have a humanist segment. The government need not be involved with the content.

So now we have gone back to the government providing a captive audience for religious groups, where they can teach them anything they want? If it is compulsory, doesn't that undermine separation of church and state? It seems to me that the private religious schools, such as yours, are the appropriate way to solve the problem.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 3:10pm:

So now we have gone back to the government providing a captive audience for religious groups, where they can teach them anything they want? If it is compulsory, doesn't that undermine separation of church and state? It seems to me that the private religious schools, such as yours, are the appropriate way to solve the problem.

That's where I've been all along. I don't understand what your objections are here. Let's leave out the word religion. It's really about culture, and religion is wrapped up in that culture. I suggest that we have a growing problem in Australia as manifested by the Cronulla Riots and other signs and symptoms of conflicting factions within society. All that I am proposing here is to anticipate and counter the worsening culture clash by providing an opportunity for future citizens to learn the facts about other groups in society. This would provide a means of reducing suspicion and division, and increasing trust within our society.

Some of the principles I propose come from recommendations from the Parliament of Europe, parts of which have already had much worse experiences than Australia in that respect and have legislated in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the culture clash. I suggest that we learn from their experiences and take a proactive rather than a reactive approach to the problem.

Now what could you possibly have against improving understanding and trust between groups within society?

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 3:10pm:

Muso, should scientology be included in the madatory teaching? How many Christian groups should be included as separate entities? What about atheist groups, and religions without a clear representative bidy?

Read the Toledo Guidelines. Why reinvent the wheel?

I don't understand what your objections are here.

You don't understand why someone would object to undermining the separation of church of state?

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 3:10pm:

He thought you would try to coerce him into doing the class because you don't try to impose your views? That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. I would have been the least likely to give him a free ticket out of religion class without considerable discussion.  I didn't want to impose my views as an atheist. It took me many years of careful consideration to arrive at my present position on religion, after having attending approximately 30 different religious establishments looking for that elusive something.  

Apart from that I considered that some appreciation of different religions within society was important if he wasn't going to grow up to be a self-opinionated bigot.

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2008 at 4:19pm:

I don't understand what your objections are here. You don't understand why someone would object to undermining the separation of church of state?

The teaching of religion in schools is already legislated in many ways. For example, it is limited to no more than 40 hours per school year. The person providing the instruction must be approved by the government. Look up the respective Education Acts and Regulations if you don't believe me.

If anything has undermined the separation of church and state it would be the changes regarding the provision of school chaplains in public schools. That's an example of religious education without parental consent.  

How John Howard shored up private education, by God
Michael Gawenda
June 26, 2008

The continuing battle between creationists and the so-called godless believers in Darwin and evolution was one of the highlights - if it can be described thus - of my time in the United States. Across America, school boards and state education boards were at war over the teaching of creationism in science classes.

But in landmark court decisions, the creationists and their followers were vanquished. The courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism as science. Creationism, the courts ruled, was a form of religious belief and to teach it in American schools violated the constitutionally enshrined separation of church and state.

That separation also means there is no overt state funding of "faith-based" schools, which means there is no overt funding of private schools in America.

There is no constitutionally enshrined separation of church and state in Australia. The great battle over state aid for non-government schools was fought and decided a half century ago and it was basically about state aid to the Catholic school system. The proponents of state aid won.

They continue to win. The former prime minister John Howard once told a group of newspaper executives at a dinner at the Lodge that one of his greatest achievements, looking back, would be his government's support for parents' rights to choose the sort of education they wanted for their children.

What he meant was that his government had significantly increased funding for non-government schools. This was designed to accelerate the trend away from the government school system.

It worked. Around 33 per cent of Australian children now attend non-government schools - and that percentage is even higher in NSW and particularly in Victoria where around 40 per cent of year 11 and 12 students attend non-government schools.

The Rudd Government has more or less abandoned any attempt to arrest this trend to private education. Howard has triumphed.

The notion that a secular liberal democracy is underpinned by a free and universal secular education for all children is now well and truly dead in Australia. The Rudd Government will do nothing to revive it.

....

The great irony of Howard's achievement in making private education attainable for families with relatively modest incomes is that he inadvertently also became the great champion of multiculturalism.

If multiculturalism still has any public policy supported by significant taxpayer-funded programs, it's in education. Increasingly, in this post-Enlightenment age in which God is no-longer dead, religion and culture are intertwined to form identity.

Religion is not just a matter of private religious belief. It informs cultural and communal values - our attitudes to women, homosexuality and even scientific inquiry. And those cultural and communal values may vary from faith-based school system to faith-based school system depending on the faith.

....

Given that some faith-based schools in Australia, unlike schools in the US, teach creationism and the pseudo science of intelligent design as legitimate scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory, how many will mark the Darwin anniversaries, let alone celebrate them?

In all probability, a significant number won't. For that, John Howard can take some credit. What an irony given that this was a prime minister who was determined to roll back multiculturalism.

(Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/how-john-howard-shored-up-private-education-by-god/2008/06/25/1214073338065.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

Good article.

That separation also means there is no overt state funding of "faith-based" schools

Any idea what that means in practice?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2008 at 9:31pm:

That separation also means there is no overt state funding of "faith-based" schools Any idea what that means in practice?

My guess is that there is no funding whatsoever - not even a small percentage of the budget for school funding. Private school means private schools; as in the USA.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 30^th, 2008 at 9:50pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2008 at 9:31pm: That separation also means there is no overt state funding of "faith-based" schools Any idea what that means in practice? My guess is that there is no funding whatsoever - not even a small percentage of the budget for school funding. Private school means private schools; as in the USA.

The strange thing is that the US has actually got it right in this case.

Separation of church and state should not extent to discrimination on the basis of religion. They have taken it too far, to the point where no private school, not even a secular one, can recieve any government funds. You should judge the American education system by it's outcomes, which are fat, poorly educated people. They install coke vending machines in classrooms in the middle of an obesity epidemic. They force children to wear corporate logos to school, but claim it isn't 'private' in any way? America whores it's schools out to the highest bidder because they are too stingy to fund them properly and discourage people from seeking options that are less of a burden on state coffers.

Why should we ban religious schools if they provide a somewhat "Better" education for young adolescents and children.
The results in the all Australian school tests with S.C and H.S.C.
Their is more pride in these schools,students are polite and treat other members in the communtiy with respect unlike some Government school student in my Area.

It is not like the government are forcing every single child to religious schools and teachings it is done fairly by choice, i see nothing wrong with this myself becuase is is a self choice issue.

Welcome to OzPolitic Tim.

Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far.

"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer.

"Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.

"I don't want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it."

Another parent Karen Williams said: "I am absolutely furious my daughter was made to take part in it and I don't find it acceptable.

"I haven't got a problem with them teaching my child other religions and a small amount of information doesn't do any harm.

"But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'.

"Then two boys got detention and all the other children missed their refreshment break because of the teacher.

"Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right.

"They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

"My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson." The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: "It's absolutely disgusting, there's no other way of putting it.

"My daughter and a lot of other mothers are furious about their children being made to kneel on the floor and pray to Islam. If they didn't do it they were given detention.

"I am not racist, I've been friendly with an Indian for 30 years. I've also been to a Muslim wedding where it was explained to me that alcohol would not be served and I respected that.

"But if Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war."

Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.

Deputy headmaster Keith Plant said: "It's difficult to know at the moment whether this was part of the curriculum or not. I am not an RE teacher, I am an English teacher.

"At the moment it is our enterprise week and many of our members of staff are away.

"The particular member of staff you need to speak to isn't around. I think that it is a shame that so many parents have got in touch with the Press before coming to me.

"I have spoken to the teacher and she has articulately given me her version of events, but that is all I can give you at the moment."

A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: "The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received.

"Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly.

"Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding.

"We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."

Wow, that's ridiculous.

So they were at a non Muslim school where there was demonstration of Islam and they were forced to pray? That's not right..

Although, I'd ask who gave them the detention? Was it a non-Muslim teacher who tried to force them to partake?

If you force anyone to be multicultural they'll resent it..

What a stupid move by the teachers.

no malik the deciever, this is islam taking over.
step by step.

free world, sit up and take notice.
England and europe grealty regret making any space for those that will not assimilate.

What a stupid move from us infidels.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 5^th, 2008 at 10:56pm:

no malik the deciever, this is islam taking over. step by step. free world, sit up and take notice. England and europe grealty regret making any space for those that will not assimilate. What a stupid move from us infidels.

I tend to agree with Malik. It's political correctness gone mad. However, substitute praying to a Christian god by kids who have no background in Christianity and it was somehow acceptable. What they are doing with chaplains in school is a prime example of this.

If you protest against Islam being taught in this manner, you'd have to find some problem with the insidious way that prayers find their way into the agenda.

However, substitute praying to a Christian god by kids who have no background in Christianity and it was somehow acceptable. What they are doing with chaplains in school is a prime example of this.

It was considered acceptable. I don't think it still is.

No, I think its upto the parents. If they choose to put their children in a religious school then they should be allowed to do so. But I don't believe that any school should teach hatred against any other religion.

It is not an easy issue, but if you watched any of the 'Jesus Camp' doco, that Malik posted links for, you will see the problem of delusional parents, inflicting harm on their kids, by brainwashing them with ridiculous belief systems.

Some of the parents chose to 'home school' their kids, because they could not bear the thought of them learning about alternatives to creationism, or any education that did not include jesus as it's primary focus.

At some point, these parents cross the line into what I, for one, would categorise as child abuse, of a profound psychological nature.

This abuse currently must be accepted on the grounds of 'Freedom of Religion', and 'Parents' Rights'

My contention is that the abusive neglect of 'Childrens' Rights', gets totally left out of the debate, and personally, I believe that those rights should be paramount, when discussing Education.

I believe children have a right to an education.
One doing the 3 R's, sports, history etc etc etc.

Kids also have the right of freedom of any form of abuse.

The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools - after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum's time will have to be secular. "Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism," said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/18/godshonesttruth

Well I think it is nice to see some sense being brought into the area at last, maybe we will see this in Australia some day.
The sooner the better.

I hope they allow them to mock and ridicule the more glaringly obscene beliefs of the major religions, it is a worthwhile thing to do, as well as a lot of fun.

---

What is 'the curriculum's time'?

Everything but free time one would assume.

Creationism and ID are explicitly banned but so is proselytising even in religious education classes. The Qur'an may not be taught as if it is true even in Muslim independent schools, nor may the Bible in Christian schools.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 3:06pm:

The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools - after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum's time will have to be secular. "Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism," said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund.

hallaulah  

Yes please!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24247034-2,00.html

Obviously paedophilia is not the sole domain of the religious community, but the unhealthy and repressive guilt applied by religion would certainly not reduce it's prevalence.

I went through that system, and few, if any, emerged without serious damage.

I went through with a class of fifty odd boys, by my early twenties, there had been numerous suicides, murderers, rapists, and drug addicts from my one class.

I delivered the eulogy at my best friends funeral when I was 18.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 3:06pm:

The Swedish government has announced plans to clamp down hard on religious education. It will soon become illegal even for private faith schools to teach religious doctrines as if they were true. In an interesting twist on the American experience, prayer will remain legal in schools - after all, it has no truth value. But everything that takes place on the curriculum's time will have to be secular. "Pupils must be protected from every sort of fundamentalism," said the minister for schools, Jan Björklund. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/18/godshonesttruth Well I think it is nice to see some sense being brought into the area at last, maybe we will see this in Australia some day. The sooner the better. I hope they allow them to mock and ridicule the more glaringly obscene beliefs of the major religions, it is a worthwhile thing to do, as well as a lot of fun.

I can't help but feel that Sweden will not benefit from this move. They are just replacing one set of traditional morality with another.

Religion and culture are so intertwined. There is no harm in telling kids that a fat old guy in a big red suit comes down the chimney every Christmas to deliver presents. If fact, he can be used as a scape goat if something is amiss with the presents  ;D

Kids are pretty sharp when it comes to performing their own reality checks. It's a shame that moderate religion has to suffer as a result of the extremists.

I have a suspicion that this will turn into a meaningless paperwork exercise, where the school merely redefines the curriculum's time to suit it's goals.

Sorry to hear that mozzaok.

Why not drop funding from all private schools full stop. That would provide the incentive for all members of society to ensure that the state school system is bought up to a higher standard for everyone. Equally.

Religion could be studied as a social science subject but not as a practice.

freediver - the new ideas from sweden will be completely ineffective.
They have obviously realised the dreaful error they made and by are rightly fearful of being overrun.
There is NO way islamic school will stop teaching their world dominating ideals.
As has been displayed repeatedly here by other posters.

I believe that Sprints point is valid, this whole issue would probably have been left in the too hard basket, were it not for the need to counter growing division and extremism because of Islamic migration into europe.

I also believe that other religions' attempts to influence legal aspects of a societies moral  standards has been of concern, and it is a clever way to minimise opposition from christian groups by making it a universal ban on teaching religion in schools.

School should never be a place for proselytising with inaccurate information, irrespective of the religion involved.

I also agree with sprint that I cannot imagine any Islamic school complying with these laws.
Neither could I imagine any evangelical christian school complying.

This raises the point of what do you then do when they do not comply?

Obviously they should not be allowed to teach children.

Personally, that is an outcome that would not disappoint me, on the balance scales, the harm done to young minds is far greater than the good that these sorts of schools can do.

Like Locutious said, remove funding from private schools, and raise the quality of state run schools to a level we can all be proud of.

School for Education.

Church and family for brainwashing your kids to blindly follow your personal doctrine.

Mozzaok - yes, school is for education.  (fullstop).
teach kids the 3 R's, sports, history, social studies.

I feel a general introduction to "evolution vs creation" is ok.
But no bible or koran classes.
If people want a spiritual education, they can do that themselves.

Very few, if any, private schools, do not have a religious component to them, and this intertwining of religion with education is an evil thing that deserves to be stamped out.

If people want to choose a religion then they should be free to do so, but that should not extend to having it imposed on children as part of their education.

The basis which so many people defend private schools is upon the fact that they provide a better standard of education, but we should question whether that is something we wish to see continued by providing government support for these private schools.

I would prefer to see a public school system invested in, which offered the best education for our children, accessible by all, and free from individual religious dogmas.

If it means removing funding from private schools to help achieve that goal, then I would be all for it.

Public schools should not be relegated to the position of the perennial poor relation.
Social standing, and financial advantage are currently the primary determining factor for what opportunities our youth may be permitted to access, and in much of society that will never change, but education should be an exception.
All our kids should at least have the opportunity of receiving a first class education, and it should be public schools providing that.
If you look at how many of the scandanavian countries structure their education system, you can see that public education can be world class, it just takes the political will to make it so.

Quote:

Very few, if any, private schools, do not have a religious component to them, and this intertwining of religion with education is an evil thing that deserves to be stamped out

.

Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights. Furthermore, it is naive to think that it would be a good thing for the government to dictate what our children are allowed to think, or what parents or their agents are allowed to teach their children. This sort of hysteria is no different from religious extremists trying to ban atheism or competing religions. This just reinforces my view that atheism is also a religion, which also has it's extremists who are blinded by their zealotry. It's kind of ironic that those who have the most to gain from freedom of thought are just as keen to deny it to others.

Isn't there already a thread about this?


Quote:

but we should question whether that is something we wish to see continued by providing government support for these private schools

Yes mozz, that's what this thread is about.


Quote:

I would prefer to see a public school system invested in, which offered the best education for our children, accessible by all

I would prefer that government expenditure be constrained by reality.


Quote:

If it means removing funding from private schools to help achieve that goal, then I would be all for it.

But what if it made it harder to improve public education by burdening it with more students?


Quote:

Social standing, and financial advantage are currently the primary determining factor for what opportunities our youth may be permitted to access

Can you give some examples of how social standing determines opportunity?

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Quote:

Freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights.

My point exactly, that is why religious dogma should not be forcibly imposed upon children, not merely against their will, but when they are too young to even determine what their will is.

Whenever a religious argument speaks of human rights, then look out, because almost invariably they will be seeking to deny someone theirs, and in this case it is the human rights of children, which is not to be confused with those of their parents, but the childrens' own rights as individuals.

All those who seek to see the private school system further propped up with government money will always stress the academic superiority of private schools, as if it is some universal truism, but the fact of the matter is that the Finnish state school system (a secular system as well) is the best education system in the world, and provides brilliant results for students and society, with the removal of stress filled competitve end of year assessments, they still manage to have the highest rate of students in the world go on to successfully complete a degree or better, in higher education.

So, unless you think we are inherently dumber than the finnish people, then I think you could do worse than support a transition from our piecemeal private/religious, and state schools, to a world class state school system which we could all be confident in, and be proud of.

There is not even any need to reinvent the wheel, we have a great model in place we could use as our blueprint, and that would see all our kids getting the best opportunity that we as a society can give them, a great education.

Now once that system is up and running, and delivering the kinds of results we see overseas, then we can look again if we want, or need to invest in a private system outside of that, for those who seek government assistance in reinforcing their personal dogmas onto children.

I know if it were muslim madrassas teaching kids the koran, instead of universal morals, and civil responsibility, the results would be an overwhelming NO, so just because it is jesus stories instead just means that it is prejudice, and not reason, driving their position.

Quote:

My point exactly, that is why religious dogma should not be forcibly imposed upon children

Denying parents a choice in how to bring up their children is not supporting freedom of religion, it is denying it. You are the only one here suggesting that the government forcibly impose anything. Religious schools do not 'forcibly impose' religious dogma on children. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to send your child to a school of your choice. Freedom of choice does not mean the government says all children have to be brought up exactly the same way in exactly the same school. That is the opposite of freedom.


Quote:

not merely against their will, but when they are too young to even determine what their will is.

Where children are too young to choose for themselves, the right is always that of the parent, not of the government. Your claim is no less absurd than the government claiming that in the interest of freedom of consumer choice, all parents must be forced to dress their children in white until the child indicates a choice of their own. It trivialises the relationship between parent and child, it trivialises personal choice about spirituality, and it reverses the fundamental nature of freedom. Furthermore, your absurd claim relies on an assumption that denying a child a right to a religious education means that no choice has been made for, or imposed upon them. It has. Freedom of religion does not begin at 18. It begins at birth. Children do not belong to the government until they are 18. Freedom of religion includes the right to bring your children up in a religious environment. By denying this, you deny what freedom of religion really is.


Quote:

Whenever a religious argument speaks of human rights, then look out, because almost invariably they will be seeking to deny someone theirs

That is exactly what you are doing now mozz.


Quote:

and in this case it is the human rights of children

Mozz, getting your way and taking children away from their parents to 'protect' them from a religious education is not genuine protection. It is a denial of basic human rights. These rights do not begin at 18, allowing the government to choose until then. They begin at birth, and default to the parent, not the government, when a child does not make a choice. Your approach is no less condescending, and no less evil, then historical attempts to steal children from their parents and indoctrinate them into the government approved dogma. That you cloak it in a misrepresentation of freedom just makes it more evil, not less. groupthink and freedom of thought are not the same.


Quote:

which is not to be confused with those of their parents, but the childrens' own rights as individuals

Here's the problem Mozz. You replace the choice of the parent with the choice of the government, not that of the child. If the government decided that all children must recieve a Christian education instead, would you consider this just? Why do you think your version of government imposed 'choice' is any less dogmatic?


Quote:

All those who seek to see the private school system further propped up with government money will always stress the academic superiority of private schools, as if it is some universal truism, but the fact of the matter is that the Finnish state school system (a secular system as well) is the best education system in the world

Prove it.


Quote:

with the removal of stress filled competitve end of year assessments, they still manage to have the highest rate of students in the world go on to successfully complete a degree or better, in higher education.

LOL Mozza, this does not mean a thing. The rate of completion of tertiary degrees depends far more on the extent of funding of tertiary degrees than on the secondary system.


Quote:

There is not even any need to reinvent the wheel, we have a great model in place we could use as our blueprint, and that would see all our kids getting the best opportunity that we as a society can give them, a great education.

So you think it would be possible to give all students the best possible education under a government system? Are you aware of the costs involved?


Quote:

Now once that system is up and running, and delivering the kinds of results we see overseas, then we can look again if we want, or need to invest in a private system outside of that

I see a remarkable parallel with your distorted notions of freedom of choice. Rather than judging private schools on their merit, you think we should abolish them, replace them with givernmenment schools, then decide whether they are necessary? Wouldn't it make more sense to decide whether private schools are a good thing before you abolish them?


Quote:

I know if it were muslim madrassas teaching kids the koran, instead of universal morals, and civil responsibility, the results would be an overwhelming NO

Actually, Australia allows Muslim schools as well.


Quote:

so just because it is jesus stories instead just means that it is prejudice, and not reason, driving their position

.

Mozz, you are the most prejudiced of all in this debate. You would deny people freedom of choice because you think that the choice that most parents make for their children is 'evil' (your own words). This is nothing more than an attempt to intrerfere in the way other people choose to bring up their children in order to impose your own views upon them.

For me, my religion is part of my family's culture and I am glad to have been taught since birth. Parents will pass on their culture to their children and it is their right to do so. Also, I didn't go to a private school, but I don't think I would have minded.


Quote:

All those who seek to see the private school system further propped up with government money will always stress the academic superiority of private schools, as if it is some universal truism, but the fact of the matter is that the Finnish state school system (a secular system as well) is the best education system in the world, and provides brilliant results for students and society, with the removal of stress filled competitve end of year assessments, they still manage to have the highest rate of students in the world go on to successfully complete a degree or better, in higher education.

I would like to see the private school system to be further propped up by the government because I know that it saves taxpayer money, and I have never mentioned academic superiority of private schools in any arguments. "Best education system in the world" is very subjective and in the Academic Ranking of World Universities, ANU ranked 59th while University of Helsinki ranked 72nd. Also, Canada, USA and Japan have higher proportions of people with tertiary degrees.


Quote:

I know if it were muslim madrassas teaching kids the koran, instead of universal morals, and civil responsibility, the results would be an overwhelming NO, so just because it is jesus stories instead just means that it is prejudice, and not reason, driving their position.

There is a muslim school near my community and if there really was an overwhelming NO, it wouldn't exist would it?

Well if you guys really believe that rubbish, then it is indicative of how little faith you really have in your religions, that you need to seek to impose ot onto children, rather than letting them make their own choices when they reach an appropriate age.

Having children born negro, or asian, or caucasian is natural, having a child born as a muslim, or catholic is sick, and it is merely a perverted way that religion tries to grow it's numbers, in total disregard for human rights.

As for Freediver having the cheek to move my post because he cannot accept my inclusion of the religious element of private education into the debate on public vs private, well that is an offensively stupid attitude to take, as my posts were totally about the topic, and the fact that private schools also run a religious agenda is very much a part of the debate that needs to be considered.
If he also wanted to include my posts in this topic, he could easily do that, but to just move them because he does not agree with their thrust is petty minded.

Parents have a right (perhaps even a duty) to educate their children by the prescriptions of their honestly held morality code and it's natural for children to want to reciprocate by identifying with their parents. To imagine that parents should (or generally even could) refrain from transmitting their cultural and religious beliefs to their children (including the desire to have them formally educated by that faith or culture) is naive.

Parents violate that right (and their intentions become pernicious) when the child is threatened with ostracism or other emotional, psychological and physical punishments after he freely decides that he does not believe in the religious tenets of his parents.

However, its difficult to imagine a devout religious parent being able to identify and maintain a close bond with a child who chooses a code which is at odds with that parent without a lot of effort, tolerance and understanding. Not all people are capable of expending the time and effort it might take to achieve it.

Nobody should imagine that free choice does not come at a price - both for those who make the choice and others who are affected by it.

Well why stop at education then?
We could tattoo the parent's religion of choice onto the babies' foreheads when they are born, that why they can have their faith affirmed every time they look in the mirror.

I also think we need to introduce a rule for sports and playtime as well, we would not want to miss out on a chance to reinforce the accident for them of having their parents' choice of faith rammed down their throats when they are playing, we should have denominationally appropriate clothing and equipment only allowed to be used.

It is obviously not good enough for the religious in the community to have the chance to imprint their faith onto their kids at home, and during the 135 odd hours a week that the kids are not in school, it is imperative the faith is reinforced relentlessly, and giving up 32.5 hours a week for secular education is just too much to expect any decent god fearing person to put up with.

The nerve of these militant atheists, trying to have education time actually reserved for education, they are sick I tell you, sick.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 7:18pm:

Well why stop at education then? We could tattoo the parent's religion of choice onto the babies' foreheads when they are born, that why they can have their faith affirmed every time they look in the mirror.

Some religions do, don't they? (physically imprint the mark of the religion on the child - males, at least.. sometimes females as well... not that there's anything right with that ;D).

A memory that has tenaciously stuck with me about my years in Catholic schools was the ethic of "an eye for an eye". The protestant and non-religious families in the street always told their kids that if someone hit you... Hit them back. We, however, being Irish Catholics (and therefore morally superior in every way to protestants and the godless ;D) were taught at home and in school without exception that we were to 'turn the other cheek'... Don't know which was righter... Whether we should have been taught by Old Testament standards or, as we were, by New Testament ones... But I can say that no Irish Catholic kid with balls I knew ever took a beating that he didn't pay back in spades.

The morality of self-defence, self-respect, and the desire for dignity and honour transcends any imposed religious moral codes to the contrary.

Quote:

The nerve of these militant atheists, trying to have education time actually reserved for education, they are sick I tell you, sick.

Surely it is the outcome that matters, not what other things are tought alongside the standard curriculum? I am not aware of any religious schools that get religion mixed up with maths, or woodwork. Children taught in modern religious schools are no less capable academically, morally or socially than their public school counterparts. If anything they tend to come out on top. You are trying to turn religious schools into something they quite clearly are not mozz, in order to further your denial of basic freedoms.

Do you still seriously think that banning religious schools protects freedom of religion? Do you think that religion is nothing more than a decision a person makes at a government approved age?

I think banning religious schools is pretty extreme.  For one thing, culture and religion are often difficult to disentangle. The whole idea smacks of a state imposed monoculture. Apart from anything else, it would be incredibly boring.

If kids can make it through a religious education and still maintain independance of thought then that's a pretty good sign. Both my kids went through Catholic school, and despite my efforts, they both turned out to be fairly strong atheists.  They don't teach you how to be a Catholic at Catholic school, but they do provide a very balanced education. I don't know about the other denominations.  

mozza just because you had a bad experience at a Christian school, doesn't mean all religious schools are wrong. That's like saying atheism is wrong because Pol pot murdered heaps of people.

muso wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 9:28pm:

They don't teach you how to be a Catholic at Catholic school,

Oh really? ;D

Weren't your kids instructed on making their first confession, first communion, their confirmation? Were they not instructed in Catechism? No compulsory attendance at Mass (during school hours on all saints day) on holy days of obligation? No prayers for a plenary indulgence for all the faithful departed?

The Catholic schools I went to or ever heard of made damn sure the kids were taught how to be a Catholic.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 10:19pm:

muso wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 9:28pm: They don't teach you how to be a Catholic at Catholic school, Oh really? ;D Weren't your kids instructed on making their first confession, first communion, their confirmation? Were they not instructed in Catechism? No compulsory attendance at Mass (during school hours on all saints day) on holy days of obligation? No prayers for a plenary indulgence for all the faithful departed? The Catholic schools I went to or ever heard of made damn sure the kids were taught how to be a Catholic.

No. They didn't do any of those things. There was certainly no compulsory attendance at mass because quite a few of the families were not even Catholic.

muso wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 10:42pm:

No. They didn't do any of those things. There was certainly no compulsory attendance at mass because quite a few of the families were not even Catholic.

Fair enough... Must be a whole other thing going on with Catholicism where you live.

I was talking to a guy at work recently about Catholic education. He's a father of two pre-schoolers and the most lapsed of lapsed Catholics (so disinterested in religion is he that he's not even into it enough to call himself an atheist ;D - at least not an informed one). Anyway, he and his wife got hell-bent on pre-enrolling their kids at a highly regarded Catholic school (given that they're both "Catholics" you see...). Trouble was, the religious who run the school wanted to see evidence of commitment to the faith... Tough call for him and his wife... They ended up having to take lessons at night to "brush up" on their Catholicism as they were informed that his kids would be expected to make the sacraments of first confession, holy communion and later their confirmation along with expected attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy days of Obligation - They, as parents, were not only required to consent to this indoctrination, but were to assist... Did they consent? You bet!  ;D... Bit of laugh really, listening to him regaling us with his faltering rendition of Catholic Catechism... His hypocrisy knew no bounds when it came to what he imagined he needed to do to climb the social ladder ;D

Wow!  That's weird.

muso wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 9:03am:

Wow!  That's weird.

Par for the Catholic course, I thought.

I attended three different high schools, two of them were public and one was private. Guess which ones had the religious education during normal school hours? That's right - both of the public ones. The private one did not (and yes it was a religious based school). The thing is, you can't make public school students attend a school/religious function outside of class hours. You can with a private school. So if you really are so hell bent on pigeon holing certain hours for secular education and certain hours for religious education (not that I see any logical reason to), then private schools have the better track record in my experience. They are certainly not the source of 'evil' that Mozz makes them out to be.

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 9:36am:

I attended three different high schools, two of them were public and one was private. Guess which ones had the religious education during normal school hours? That's right - both of the public ones. The private one did not (and yes it was a religious based school).

Religious education in the Catholic schools I attended or have ever known of, was an integral part of their curricula.

It all got a bit comedic in our senior years when the priests decided they needed to give us lads a bit of latitude during Catechism and started allowing open debate about the doctrine

Of course one smartarse was into existentialism, wasn't he... having just tried to plough his way through "Being and Nothingness" and bullshitting us all that he was "up with it" ;D

Our "open debate" all came to a tragi-comic end when he tried to argue that we were all free (monstrously free, as Sartre would have us believe) in the absolute to do whatever we wished right or wrong... That was too much for Father O'Neil who banged his fist on his desk insisting that we were most definitely not free and that was all there was to it. After more prodding by the smartarse, he stood up red-faced with fury, dismissed the class and walked out ;D

After that, no more free-thinking for the lads was to be had in Catechism Instruction ;D

If it was up to me I'd ban all religious school. Segregating children on the basis of religion never serves society well. Look around you. However, it will never happen, certainly not in my lifetime. Freedom of religion is not denied simply by removing religious schools.

There should be separation of religion from education !

Could not agree more, but in a meantime new schools are built and separation of some parts of our community will be even easier.

Actually, I don't have too much of an issue with religion being a subject at school....like any other subject. It is important for children to understand religion/s, what people believe in and why, the study of religion is valuable in conjunction with history and current events, it's almost impossible to learn about those things without religion being a part of it. But, it needs to be taught as religion, not as fact, and certainly not as a substitute for science.

Quote:

Freedom of religion is not denied simply by removing religious schools.

I'm curious about what you mean with this. Are you arguing that it is not a denial of freedom of religion, or are you indicating support for broader measures to deny freedom of religion?

jordan484 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 2:37pm:

Actually, I don't have too much of an issue with religion being a subject at school....like any other subject. It is important for children to understand religion/s, what people believe in and why, the study of religion is valuable in conjunction with history and current events, it's almost impossible to learn about those things without religion being a part of it. But, it needs to be taught as religion, not as fact, and certainly not as a substitute for science.

Traditional Christian sects do teach religion as faith not as science. And it appears there are many who would consider themselves cultural Catholics/Protestants... In that, where religion is inextricably woven into their national identity (as with the Irish, the Italians and Spanish for example) they can be "ardent" Catholics/Protestants without believing one word of the doctrine.

I think this argument needs a bit of eprspective about the role of education in society. The role of education is to indoctrinate children into the dominant paradigm. It is not to change the dominant paradigm. Thus, if there is no universally agreed view on religion, or how it should be taught, the government has no role in deciding which version is taught. To do so would undermine freedom of thought. So, if you think religion should be taught from a Christian perspective, teach your children from a Christian persopective, or have them taught that way. If you think they should be taught from a universalist perspective, have them taught that way. If you think it should be left out of education entirely, leave it out. There is enough choice for you to do so, if you care that much about it.

It is sickening to see people who get frustrated with their failure to convince other people to share their world view, try to get the government to impose it instead on their children against their will. If you really are right, you should be able to convince the parents, then let them do the right them by their own children. Trying to bypass the logical step of arguing it out against adults on an even footing is nothing more than an attempt to unlevel the playing field to give your view an unfair advantage, because it cannot win on it's own merits.

On the other hand, if you think that the parents are deluded by their indoctrination and are passing on that delusion, and you need to intervene to break the cycle, then you are a pompous, arrogant and power-mad and do not understand what you are talking about. You cannot get anywhere by pretending that you are the only one who is capable of thinking for themselves and that other people need to lose control of their own children so that they can be protected from the dangerous thoughts of their parents. Man up and take on an adult, rather than stealing children to have your way with them.

freediver wrote on Dec 29^th, 2009 at 5:01pm:

Quote: Freedom of religion is not denied simply by removing religious schools. I'm curious about what you mean with this. Are you arguing that it is not a denial of freedom of religion, or are you indicating support for broader measures to deny freedom of religion?

The former.

When does denial by the government of the right of people to practice their religion as they chose become denial of freedom of religion?

Perhaps a simpler example would help. If the government prevents you from saying certain things, is that a denial of freedom of speech, or is it only denial of freedom of speech when the government prevents you from saying anything?

As I said, I don't think banning religious schools denies anyone the right to practice their religion.

Do you think that banning criticism of certain ideas or groups denies anyone the right to freedom of speech?

Yes, I spose it does. I know you're going somewhere with this, and I don't pretend to always be right, I just don't think religious schools are necessary to practice your religion, they serve to divide and segregate and I don't think that's a good thing. If I may quote the great Tim Minchin -

" Yes, I have all the usual objections to miseducation of children who in tax exempt institutions are taught to externalize blame and to feel ashamed and to judge things as plain right or wrong."

Schools should be, primarily, places of secular education, imo.

Schools should be places where young human beings learn how to learn, places where young minds can learn how to discover, test, and to discern truth(s), for themselves,.

Not places where 'accepted' 'truths' are indoctrinated into young minds.

But in societies of men, i think schools often perform the function of 'indoctrination' [the indoctrination of a society's 'political correctness'?].

They should not be, imo.

And imo, religious schools are places of 'religious' indoctrination, and they should not be, imo.



IMO, religious 'exploration' should be something personal, something which one pursues for oneself, when one comes to that place where, for one's own personal reasons, a person wants to ask 'bigger' questions.





Someone said,

'Life is a search for meaning?'

I wouldn't want anyone in the formal school / education system, to try and tell me that the answer is to the meaning of life is, '42'.

And if they did want to 'force' that 'knowledge' upon me, i'd want them to explain the basis of their conclusion.         ;)

Where I'm going is that freedom is meaningless if it only extends to what the government thinks you should be allowed to say, or to how the government thinks you should be able to practice your religion. It is for individuals to decide how to practice their religion. If that includes educating their children in a religious institution, they are free to do so.

Society should only deny people these basic freedoms where there is demonstrable harm. This is not the case with religious schools. In fact, by any objective measure, there is great benefit with most religious schools. Mozz for example only wishes to deny people their right because he disagrees with the choices they make. He thinks children would be better off in a secular institution, and thinks parents are 'evil' for not making the same choice as him. Likewise, you mention segregation as a downside. However, conformity for the sake of conformity is not a valid reason to deny people fundamental human rights. Segregation is actually an upside, in that the whole point of personal freedom is the right to be different, or the same, or segregated. It is an expression of freedom to choose.

If we were to argue that children should be raised in identical institutions for the sake of conformity, who's to say that secular schools would win? You could just as easily force all children into a religious school. Most religious institutions realised a long time ago that they have to give up on forcing people to conform. If they hadn't, all Australian schools would be overtly religious schools. Public schools still are in many ways. It is time for the secularists to extend the same courtesy.

Quote:

Not places where 'accepted' 'truths' are indoctrinated into young minds.

You cannot educate someone without indoctrinating them. All education is by doing. You cannot teach someone to learn without them actually learning something. For them to learn, they have to be indoctrinated. For example, you cannot really comprehend one sicentific paradigm within the context of another. You have to be indoctrinated. You have to use it. Only after it is fored upon your brain and you use it many times do you really understand what it is all about.

It is the same with English. You cannot teach someone how to learn a language without teaching them a language.

It is the same with all aspects of education.

It is the same with religion. By approaching it in a detached academic sense, you miss out on what it is really about. That doesn't mean it cannot be taught that way, but you have to appreciate that you are merely indoctrinating children into a different paradigm. You are not 'not indoctrinating' them.

I think there's been a bit of an over-reaction to the idea of religious schools... At least going by my own experience of them.

In the Catholic schools I attended (and in all the Catholic schools I've ever known of) we were educated in the 'faith of our fathers' (as the hymn went). At no time were we ordered to choose between that faith and science, in creationism versus the theory of evolution. We were taught the history, rites, doctrine and articles of faith of the Roman Catholic Church (albeit sometimes in excruciating and wearying detail) with the aim of making us informed and believing Roman Catholics. Never did we feel we were being boot camped into contorted militant soldiers of Christ or to despise those of other faiths (... well except for those dirty protestants - only kidding............. or am I? ;D).

It didn't stop us being kids at play, the odd fight in the playground, the faking the flu to get a day off, the dog eating the homework, the pranks, the practical jokes that went horribly wrong, the eventual and inevitable fascination with all things carnal, the smoking behind the bikesheds... all  the usual trouble that any band of kids anywhere in the country growing up together would encounter.

Quote:

It is for individuals to decide how to practice their religion.

It is, you're right, but up to a point. Can you imagine giving people like abu full control over the way they want to practice their religion? We'd be stoning women in the streets of sydney tomorrow.

This debate is just ridiculous really.

If parents want to 'indoctrinate' their children, they'll do it at home anyway. Merely banning religious schools will do nothing. And actually, it's quite obvious that most of a child's religious education will come from home anyway, not from a religious school. The school might teach some of the academic aspects of the religion, but the bulk of it will come from a good, practising, believing home.

Quote:

This debate is just ridiculous really.

Well, buzz off to MV and don't comment then.......oh that's right, they banned you.

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 9:00am:

Quote: Not places where 'accepted' 'truths' are indoctrinated into young minds. You cannot educate someone without indoctrinating them. All education is by doing. You cannot teach someone to learn without them actually learning something. For them to learn, they have to be indoctrinated. For example, you cannot really comprehend one sicentific paradigm within the context of another. You have to be indoctrinated. You have to use it. Only after it is fored upon your brain and you use it many times do you really understand what it is all about. It is the same with English. You cannot teach someone how to learn a language without teaching them a language. It is the same with all aspects of education. It is the same with religion. By approaching it in a detached academic sense, you miss out on what it is really about. That doesn't mean it cannot be taught that way, but you have to appreciate that you are merely indoctrinating children into a different paradigm. You are not 'not indoctrinating' them.

What i going on about is that, i feel that children should be encouraged to think critically.

Education may be about learning facts, but it should also be about teaching students to be willing to, and to have the courage to, challenge those things [including currently accepted 'paradigms'], that [through the acquisition of new knowledge] they can see as illogical, irrational, or absurd.


The earth is flat.
The sun circles the earth.
Cholera is caused by bad vapours in the air.
Metal boats can never float.
Stomach ulcers are caused by stress.


Throughout man's history, it has been rebels, and those who have challenged authority and the accepted science of the day, that have always led us to new truths.

One thing I will say for religious education in schools, is that it gives the child some understanding of the religious impulse which is useful in later life if he ever has to deal with religious extremism or cults.

The worst heaving religious nutjobs I've encountered are those who have discovered religion later in life, who have no comprehension of the reasonable limits of their religiosity and who have some fast held belief that god personally speaks to them... Something traditional religions discourage for very good reason.

I think most people here agree that there should be some exposure to religion/s at school.

For one thing, religion is something that has shaped our culture, and it's important to get some grasp of religion for the same reason that we teach history.

I think it's important to focus on what is not acceptable, and for me an example might be religious or any other teachings that tell the students that they are some kind of elite -  For example, a Fundamentalist Christian school in which students were regularly instructed that faiths other than Christianity are to be despised as evil, or that adherents of other faiths, and indeed faithless atheists are doing the work of the Devil and must be shunned. This would be unacceptable in a school even if such doctrines were an integral part of the beliefs of the church that ran the school.

Why? - because it's working against the fabric of society, causing division.  We have to draw a line somewhere. It is unacceptable to cause division and prejudice in society just as it is unacceptable to teach kids that cannibalism is right, regardless of whether being a fervent cannibal is part of the parents' religion.  We have overriding standards in society, and it is appropriate that we do.

I've said this before, but there is a need for a totally impartial program  that promotes harmony within society, because it's in the best interests of society to understand the different groups.

Of course, that doesn't prevent religious groups from providing instruction in their own religion, as long as it's not done in a way that alienates other groups in society.

If you ban religious schools, FD is right in saying that you are limiting religious freedom, and Abu is right in saying that the religious indoctrination would just take place in another forum, such as home or  church/ mosque.

The best compromise is to allow religious schools, but insist on a curriculum that is not divisive. (Yes - it is possible)

Yadda has a good point about critical thinking. We should be providing an environment where the student can question what the teacher is saying (to a reasonable extent). We should focus on teaching kids how to think for themselves rather than what to think.

Such an environment has been shown to be more conducive to good learning habits anyway.

muso wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 1:53pm:

Yadda has a good point about critical thinking. We should be providing an environment where the student can question what the teacher is saying (to a reasonable extent). We should focus on teaching kids how to think for themselves rather than what to think. Such an environment has been shown to be more conducive to good learning habits anyway.

Bearing in mind, of course, that faith does not stand up to scrupulous cross-examination.

Soon enough, the questioner will stand at a crossroad where his questions descend into pointless impertinence and he's forced to make a choice. Either he accepts the faith, replete with its contradictions, violations of natural laws and ridiculously improbable outcomes... or he takes the other road...

For those who resolve to be the immovable object, resisting the force of the undeniable, all that's left is stuckness and the search for the hidden meaning of the accidental Zen wisdom of Yoggi Berra when, on coming to that fork in the road... he took it. ;D

Quote:

It is, you're right, but up to a point.

And where is that point? Where they start ot be different and you feel segregated? Where they choose to bring their children up differently to how you do?


Quote:

Can you imagine giving people like abu full control over the way they want to practice their religion?

He does have full control. That is the nature of freedom. People have the right to choose to believe things that scare you. But it is only when they do actual harm that you can put them in jail for it. Abu is even allowed to bring up children.


Quote:

What i going on about is that, i feel that children should be encouraged to think critically. Education may be about learning facts, but it should also be about teaching students to be willing to, and to have the courage to, challenge those things [including currently accepted 'paradigms'], that [through the acquisition of new knowledge] they can see as illogical, irrational, or absurd.

I was taught that, beginning in high school. Especially in history, but also in English. In science we were still being given the tools to make that sort of contribution.


Quote:

Throughout man's history, it has been rebels, and those who have challenged authority and the accepted science of the day, that have always led us to new truths.

Not exactly. If there were no establishment, there would be no rebels, only chaos. Nowhere is this more true than in science. It is only possible to rebel against the establishment after the currently accepted paradigm has been pushed to its limits by those who believe it. Those who extend the current paradigm contribute just as much as those who bring it down.


Quote:

I think it's important to focus on what is not acceptable, and for me an example might be religious or any other teachings that tell the students that they are some kind of elite -  For example, a Fundamentalist Christian school in which students were regularly instructed that faiths other than Christianity are to be despised as evil, or that adherents of other faiths, and indeed faithless atheists are doing the work of the Devil and must be shunned. This would be unacceptable in a school even if such doctrines were an integral part of the beliefs of the church that ran the school.

That is also part of freedom of religion - the freedom to believe, and to tell your children, that yours is the one true religion. Can you imagine telling a Christian that they must instruct their children that buddhists also go to heaven? Does that sound like freedom of religion, or some naive, government imposed 'utopia'?


Quote:

Why? - because it's working against the fabric of society, causing division.

That's the great thing about freedom. We are not all the same. But it is not against the fabric of our society. It is the fabric of our society. It is truly astonishing how quickly some would do away with it.


Quote:

We have to draw a line somewhere.

Perhaps we should choose a better spot. Drawing the line for the sake of drawing a line isn't much help.


Quote:

It is unacceptable to cause division and prejudice in society

That's what our entire political system is based on. It seems to work pretty well. Should we ban Alan Jones whil we are at it?


Quote:

just as it is unacceptable to teach kids that cannibalism is right

I think you'll find there is a significant difference between encouraging a child to eat dead people and telling them that a nother person is not going to heaven. If you don't believe in heaven, why are you so upset if someone else believes you are not going there? Are you jelous?


Quote:

I've said this before, but there is a need for a totally impartial program  that promotes harmony within society, because it's in the best interests of society to understand the different groups.

So we should teach our children to understand the different groups by denying them the right to be a different group? To me it seems like that would be teaching them the opposite of understanding.


Quote:

If you ban religious schools, FD is right in saying that you are limiting religious freedom, and Abu is right in saying that the religious indoctrination would just take place in another forum, such as home or  church/ mosque.

Until you find some other bullshit excuse for banning it there too. After all, the exact same bullshit arguments you are using to ban religious schools work just as well. Remember that Abu is just as keen as you to deny religious freedom because his version of freedom of religion involves stoning apostates to death. You should be careful who you get into bed with. It is only through freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc - freedom our ancestors died to protect and give to us - that you are even allowed to make these 'heretical' arguments. Can you not see the irony here? Do you really think atheists will come out on top if the government disposes with freedom of religion?


Quote:

The best compromise is to allow religious schools, but insist on a curriculum that is not divisive. (Yes - it is possible)

Wrong. The best compromise is to respect people's freedom of religion.

Quote:

Yadda has a good point about critical thinking. We should be providing an environment where the student can question what the teacher is saying (to a reasonable extent). We should focus on teaching kids how to think for themselves rather than what to think.

But you are doing the opposite. You are trying to dictate to not only children, but their parents as well, what they are allowed to think. You are denying them the right to be different, because you think that being different is a danger to society. You are confusing groupthink with critical thinking. You are confusing agreement with you for independent thought. Perhaps you think that you are the only one who is capable of critical thinking, therefor any division within society needs to be stamped out with critical thinking and banning certain teachings. If you really valued critical thinking, you would convinve adults of your wisdom, rather than stealing their children to 're-educate' them to your liking.


Quote:

Such an environment has been shown to be more conducive to good learning habits anyway.

By who? Hitler? The Chinese government?


Quote:

Well, buzz off to MV and don't comment then.......oh that's right, they banned you.

WTF? They banned Abu?

Yes they suspended him, then he tried to come back as an alter before the suspension was up, so both accounts were banned. Now suspicion that he has come back again, with yet another alter and I'm pretty sure they're correct judging by the posting style.

I find it difficult to believe Abu would deliberately flout rules and return under different disguises to try and sneak back into a forum.

Difficult as you may find it, it is very true, nonetheless.

Quote:

I find it difficult to believe Abu would deliberately flout rules and return under different disguises to try and sneak back into a forum.

Guilty as charged mantra.

I sometimes flout the rules, hard as it is to believe  :P

Quote:

And where is that point? Where they start ot be different and you feel segregated? Where they choose to bring their children up differently to how you do?

Where they choose to teach their children their way is the absolute truth and there is no other, where they condone hatred and violence towards those that are different and have different views, where they dispute scientific fact and where they have no respect for independent thought.

It isn't about bringing their children up "differently" it's about frowning upon brainwashing innocent minds into believing ancients cult ideals.

Quote:

Where they choose to teach their children their way is the absolute truth and there is no other

Isn't that pretty much the definition of religion?


Quote:

where they condone hatred and violence towards those that are different and have different views

Are you aware of any Australian schools that condone violence?


Quote:

and where they have no respect for independent thought

How is it respectful of independent thought to want to ban institutions because they teach people to think differently to you?


Quote:

It isn't about bringing their children up "differently" it's about frowning upon brainwashing innocent minds into believing ancients cult ideals.

So in other words, it is about denying people freedom of religion because you don't like their religion. Because they are different, you can only come to terms with it by insisting they are brainwashed and lack your special gift of independent thought. You cannot comprehend the difference, so you fear it and want to destroy it.

No. I think you're a little off track with the whole religious schools thing. You can't seem to separate religion and the freedom to practice one's religion, with religious schools. There is a difference.

What is the difference? Are people free to have religion, but not to practice it in ways that certain people object to for no other reason than that they don't like religion?

Religion is critical to the freedom to practice religion. Once the government starts dictating what religion is, it dictates how it may be practiced.

So you're ok with Muslims introducing sharia law? Maybe ok with Christians adhering to out-dated laws, facts and ideals? Should we gather up all gays tonight and hang them, really, because that's what real religious freedom would allow.

Quote:

So you're ok with Muslims introducing sharia law?

No.


Quote:

Maybe ok with Christians adhering to out-dated laws, facts and ideals?

Sure. Thou shalt not lie is a good one. If have no complaints if Christians refrain from lying.


Quote:

Should we gather up all gays tonight and hang them

No.


Quote:

because that's what real religious freedom would allow

No it wouldn't. Remember what I said about demonstrable harm?

This is not just about freedom of religion. It goes for all freedoms. They only extend to where they start infringing on the freedom of others. I'm not sure why you have such difficulty judging where the line should be drawn, or where people who support freedom would draw it. It is not a choice between letting religious loonies hang people and stamping out religion by whatever little scheme you can think of, like stealing their children.