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.

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:


- 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:


A buddhist would be an athiest as well.

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.

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 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.

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


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:


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.