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.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2008 at 11:56am:


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.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jun 20^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:


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.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 8:37am:


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.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 3:57pm:


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.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2008 at 6:54pm:


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:


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:

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.