Religious Instruction in Australian State Schools

[RealityRules]

I'm pretty sure Bryce's predecessor Michael Jeffery was more religious-than-average-too.

The irony is a stable neutral monarch like Lizzie can call it how they want, whereas short-term appointments like these GGs are more likely to be PC or religious or both.

There were comments during the recent royal wedding that William was rolling his eyes during the religious pronouncements of his wedding, so William may be a good overall pro-Secular leader in years to come, especially if he follows his grand-mother's lead.

i.e. The monarchy may work better in favour of neutral secularism and atheism over the next 40-60 years than an alternative, but possibly more so in the UK than Australia if the push for Christians in politics continues in Australia. The effectiveness of such a push might be determined by Census statistics over the next couple of decades.

[Xeno]

I know the previous ones were dreadful. I had thought Bryce might be a little different but if not, well for the alternative think of who is coming after Lizzie.

[RealityRules]

Yeah, thought about Charles being next - it won't be for more than a decade or so, and think he is likely to be more moderate now Lizzie has been, and if William is.

[DanDare]

[SoapyStan]

I can't get over Barry Cassidy's comments.

I don't think most people have a problem with this because of the opting out thing.

Oh, really?

Even people who don't believe in God can hang in there and be interested in the topic.

Go back to sleep Barry.

[Atheos]

fuck the monarchy, any monarchy, and all the parasites involved with them, privilege by birth, it's offensive

[DanDare]

Soothsaying in schools? Reflections on the SRI debate

By Tamas Pataki
ABC Religion and Ethics | 1 Jun 2011

A good teacher does not ask pupils to believe, or help their unbelief; a good teacher asks them to reason, to think clearly about matters at hand and to find good reasons for holding their conclusions.

There is currently a good deal of public controversy about chaplaincy and the teaching of religion in government schools. Both activities seem to me to be bad public policy, but some of the most fundamental reasons for resisting the current arrangements have not - so far as I'm aware - been made explicit.

Full Article...

[Xeno]

I appreciated this part:

In fact, the fundamentals of our legal, political, civic and economic structures, as well as nearly every fruitful form of investigation, including moral exploration, we owe to Graeco-Roman civilization, itself complex and pluralistic.

Fortunately, Christianity absorbed and preserved some of that civilization and its learning, and failed to destroy entirely the rest.

Christianity thus fortified certainly has significantly influenced the culture of the West. But the contributions of Judeo-Christianity to Western civilization in its specifically Palestinian expressions - that is, when the Hellenic, Persian and other foreign influences are subtracted - are few and should not be exaggerated.

I am often reminded of Freud's remark to Arnold Zweig:

[bhv]

Originally Posted by Bolero

parents are mostly either apathetic or ambivalent

This is why an opt-in aproach, where RE classes are conducted outside of school hours, would seem to be the best strategy. Who can be bothered filling out those forms, and hanging around after school, just as the stars of afternoon television come out to shine.

[Critical Mass]

All the talk, time, and money over Chaplains and RE, are diluting the more important need for impartial trained councillors available at schools.
25% of kids (and society) are affected by mental or emotional disorders - apart from all other dramas, traumas, and growing pains. Why introduce the neurosies of religions as well?