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


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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?