This is odd. In Australia, school kids can opt-in to take scripture classes, and the kids who opt out get to sit in the school during those hours doing nothing, which seems a bit of a waste. So the schools have a new plan: while the religious kids are off memorizing bible verses, the secular kids will get classes in ethics which will "cover topics including respect, bullying, animal rights and questions about life and death."
That sounds reasonable to me, and a good use of time. Guess who doesn't like the idea, though? Church leaders! There is actually a rule that prohibits secular students from any formal learning during that special scripture time. The Catholics are whining that giving non-Christians an introduction to ethics could "jeopardise the future of religious education". Ministers are complaining that it's unfair to give an introduction to ethics without input from their religious point of view. Apparently, if you're not a Christian, you're expected to spend your time working on coloring books or perfecting your thumb-twiddling, rather than actually learning something.
So now there's a poll on this subject. It looks like a lot of people in NSW are in favor of enforced idleness for secular kids.
Should ethics classes be introduced into NSW primary schools?
Yes
(32.6%)
No
(67.4%)
- Log in to post comments
I have a problem with this...
It means that the children of Christian parents will be arbitrarily excluded from learning ethics. Given that they're already being inculcated into an unethical worldview, this will only serve to make it even less likely for them to ever be able to escape it and become decent human beings.
As the Christians keep telling us, no non-goddist can possibly have any ethics or morals, so it would be a waste of time to teach these things to non-goddists.
Posted to the survey article:
"As a parent, I prefer my child learn ethics rather than religion. There seem to be some troublesome bits that are mutually exclusive."
This has been on my wish list for some time: a little bit of philosophy study for the youths. Teaching younglings HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think, is a challenge. And it's best not left to politicians, because they hate the very idea and will try to subvert it.
Well it seems to me that coloring books and learning Bible babble are roughly equivalent in terms of education. I think the ethics classes should be for all, sans religious input. Now if you want to tweak the kids into moral relativism, bring on the religions. All of them.
Since the vast majority of individuals that end up in jail believe in God, the schools should be teaching ethics to those taking the religion classes.
The real problem here is the original law requiring "scripture" class. What a horrible bit of brain-washing. I didn't know the church had its hooks that deep into the government in Australia. This puts them down closer to the countries that have official state religions.
I used to be a Christian
But I'm not one any more.
Faith, you see
Abandoned me
When I shopped
At the ethics store.
Why not offer a comparative religion course instead, for those who have no desire to learn scripture as if it were true?
I'm Australian, and I only have vague memories of this from my primary school education. I think scripture classes were about an hour per week and taught by volunteers. Whether or not we attended was essentially our own choice and very informal, many students like me sat around in class doing something like silent reading or perhaps board games. At that age it was essentially a non-issue, I went to the scripture class out of interest one week and it was just many student crammed into the library listening to an old lady jabber on about the bible - even at that age it struck me as boring and silly and once was enough.
Of course these ethics classes have been talked about for a while and are painfully obviously what should have been done all along, and any objections are insane. I saw a brief news segment on this about a week ago, the classes seemed along the lines of the volunteer instruction presenting a scenario (Your grandmother gives you a birthday gift you don't like, what do you say to her?) and leaving the kids to talk it out. Some of the parking-lot-parents reactions were amusing, though. "I think it's ok, as long as it reflects Christian values".
That's doubtful, but definitely something to hope for.
And how typical of the Catholic Church to insist on adherence to a horrendously outdated 19th century law.
Well, guess what, Allan Beaven: the parents who have their kids opt out of scripture class most likely think the same about YOUR class! That's why they want their own. If you want to deny them their class, expect them to deny you yours!
's Only fair.
Stick to your own preferred superstition and don't deny others to actually LEARN something.
Get your calculators out. 1 hour per week for 43 weeks per year for 13 years? That is a fair chunk of your education. What would our youth be like today if they had that ethical training? I'd love to know.
Well not thirteen years - there were no scripture classes in high school, so including kindergarten that's seven years. Even then I'm not sure my original primary school even had scripture classes, or at least there they weren't offered to kindergarten or first graders.
This plan for ethics classes is beginning to look like a brilliantly subversive move, in that it has drawn reactions from the churches which leave them looking bad.
I was struck by this quote from an Anglican:
Not only does this appear to admit that the religious education isn't adequately teaching ethics, in which case one has to wonder why those supporting the religious classes think they should have any input into the secular ethics classes, it also reduces ethical choices to the status of a brand. You think gays are regular people, while this other guy thinks they're an abomination? You support equal rights for women, while someone else thinks women who step out of line should be stoned to death? Oh, those are just different brands, you know? Like Coke and Pepsi, or Nike and Adidas.
I don't think it'd be a bad idea for kids to have a couple of school hours free each week, where they could study something of their own choosing instead of following the teachers' agenda.
I think this plan does kinda suck, because it denies ethics education to the students whose parents make them take bible class. Just because it can't be 100% fair doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be ethics classes for the rest of the kids. But it would be better if they dropped the bible class altogether, or put ethics in a different time slot where everyone could do it and had the secular kids take comparative religion.
So they're outright admitting that no one would take their Bible classes if there were any other alternative than to sit and stare at the wall for an hour. Nice.
Yes, 13 years. At least in high school here they can leave school early as most of them do. All 3 of my kids came home early one day a week because the school couldn't teach them anything else.
One of my employers (in Victoria, not NSW) showed me her son's enrolment forms for his first year of school. They required her to opt OUT of scripture classes on his behalf.
I had no idea.
I can't find the link, but I remember reading an article about some higher-ranking Anglican demanding the 'right' to vet the material for the NSW classes.
Oh God, PZ, please stop using ow.ly and use bit.ly like you do on Twitter. Social bars are annoying enough on the destination web site. We don't need URL shorteners to be adding their own, too.
I know that's not your link, but it's trivial to convert it to a bit.ly link, or hell, embed the original URL in the link, since we can't see it anyway, there's no reason to shorten it.
over here in Finland, you can opt IN to religious education (which in general is about and by the state lutheran religion) - but only if you're not a member of the church, because if you ARE a member of the church, you have no choice.
Everyone else gets to do "ethics and morals", which I'm told is actually far more useful, but I think that's pretty scandalous, so I'm just making sure that when my kids ask me about the big beard in the sky, I give them MY opinion if they ask for it, and generally encourage them to make up their own mind.
I find the churches lack of faith in ethical and moral learning disturbing...
Ack. Curse me and my speedreading.
From what I've been told by some parents who've opted out, the non-scripture kids aren't currently permitted to do anything during scripture time that could give them any kind of 'educational advantage' over the scripture kids. Like, say, learning stuff.
This crap had better sort itself out by the time I get around to having kids.
For fuck sake, these people are completely oblivious.
Catholic Church representatives [..] said the ethics classes could jeopardise the future of religious education"
"...There is no way the Church can survive with an ethical and moral populace!" The Church representative continued "We've relied for decades on people's moral laziness and appeasement. If they start insisting to hold us accountable for discretion and withholding alms the Church, she will not survive. We must keep the people ignorant and amoral for the good of society."
As an Australian (Victorian not from NSW) who left primary school only 6 years ago I still keenly remember the boredom I felt sitting at the back of the class with two other kids doing pointless work which the teacher didn't even bother to mark while the other kids learnt scripture from some creepy, doddering old man.
I also remember interrupting the class to ask said creepy doddering old man a question, which although I cannot remember exactly what it was, left the old man confused and he ended up giving some non-answer. Afterwards I was taken aside by the teacher and yelled at for daring to ask a question in the scripture class I wasn't taking part in.
I think that was the time when I actively decided that school was pointless and started refusing to do work or pay attention in class, much to my parents' chagrin.
"From what I've been told by some parents who've opted out, the non-scripture kids aren't currently permitted to do anything during scripture time that could give them any kind of 'educational advantage' over the scripture kids. Like, say, learning stuff."
You know when objectivists talk about society shackling people to keep them from being exceptional? Yeah this.
I bet Church leaders would have the same objection to the students being taught formal logic.
Also, on the note of poll crashing: Crash this poll and help me test my new software. http://www.kobrascorner.com/newpoll/
Seems like no place is safe. While we have move fundies here (USA), the rest of the West seems have poor or no separation of church and state (or officially sanctioned churches). Additionally, we are seeing blasphemy laws pop up right and left.
I am not so sure that we don't actually have it better here in the US than they do in Europe and Australia.
In Romania the religious indoctrination classes are theoretically not compulsory, however when schools starts kids find out that they've been enrolled in them, without their consent.
This is pretty odd, right?
I think all the kids should take Ethics class. Far too few do, and far far too many mistake religious dogma for ethics.
What's really funny, I have heard people say that PZ is sooo negative. But, as far as I've seen, he is very positive; he just dares to comment on the negative positions of others. Someone has to. It's far to easy to just ignore the damage people do by encouraging bad science and bad logic.
I recently sent PZ an email that describes a very similar practice that is allowed in Oregon. Kids are taken for one hour each week to bible study, while the kids that "opt out" are left behind in the classroom. Students that remain in class cannot have new material taught to them, and basically hang out with the teacher for an hour. One of the things that really bothered me about it was that as each kid returned from bible study they would pressure the other kids with permission slips and suggestions that they were missing out on bible study. Not every district chooses to do this, but it is unfortunate that several do.
Ministers are complaining that it's unfair to give an introduction to ethics without input from their religious point of view.
At this point, any sane person can conclude that the very last thing we need is for children to be learning ethics from the very people trying to rape them.
Meh.
In NYS, they are considering allowing supermarkets to sell wine. Liquor stores are of course vehemently opposed (with a couple of notable exceptions -- I'll come to that in a moment) and they invent all sorts of reasons why it will be "bad, mm'kay?" It's spun like it is some sort of concern about kids getting access to alcohol and other societal woes, but we all know it's because this would be competition that many liquor stores couldn't measure up to, and they'd go out of business.
I mentioned notable exceptions... Liquor stores that are owned by the same family that runs the Wegmans supermarket chain are of course totally in favor of it. Surprise surprise.
This is no different. A business (in this case, the church) will always oppose a change in legislation that enables their competitors. Duh.
It's just too bad most people don't see this business for what it is.
Wow, and I thought religion was making the U.S. retarded. Somehow I thought Aussies had just a little more sense.
Isn't this an outright admission by the Cultists that an ethics class is vastly more beneficial than the Bronze Age Mythology class? So much so that it'd give the ethics students an unfair advantage? Isn't it also an admission that the Mythology class is totally devoid of anything related to ethics/morality?
Ehlsever asks: "Isn't this an outright admission by the Cultists that an ethics class is vastly more beneficial than the Bronze Age Mythology class?"
Yes, Ehlsever, it is.
You've never met an Ozlander, have you? ;-)
Speaking as a former student of 11 years of Malaysian moral education classes (held for slightly over 1 hour per week), I would still say it is a waste of time to hold ethics classes.
Moral lessons degenerated into nothing more than exercises of memorization of the definition of moral values along with arbitrary "match the sub-values to the picture" exam questions, and state-sponsored propaganda.
It not only felt like a waste of time, to be forced into memorizing why being religious is moral was so repulsive, I became immoral just so I could stick it to the person teaching the moral lesson (by speaking quite loudly that I was an atheist was ludicrously, immoral according to the textbook definition).
Really, I would rather have extra classes to improve upon my failing chemistry and physics grades (which never recovered).
Of course, I come from a country with failing education standards where politicians are more interested in protecting the status quo then actually improving anything. I am sure the Australians would not allow political interest to get in the way of proper education, right?
I really don't get this view. The entire point of the course is that it's for students who don't do religious studies. Moving it to a time when everyone can participate renders the entire thing pointless- the religious studies students would still be getting to do something while everyone else sits idle.
My other problem is that it should be the students and not parents deciding whether or not they do religious classes.
Well, the poll is now about 90% in favor of ethics classes. This just goes to show how changeable and worthless these unscientific polls are.
""I think it's ok, as long as it reflects Christian values"."
Fuck Christian values. Okay, now that my knee-jerk response is out of the way...
You mean like Christian values like stoning adulterers? Come on, Christian parents, don't try to pretend that the vast majority of your "Christian values" aren't just secular values that you inject your hoary old myths into.
I remember, throughout my schooling, and in various different subjects, having informal discussions on ethics, and not once did we handicap the proceedings with any religious nonsense.
The only problem I can see with adding an ethics class to Australian schools is that kids might choose between the two by whichever one they think is easiest. Whereas now, you have a lot of kids inoculated from Christian classes by the reward of being able to goof off for a period instead. If I had had that option as a schoolboy, I would have taken it without hesitation.
"if an additional ethics course is so necessary and important, then it should be one which has a had wider input than from just one ethical brand"
Should we teach more than one brand of religion in your scripture classes then?
Well, religious instruction in many European countries is mostly comparative religion, with a bit of secular and almost secular ethics, taught by the mellowest, most liberal people that can exist in their denomination without getting excommunicated (...or without getting excommunicated as long as the church doesn't find out what they're saying).
That's why I never opted out while my faith was fading away (and after I had become old enough that I, rather than my parents, could have opted out). The alternative would have been free time.
That is the point! :-)
Nope, the Christian position on that one is "he among you who is without sin throw the first stone".
(...Well, I don't know how many American fundamentalists actually know that part of the Gospels.)
Ok. I know that the point is that. the religious people are as much as admitting that their classes are worthless.
The problem seems to be that they don't want the secular kids getting some actual education while some kids are in religion class or as PZ suggested, twiddling their thumbs.
The problem of the peer pressure on the secular students in the form of permission slips when they return to real classes was also mentioned. .
I have the solution to both problems.
Move the religious class to the end of the school on Friday and allow the secular kids to leave for the weekend.
. .
@Rewarp:
Then Malaysian ethics classes suck, but don't assume it'll hold true for everyone else. My ethics teach challenged our assumptions, exposed us to very many ethicl systems, and not only didn't go around telling us we had to be religious, but insisted that yu give a logical, reasoned answer to any ethical question; none of this 'cause it's in teh Buy-Bull' nonsense.
Well, damn it. If they won't teach any classes on ethics, I guess the kids will just have to play D&D or something evil like that in the mean time.
David Marjanović wrote:
I went through quite a few religion teachers during primary and secondary education, and in most cases I don't know if they were religious or not. It's not the sort of question that comes up in religion class.
Translation: If kids learn what ethics are, they'll see what a load of bull Catholic dogma is.
(Oh, wait: they already see that Catholic dogma is a steaming pile of horse poo. Too late.)
Now I've got it: if non-religious kids (and as far as the Catholics are concerned, anyone who's not Catholic is effectively non-religious) take ethics classes, then the schools will release a whole generation of secular youngsters on the world who can debate Catholic apologists under the table, and the Church won't be able to say you can only be good if you believe in their god.
This system works in the conservative Poland.
It works like so: Those kids who are lazy go to religion classes and spend their time having fun, enjoying themselves, playing games, and ignoring the preacher.
Almost nobody takes the ethics classes - because the number of hardcore atheists in an average school is not enough to make hiring an ethics teacher economically feasible.
There's a rare display of honesty. It's also a blatant expression of the core of fear at the heart of all religion. Can't have the young 'uns figure out that you can be a moral person without all the brainwashing and claptrap.
Funny. In the province of Quebec, where I grew up, we had this exact system. We were enrolled in religion class by default, but our parents could choose to opt us out, in which case we had what was called "morals" class instead.
We also had to say a prayer every morning at the start of school, which my elementary-aged self found boring and pointless but did anyway because I was expected to.
Of course at that age I didn't see religion as horrible indoctrination of children. I just thought it was another thing like Santa Claus that grown-ups told us was true to make us be good. It wasn't until I got a bit older that I realized that those grown-ups seriously believed it.
All that being said, morals class was just as boring and pointless and religion class probably would have been. We learned things like "if you ignore a bully and pretend they don't bother you, they will stop bullying you", which every person who has been bullied as a child knows is completely untrue. The fact that I don't remember much else that we learned goes to show how pointless the class was.
I'm a teacher from NSW, and I don't think the relatively high number opposed to ethics classes reflects much relgious fervour in this case, but a sincere apathy about religious/ moral questions (yes, I know, not the same thing) in general. Scripture programs are run on a voluntary basis there, both for attendees as well as those giving the lessons.
Secular students are given a free period during Scripture, and I suspect many of those who answered the poll were remembering the happy hours spent on the playground (primary) and library (high school) while their more religious classmates were sitting inside listening to the droanings of Some Church Lady. As for the teachers, we got to put our feet up for 45 minutes in the staff lounge - we were strongly discouraged from taking part, so as not to be perceived as promoting any particular faith - so it worked out very well for all concerned.
I'm confused, does "sit in the school during those hours doing nothing" mean sitting silently at their desks staring at the front of the class for an hour or more? Sounds like punishment to me.
I had compulsory Religious Education classes (UK) for the whole of my school life. After our final lesson, our teacher (mathematics, ex-monk, possibly atheist) asked us how many were believers. Of 25, only 1 was. What I'd call a result. We never did study ethics, as such, though. I can't remember a single lesson of the entire 12 years, except for drawing Noah's Ark in primary school, and looking for dirty words in the Bible in secondary school.
Oddly, I think we have found an instance wherein doing nothing is better than doing something.
Doing nothing = not having religious claptrap poured into your ear.
Sounds like a winner.
by the way, what's stopping them from having their own independent discussion group during the time the saps are having Jesus shoved at them ?
This happens in the United States too. It's Released Time Christian Education. It is usually limited to grades 3-5 but the students who don't go cannot be taught anything new during that time. It's heinous.
http://www.rtce.org/
Who need ethics when you claim to have direct line to the invisible man in the sky.
I went to scripture classes in NSW in both primary and high school, both in public schools. I have never been in more rambunctious, less controlled, more chaotic classes in my life. The dude sat at the front talking to the three students that cared and the rest of us went feral. And we were actually pretty good most of the time. Something about religion classes turned us into hell-monkeys.
I'd have been much happier going to an ethics class. The teacher would have been much happier without me (I kept asking questions about how good were people in 0AD about identifying comas and whether Jesus was just in a coma for 4 days). The teacher would have been much happier without most of us. And in terms of indoctrination; complete fail.
A
I have a problem with suggesting that kids that don't go to the scripture class miss out on ethics. Any hint that religion and ethical behavior is somehow related is wrong, and one of the biggest misconceptions against atheism. Too many people think that being a Christian means that you are a good person, and being an atheist therefore means you're not. I don't mind the ethics classes (although it seems a bit patronizing) but not as an alternative for religion. Teach them something about society in stead, or indeed just do something fun in that hour, I don't mind at all if kids realize that a life without a church is a lot more fun and worth living.
Maybe I missed it here, but it seems to me that the religious are saying that any worthwhile activity counts more than the scripture class, don't allow anything but trivial activities if the kids aren't attending. Don't they get it?
@7
TWood, the class is an opt-in class only and it exists precisely because of Australia's church/state separation. I rather like the idea as it keeps the crazies off by themselves and makes them look marginal. And to me there is poetic balance in having 'doing nothing' being equated to religious indoctrination.
I think the crazies like it though since the contrast is simply blank time the scripture class gains in stature by the comparison. Having competition in the form of legitimate ethics classes makes the religious indoctrination seem less than legitimate. That is the threat the crazies see.
@mcbender: What has teaching the other kids ethics got to do with the superstitious not being taught ethics? What I find abhorrent is that public funds are being used to promote superstition at all, but that is a completely separate point from teaching school kids ethics. The only problem I have is, although it looks nice on paper, is how *do* you teach ethics? Most kids ape the other apes in their environment - maybe their parents, maybe the horrible trailer trash that they go to school with. For most of them ethics is being told in specific instances "that's wrong" and "go apologize". What book will be used to teach ethics? Oh, I know - the bible! See, we can turn this around and say it's really a jesus cult plot to indoctrinate the other kids. It's a serious question though.
Just for the sake of honest reporting, opposition to the ethics classes is mostly coming from the (VERY reactionary in Sydney) Anglican church. The Catholic Church, to their credit, seem to be in favour of the classes. (I write this as one of the Catholics' loudest critics)
Of course, there's nothing surprising about a Christian church being opposed to ethics.
one of my happiest contributions to a poll!
It needs to go to the next level though, what is scripture doing in the classroom anyway? That's what sunday school is for.
Utah (at least the school district I was in and I think it is pretty much universal) lets the mormon kids out for seminary class for an hour a day. Now it used to be that students not interested in seminary class had an option on what to do with the extra hour: take or not take a class. Now though I understand that the non-seminary -- which means non-mormon -- students must take the extra class. Which means non-mormon students have a class load of 8, while the mormon students have a class load of 7.
I don't know, is having an extra graded class a bonus or a burden? Seems like that would depend on the individual which makes the mandatory thing kind of unfair.
Anyway that is what happens when you have a state established religion on the sly - imagine what would happen if they got to establish without restriction.
Good on you mate! I'm glad PZ is following the appalling slide toward religion-pandering here in Oz, because most Ozzies aren't!
I agree with a previous poster who said that the high result seemingly against ethics in the quoted poll is not necessarily a pro religious education victory. Its more a result of a popular lazy apathy about anything 'clever sounding'.
I'll risk being shot down here- I'm not convinced that 'ethics' education is the panacea many here like to think it is. Many silly or nefarious ideas can find their way into ethics classes; I'm thinking mainly of garbage like postmodern relativism or Ayn Rand-esque libertarianism. Sure, arm kids with the basics needed to think their way through the cultural and political landscape of the 21st century but then let the little buggers go outside and spend some time in nature (A.K.A. 'reality'). An hour or two a week spent pond-dipping, birdwatching, hiking or fossil collecting will do the anaemic little screen-gawpers a world of good...
our kids choose to opt out of religion (we gave them the choice after grade one, so they would know what they were in for) and neither of them spend the time doing nothing. (our youngest is in prep and she is adament she wants to opt out straight away after hearing what the boys have said)
The one in grade 6 makes a start on his homework - he is thrilled; the one in grade 4 reads (swapping fiction for fiction - he is quite tickled by this idea). Although, at the moment he is reading Dead Famous Scientists - which includes Darwin - he was most amused by the quote from Thomas Huxley - 'I'd rather be related to an ape than a bishop'.
The bits of religion they overhear make for hilarious, informative dinner conversations - it has actually paved the way for us to discuss evolution etc in way more detail than we may have done.
I would have a problem with ethics being taught in the classroom - too much room for personal views to get in the way. It would have to be taught very well, and very, very carefully - too many people i know seem to equate ethics with *gag* christian values.
Both my kids get to do educationally useful stuff when the other kids do CRE. Probably more to do with a switched on school principal more than requirements.
Calling Aussie secular parents - put the screws on your schools to make sure that their religious education programs meet the education department requirements. Many RE teachers flaunt the rules, overtly trying to convert kids. Lets see them whine about that. Insist on coverage of other religions.
Q: Should ethics classes be introduced into NSW primary schools?
It was interesting that by voting on this issue I was given the chance to vote on other issues I know nothing about ... hold on ... I guess that's not unlike when I vote in local elections, only in this case, it's somebody else's local election ... kind of.
#41:
Here we have a total disconnect between the BS of some posters here, and reality. Christ himself put an end to this practice, and no, he was not an advocate of witch-burning either. Drowning pedophiles, perhaps, but not stoning/burning women.
I think giving the Catholic Church unfettered access to your child for one hour per week will leave them with an ethics lesson they will never forget.
condignation @ 54
Nah - it just means they get to sit out. depending on the age of the child they either sit in the classroom (at a computer terminal, at their desk or in a reading area ) and do their own thing. Our grade 6 kid sits in the 'computer lab' a verandah outside the class room and does homework (or reads or catches up on school work).
most classrooms these days seem to have groups of desks, quiet reading nooks, computers set up around the perimeter of the room - and it is not uncommon for some students to be doing something different to the remainder of the class at any one time (eg remedial help from a teachers' aide; working on the computer while the rest of the class does another activity etc) - so opting out of religion isn't as isolating as it might seem.
This intolerant religious shit is spread by indoctrination of the young. Only a small percentage of people have the mettle to challenge what they've been indoctrinated with as they get older. I find it appauling this kind of crap has gotten so ingrained into the education system. That is why I hold out no hope for humanity as we are headed right back to the dark ages from what I can make out.Worse still, we've just given it away.
It is just ridiculous that here in NSW, the children who reject religious indoctrination classes may find the alternative (ethics) curriculum influenced by religion.
If religion can't stop this course (which is for children that reject them) they want a say in how it is run.
They want to control everything.
Thanks for pharyngulating the poll.
Quirky still the liar. Jebus, if he existed, was a conservative Rabbi. Maybe if he actually read his babble, instead of babbling...
I definitely support teaching ethics (and other philosophy for that matter) to young children, as a philosophy major with a minor in education. Teaching ethics classes to grammar school kids would be my dream job.
But that's beside the point obviously. The point is that kids are sitting idle while their peers go to religious class. I know all too well how it feels to be the student on the sidelines. I'd go to another class or sit in an empty room and read when the other kids did PE, and because I wasn't obviously disabled, the other kids would constantly ask me why I didn't go and pressure me to join them. Let the secular kids learn something worthwhile in their free time. It'll save them from pestering questions at the very least.
I'm also an Aussie, and I did RI - Religious Instruction - in Primary School for one hour per week. Well, I would have, but being a Methodist by background (we don't approve of sex standing up because it leads to dancing!), and Methodism having just folded itself into the Uniting Church, this new (actually rather progressive) body didn't bother to send anyone along.
So, I stared out the window and drew pictures. In the good weather we even went outside. A grand way to spend an hour! Personally, the Sunday School I was forced to attend put me off religion forever - not because it was hellfire and brimstone; not, it was touchy-feely (not literally) and Kum Ba Yah! I just could never credit the idea of this bloke being the offspring of a God (and a Virgin! but I only worked that last bit out later...)
Don't get the idea of Aussies being indoctrinated - we do maths and science for many more hours per week and that often doesn't sink in at all!
The guy that wants to set up the ethics classes is a Christian, incidentally. Of the 'non-secular humanist' persuasion. Not a bad bloke, really. Here's a link to him talking about it recently to one of Australia's most famous Atheists if you're interested -
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2878188.htm
Two things wrong with that. You don't opt-in, it's mandatory unless you opt-out. Secondly (at least in my experience), it's not about learning the bible at all. Rather it was talking about the necessity of a personal relationship with God and about God being real.
As for the ethics class, it's a really good idea. What I don't get is why they insist on teaching religion to children, but not teach them how to think critically or ethically evaluate situations. Surely the latter two are vital for individuals participating in a free society.
Wrong. The New Testament clearly states that the rules of the Old Testaments are still valid. Furthermore, Christ also supposedly said that he was here to bring a sword and not peace, as well as accept those who hate their family. (If the New Testament isn't a complete fabrication that is.)
Kel wrote:
Probably because they know that critical thinking is likely to lead many people to realise exactly how illogical and unsupported their religion is; similarly, understanding ethics will lead them to realise that if the god of the bible does exist, he's a bloodthirsty, violent, unjust genocidal monster.
Kel OM @ 79
it might be different in different states but in Qld you opt-in when they start grade one. you receive a letter from the school regarding consenting to religious education, allowing your child to be photographed and something else I can't recall.
even though i signed the letter i still write to the teacher at the start of each year opting out - just to make sure they know what is going on.
as for the bible study vs personal relationship - they seem to do both. according to our kids they (over)hear the same bible stories every year.
Al B. Atroll @ 71:
Heh. Oh, not so. Nope. It would be so nice, for a change, if theists actually knew that book of horrors they love to bring up. See here for a little enlightenment: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
Now, that Jesus of yours, he fully held up the laws of the old testament, more than once. Just because he happened to save a prostitute he liked, doesn't mean he gave a shit about all the other people being tortured and murdered.
The passages from Mark? That's your peaceful Jesus criticizing people for not killing their disobedient children, according to [old testament] law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21)
Not the mention the ending of Mark is widely considered to be a forgery.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
erm, I suck at bible study. I mean John 8, not the ending of mark. Ignore my link.
I can't find the proper literature I was looking for, so here's wikipedia on Jesus and the adulterous woman story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
[Doggone, P.Z. How can I ever win a Molly if I have to use three or four different methods to sign in just to leave a silly comment here? Good luck on getting that ironed out.]
In Notes on the State of Virginia Thomas Jefferson described how use of the Bible in school set kids back: It was used as a reader, and it's terrible for teaching kids to read; and inevitably, kids find the most bizarre sections and get the wrong message -- Lot's daughters, Cain and Able, that sort of thing.
So, Jefferson said, the Bible should be taken out of schools. That would save time in teaching reading, Jefferson said.
And with the time saved? Why, school kids could learn ethics instead of religion. Good ethics is always useful, Jefferson said.
Maybe the old guy had it right.
Perhaps. I was in NSW.
Come to think of it Primary School might have been opt-in. I remember spending the first week in the non-religious class because my parents didn't tell the school what religion I was. But in high school, it was opt-out and it had to be parental consent.
#76,80,83
You would have a valid point IF Christians interpreted the Bible the same way you do, but the fundiest, YEC-iest Christian of them all does not advocate stoning whores. Whatsfurthermore, Muhammad criticized the Jews of Yathrib, some 600 years after Christ, for not carrying out this same punishment (he knew it was in the Mosaic law) and to this day you see Muslims (not Christians) stoning women to death. Funny how Islam and you guys interpret the Bible the same way. Guess women are just lucky Christians don't share your 'enlightened' insight.
Damn you Haley, here I was, all excited that I know something David M doesnt !!!
Yeah, that ending is considered a forgery, what a shame, it's in all the Hollywood jebus movies, such a nice story !
I like it how politicians and concerned church members obviously think that sitting around doing nothing beats learning about ethics.
Wrong again. See Reconstructionist Christians.
And also see Uganda's kill-the-gays bill. It's a pure interpretation of Leviticus.
Oh yes, women should thank the book that has kept them slaves of a patriarchal system for thousands of years.
Delusional twit.
ABQ:
Well, d'oh. That's because they're hypocrites.
cf. Matthew 5:17-19.
You're not just a godbotting troll, you're an ignoramus.
Even your guessing is pathetic.
FYI: Not all women are Christians.
Also, when we interpret the Bible as violent, we're not interpreting as true or something that we should carry out. I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion you pissant.
Re: interpreting the Bible.
Context.
Al B. Atroll:
Oh yes they do. You don't read Xtian discussion boards, do you? Lots and lots of xtians would love to follow the bible. Those pesky secular laws are in the way though. Tsk. Every now and then though, even that isn't deterrent enough. It was a bible believin', god worshippin' man who murdered Dr. George Tiller. And that murderer was praised to the skies for doing "god's work." Don't even try to tell me what xtians think and believe. I can read it for myself, and it's an ugly, violent world inside their heads.
Yep. Their laws reflect their book of horrors. That's exactly how a lot of xtians would like to see the U.S. run. Living according to the bible - Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin both think that's a fine way to live. None of this silly secular stuff getting in the way. No sir.
Wrong again. You specialize in wrong, don't you? The book of horrors, your bible, is a book filled with psychotic sadism, reflecting the patriarchy who was busy crushing the former gods and the women who represented them.
As for women being lucky? Pardon me, I just have to get this out: go fuck yourself six ways from Sunday, sideways, up and down and all around with a rusty rake, you arrogant, hypocritical piece of shit. Didn't notice you in the last couple of abortion legislation threads. Your "enlightened" xtians are so damn determined to stomp on women's rights it is frightening. It's not just the legal right to obtain an abortion which is being stomped on, but being able to access birth control as well, using the weaselly, cowardly xtian way of claiming "right of religious conscience". This is your "enlightened" people, making sure slut shaming is alive and well in the 21st century, happily condemning untold women to horrible deaths as well as insuring that untold amounts of infants will suffer from poverty, abuse and will often be murdered. Yes, so very enlightened, these goddists who wish to take us back, back, back into a pit of religious darkness. No thanks.
@#90
Oh yeah thanx, I forgot about obscure cults, including those in deepest Africa who interpret the Bible the same way you guys & Muslims do. Likewise, the descendants of emancipated slaves should be thankful that Christian abolitionists interpreted Galations 5.1 way differently to how you guys & Islam might.
You're just full of wrong. The Southern Baptist Church supported slavery with the Bible. And your usage of "deepest Africa" is revealing of your imperialist attitude. Pissant.
You would have a valid point IF Christians interpreted the Bible the same way you do, but the fundiest, YEC-iest Christian of them all does not advocate stoning whores.
I'm tellin ya, with gems like this surely Al is making his pitch to participate in the next Survivor round.
So much for the moral consistency of that fucking book. Some true believers used the book to justify slavery while other true believers used it to condemn slavery. I guess that the big sky daddy was too fucking stupid to realize that people would use his words for opposite ideologies.
Al B. Quirky, you are not quirky at all. You are just a bloody stupid git.
Also, Islam use thier damned Koran not the Bible. They see the Bible as filled with errors. So drawing an equivalent is just fucking stupid (yeah your attempt at Godwin fails).
Ichthyic, ABQ is a certain candidate, second only to the SlantyTroll for me.
--
ABQ: No response to my citation of Matthew 5:17-19?
Why am I not surprised. ;)
First, being a PhD scientist is no guarantor of ethics, as Havasupai Indians, along with indigenous people around the world, are learning once again:
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/04/science-smarts-is-no-guarant…
Second, while the historical Jesus, if such a person existed, probably did not utter the passage from John 8, it being a later addition to the gospels and sometimes placed in other locations, he DID utter the "millstone around the neck" comment for people leading little ones astray. So, Nerd, you're at least partially wrong.
So, too, is the Nerd wrong in claiming Jesus was like a conservative rabbi. If we're talking about Jesus the teacher/faith healer, he was more liberal. If we're talking about the Jesus burning with anger at Sadducean collaborationists, he was a hardcore left-liberal, arguably.
That said, "rabbinic Judaism" didn't exist until 200 years after Pontius Pilate, so the comparison is a bit specious anyway.
As an atheist, I'd like to see atheists be better informed at times before making knee-jerk comments about Jesus himself. Of course, the guy Jesus may just be a fictional character, which is a whole nother story.
Oh, and Nerd, and others, I have read the Bible. In Hebrew and Greek, in sections. Just telling you, before you respond to me.
@#100
JM, what I'm saying to your brain is: Christians don't interpret the Bible the same way you guys (& Muslims) do. I cannot bestow upon you the intelligence required to assimilate that information.
And what you are ignoring is the fact that they do interpret the Bible that way. And stop saying Muslims. They interpret the Koran, not the Bible. Your Godwin attempt is noted.
steverino63, if you are going to make that boast, I suggest that you talk to one of the regulars. He goes by the name of Owlmirrow. He has read that stitched together book in Hebrew and Greek. And in more then just sections.
Also, you are posting on an open blog. You do not fucking tell others who can and cannot answer you. Jackass!
And your No True Scotsman Christian fallacy is also noted.
JM, what I'm saying to your brain is: Christians don't interpret the Bible the same way you guys (& Muslims) do. I cannot bestow upon you the intelligence required to assimilate that information.
Al B. Dense, what you are not intellectually honest enough to realize is this, not even fucking christians interpret that fucking book the same way. Which is why you have christians both defending and condemning slavery.
BLOODY STUPID GIT!
@#106
Your claim, so out with the evidence of the former, woman. And..oh no, please not darkest Africa again??
Already given. Like all troll, you have selective reading.
Heh. ABQ: cf. #93.
I wish I could take pride in being ahead of a mind-corrupted godbot, but alas, it ain't much of an achievement.
Evidence? You ignoramus, here's but one example:
Rev. Dr. Richard Furman's EXPOSITION of The Views of the Baptists, RELATIVE TO THE COLOURED POPULATION In the United States IN A COMMUNICATION To the Governor of South-Carolina
--------
[SECOND EDITION.]
--------
CHARLESTON:
PRINTED BY A.E. MILLER
No. 4 Broad-st.
---
1838.
I've slowly come to realise this. Well not all Christians, but it seems most actually think that The Bible is something more than a socially-constructed human-edited collection of myths and parables, that there is a divine hand in it. I just don't get that, a talking snake should be a dead giveaway that it ain't literal... ;)
ABQ:
Ah. There you have it, the wonderful, incredible, oh-so-enlightened xtian view of how to treat women. The nerve of us, walking around with actual names.
For your information, you nasty, ugly hypocrite, there's plenty of evidence that your book of horrors the bible was used to both justify and condemn slavery. Oh, and in case you respond with yet another repository of wrong, my name isn't woman.
Janine, you misread me, whether accidentally or deliberately, I don't know. I could be "charitable" and assume that it was accidental. But, by the tone of your comment, I'll pass on being "charitable" and simply tell you that I did not tell people they could not respond to me.
I've been flamed in the past by other atheists here on other issues, so, my comment was simply, in essence, don't say that I haven't read that book, because I have, and have read enough "chunks" of it in its individual languages to be semi-expert on it. Oh, I've read the full thing in English, too. Hello?
I've read here, off and on, for years. But, I don't post here often for a variety of reasons. Like this, as I await being flamed again.
That said, everything I said to Nerd stands.
At the same time, Al is of course wrong on his slavery claims. The book of Galatians? Paul himself defends slavery, Al, when he claims that slave and free are "equal" and that nobody should worry about changing his station.
steverino63, there's a good possibility you've been "flamed" because you come across like an arrogant assclown. Many people here have studied the bible and read it in the original languages.
If you disagree with someone, try engaging them in an actual discussion, rather than coming across as Superior Bibleman, who has knowledge no others could possibly have. If you just want to lecture, there are more suitable places, I'm sure.
steverino:
Hm, perhaps. Could you be charitable, though? :)
And here is an example of an American Christian's interpretation of Leviticus.
Janine, no, you have come across like the arrogant assclown from your first response.
So, to live up to YOUR handle?
Blow me.
We really know very little about what Jesus actually said, thought or did. We can't be at all sure of the degree of historical reliability of the Gospels - they contradict one another in places, and many claims are not corroborated by outside sources. As has been discussed here ad nauseam, some people even doubt the existence of Jesus as a historical figure at all.
It's true that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels seems, by modern standards, quite left-wing. He didn't like money-changers or the conservative Pharisees and Sadducees, and he, allegedly, spent his time with unpopular, socially marginalised people such as tax collectors, prostitutes and Samaritans (a marginalised ethnic minority). But then there are other parts of the Gospels, such as the verses Caine cites above, which seem to randomly contradict this image of Jesus, casting further doubt on the reliability of the Gospels. And it's pretty clear that both liberal and conservative believers cherry-pick the bits they like, and ignore the bits which are inconvenient.
It really strikes me that the nature of Christianity is such that Jesus can be whatever the individual believer wants him to be. The "Jesus" Pat Robertson believes in is not the same as the "Jesus" Barry Lynn believes in; and both are very different from the "Jesus" the Pope believes in. People as different from one another as James Dobson and Desmond Tutu both believe themselves to be doing what Jesus wants; they can't both be right.
As I've said before, Christians who are nice, caring people tend to believe in a nice, fluffly, inoffensive Jesus; conversely, Christians who are bigoted assholes tend to believe in a bigoted, unpleasant Jesus. This makes Christianity utterly useless as a guide to ethics. All it is useful for is to justify the way the individual believer wanted to behave anyway.
It sounds so obvious but it's something that really needs to be stressed. With some 2.5 billion "Christians", some 43000 sects and the spread of Christianity worldwide amalgamating with native cultures, there really is no way one can put what Christianity into an argument without at least 2.49 billion people claiming you're misrepresenting their beliefs. Contrary to how some use this point, this isn't a strength nor a shield to hide behind. It might be easier at times to talk in generalities but that doesn't mean that those who do think that there's one type of Christian and all those others are "No True Christians"...
Oh yeah, and there is a lot of shit that is done in the name of Christianity by self-professed Christians. Pointing out this does not mean you think that every single Christian in the world is motivated in exactly the same way.
steverino63 @ 116:
You've just proved you aren't too careful about what others have to say. You're blaming Janine for something I wrote. No, you can insult me all you like, however, it seems to me you owe Janine an apology.
That should be "now, you can insult me all you like" in #120.
Walton:
QFT. Can't be pointed out often enough.
@steverino63
Guess what, steverino63? Christian abolitionist William Wilberforce interpreted Gal. 5.1 differently to you. Amazing!
yes; very amazing for people to project their thoughts onto this literary Rorschach test.
Historically though, none of the biblical writers were concerned with abolishing slavery; you were just supposed to treat the ones of your own kind "nicely" (or at least to according to a "fair" set of rules)
@#124
It matters not if what you say is true or correct, what mattered was WW's interpretation of Gal. 5.1
The principle of explosion*: from a contradiction anything, and its opposite, follow. Since the Bible contradicts itself it can be used to prove anything (and its opposite).
* Possibly the coolest name for a principle.
Funny that when Christianity had the power they failed to do anything about abolishing slavery. Along comes the Enlightenment and the separation of power from the church and suddenly followers of the good book show its necessity...
#111
Thats it. Stand up for your rights! And don't forget who gave them to ya.
I see, Christianity in terms of equality for women has been a shining example that secular thinkers could learn a lot from...
That's right! Don't forget about those woman's rights activists who stood up to the Christian patriarchy!
@#127
Kel, nothing was stopping Atheists (at any stage) to do something to abolish slavery. But they didn't do nuffin'.
I thought that the general position was that "Divine Command" was insufficient to explain ethics (and that if you define "ethical" as doing the right thing for the right reason that religious motives for behaviours can automatically make them unethical), so the problem with the plan is that the people who most need the education won't be getting it.
How about not having any power? Or being a tiny fraction of the population?
Al B. Quirky @127
That's because there was no 'atheist' power base. They were all God Botherers in those days.
Just a point, although various governments have made slavery illegal doesn't mean to say that it is still no a multi-mi$$ion dollar industry in the 21stC
Way to shift the goal posts. Neglecting the fact that there were atheists involved in the abolition of slavery, my point was that the abolition of slavery happened in the context of the Enlightenment. Not during Christian rule, but when men and women worked towards their own set of values. That some were Christians misses the point completely, the point was that if Christianity itself was really the cause of abolition then we should have seen it under Christian domination of western culture.
Don't you question why when Christianity had control over western Europe for over a millennia, we didn't see any of these changes. But come the enlightenment and the greater rebellion against the powers of the church (intellectually, ethically, politically) then in the few hundred years hence there is a working towards equal rights. Why is it that suddenly Christian values are what's good for the world when the church loses power?
@#133
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. You making me cry!
Your boss apparently works slowly, since it hasn't even been a century since women got the right to participate in the U.S. politically, they still get paid less for doing the same work, and if christians have their way, women will never have bodily autonomy.
Oh, cut it out. Secularists (most of which were deists, who would have been atheists if our scientific knowledge had been available)have been leading the way for the abolition of slavery and for civil rights for centuries. The people they have had to fight against have been exclusively religious.
William Lloyd Garrison, for instance, was a fanatical christian who supported slavery and wanted to destroy the Constitution until he read and adopted the secular Enlightenment philosophy. He and other secularists founded the abolitionist movement, and christians gradually joined the cause. Again, their opponents were exclusively religious, christian in particular.
ABQ,
Way to consider G5:1 in isolation.
In Galatians 5:1-12, Paul was telling the Galatian Christians that circumcision (which they considered a ritualistic act leading to spiritual merit) is an egregious error.
The bondage spoken of is to the Jewish Law, not slavery, and Paul was in fact inveighing against the Judaisers in the community.
Typical godbot, you have no clue about the scriptures you purport to follow.
--
PS Context.
I'm guessing what's coming next is that Science is a Christian enterprise because Galileo, Kepler, Bacon and Newton were all Christians...
Yep, we have this kind of troll.
Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad:
Damn straight. They were so darn radical, they could even manage to call people by their name, recognizing that women are human beings, not chattel which can be bought and sold and must always be submissive to man of ABQ's ilk. That sort of ugly behaviour, why, the bible's full of it.
@132,
Yup, and Euthyphro made the point long, long ago.
Kel,
argue with Moveable Type, who says "there was no 'atheist' power base. They were all God Botherers in those days"
Atheists can't win this: either you claim you did nothing because you were 'powerless', or the "Enlightenment" empowered you to do something, but you left it to Christians. You just so pathetic!
Then it matters not what the Bible actually says;
what matters is that otherwise good people will project their own morality into the book.
Well done, Al. Well done.
Who exactly made this claim?
Quirkster asking why atheists didnt abolish slavery is a little bit like asking why Walmart employees dont introduce equal pay for women.
What a clownshoe.
Christians were fine and dandy with slavery in the USA.
@#145
Then how come they ended it, clownshoe?
There wasn't, but you're somehow thinking I'm calling it an atheist enterprise. No! I'll explain it to you again. The abolishment of slavery (as well as the rise of science, democracy and the notion of individual liberty) happened in the context of the enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a success because it took the power away from the church and away from the monarchy and into the hands of the individual.
You're conducting a completely different argument in your own head. Atheism is merely the negation of the proposition of interventionist deities. Atheism is not the issue here. Theists, deists, pantheists and atheists all helped contribute to the enlightenment. Individuals pushing ideas helped change the course of humanity.
Ask yourself, why wasn't there an abolition of slavery until the Enlightenment?
@#111
Settle, petal.
How come they supported it?
This is the problem with your argument. You're pointing at the actions of individuals who happened to be Christian who worked to abolish it and neglect that there those who supported it who also happened to be Christian. And there were those who used the bible to defend the practice.
If abolition is the logical Christian conclusion, then why didn't it happen while Christianity had a hold over Europe? Why did it take until the Enlightenment to allow for the abolition of slavery, and even then there were those who opposed abolition on religious grounds. Why?
"They" did? The christians? All of them? Or which sect? Which denomination? When?
Or was it Lincoln and Congress who ended slavery, and you're talking out of your ass once more?
Lincoln was a wiser man than you Quirk, which is admittedly not difficult, but worth mentioning nevertheless.He said for example:
Or this:
Kel
King James. He put the Bible into the hands of the people.
You mean the people told the church what to do? Since the church are your god's official representatives on earth, and its members given special teachings and insight into what your god wants, shouldn't it have been the other way around?
@#152
Thou fool.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22
I think this fool is just trolling.
Attributing the Enlightenment, a feature of the 18th and early 19th century, to the King James Bible from the early 17th century (1611 to be precise), is contrived.
Attributing the Enlightenment, which started among French philosophers, to the King James Bible is outright ridiculous. We're talking about people who couldn't fucking read English – but who could, and did, read the Bible in Latin!
Or indeed in Greek in some cases. For all of the New Testament and some books of the Old, Greek is the original language.
Al B. Quirky wrote:
Nice rebuttal, dipshit. Then again, I expected as much since there's no coherent argument for Christianity ending slavery, otherwise it would have ended somewhere around CE 865, not CE 1865, wouldn't it? Face it, social change occurs not only independently of Christianity, but often in spite of it.
Say, while I think of it - which of Jesus' teachings is the one that endorses an electorally-determined democratic system of government?
I see ABQ is still trolling, and still a dumb as a doorknob. Can't even cogently defend his own book of mythology against the atheists hordes and their biblical knowledge. Proving himself to be complete loser again, again, and again.
@155
Ah yes, but WW wasn't French, you see. Neither was King James, John Newton, Thomas Adkins, etc.
I, too think Al B. is pulling an Abbott and Costello here.
Yawn, I think ABQ is drunk. He certainly sounds like it. That would explain his inane, evidenceless, and incomprehensible AGW posts too. What a loser...
So let me follow this through...
While the bible was in the hands of the church, who had the power - nothing happened. Then along comes a revolution whereby the power of the church was subjugated, by giving the knowledge held in the powerful to the hands of the layperson. And the layperson took that knowledge and then worked immediately to free the slaves?
Are you deliberately trolling, or are you just that stupid?
ABQ wrote:
Did he manage, in his infinite wisdom, to explain why no other Christian in the over 1,500 years prior had reached the same conclusion?
Kel wrote:
It's probably a little from column A and a little from column B.
Kel
Actually, it took ~200 years.
ABQ, Still stupid, still trolling, still a loser...
Nerd, every once in a while, a comment with some substance, any substance, would be good.Just saying.
Okay, a quote from the Wiki article on the abolitionist movement.
ABQ, rationalist thinkers includes atheists...
ABQ wrote:
Why? Was the chapter you interpret to be anti-slavery only discovered in the 1600s or did someone break a secret bible code to happen upon the anti-slavery passages?
Probably already posted, but that is pretty exactly how it worked for me in elementary and secondary school in Quebec.
I went to a catholic school (a public catholic school, no less), and parents had the choice of having their children take a religion or ethics (well, it was called "morale", which probably meant ethics) class.
Mind you, the catholic schools in Quebec were actually quite good and religion free, except for that specific class (which taught things like Generis were more allegory than what really happened), and the various science classes were very good (I still recall the time our physics teacher decided to blow our minds with Quantum Mechanics *grin*).
Of course, that was a couple of decades ago, and I have no idea how things are going these days.
Itkovian
As it was pointed out numerous times, man, the Southern Baptist was founded on the principle that the big sky daddy approved of slavery. Also, look up the myth of "The Curse Of Ham".
Also, you shit stain on the panties of life, I did not say a word about you obvious racism. I decided to attack you on you lack of knowledge about american christians.
Also, before you give all praise to the KJ bible, look up the name of William Tyndale. But even that was just one action of in the aftermath of Martin Luther to translate the bible into the vernacular. It was not just an English speaking phenomenon.
And while you are at it, instead of blowing your butt trumpet, try some fucking research on the subject of chistians using the bible to justify slavery. There is centuries of evidence.
steverino63, I am a dyke. I will not be blowing you at any fucking time.
But this is what I took exception to.
You are hardly alone in having done this.
Just to point this out, I do not know Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek. But I have read some works of scholars who do. And I have no problem with the concision that there is no evidence for the existence of a Jesus Christ.
Wait, these are public schools? And we Americans are supposed to be backwards and overly religious? I will no longer take any crap from Australians. The religious classes should be eliminated and everyone should take the new ethics classes instead. How absurd that religious leaders have that much legally sanctioned influence over the classroom.
FYI
Government and Churches struck a deal in the late 1800's. Government would run public schools but churches could run religious instruction in those schools. This survived the federation.
Children who were opted out of such classes could not do anything educative, just hang around doing nothing. The argument was that allowing them to learn something would be unfair to the kids in the scripture class. The real subtext was that more people would opt their kids out. The churches prefer opting out to be boring so they can keep kids in the scripture class.
In the 1980s the 1 hour scripture classes were made 'opt-in'. In other words parents had to choose for their kids to take such a class, and indicate which religion. The schools were supposed to provide details of the curriculum of such classes, and the qualifications of the instructor.
The reality encountered by myself, my daughter and many others that I know from around the country is that schools pretend it is still opt in by default and opt out by parents request. Some schools require parents to renew opt-out each year without informing them of this. Many schools put a 'religion' bit on the form and take this to be the parents opting in.
No curriculum is published, most of the instructors have no qualifications and are total wing-nuts, they often give lollies as bribes to give the right answers in class which is against legislation.
The ethics classes are about how to do ethical thinking, not about what morals the teacher wants you to accept. They are intended to fill the space for the opt-out kids. If they have the effect of drawing many kids out of scripture class, so be it.
The only religious education in our schools should be about comparative religion and culture. Getting rid of the scripture classes Oz wide would be great!
Stupid troll, Janine already answered you.
The influence of the Enlightenment on the well-being of humanity has had more positive effect in 300 years than the whole of the Abrahamic cults in the last 3000. It wasn't the benign influence of Christianity that ended slavery, it was people thinking rationally about its horrors and the universality of the rights of man. The impetus to end slavery is not inherent in Christianity, which at the time of its spread throughout the Greco-Roman world was perceived as a religion of slaves. Nor was it condemned by the Church hierarchy once it came to power; rather, it was institutionalized. Sure, many of the people who worked to end slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries were Christians, but they were not driven by their religion to do so but by rational thought driven by the Enlightenment. As has been commented upon before, if it indeed was part of the xian creed why did it take them so long finally to get around to abolishing it? Perchance it was not coincidental that it occurred at the same time that people began to pull their heads out of the sphincter of religion...
Gyeong Hwa Pak, inane as that question was, it was not directed at me. It was for Rorschach. Besides, the question of how slavery came to an end is complicated. Lincoln's goal was to preserve the union. Before the war began, even though he did not like the institution of slavery, he was content will keeping it contained within the states that already had it with no spreading to territories that were applying for statehood. The ending of slavery was an afterthought the became a main issue.
But even that was kind of pointless without civil rights.
Oh I know, but the question was answered by you in a previous post (That since there are thousands of interpretations of the Bible, you have Christians supporting and against slavery). Like I said, Al B Troll needs to learn to read
He knows how to read. He just does not want to understand those words that contradict his points.
Hi,
We had a similar situation in Finland until the early 1980´s when the Finnish state was sued to court for human rights violation (i.e. for discriminating the non-religious students) for that very state of affairs. See:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/c006722a36a4ee22c1256a0d002ff…
Well, the Finnish state immediately realised that they would lose the forthcoming court case and preparations began for establishing "ethics" (or "life stance education"). Since 1985 this has been the case. Besides, we introduced in 1994 philosophy as a compulsory subject in high schools.
So, have the heavens fallen upon the cursed Finns?
Well, look at the PISA studies:
"• Finland, with an average of 563 score points, was the highest-performing country on the
PISA 2006 science scale"....:)
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
Greetings from a Finnish ethics and philosophy teacher
@Mopthwentbad #47
D&D involves dice, charts and numbers, the non-scripture kids would be gaining an advantage in mathematics education.