My sister enrolled her son in primary school this week, and wrote ‘No’ on the enrolment form next to ‘Scripture’, boldly letting her share of the $165 million tax dollars used to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program gurgle godlessly down the plug’ole. Atheists are so wacky.

Come on, what have scripture classes got on pizza and yo-yos?

As nobody had volunteered to run non-religious ethics classes at this particular school, my sister was advised to perhaps just sign her son up for the general scripture classes, because “the little ones get upset when they’re pulled out of class”.

As opposed, of course, to how they feel when they’re being taught about eternal damnation, and the implication that Mummy and Daddy will spend it sipping sulphur in Hell’s hottest nite spot (which isn’t actually Minsky’s, very surprisingly).

My sister still opted out, and the lady at the desk (the lady at the desk in primary school is always known as ‘the lady at the desk’ – it’s law) told her that, as he couldn’t go to ethics class, her son would have nothing to do for that half hour per week.

This situation is, of course, patently ridiculous. There are loads of things for the heathen kiddies to do that are exactly as relevant to a secular school education as learning about sometimes-angry-sometimes-benevolent men who live in the sky. The following are, obviously, the top five.

1. Whittling
Give the darlings a pocket knife and a pile of sticks and watch them go. I guess first we’ll need to relax the whole namby-pamby no-weapons-in-school rule, but if we explain that the knives are for whittling purposes only, and not for putting suddenly into people, then I’m sure it’ll be okay. People who have no religion don’t have all that many reasons to use weapons, anyway. Children who miss the point and whittle crucifixes will fail this subject.

2. Shadow Puppets
Because seriously, have you seen those things? Shadow puppets aren’t just bunny rabbits and barking dogs any more – there are swans and giraffes and everything. Classes will usually be available on sunny days and/or in classrooms with one of those old-school overhead projector things that you draw on with special textas. Do they still have those? Children who make shadows depicting animals boarding an ark two by two will fail this subject.

3. Watching The Moral Fabric Of Society Unravel
This may require a couple of field trips to places where scripture classes aren’t even offered and to places where gay people are getting married, but as a start, the kids can perhaps go outside and find examples of how dramatically different the world is through the eyes of deity-shunning hell-bait. That ant crawling across the playground, for example, is moving all funny and judging you because you don’t say your prayers. But that’s about it.

4. Learning Mad Yo-Yo Skillz
Every time you miss a scripture class, God perfects a wicked Reverse-Walk-The-Dog with a bonus Rock-The-Cradle. It’s pretty awesome.

5. Eating Easter Eggs
Everybody knows that Easter egg chocolate is the best chocolate, and little atheist kiddies can eat it whenever they want without having to be constantly reminded that Jesus died specifically to provide them with confectionery. Children who claim that if you don’t follow a certain religion then you shouldn’t be allowed to eat its lollies will fail this subject. The chocolate of hypocrisy melts at the same temperature as the pious stuff, y’know. But just a little bit faster in Hell.

483 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Catching up says:

      06:03am | 22/07/11

      If the school holds these classes first thing, you could tell the school you will bring him to the school after they finish.

      I believe it is punishing the child to have them doing nothing.  The fact that the mother was advise to allow him to attend because some children become upset, support my theory.

      The mother should pressure th school to hold the classes first thing as they are unable to offer the child alternative activity.

      It appears the ethic classes are in danger of being discarded. 

      It is time that parents demanded an alternative to scripture classes or the scripture classes also be discarded.

      I believe it is up to the churches to provide their own classes in their own time and on their own premises if they deem them to be that important.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      09:10am | 22/07/11

      Jo, exaggeration much!?

      In all my years in a relatively strict Catholic school, I have never had Catholicism “shoved down my throat” or told that I will burn in Hell because I am not Catholic. I was taught about different religions of the world in religion class, which is general knowledge that everyone should have. Granted, I’ve never had experience with the Chaplaincy program, but I’m sure it’s not the great evil some people are trying to make it out to be. Where do you people get your pre conceptions of religious people?

    • Jo Thornely says:

      09:29am | 22/07/11

      Thomas, I got my pre-conceptions of religious people from being one for about nineteen years.

    • Trentyn says:

      09:32am | 22/07/11

      please, just let him go to the library and read about what he wants to, i fhe picks up a bible, what do you really care, he’s reasing out of interest, not because he has to.

    • Mark G says:

      10:18am | 22/07/11

      Thomas,

      I was also raised in a strict Catholic school and no it wasn’t rammed down my throat but it didn’t have to be. This type of religious education is a persuasion not a demand. You are talking about Kids not informed adults. You could convince kids that the santa clause and the tooth fairy existed with a subtle enough argument. Few mainstream religious education mechanisms openly say that people will burn in hell but the subtle suggestion of this is enough to influence kids minds. Teaching what the other religions are is more about dispelling them as nonsense than actually identifying their true nature. This is religious indoctrination wether you like it or not. It also pushes the point that in order to be ethical you must be religious with is also a control mechanism. I was raised a Catholic but it is only since becoming an adult atheist that I can to realise these subtle persuasion mechanisms. I am not bitter about my Catholic upbringing and I would have to say that I have nothing but admiration for the successes of the Catholic school system. Some of the best schools in Australian are catholic ones but the religious education there had a purpose and to say it didn’t is either naive or incredibly stupid.

    • Fiona says:

      11:11am | 22/07/11

      Why not let them catch up/start any homework, read, use the school computers? Avoiding the class if it’s at the beginning of the day isn’t practical to working parents.

    • BS says:

      11:24am | 22/07/11

      Thomas, the example you gave is from your time at Catholic school.  The Catholic schools aren’t as “hell and damnation” and evangelistic as many of the evangelicals who are coming in as volunteers for these SRE classes such as Access Ministries and SUQld.  I know this because I went to an all-boys private catholic school and never was I given anything even remotely like the “hell and damnation” threats that are regularly being told of from kids who attend SRE and one of my best mates throughout school was an atheist from start to finish and never felt evangelised to.

      Basically the experience you’ve had from a private catholic school is very different from what happens in many SRE classes.  I’d also like to add that although I just say “many SRE classes”, I’d be very highly surprised if it turns out that this “many” is more than just a vast minority of the SRE classes that take place across our nation.

    • Sam says:

      11:44am | 22/07/11

      If someone would just volunteer to run the ethics class this would all be a non issue. Any takers?

    • Jenny Cullen says:

      11:52am | 22/07/11

      the School Chaplaincy Program has nothing to do with scripture and RE so it might be an idea if journalists checked facts first. Chaplaincy program is completely different and RE clases from whatever faith or denomination are voluntary and cost nothing. According to the Education Act any child not taking RE should be undertaking the 30 minutes a week of classes doing supervised homework. Not playing with puppets and other snide suggestions.

    • Mark says:

      12:19pm | 22/07/11

      Ah athiests, always the most boring people in a room. While everyone else shows manner and class by keeping things to themselves, the athiests can always be counted on to blurt out their own beliefs while criticising those around them.

    • Jason says:

      12:37pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark

      It’s “ATHEISTS”. Look at the order of the letters. It’s what we call “spelling”.

      Personally, I try not to judge people as “boring” by their religion or lack thereof. I try to base on on, y’know, whether they’re boring or not. Unusual, I know, but then I’m one of those boring atheists

    • Anne71 says:

      12:43pm | 22/07/11

      I went to a Catholic school and we spent quite a lot of time studying other religions, not just our own.  I would have no problem with religion being taught in state schools if the children were taught about all faiths and not just Christianity.  Evangelical religion has no place in state schools at all.

    • Bobster says:

      01:05pm | 22/07/11

      Sorta failed on the keeping it yourself front there, didn’t you Mark?

    • Rach says:

      02:14pm | 22/07/11

      Before judging a school’s scripture class you really need to see the curriculum.  I went to an Anglican-run school and each week they looked at a different religion.  Very informative and objective.  My good friend’s Catholic school, on the other hand, were ramming their religion down her throat complete with enlarged photos of the end product of an abortion.

    • Paul Murray says:

      02:55pm | 22/07/11

      “Jenny Cullen says: 11:52am | 22/07/11
      the School Chaplaincy Program has nothing to do with scripture and RE so it might be an idea if journalists checked facts first.”

      Ho ho ho! Ha ha ha ha! LOL! ROFL! Oh dear, I needed that. Thanks, Jen.

    • Carrie says:

      02:59pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark - I would take a “boring” atheist over a bible thumping god botherer any day, just saying. 
      And for the record, 12 years of Catholic education made me the firm atheist I am today.

    • Mark says:

      04:21pm | 22/07/11

      @Carrie, wow, what an achievement, you should yell that from the mountain tops.

      Funny how those that bash Christianity also choose to ignore that our society is basically being held together by the charities and social support the Church provides. Our government has just been so wonderful with how it helps the disadvantaged.

    • atthepub says:

      04:27pm | 22/07/11

      A bit of a bully aren’t you Jo? How about we give our children a choice if they would like to walk with God or the dog?

      I was given that choice at the age of five, to go to church or not was my decision .. no use forcing them .. is what my parents said. No threats of eternal damnation either. In fact the only ones I ever hear talking about hellfire is atheists.

    • RM says:

      04:34pm | 22/07/11

      This voluntary chaplaincy program assists schools and their communities to support the spiritual wellbeing of students. This may include support and guidance about ethics, values, relationships, spirituality and religious issues, the provision of pastoral care and enhanced engagement with the broader community.

    • John of Brisbane says:

      05:37pm | 22/07/11

      @ Paul Murray ... you are obviously one of those who didn’t check their facts.  Jo ... you mean to say you were one of those religious people who “rammed scripture down peoples throats”  in which case how does that qualify you to make make such snide remarks. Athiestic (which by the way is a registered religion) journos always love to play the separation of Church vs State card without really knowing what it actually means because they watch to many American sitcoms. I bet you dial 911 in an emergency too.

    • Louise says:

      10:54pm | 22/07/11

      I went to a catholic primary school and a catholic high school in newly wealthy suburbs that also had a significant number of working class families.

      The religious education aspect of my primary school was mostly about our obligation as christians to help people less fortunate than us.

      In year 2 we saw horrible pictures of famine in the third world and we had fund raising days etc. to send donations.

      All the way through we had parents become ill with several deaths over the years. Each time the community rallied to support the partner and children.

      In year 6, I remember one of our debating topics was “Should Australia Accept More Vietnamese Refugees”. The parish had also sponsored two Vietnamese families who numbered about 10 people, providing them with a home and job.

      In high school our year 10 religious education (RE) course was called “religions of the world” and was all about the similarities in the spiritual beliefs of mankind over time.

      The overriding message was, we should heed our spirit when faced with life’s huge challenges.

      There’s no intelligent, rational, intellectual reason to reach out to the people of Ethiopia. It’s our spirit that requires us to act. Our RE really wasn’t based on “church politics” or religious dogma.

      Over time lots of things happen in life that are sometimes easier to deal with if you have a belief in your own spiritual self to help you confront the physical challenges you have to face. I’m really grateful for my Catholic upbringing even though I don’t subscribe to any literal interpretation of the Catholic faith.

    • Dani says:

      09:17am | 23/07/11

      Why send your child to a religious school, if you are against them studying religion??

      Albeit we had chaplains at our High School, and I never remember them ramming any religion down anyone’s throat. They provided counseling and ran free breakfast mornings.

    • Cate says:

      09:53am | 23/07/11

      It is a sad indictment of Australian culture that we resist religious education.  In many respects atheism and materialism have won quite a victory in owning the hearts and minds of Australians, so you have little to fear, if you fear a religious uprising in our schools.  But, I woud ask anti-religion zealots what prize have you won?  Kids and young adults don’t turn to religion in hard times, or when making tough moral decisions, or when they are facing suicidal thoughts, or their world is falling apart.  No, they definitely don’t have that old fashioned set of religious values that used to give people a foundation when all else had fallen apart…. so what kind of kids and young adults have you anti-religion zealots created:  kids who freely use non-religious solutions to deal with life:  binge drinking, recreational sex with numerous partners, drugs…. leading to unprecedented levels of depression and suicide.

      Religious belief is a gift, and one that should not be denied children.  Having taught religion for 20 years I can assure you that modern RE teachers do not shove it down kids throats.  If anything, we err on the side of caution (and are criticsed by many for not being more bold in our proclamation of the Gospel)

      There is no great gift you can give a child that a deep personal relationship with their God.  Those who have never encountered God should set themselves the challenge of meeting God…. it is not as difficult as it might seem.

    • Mythica says:

      09:55am | 23/07/11

      Well Jo it looks like you are still rebelling against the religion that was rammed down your throat. I wonder how your future children will rebel against atheism being rammed down their throat?
      Lets hope you aren’t driving them to the very thing you seam to fear so much.
      When I was about 19 I used to have these nightly heated debates with my friends boyfriend.(who I lived with for a year) Even though I didn’t go to church or believe in religion, I wasn’t going to pretend that I didn’t believe in god just because he made fun of me. His 10 year old son of course never entered into the conversation, but was obviously listening on some level. That beautiful boy who I spent so many hours playing matchbox cars with, is now a pastor.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:09pm | 23/07/11

      “Some children might become upset” Good, Good, Good! It’s about time we allowed children to ‘become upset’! Why should these, often, over-fed, over-cosseted, spoilt little brats be allowed to grow up thinking they should never face disappointment & upsets? By denying them the right to “become upset"we are denying them the education which is so essential in the real world. Think it through.
      Little,fat-to-obese Jonny/Jenny goes through school life always getting what they wants. They know no better. They then go to University. The first thing they discover is that they will not automaticaly get the passes they wants. They actually have to work to do so. When they get into the work-force the disappointments will come thick & fast. Daddy or Mummy will appoint their son/daughter to a position Jonny/Jenny want. How will these “Must Never, Ever be Upset"cope?
      They won’t! They will not have learnt that they cannot always succeed. Nor will they have learnt how to deal with disappointment throughout their lives.
      Don’t want this subversive religious education shoved down your kid’s throats? Fine. Let them, under the supervison of a teacher, for what are any of them doing whilst the brainwashing class is on, go out & clean up the school yard, do some weeding there are lots of things they could be made to do - some of which might just help them in later life!

    • scotty says:

      09:15pm | 23/07/11

      “Mark G - This type of religious education is a persuasion not a demand.”

      Its indoctrination.  Sunday school is persuading as well, but at a young age kids believe whatever they are told by an adult, especially in a school setting.

      Taxpayers should NOT be paying for christianity going on a recruitment drive.

    • scotty says:

      09:23pm | 23/07/11

      “Rach - I went to an Anglican-run school and each week they looked at a different religion.”

      So how is inflicting multiple religions better than one?  If you want to keep believing and fighting over 2000 year old philosophies then do it in your own time and with your own money.

    • scotty says:

      09:26pm | 23/07/11

      “Dani - Why send your child to a religious school, if you are against them studying religion??”

      Its a STATE school Dani - Howard introduced a chaplaincy program in all government run schools.

      That’s the entire point of the article!!

    • Reggie says:

      09:54am | 24/07/11

      OMG WTF ... “boldly letting her share of the $165 million tax dollars used to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program gurgle godlessly down the plug’ole. Atheists are so wacky.”

      It just gets funnier.

      Mark “Ah athiests, always the most boring people in a room.”  Unbelievable, and to think I nearly missed out on all this. Too busy now ... read later… don’t you dare go away.

    • Gary Thorpe says:

      10:24am | 24/07/11

      Mark I have three points for you to consider: Some time ago I considered establishing a charity based on atheism to prove that atheist can and do care about their fellow man as much as religious people do. I didn’t do it in the end because I found that very few charities have religion as their foundation. Secondly, I am yet to see an atheist going from house to house trying to convert religious people. Third, my final observation is in the form of an image in which religious people in a room show manner and class. Picture this; george bush, john howard and tony blair (all religious types with manner and class) deciding, with manner and class in even tones and no heated emotions, to bomb the living crap out of Iraq, and then to participate in the murder of hundreds of thousand of INNOCENT Iraqis.

    • kris says:

      10:43am | 27/07/11

      I am a Chaplain and I am sick and tired of the misinformation. Chaplains have nothing to do with R.E. We do not run R.E. at least not in my state - we are not allowed to. R.E. and Chaplaincy are seperate arguments. Actually as a Chaplain I don’t like or support R.E. in its widely understood format. As information about different beliefs I would support it, as proselytizing I would never support it and I would be more comfortable with it being done in High School.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:11am | 22/07/11

      The 165 Million dollars spent on the National School Chaplaincy Program could be better spent improving children’s science and math skills but hey whatever floats the governments boat…

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      09:17am | 22/07/11

      That is true, the school education system in this country is well below the European and Asian standards.

    • Elphaba says:

      09:17am | 22/07/11

      Yes!  I agree.  I don’t think anyone ever said “My maths skills suck, but at least I’m going to heaven.”

    • Timmy says:

      09:25am | 22/07/11

      The school chaplaincy program has nothing to do with SRE. If in NSW you got rid of SRE it would cost significantly more than $165M to teach the students for that extra half hour per week in order to improve science and math.

    • trentyn says:

      09:35am | 22/07/11

      i respectfully disagree, “know Your Enemy” is just as valid as “learn how to put completely arbitrary shapes together to make other shapes”

    • Neil Gardiner says:

      10:16am | 22/07/11

      BINGO!
      I would much rather send my (imaginary) child to a lesson that taught them financial skills and how to manage their money.

      Baby Jesus won’t be paying the bills, but a lesson in money would set them up for life.

    • dancan says:

      10:31am | 22/07/11

      Who needs science and maths when all we need to do is believe in god and dig minerals out of the ground for foreign owned companies!

    • Peta says:

      12:28pm | 22/07/11

      I completely agree. I was studying education and had to leave because I could not imagine myself teaching such a controlled syllabus with very little wriggle room. You would be suprised at what the governments and schools believe to be the most valueble lessons for our youth. I was suprised, and saddened. Inequality is rife and kids are not getting what they deserve. I would still like to be a teacher one day, I think I’d be great at it, but I don’t have the stomach for it yet; i’d go a little crazy. There are religious schools and then there are public schools. I believe religion shouldn’t be so heavily ingrained in the public school system. It is important to give people the choice - that is why there is a large array of religious schools to choose from. There is no non-religious choice.  I believe public edcation has the ability to be broader and more accepting of diferences between people. Unfortunately, teachers and principals are so under the thumb that very rarely, the people that are able to see first hand what these children need and deserve have any control at all.

    • The Rock says:

      02:12pm | 22/07/11

      “The school chaplaincy program has nothing to do with SRE. If in NSW you got rid of SRE it would cost significantly more than $165M to teach the students for that extra half hour per week in order to improve science and math. “

      This is completely false.

      Almost all SRE teachers are not cleared for child protection therefore there is always a teacher sitting in on the SRE class.

    • seniorcynic says:

      04:46pm | 23/07/11

      When I attended high school 45 odd years ago we had RE and we treated it as a joke, so the headmaster decided we would have an exam on it. After the exam results came out the religious instructor was discussing the exam and commented that some of us were having difficulties with the subject. To the question “what part did Peter play in the disciple band?” one student had answered “the big bass drum”.

    • Glenn says:

      07:20am | 22/07/11

      They should just not have scripture class AT ALL. It is absolutely disgusting for school-age children to be taught about religion (Aka indoctrinated).

    • Dave says:

      08:26am | 22/07/11

      @ Glenn - what an intolerant little whackjob you are. It’s disgusting for kids to be taught about people who are different from them? What a crock. If you want to lock your kids away from society so that they can never experience how others live then I pity you. What else do you want your kids to be uninformed about? Aborigines? Muslims? Homosexuals. My kids will be taught about ALL the different sectors in the community so that they don’t turn into ignorant bigots.

    • Bruce says:

      08:44am | 22/07/11

      I agree, and that goes double for ethics classes.
      Religion/State Ethics all much the same indoctrination in to some groups ideal’s.
      How about leaving it up to the parents?

    • Tubesteak says:

      08:48am | 22/07/11

      Back in my day the two different primary schools I went to had scripture classes and after a while the priests/ministers/volunteers stopped coming. I think it was because we were unruly.

      I even made one of the volunteers cry once because I kept asking questions and poking holes in their stories or showing the gaps in their ‘logic’.

      We ended up doing arts and crafts instead.

      But $165m is a waste of money on silly things like sky fairies and zombies. It could be much more appropriately spent.

    • Chris L says:

      09:09am | 22/07/11

      Dave that argument would be valid if they were taught religion from a historical perspective, and if it were more than just Christianity.

      Instead these scripture classes tell the students that hell is real and they’ll be sent there if they don’t satisfy the ego of a monstrous deity.

      That isn’t being taught about people, that’s indoctrination.

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      09:13am | 22/07/11

      Glenn, that way of thinking has led to many a book being burned. Everyone should be taught about things like religion, geography and history, unless they are destined to lead a life of ignorance.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      09:18am | 22/07/11

      If you have a close family and the parents take the time to speak with their children, rather than at them, scripture classes are a valuable way to learn about how some other people in our community live. No idea is so dangerous you need to refuse to listen; as long as you know how to stand guard at the gates of your mind, no idea is so poisonous you cannot reject it, or so beneficial you will not recognise it.

    • Paul says:

      10:24am | 22/07/11

      Indoctrinated??? I have no idea of what the Chaplain at any of your schools may do, but at my children’s school there is no “indoctrination” of Catholic religious beliefs. The Chaplain provides somebody out of the school structure for the kids to go to if they are having a problem at home or at school and to provide advice or comfort. All of the kids appreciate having this option as there are often times they have issues they do not wish to discuss with either teachers or parents.

      For those schools where a scripture class exists, at least there is an opt out option.

      May I then ask for the same chance to allow me to opt my children out of having to attend NAIDOC activities and indoctrination each year where they learn the black armband view of history? I am as entitled as the average atheist to object to a particular viewpoint being taught to my children, with the exception being I have no say in the matter and have no doubt I am about to be branded racist as I don’t subscribe to a belief in the Stolen children generation, stolen country, traditional owners ceremonies, welfare lopsidedness and positive discrimination allowed for the Aboriginal and TI peoples.

      I am also not given a chance to opt my children out of indoctrination into the latest religion of AGW. My son brought home from school the other day the latest federal government propaganda leaflets on the catastrophic consequences of human induced climate change. He was terrified by the alarming predictions of Global catastrophe that will occur if we don’t turn off every light at night and was worried what that would mean for his little sister as she would be scared without her night light to go to sleep. Sounds like he is being taught the hell and damnation of which the author accuses the Catholic church, only the religion is different.

      Feel free to object to a chaplaincy program and the costs involved. You at least can have a say in the involvement of your children. I, and many others, have no say in my childrens forced indoctrinations and the associated costs.

    • Tedd says:

      10:26am | 22/07/11

      Bruce,
      Leaving it to the parents puts some kids at a disadvantage as the parents are so eccentric as to make the kids eccentric,

    • Joel says:

      11:15am | 22/07/11

      @Paul.

      You don’t believe in the Stolen Generations? Mate, those incidents were acknowledged by both sides; contesting the fact that Aboriginal children were systematically and forcefully removed from their families in the face of overwhelming evidence puts you awkwardly in the same boat as creationists and holocaust-deniers.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      11:31am | 22/07/11

      “Everyone should be taught about things like religion, geography and history,”

      As long as religion is taught as mythology, with all being equally “valid” then I agree.

    • Brett says:

      11:46am | 22/07/11

      @Paul, best post I have seen in ages.

      Who says one “indocrination” is worse than another. At the moment kids are being indoctrinated into being tree hugging hippies, and instead of hell they have global environmental apocalypse to look forward to, or fear. I think it was Malcolm Gladwell who wrote to his childs school telling them to back off on ramming it down his kids throat.

      You’re right, if we get to whinge about anything, why can’t we have kids not learn about aboriginals and positive disrimination? Why can’t the holocaust deniers take their kids out of class? Even the topic of WWII and Hitler is debatable (just ask AJP Taylor), so why should we teach Hitler was a world dominating megolomaniac? Was he just an oppurtunist? More than half of what Richard Dawkins says, and his arrogant attitude is at least as bad as an evangelical priest rabbiting on about the universe being made in 7 days, and has as little factual backing. While we are at it, string theory should never be even mentioned as it is not a proven fact, evolution would have to be restricted to micro evolution as opposed to macro evolution, and why even teach economics when its just theory that is largely and usually wrong?

      Most of the above would seem stupid, crazy and controversial, yet some of it happens already, some of it should happen in a fair world we we shut our kids of from competing theories and teach them nothing that is not set in stone fact. So why bother?

    • Peta says:

      12:51pm | 22/07/11

      @ Paul - I don’t condone the teaching of ‘global wraming’ and such things to any children. We can teach them about science etc but that kind of fear mongering is disgusting. Do they really teach your children this? I am quietly outraged and am going to look into this more.
      On another note, before ‘white’ people came to Australia it was inhabited by another race, one we now call Aboriginals. The white people, for whatever reason, took Aboriginal children away from their mothers and fathers, they tried to breed out their race, teach them their religion, changed the way they had always lived. The reasons may be unknown but the fact that it happened can not be disputed. Many people that took these children away were religious, or from religious groups. History and religion are different. History is based on facts, whereas religion is based on faith and belief. If you want to pick and choose what pieces of history your children are entitled to then you are effectively brain-washing your child. Please do not compare something that actually happened, something that it is very important to learn from if we intend to keep our humanity, to one particular religion (there are many Paul, do you teach your children all of them or just the one you’ve picked for them?)
      I believe parents should have the right to choose - not which parts of history they want to hide their children from, but religion should be a choice as should the whole ‘global warming’ nonsense they are terrifying children with. If my child came home with the idea that they were killing their world, that we were doomed, I would be having some very serious words to the person that gave my child that impression.
      The world is beautiful, we can create as much as we can destroy. Fear is evil and will not save anyone. I believe we are all god and god is in all of us - even the ones that don’t go to scripture class.

    • Mattb says:

      01:31pm | 22/07/11

      Gee Paul, getting a bit defensive there aren’t ya mate, your first sentence set the tone for your entire rant

      ‘I have no idea what the chaplain at any of your schools may do, but at my childrens school there is no ‘indoctrination’ of Catholic religious beliefs’

      You said it,

      ‘I have no idea’,

      Why make the comment then?, you admitted you haven’t any idea whats happening in other schools that may cause concern for other parents, but you continued your rant regardless.

      As for your comments regarding aboriginals, no, I won’t call you racist, just uneducated and ignorant, you should’ve placed ‘I have no idea’ at the beginning of that paragraph too.

      Then you made the big mistake of classifying AGW and the science behind it as a ‘religion’. What’s the matter Paul, those pesky scientists can’t provide proof of the existence of your ‘god’, which means you have to rely on ‘faith’ alone to quell your fear of death, thus they can’t be trusted when providing proof of anything else?.....

    • Jill says:

      01:39pm | 22/07/11

      I’m an atheist & I’ve thought the way you think, but now I think these things should be taught. Not by someone from the church. It should be taught as an educational subject informing kids of aspects of many of the main religions. Hopefully, bringing about more tolerance. The intolerance scares the hell out of me.

    • Glenn says:

      01:43pm | 22/07/11

      All I see is a bunch of people saying they don’t want science and history that is supported by HARD FACTS. It is completely different.

    • chris clowne says:

      02:02pm | 22/07/11

      I have no problems teaching kids about religion, as long as you don’t tell the class which one is ‘right’. Failing to learn about religions because you don’t like them is like avoiding Hitler or the Vietnam war because of how they turned out.

    • Paul says:

      02:38pm | 22/07/11

      @Joel. I do not contest the fact that aboriginal children were forcefully removed from their homes. In the majority of cases this was done for the protection of the children, just as it is still done today to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. I’ll even admit that in a small percentage of cases it was not done in the interests of the chiIdren. I do contest the systematically bit though.
      @Peta. I also have no doubt that Australia was colonised by the aboriginals before the white people arrived. However, throughout history, it has always been the case that conquerer tries to subsume and or integrate the culture of the conquered. Have a look at England after the Norman invasion as just one example. So I personally hold no regrets that this occurred in Australia and do not believe my children deserve to be forced to feel guilt about something over which they had no control. If you wish to feel guilt about it that is your prerogative, just as it is mine not to.
      You state that history is based on facts. Why then are there so many revisionists who attempt to change history to fit modern thought processes? To look at decisions made when a different set of morals and perspectives were in place and then judge them by todays morals and perspectives is just plain wrong. History is NOT just about facts. It must be about causes as well as events.
      Look at World War Two. Fact - Germany invaded Poland and did not withdraw before the ultimatum issued by France and Great Britain had expired and a formal declaration of war took effect. Cause - What led to the rise of Nazism in Germany to create the events leading to the invasion of Poland? No-one will dispute the fact, but many will argue as to the cause.
      So I teach my children facts and offer them information to enable them to arrive at their own conclusions as to context. Sometimes their conclusions differ to mine and we agree to disagree. I do object however, to teachers giving their version of context as fact.
      As to religion, my children are aware of the majority of the world’s religions. I hold no favour for any particular one and see merits in many of them including paganism. If queried, I answer their questions to the best of my ability and then point them in directions to allow them to do their own research.
      I hope this clears up any thoughts you may have had and explains my objection to indoctrination no matter what the topic. I prefer my children to have an enquiring mind and to draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately my youngest are still at an age where they believe that if a teacher told them, then it must be so.

    • Paul says:

      04:49pm | 23/07/11

      @ Mattb. Can’t see where I am the least bit defensive to tell the truth. I made a simple statement of fact. I can only comment on what occurs at my kids school. I did not denigrate the parents of children at other schools, I merely reported my experience.

      For you to then label me as uneducated and ignorant because my views, formed through conducting my own research, do not align with yours is one of the more absurd statements I have read on the Punch.

      From your post it appears you have a problem with people who don’t agree with your world view and would prefer we sat in the background and left it to you and yours to tell us the “Gospel truth”. Strangely enough that is the mindset in China, North Korea and was for a long time in the now defunct USSR.

      I have no issue whatsoever with the fact that climate change is occurring. I do however take issue with the ‘A’ part of AGW. We have been studying our climate for, at most, two hundred years. After that relatively small time in history to believe we have all the answers, and a thorough understanding of all the myriad of factors which comprise our climate, is hubris at its worst.

      And your last statement is probably the funniest I have ever read on the Punch. So congratulations for winning both most absurd and funniest. I honestly laughed out loud when I read that comment. I am agnostic so I don’t actually “have” a god. And if you have a fear of death then please don’t project your fears as mine. I don’t actually fear death. It is the final destination for all of us after we have lived our lives. When I do die, if that is the final step in the journey, I’ll have no major regrets. If the journey continues on through whatever your or anyone else’s favourite belief happens to be, so be it.

    • scotty says:

      09:31pm | 23/07/11

      “Dave - It’s disgusting for kids to be taught about people who are different from them?”

      No, its disgusting for the government to use our taxes to pay for priests to indoctrinate children into the christian religion.

      If you want your kids “educated” in christianity send them to sunday school!

    • scotty says:

      09:35pm | 23/07/11

      “Paul - Indoctrinated??? I have no idea of what the Chaplain at any of your schools may do, but at my children’s school there is no “indoctrination” of Catholic religious beliefs. “

      Kids believe anything an authority figure tells them at a young age.  “Teaching” Christianity at an early age amounts to indoctrination.

      Again, if you want your kids raised christian there’s already taxpayer subsidised classes available - they’re called sunday school.

    • scotty says:

      09:37pm | 23/07/11

      “Peta - On another note, before ‘white’ people came to Australia it was inhabited by another race, one we now call Aboriginals. “

      And before the Aboriginals arrived there was a race colloquially referred to as the Mungo Man who were wiped out by the Aboriginals.

      What’s your point?

    • SpiritWolf84 says:

      01:15pm | 24/07/11

      @ Paul - As a down the track product of stolen generation (my great grandmother was taken away), I find your comments on stolen generaltion a bit on the offensive side. You have no idea on the divide in things (ie employment, training, health care and welfare opportunities) between Whites and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This so called “positive discrimination” you speak of is designed to close that gap so there is more equality between us all. I’m one of the lucky ones to have full time work in an executive environment, and be able to access a good quality (although not the best, but i’m not dead yet, so they’re doing something right) standard of health care. Yes, stolen generation is here, it was a bad time in history, but the story should still be told, and let the kids make up their own minds about it. And NAIDOC week is designed to celebrate the people, not bring up the stolen generation issue.

    • Carz says:

      07:34am | 22/07/11

      The school is required to provide supervision and activities for children who do not attend scripture classes. They can not, and most probably do not, sit the little darlings outside of the classroom for 30 minutes doing nothing.

    • Elin says:

      08:15am | 22/07/11

      No, the school is required to provide supervision for those kids, not activities. Teachers aren’t allowed to ‘teach’ them anything during this time. When I was a kid me and the other non scriptures sat in the library for half an hour. No talking or drawing. No work of any kind. We could read any books we want. I thought it was alright most of the time. I can see how some little kids especially wouldn’t like it.

    • Timmy says:

      09:21am | 22/07/11

      Teachers cannot “teach” them because the teacher’s union could then say that this is part of their normal teaching load. In NSW one of the things holding SRE in place is the teacher’s union and their concerns over the increase in work load.

    • Harriet Cunningham says:

      10:36am | 22/07/11

      Yes, the stuupid thing is you’re not allowed to study during this time. You can’t work on a project or catch up on homework or read your class reading book. The alternative activity at my kids’ primary school is colouring-in.

    • KH says:

      07:48am | 22/07/11

      This is just making me angrier by the day.  Schools have no right to deny teaching to a child because the parent prefers real education, not fantasy crap being shoved down their kids’ throat.  How convenient there is nothing else for them - so they will just want to go to be with their friends, and thus be force fed religious crap.  It is truly disgraceful.  What happened to this country?  When did we start letting these minority lunatics dictate what is taught in schools?  GET RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS.

    • Chris_D says:

      10:30am | 22/07/11

      So, parents should dictate the syllabus, based on what they think is right?  Yep, that’ll work well!  “Force fed religious crap”? “Fantasy crap being force fed down their throats?”
      Maybe take away finger painting, where children are creating “fantasy crap” on paper?  Dragons?  Fairies?  Let’s have none of that “fantasy crap”, kiddies!  Get rid of story time?  Good idea, it’s all “fantasy crap” being “force fed down their throats”.
      Have a Bex and a lie down KH, and put your anger towards something more relevant.

    • Mark G says:

      11:05am | 22/07/11

      Chris_D

      The difference is that when that dragons and fairies fantasy crap is taught its taught as fantasy.

    • Shane says:

      11:22am | 22/07/11

      Chris_D, would you feel the same way if your kids were being instructed by someone who’s beliefs were different from yours?

      Christianity is a fairy tale and stories are being presented to children AS FACT that should be placed well and truely in the fiction box. How many mentions of unicorns are there in the bible for example? Job 39:9–12, Psalm 29:6, Isaiah 34:7 and at least 5 more.

      How about the christmas story which when compared to other historical evidence could not have happened! King Herod was dead before the census was called and there was no need for anyone to travel anywhere to register.

      Noahs ark, where they managed to fit many many millions of animal species in 135 x 22 meters of space, along with enough food for a year. Why would you try to convince a child this is true!

      At least at story time, kids know that they’re being read a story, when it comes to religion the line gets blurred and deception is the name of the game.

      As a former believer who discovered for myself how flawed the bible is while studying at a theological college, I will teach my own children about religion if I choose, and they will hear the facts and the fact is that Jesus is a plagerisation of about 20 other god-men who “existed” between 1200BC and 600AD, 8 of which rose from the dead 3 days after they were crucified. There is very little truth in what you read and if you disagree then read the gospels and acts side by side where the same situation exists in more than one writing and you’ll see this is not the inspired word of god, but a collection of fairytales collected from oral tradition.

    • BCD says:

      11:35am | 22/07/11

      Hey Chris_D, I’m with KH all the way here. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, and ours is that this “crap” is utterly “Irrelevant”  in the modern world where people don’t need to hang onto “fairy stories like heaven and hell” to get through their day.
      It’s our choice as parents to decide what is best for our kids, and for mine it is whatever they choose we will support. Mine “choose” not to do this shite, as it makes no sense to them, but the school then treats them like lepers. They are effectively classed as “irrelevant” by the religiously biased system - how is that ok? It has no place in schools, it is for Sundays at churches.

    • Chris_D says:

      12:07pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark G; maybe so, but when they “learn” about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny etc, the kids believe all of that, until they get to an age where they learn the truth, one way or the other.  Same with Religion IMO.

      @Shane, absolutely! This is where I think the whole debate falls down.  I struggle with the idea that children are going to school, getting an hour a week of “brainwashing”, and then turning into raving Religious nutters.  Maybe the parents have some balancing out of all this “brainwashing”.  I often refer to it as “homework” when I go over the days teachings with my children.  Maybe other worried parents should try spending more time discussing what their children are being taught at school with their children.  Crazy idea, hey!  Your long-winded comments about Noah etc, show that even though you have been taught it, you still seem able to realise it is probably not 100% accurate.  Why can’t future generations do the same?

      @BCD, sounds like you are making some wild assumptions there.  Teach your kids what you want.  Some kids don’t understand English to start with, so if they choose not to want to learn English (Maths, Science etc) because it makes no sense to them, then they should just sit out the class?

    • MC says:

      02:45pm | 22/07/11

      Chris_D, they arent being told in story time that the fairys and dragons are real and exist. They are being told that the magic fairies exist in the scripture lessons.

      Huge difference buddy.

    • Dazeddazza says:

      02:54pm | 22/07/11

      Maybe, for the alternative classes there could be two Primary Readers, one written by Richard Dawkins, and one by George Pell.  Let the kids decide after reading both.

    • Bilby says:

      08:28am | 22/07/11

      Our society is based on Christian philosophies so a basic religious education is not optional in my opinion. I’m not a church going anything, but my daughter attends scripture and loves it. I went to a school at which I went to chapel every week and the “big church” for more important occasions. I can now make a choice based on knowledge, not the usual ignorant crap that most anti-religionists spout.

      As for whittling… great idea. A Swiss friend just came for a visit and gave my 8 year old her own personalised Swiss Army knife (what else?). She’d managed to slice through her pants and into her leg within about 5 minutes. Perhaps basic knife handling skills shouldn’t be optional either wink

    • Tedd says:

      09:28am | 22/07/11

      Many so-called Christian philosophies are philosophies borrowed from elsewhere, with many preceding Christianity.

      The Christian philosophy that has perpetuated the manipulation and bullying through the exclusivity of special religious education/instruction is deplorable.  A good example is Fred Niles toy-throwing outburst in recent days - unethical.

    • Chris L says:

      09:29am | 22/07/11

      Those Christian philosophies (the few still palatable in modern times) were based on humanistic philosophies developed way earlier than Christianity. Why not cut out the middle man in the sky?

      Besides, if it’s an argument as to which religion was here first the Dream Time would win easily.

    • Timmy says:

      09:37am | 22/07/11

      Or this is where they can put shooting into the curriculum & volunteers from the Shooter’s and Fisher’s Party could instruct them to field strip a rifle.

    • Bilby says:

      10:01am | 22/07/11

      Tedd and Chris - I totally agree that most of what we call Christian has it roots in ancient humanist philosophies, along with most Christian holidays falling on humanist holidays in order to supplant them.

      Chris - Do you know when the Dream Time began? As in when did the stories first start being passed down? I don’t, but I suspect that Islam and Judaism are in with a shot.

      Timmy - We had a rifle shooting team at school. I know from mates in the team that they did indeed learn to field strip their weapons.

    • Chris L says:

      10:25am | 22/07/11

      Can’t say I know for sure Bilby. The aborigines arrived in Australia a little under forty thousand years ago, and given how little their society seems to have changed over that time (according to what I’ve read/heard, I could have an incorrect impression here) it would seem likely their spiritual beliefs would have remained similarly consistent.

      I think Judaism is about three or four thousand years old and Islam is somewhere around one thousand four hundred years or so.

    • MichaelM says:

      01:09pm | 22/07/11

      Chris L, you miss the point abit. Dream Time was the first brand of faith HERE on this continent. It was here millenia before Protestantism even existed.

    • Chris L says:

      03:37pm | 22/07/11

      That actually was my point MichaelM. Dreamtime could well have been the dominant spirituality of Australia for more than thirty thousand years before Judaism existed.

    • scotty says:

      09:40pm | 23/07/11

      “Bilby - Our society is based on Christian philosophies”

      Garbage.  Under the constitution there is a definite separation of church and state.  You are thinking of the US.

    • Tinkerbell says:

      08:32am | 22/07/11

      The Government should be ashamed of itself allowing kids to be brainwashed during school hours.  Let it be done at lunchtime when the kids of critical thinking parents can be supervised.  Our taxes should not be given to lessons about an invisible man - unless fairies are included too.

    • Timmy says:

      09:33am | 22/07/11

      I always find it amusing when atheists assume that they are the only people in the world capable of critical thinking.

      Maybe if they were a little more critical of Atheistic dogma, they would think critically before putting the words “critical thinking” into any statement that they make.

    • Timmy says:

      09:33am | 22/07/11

      I always find it amusing when atheists assume that they are the only people in the world capable of critical thinking.

      Maybe if they were a little more critical of Atheistic dogma, they would think critically before putting the words “critical thinking” into any statement that they make.

    • Chris L says:

      10:16am | 22/07/11

      I always find it ammusing when religious people demonstrate their inability to comprehend a life without dogmas. The only commonality between atheists is the fact they don’t follow a theism. Usually this stance is taken as a result of looking at religions with a critical eye, but I can see how some may simply fall into this catagory without having given it much thought.

    • Chris_D says:

      10:38am | 22/07/11

      @Tinkerbell, I think you’ll find fairies, dragons, all sorts of mythical creatures, fantasy stories, Aboriginal dreamtime, ancient Gods of lost cultures etc are all part of the curriculum.  And it’s all part of the “brainwashing” which smarter people and grown-ups refer to as education and knowledge.

    • Kate says:

      11:47am | 22/07/11

      @ Timmy,

      By nature, people who follow religion are encourage not to partake in critical thinking. If they did, they would see the many holes in the logic in a belief of a deity, any deity.
      You guys go with ‘blind faith’ over ‘critical thinking’.
      I suggest you read ‘The God Delusion’  by Richard Dawkins. That might open you wee tiny mind a bit. It’s full of ACTUAL critical thinking. You probably won’t, though, as it doesn’t agree with your beliefs.

    • Jason says:

      01:12pm | 22/07/11

      @Timmy

      We’re talking about CHILDREN here. Not adults with the presumed ability to make their own decisions.

      Children believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. They’re easy to lie to. I happen to think they should be protected from liars until they’re old enough to participate in the world’s most popular group delusion with consent.

    • Timmy says:

      02:08pm | 22/07/11

      @Kate

      Having read and critically thought about a lot of Dawkins writings I can is very effective at: creating straw-men (such as his famous flying spaghetti monster); misrepresenting his opponents point of view; ad hominem; and attributing abilities to science that it does not, nor should not have.

      Too many atheists simply spout this type of nonsense (eg in this thread, equating religion with sky fairies etc) without thinking critically about what they are saying.

      Most people think critically on various topics, but those who state blindly that critical thinking and adherence to religion are mutually exclusiv are not thinking critically on that point.

    • Chris L says:

      03:57pm | 22/07/11

      Timmy, Dawkins did not create the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that was Bobby Anderson.

      In his books he repeatedly points out that any scientific theory can be annulled by one piece of evidence. He even points out that he cannot be 100% certain of there being no such things as gods. Instead he indicates the complete absence of evidence and advises that the default stance is disbelief whether you’re talking about fairies, ghosts or gods.

      You say you have read and critically thought about his writings, but it seems you didn’t do a great job of it.

    • Jason says:

      04:00pm | 22/07/11

      @Timmy

      Yeah, sure. Religion is totally rational and god is real. Oh, and sorry about the “sky fairy” thing. It’ll never happen again. I’ll start calling it “cosmic unicorn” instead, kay?

    • Realistic Views says:

      04:16pm | 22/07/11

      I always find it amusing when religious nuts try to poke fun at the idea of evolution, when they support the thoery that we should all repent our sins because a man made out of a piece of clay and a woman made out of that clay man’s rib bone ate a piece of forbidden fruit off a magical tree because they were conned into it by a talking snake.

    • Whose snake says:

      07:16pm | 22/07/11

      @Realistic Views:  You find the Rainbow Serpent amusing?  Less nutty?

    • scotty says:

      09:43pm | 23/07/11

      “Timmy - I always find it amusing when atheists assume that they are the only people in the world capable of critical thinking.

      Maybe if they were a little more critical of Atheistic dogma, “

      Atheism, by definition has NO dogma. 

      Way to demonstrate that you aren’t thinking critically!!!

    • AdamC says:

      08:33am | 22/07/11

      “This situation is, of course, patently ridiculous.”

      I couldn’t agree more, Jo. What is your sister so afraid of?

      This hostility to scripture class, something most of us grew up with and thought nothing of is just further evidence that big A Atheists (as opposed to small a atheists/agnostics like me) have adopted all the worst excesses of religions and none of the good bits.

    • Jo's sister says:

      10:10am | 22/07/11

      Hi Adam,
      I’m not “afraid” of anything in scripture class. I’d just prefer for my son not to learn solely about Christianity. And since I’m allowed to ‘opt out’ of the classes for him, that’s what I’ve done.

    • Chris_D says:

      10:42am | 22/07/11

      @Jo’s sister, to bad more people couldn’t take the obvious choice and quietly leave the room, rather than having to start a big debate over it. 

      However, by choosing not to have your Son learn “solely” about Christianity, now he doesn’t even have that much to consider.  Hardly a winning argument.

    • Jason says:

      11:26am | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D

      Let me guess…. you’re a christian, right?

    • Chris_D says:

      12:11pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason, guess whatever you want, but how does that have anything to do with any of my comments? If they don’t teach any Religion in school, are they promoting Atheism?

    • andy says:

      12:36pm | 22/07/11

      @AdamC - Thats great. Athiests are “bad”. Thanks for clearing that up. Still doesnt change the fact that I dont want my kids to go to such classes, and my taxes are being used to fund them.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      12:45pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D - they do teach religion in schools - in history classes. The influence of Ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Zoroastrian beliefs on those cultures is taught when those cultures are taught about. The history of Christianity is also taught about when teaching about Ancient Rome. The Jewish faith is a little hard to ignore when teaching the Holocaust in history classes. When teaching about colonialism, the Hindu beliefs of the sub-continent, and the animist beliefs of Africa are taught.

      Children have no need to learn Scripture as it was presented to me in RE classes. Presented as absolute fact and truth, given to us by God. They do have a need to learn about the central tenets of each religion, and the various political, social, legal, and philosophical implications. They also need to be made aware of the influence each major belief system has on society. Scripture classes teach none of that.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:21pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D:

      No, the schools aren’t teaching atheism by not instructing religion - they don’t HAVE to teach it - every child IS ALREADY an atheist - no child is ‘born’ religious - you have to teach it to them, ingrain it into them over time, and it WORKS BETTER for those who its done ‘gently, gently’ - which is why they start early, and generally with the ‘nice stuff’

      Oh, my kids will certainly be opted out (which I never understood - why shouldn’t it be opt-in - and if there was the support there, then they run them?) - but let me assure you, if religion was taught by academics who have undertaken comparative religion studies, and all religions were covered (and no particular one dominant) I would pay money for my kids to go to it, and I would join the supporters for this to be taught in school.

      I do not agree with chaplains in schools.  Religious schools, certainly - but not state schools - but every school should have access to a school psychologist, or childrens counsellor, no problem.  This is fundamentally the same - the slow indoctrination that these religious ‘counsellors’ who have very little training in anything but religion - actually can offer unbiased support and advice to young people.  If we’re ‘gently’ teaching our kids that these people have the answers, because of who they are (which they don’t) then thats indoctrination.

    • AdamC says:

      05:39pm | 22/07/11

      @Jo’s sister, as is your prerogative. So, what’s the big deal?

      @Andy, ‘your taxes’ pay for a lotta things. And, if you don’t like your kid to learn about Jesus and Christianity, he or she doesn’t have to.

      There is no rational basis for the disproportionate hostility to scripture classes in schools.

    • scotty says:

      09:51pm | 23/07/11

      ”  AdamC - There is no rational basis for the disproportionate hostility to scripture classes in schools.”

      There is no rational basis for my taxes being used to promote your religion.

      Christianity already benefits handsomely from their tax exemptions, why this too?

    • Dave says:

      08:37am | 22/07/11

      What about teaching The Devil’s works as an alternative to GOD? That way we get both sides of the story.

    • Mark G says:

      11:23am | 22/07/11

      Dave,

      I always chuckle when people say things like this. Because teaching the Devils work as an alternative to God is actually still teaching Christianity.

      I know this will stir some people up but Devil worshipping is technically a Christian religion. In order to worship the devil you also have to accept god and ultimately Jesus. You just appose them and worship there enemy. As an atheist I actually have less respect for devil worshipping beliefs than I do mainstream Christianity. Devil worship makes even less sense.

    • BCD says:

      11:37am | 22/07/11

      Nice one Dave, lets get the movement started!!! lol

    • Matt F says:

      01:31pm | 22/07/11

      it’s very effective at getting rid of the religious doorknockers!

    • Jane2 says:

      02:20pm | 22/07/11

      Right on Mark G. I had born again friends who used to tell me I was going to hell for not believing in God and just couldnt understand me when I said ‘no Im not as you have to believe in God for Hell to exist’.

    • Chris_D says:

      08:41am | 22/07/11

      You fail to mention whether it is a public or private school.  Either way, children get upset when they find out they are not particularly good at reading, or writing, or maths, science, etc, but they still go along and take those classes, regardless of whether they will require any of that knowledge at any time in their lives.  I was “forced” to go to music classes, but I couldn’t sing, can’t hold a beat, and apart from a brief fascination with wanting to be Ace Freely from KISS, never had any intention of becoming a musician in any form, at any time.  Sometimes, education is not just about learning what you want/need to know, it can be about re-inforcing what you have no interest in too.

    • KH says:

      09:06am | 22/07/11

      Music classes are not brainwashing you into believing in a fantasy being that somehow has control over you.  They are hardly comparable.

    • Bilby says:

      09:41am | 22/07/11

      KH - I think your comment clearly illustrates why scripture should be compulsory, not just available. Perhaps our kids should be learning about Islam as well. The bible does not say that anyone is in control of me, just that there will be consequences for my actions after I die. It is a guide to life, slanted towards maintaining church control and authority no doubt, but still, there’s plenty of good stuff in there.

    • Chris_D says:

      10:21am | 22/07/11

      @KH; isn’t any form of education “brainwashing”?  Imprinting something into the brain for future retrieval?  It’s not about what you are taught, it’s about how you apply that knowledge. 

      @Bilby, yep, that’s pretty close.  The idea IMO, is we work it out for ourselves once we get to “a certain age”, keep what you need, discard what you don’t.

    • Kate says:

      11:56am | 22/07/11

      Sorry, Bilby, you’re wrong.
      Straight up, wrong.

      It’s hardly a ‘guide to life’ if it indicates you’re gonig somewhere after you die and will be held accountable for your actions.

      You know what happens after you die? Nothing. You do not exist. You decompose.
      It must be nice to imagine there’s something else, but there’s not.
      Deal with it.

    • Chris L says:

      12:17pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D - It isn’t that easy to discard something that was instilled in us during childhood. At nearly forty years of age I still struggle with some behaviours I learned at an early age and would be better off without.

    • Gene Genie says:

      12:26pm | 22/07/11

      Chris_D: I call BS. If you had a brief fascination with wanting to be Ace Freely from KISS, you’d know his name was “Frehley”. You’re just trying to sound like you were actually cool at one time.

    • chris clowne says:

      04:52pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D: I would find your music analogy more reasonable if the teacher tried to convince you that you _were_ Ace Freely from KISS…

    • Bilby says:

      05:14pm | 22/07/11

      I’m sorry Kate I missed your fine contribution there. Your belief that we are nothing more than our mortal bodies is I’m sure very comforting to you, in the same way that those that believe in reincarnation or any kind of afterlife take comfort in that thought. The only fact is that we don’t know. Deal with it.

    • Chris_D says:

      07:06pm | 22/07/11

      @Gene Genie, nice one, you have a valid point.  Lucky I didn’t say I wanted to be Peter Chris!  wink

    • Cathy says:

      09:09am | 22/07/11

      Comparative religion should be taught in public schools, not to indoctrinate but to introduce our children to different belief systems. They can make up their own mind.

    • SKA says:

      09:15am | 22/07/11

      Back when I was a kid at primary school, the kids who didn’t do the scripture lessons sat in the school hall. They could do their homework, play quiet games or read books - we all got quite good at poker on that note wink

      My parents put me in the scripture classes in primary school despite being atheist because they thought it would be good for me to at least understand about religion (particularly because they’d booked me into a local religious high school due to the high education standards - they didn’t want me to get in trouble). When I was 11, I asked them if I could do non-scripture instead. They agreed. I loved it! But probably not suitable for tiny kids who need some distraction. Fine for 11-12 year olds who play card games or can read novels in that time.

      I actually think that time would be better served by teaching religions of the world i.e. a couple of weeks on each religion per year with the stories and information becoming increasingly complex would be valuable - not just educationally but in terms of teaching tolerance.

    • Timmy says:

      09:16am | 22/07/11

      From a NSW perspective only:

      1. Special Religious Education (SRE) has nothing to do with the Chaplaincy program. The connection made in the article is misleading.

      2. A half hour/ whole hour per week of SRE is hardly brainwashing. If anything, for many students it is such a poor experience of the particular religion that it is a turn off.

      3. A truly secular state is one that does not enforce any particular religious point of view, nor does nay particular religious point of view assume superiority. Banning religion from school altogether is not secularism, it is atheism.

    • Chris L says:

      09:51am | 22/07/11

      Not providing scripture classes in a state run school is the secular approach. This does not constitute “banning” religion in any way.

    • Timmy says:

      10:00am | 22/07/11

      The state does not provide scripture classes, it provides time for scripture classes. There is a significant difference ....

    • Rose says:

      10:04am | 22/07/11

      I wondered how long it would take someone to work out that she had confused two different programs here, the chaplaincy program and the scripture program! I have no real experience of public schools, thank goodness, as I attended only Catholic schools and so do my children, but even I knew that.
      I am grateful that I, and my children, were taught about different religions, were never subject to any brainwashing (that idea is a crap invention of people who know nothing about what goes on in religious schools) and had the privilege of knowing some amazing priests, nuns and brothers (allowing us the ability to understand that relatively few committed crimes against children and that the majority of them were dedicated, wonderful educators).
      I don’t think scripture as such should be taught in public schools, but I do believe that all kids should get a good grounding on the basics and historical perspective of at least the main religions of the world. Chaplaincy on the other hand is about providing pastoral care, and that is important, but I don’t think it should necessarily be a service provided by only religious people, it should be provided by well trained counsellors whether they believe in God or not.

    • Greg says:

      10:57am | 22/07/11

      But by removing all religious teaching, aren’t we effectivly stating that we believe there is no God? which in itself is a religious view.

      Lots of people seem to have the opinion that teaching about ‘god’ is teaching about ‘faires’ or other make believe characters so should be banned.  But with the absence of any absolute proof for or against the existence of a ‘god’, aren’t the views of someone with the exact opposite opinion just as valid.

      Regardless of your own personal opinion, religion is a very real part of our society, and therfore should be included in any public education system, and since Christianity is the dominate religion in Australia, I don’t think it is unreasonable for it to be offered in schools.

    • Chris L says:

      11:59am | 22/07/11

      “The state does not provide scripture classes, it provides time for scripture classes. There is a significant difference ....” -

      The teachers are not allowed to teach anything to the students that opt out at this time. Is this a requirement from the state or are they just lazy?

      “But by removing all religious teaching, aren’t we effectivly stating that we believe there is no God?” -

      No, we’re leaving the question open to be investigated privately.

    • scotty says:

      09:54pm | 23/07/11

      “Greg - But by removing all religious teaching, aren’t we effectivly stating that we believe there is no God? which in itself is a religious view.”

      No it is a secular view - ie religiously neutral.

      Send your kids to sunday school if you want them religiously educated

    • Dan says:

      09:21am | 22/07/11

      Atheists MUST, MUST, MUST have their own way at all costs.

      Surely they could hold “Atheist” classes and talk about how stupid religion is, particularly Christians, and the possibility of flying teapots and the like.

      Maybe they could delve further and let the kids know they have no reason for existence nor any right to existence. Ann Rand teachings would be a must, this would give the little bigots a massive head start on their peers and teach them they must look after themselves at the expense of others.

      They could grow up to be good little, self-important, mindless bigots just like their parents.
      What a wonderful world that would be.

      Aaaahhhh, the curse of that evil religion….....

    • Bilby says:

      09:45am | 22/07/11

      Russell’s teapot is a great example of hardcore atheist thinking. I can’t prove it exists, so therefore it doesn’t. The implication of omniscience is amusing at times, and gives me the screaming shits at others.

    • IC-1101 says:

      09:53am | 22/07/11

      @ Dan - you really do make Atheism sound rather placid next to religion, which is, as you so accurately put it, “evil”.

      How about instead of teaching students that “if they don’t believe in Jesus they will go to hell”, as a Sister told my son three months ago, we could teach the children about:

      Right and Wrong
      The Universe
      Where we came from
      How we pro-create
      Why we need law and order
      Why we need Maths
      Why freedom of speech is important

      I mean, what’s your argument?  That if we’re not teaching children about God, we’re teaching them that they are worthless and have no place?  You’re putting God on the same level as Santa Claus—that is, that we need to teach children about God so that they don’t fear life and see happiness—but yet, so many adults believe in God?  Are they also afraid of the nothingness of death so they need to believe in Sant…err…God, too?

      When I was in High School, I opted out of Religious Education and instead did “Text and Traditions”, a class that taught students about morals, ethics, the law, right and wrong, and responsibility, all without the influence of God or religion.

      Get a clue.  You’re the bigot here.  The fact that you don’t realise it is the funniest part of your response.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:55am | 22/07/11

      I agree with most of what you said except the bigot part.

      It would be good to counteract the brainwashing about mystical fictional beings with some real facts about the world.

    • Cathy says:

      10:02am | 22/07/11

      @ Bilby

      I might be mistaken, but Russell’s teapot pertains to the burden of proof and not so much about equating the absence of evidence to the evidence of absence?

    • Catherine says:

      10:25am | 22/07/11

      Not attending generic Christian scripture classes isn’t just for the aetheists. It’s also the choice made by the parents of children of other faiths. Should all of these kids be expected to sit around doing nothing at school for half an hour a week?

      Some form of non-religious ethics classes or discussions would benefit anyone who took them, regardless of their religious background or lack thereof. Even in Christianity, theologians can argue for decades about the specific application of the rules.

      And bigotry is neither solely associated with aetheism, nor a requirement of being an aetheist. As an aetheist, I recognise everyone’s entitlement to believe what they choose, whether or not I agree with them. I would just also prefer that the state-funded education system of my secular country would keep religious belief away from education.

    • Bilby says:

      10:32am | 22/07/11

      Cathy - Yes and no (don’t you love philosophy?). Yes it pertains to the burden of proof, but it does suggest that an absence of proof is proof of absence. It suggests that because we can’t prove that the teapot exists, it would be foolish to believe that it does. His argument falls down because there is no possibility of proof for the teapot as it is a physical entity defined as being so small and so far away as to be invisible thus it has no bearing on the existence or not of a God. Apples and oranges.

    • Cathy says:

      11:15am | 22/07/11

      @Bilby
      Love philosophy, ties my brain in knots sometimes.

      I’d assume that if one asserts that a teapot orbits the sun, one would have the technological or scientific means to detect such a teapot. Otherwise, where did one get the conviction from to make such a claim?

    • Drafnel says:

      12:24pm | 22/07/11

      @Cathy,

      So in practice the atheist does indeed take absence of proof as proof of absence, even if he’ll swear black and blue that he doesn’t. Your own statement illustrates the point. Being able to frame the assumption in scientific-sounding language does not make it any less of an assumption.

      Seriously, how can anyone ‘know’ that only the detectable things exist? What if we were a civilisation without eyes? The Aluminists would ‘know’ that light doesn’t exist and would ridicule those stupid, ignorant, deluded Luminists who think that it might be possible to know the shape of an object without touching it.

    • Chris L says:

      12:35pm | 22/07/11

      Usually the fact that the teapot is too small to be picked up by a telescope is included in the description. The idea is that you can say there is something undetectable (teapot, deity, etc) but in the complete absence of evidence the default position for the listener should be disbelief. Otherwise one must actively disprove every claim made (ghosts, vampires, giant invisible turtle carrying the Earth on its back).

    • Damian says:

      01:16pm | 22/07/11

      Bilby - at no point does Russell’s Teapot equate an absence or proof with a proof of absence.  It states that the burden of proof is with the believer and not the sceptic - he calls it ‘nonsense’ to say that an absence of a disproof requires belief.  To argue that the teapot is a physical and (presumably) that a god is not is, I think, to miss the point.  It’s about proof – if a person were to assert the he had a belief in a god (or anything else) that was anything other than received wisdom, it would be up to him to demonstrate why – or to admit that reason plays no part in it.  Russell goes on to point out that things are often accepted as Truth when they have simply been believed for a long time and that this is not proof.
      Everything is apples.  There are no oranges.  Not for the children of those who believe differently, anyway.

    • Tedd says:

      01:27pm | 22/07/11

      The burden of proof lies with those asserting something, and that invokes an ethic and a morality. 

      Of course Russell was not advocating a teapot, he was addressing the issue of shifting burden of proof, as well as the ‘argument from ignorance” fallacy (where someone tries to asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)

    • PS says:

      01:48pm | 22/07/11

      @Bilby - isn’t this pretty much the same logic we use in the rest of our lives? When you’re driving down an empty (of cars) road, you don’t drive as though there might be invisible, soundless cars everywhere you might hit, you assume the road is empty. The point of Russell’s teapot was to say not that the teapot definitively doesn’t exist, but rather that in the absence of any evidence for it, it’s more reasonable to assume it doesn’t exist than that it does. Likewise, God.

    • Joeyjoejoejnr says:

      01:58pm | 22/07/11

      So PS… When you drive down an empty road, do you also assume that there is no such thing as cars? Even though there is evidence that something exists by the fact that there are road signs and a road to begin with?

    • Bilby says:

      02:15pm | 22/07/11

      Cathy - I see that as the fatal flaw in the argument. It is predicated on the “unknowability” of the subject. I think Drafnel’s analogy is quite good.

      Damian - It is that assertion, that the sceptic has no burden of proof, that is the fallacy. As you say we believe many things simply because they have fallen into lore. If these things provide a practical model through which to view the world, then it is indeed the sceptic who must provide evidence if they are to change people’s ways.

      The argument that the nature of God is different to that of the teapot is important as it relates to the evidence. Where there can be none for the teapot, by definition, it would be up to the sceptic to disprove claims of evidence for God. It is not that there is no evidence, it is that people dismiss it as invalid. Russell suggests that we should dismiss unproveable claims out of hand, and equates to “knowability” of God to that of the teapot, thus we should dismiss claims of God in such a manner.

      So, to sum up. No we should not believe that which has not been proven. Neither should we dismiss that for which we do not believe any method of detection exists. We should only dismiss that which we can actively disprove. If that leaves almost everything in the realm of the unknown, so be it.

      PS - Drive down an unfenced stretch of country road at night like only what you can see exists and you may be in for a nasty shock.

    • Drafnel says:

      02:27pm | 22/07/11

      ... and yet there’s something compelling and somehow ‘self-evident’ to the proposition that there’s more to life than just the detectable - a ‘something’ which is completely missing from the proposition of Russel’s teapot. Unfortunately Science has no way of ‘seeing’ this. It seems that only the human being is capable of detecting the difference.

      God or no god, the human psyche will not be chained to the limitations imposed by a strict insistence that nothing should even be seriously considered unless it appears in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, which is the ultimate position of strong, ‘rational’ atheism.

      We ‘sense’ that our consciousness is more than just the electrical impulses in our brains, just as we plainly see that the internet is more than ‘just ones and zeros’ - it is a ‘something’ that exists and is supported on a structure of ones and zeros, but its essence is many orders of magnitude greater than ‘mere’ electrical impulses.

      Even if the only thing that’s ‘out there’ is another plane of organisational complexity, philosophy and religion still get us closer to understanding and engaging with that plane than Science.

      Yes, let us be rational. But if we become strictly, exclusively rational as demanded by some sects of atheism, we lose the very thing that makes us human.

    • Cathy says:

      03:51pm | 22/07/11

      Bilby and Drafnel

      Great comments by both if you.

      “It is not that there is no evidence, it is that people dismiss it as invalid. Russell suggests that we should dismiss unproveable claims out of hand, and equates to “knowability” of God to that of the teapot, thus we should dismiss claims of God in such a manner.”

      Hmm, a lot depends upon the definition of God. The nature, characteristics and essence of the Christian God is documented in the Bible. The Christian God is quite “knowable” in this respect and can be tested using scientific methods. On the other hand, if the God in question is a passive, indifferent being who created the universe but doesn’t give a hoot about what goes on in it, then this God, imo, would be elusive to human perception.

    • Chris L says:

      06:24pm | 22/07/11

      “It is not that there is no evidence, it is that people dismiss it as invalid” -

      Perhaps there is good reason for that, Bilby. Do you have any examples?

    • scotty says:

      09:46pm | 23/07/11

      “Atheists MUST, MUST, MUST have their own way at all costs. “

      Educate your kids about religion at Sunday school and let us educate our kids how we’d like to - that’s all atheists are asking for.

      Hardly unreasonable - how happy would you be, as a christian, if it was compulsory classes on islam from an impressionable age?

    • Jane2 says:

      09:26am | 22/07/11

      Since when has it been the schools responsibility to teach ethics? Ethics should be taught by parents as it has been since humanity began.

      If parents are no longer teaching
      *Dont lie
      *Dont steal
      *Dont hurt others
      etc and the child doesnt have a grounding in these before they reach primary school then society is going to go backwards very VERY fast.

    • Jason says:

      01:14pm | 22/07/11

      Since when has it been the schools responsibility to teach religion? Religion should be taught by parents as it has been since humanity began.

      If parents are no longer teaching
      * Kill the gays
      * Hand over your money to the priestly class without question
      * Don’t mention the child abuse
      etc and the child doesnt have a grounding in these before they reach primary school then christianity is going to go backwards very VERY fast.

    • Michael says:

      05:36pm | 22/07/11

      Well, probably about the time house prices became so high that it took two full-time wages to support a family with all of it’s materialistic modern needs.

      People are too busy with work or living their lives to raise children properly - and as a society we have to accept that and deal with it in some way.

      I’d prefer a better work-life balance, but it seems the majority would prefer materialistic and personal desires over family.  Since the latter case seems to be the one we have to deal with, I don’t particularly mind the state supporting our society with such classes - and I don’t intend to ever have kids.

    • Ben says:

      09:32am | 22/07/11

      Wow, you killed your own credibility in the very first paragraph by demonstrating you haven’t done your research and you don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of either chaplaincy or scripture classes in schools: “My sister enrolled her son in primary school this week, and wrote ‘No’ on the enrolment form next to ‘Scripture’, boldly letting her share of the $165 million tax dollars used to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program gurgle godlessly down the plug’ole.” Funding for the National School Chaplaincy Program goes to chaplains, not to scripture classes - the two things are completely different. Scripture classes are taught on a volunteer basis and require no government funds. Until you ranting atheists can get these basic facts right you should refrain from commenting on either of these issues.

    • MH says:

      12:53pm | 22/07/11

      @Ben: Good call, and interesting to note that there have been no responses to your post. I think it suits the position of the author and the atheist community in general, to “confuse” the RE and Chaplaincy programs.

    • dope on a rope says:

      11:00pm | 22/07/11

      I’ll reply. The writer has obviously made a mistake (this is the punch after all). Why so antagonistic? You have obviously been deeply affected by lies told to you at a tender age and resent hearing the truth in that regard.  This is triggering your false belief in your own superiority which you freely project onto atheists. Salaam.

    • Jolanda says:

      09:39am | 22/07/11

      I think that there is a difference between being taught a religion and being indoctrinated or brainwashed.  My kids early education was in the public school system and their later education in the Catholic School system and I can honestly say that bar a few times when they have said that the Scripture teacher (public school) had said a few weird things and what they saw as inappropriate comments they have never said that they felt that these classes were forcing them to do or believe anything, as a matter of fact for the most part they didn’t do very much at all.

      Being exposed to scripture hasn’t resulted in any change in the beliefs of my children.  They still believe what they believe and it isn’t necessarily exactly what I believe..

    • Jason says:

      03:20pm | 22/07/11

      The difference is smilar to the difference between SRE and GRE

      SRE is single-religion, this-is-true, delivered-by-believers education, which if not incredibly carefully managed becomes indoctrination
      GRE is general religious education, which covers a panoply of religious views (hopefully including nontheist perspectives) and can give a truly balanced view. Also open to abuse, but less so than SRE

      We appear to have SRE at the expense of GRE, which is… oh, how shall I put this?  NOT GOOD.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:44am | 22/07/11

      Maybe instead of developing into a more rounded and mature human being by learning as much as possible the kid could do some exercise during that half-hour instead of turning into 300 pounds of pure donut oil, crushed under the irrational non-secular hatred shown by its parents.

    • Colleen A says:

      09:46am | 22/07/11

      Thanks Timmy

      “Special Religious Education (SRE) has nothing to do with the Chaplaincy program. The connection made in the article is misleading.”

      It isn’t only in NSW that this is true. It is the same in Victoria except that our Christian Religious Education is known as CRE.

      If you want to slag off at the CRE or Chaplaincy Jo Thornley at least get your facts straight!

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      09:57am | 22/07/11

      I’m looking forward to Jo’s piece on Islam. Tell me Jo, when do you plan on providing us with such a piece?

    • Jo Thornely says:

      10:15am | 22/07/11

      Actually I was thinking of doing a piece on how difficult it is to open packets of cheese next. Not sure.

    • Chris L says:

      10:35am | 22/07/11

      Perhaps when state governments introduce the idea of muftis in schools to teach Islam. I’m sure we’ll be hearing from you as well if that ever happens.

    • Bella23 says:

      03:48pm | 22/07/11

      I would love that!

    • John of Brisbane says:

      08:31pm | 23/07/11

      I doubt that will happen. Christianity is so much easier to pick on without being called names like racist etc. Go for Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto or some other world religion but for heavens sake don’t pick on athiesm which is also a religion.

    • Robert says:

      10:03am | 22/07/11

      In theory some religious education allows a more informed argument. In practice, it is not possible to have a proper argument with the churchies because increasing absence of proof is proportional to increasing levels of blind unreasoning faith, a delusional state highly prized by Jesus apparently.

      Dan - what an eloquent argument for athiesm. Rant some more please. You’ll have christians renouncing their faith in droves just to avoid being associated with a plonker who has the audacity to suggest that atheists are more prone to being bigots than christians are.

    • Aaron says:

      10:04am | 22/07/11

      christians and atheists, you’re all as bad as each other! The only true religion is JEDI!!!! No, that’s probably blasphemy or something. But seriously, I’m a christian and I don’t think that any proposal so far has any merit. NO ONE seems to be able to teach religion without any kind of bias, as a result, religion should be taught by a religious person, just like maths should be taught by a mathematician. This isn’t indoctorination, it’s teaching. To balance it out, Theory of evolution should also be taught. It’d be like a debate, then the kids can make a choice.

    • Jason says:

      11:56am | 22/07/11

      You were obviously well-served by your christian background. Such eloquence, such a considered response.

      “No-one can teach without bias, therefore we should go with the most biased option”

      No suggestion that perhaps GRE would be better than SRE then? No mention of the ethics curriculum? The idea that evolution should be taught *as balance*??

      Yeah, I’m totally on for your suggestion, Aaron. Idiocracy FTW.

    • Chris L says:

      11:16am | 23/07/11

      Settle down Jason. Yes, you have a valid objection to the point Aaron raised, but you do it disservice by belittling the messenger. Also I don’t know what GRE is as opposed to SRE to please don’t use acronyms.

      Aaron, I completely oppose teaching any religion as “truth” in a classroom, but as a fellow student of “the force” I feel it my duty to throw you a bone.

    • Reggie says:

      09:42pm | 25/07/11

      Chris L. ” I feel it my duty to throw you a bone. “

      I don’t. How can you teach religion without bias? Believing in a strict set of what-ever is not the same and having no opinion at all. Believing in fairies is NOT debatable. They’re real.

    • Briver says:

      10:04am | 22/07/11

      As a student at a Catholic school a great deal of our time in Religous Education was spent learning about the philosphical roots of religion and about other religions (including a whole term on Islam). It was by far the most interesting subject I studied and has given me a much greater understanding of the issues affecting our society. This is coming from someone who is not a practicing churchgoer, detests the Catholic hierachy and leans more to the agnostic as an adult.

      Dismissing religous studies as indoctrination demonstrates nothing but the author’s intolerance.

    • Jo Thornely says:

      10:18am | 22/07/11

      I can’t find the part where I dismissed religious studies as indoctrination. Bugger.

    • Tedd says:

      10:24am | 22/07/11

      Briver,
      Religious Education in Catholic schools seems to be more moderate and worldly than what is now offered, and battled for, in public secular schools.

    • Jason says:

      03:56pm | 22/07/11

      @Tedd,

      From reports, I think you may be broadly correct. Catholic education, while still all kinds of nasty in its own way, has lost a lot of the “on fire for jebus” that the mainly pentecostal/evangelical SRE providers have in spades. It’s had the corners knocked off and has mellowed. The pentecostals, not so much.

      The main thing about the catholic side is the constant nagging guilt. The Evangelical side has the viral meme aspect, the homophobia, the burning in hell and all the delicious nutbaggery that goes with it.

      Just a consequence of turning over SRE to the evangelicals, really.

      I still think any single-topic religious instruction is a bad thing, but in private schools I really have no say.

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:16pm | 23/07/11

      Jo Thornely says ’ I can’t find the part where I dismissed religious studies as indoctrination. Bugger’

      - how annoying! You wrote the piece, which largely traded on the humour of religion as indoctrination, and I quote…:

      my sister was advised to perhaps just sign her son up for the general scripture classes, because “the little ones get upset when they’re pulled out of class”.
      As opposed, of course, to how they feel when they’re being taught about eternal damnation, and the implication that Mummy and Daddy will spend it sipping sulphur in Hell’s hottest nite spot (which isn’t actually Minsky’s, very surprisingly).

    • Catherine says:

      10:07am | 22/07/11

      When I was a child, the most prominent absences during scripture class were the children of a family of extremely religious background. They were of a different branch of Christianity, and hence their parents didn’t want them attending the generic scripture classes. The bulk of the kids who did take scripture weren’t there because their parents particularly wanted them to learn about god, but because it was the default thing to do.

      Religion education has its place - in the churches, temples, mosques, etc of the various religions, in schools run by religious groups, and the homes of religious families. Where it does not belong is in the classrooms of non-religious state schools.

      Dump classes that tell children to believe a specific faith, and give them classes that teach them about all the religions of the world, as part of their history lessons. Leave decisions about personal religious education to the parents.

    • Broad minded mum says:

      10:11am | 22/07/11

      Think of it as nothing more than a history lesson then.  How selfish is your sister to put a poor little child through the feeling of being iscolated and different just because silly mummy wants to prove her point.  Christianity is also about being a better person and being charitable - it’s not all bible bashing.  Your sister is being a tad bit narrow minded - its not like its a cult.

    • R-Bro says:

      10:37am | 22/07/11

      I don’t think the ‘poor little child’ will suffer any great harm by sitting by himself for half an hour. He is 5.

    • Jo's sister says:

      10:46am | 22/07/11

      If the scripture class was about history and comparative religion, I would be more comfortable about having my son attend. Given the option of having him attend or not, I choose not, like many other parents. The extent to which he feels ‘isolated and different’ depends on how much we chat openly and comfortably about it.

    • Broaded minded mum says:

      11:33am | 22/07/11

      I think you underestimate childrens emotions - sitting alone in the office for 1/2 hour whilst his friends are in class is most definately the best way to make a child feel different.  If you think the child is independent enough to cope with the emotion of being left out then why don’t you leave the decision of whether to attend the class to him ?  Ask him - would you like to sit with your class and learn about God ? I bet you haven’t even asked him. 

      It always amuses me when I hear parents comfort their children in the loss of a person or animal of favourite toy etc ..  by saying, ‘gone to heaven or gone to the angels’... so if this is the case, why not let them learn the basics of heaven, god, angels, saints etc .. ? why not let them learn about christianity and what it means to be a good person according to christianity.  You let them be taught about Santa and the Easter bunny and you don’t believe in them .. but you won’t let them be taught the fundamentals about Christianity - even though you don’t believe in that either.

      This takes me back to when my son was baptised and my neice asked me if he will go to heaven, which of course I answered yes.  She asked me if she isn’t baptised where will she go.  What do you say to a five year old ?  She asked me if she can be baptised with my son so they can go to heaven together.  Their view of relgion is so innocent, whats so wrong with 1/2 hour of religion a week ?

    • Jo's sister says:

      01:40pm | 22/07/11

      @Broad minded mum, thank you for taking so much trouble to let me know what I do and don’t tell my son. When his last pet died, he learned that it had “gone to sleep forever and wasn’t coming back”, which is true. I feel good about telling him the truth.

    • R-Bro says:

      02:08pm | 22/07/11

      @Broad Minded Mum, the fact that your child is already questioning where she will go after death (when she is 5) is, in my opinion, evidence that the study of religion is not necessarily a good thing. As a five year old, concepts of death and the afterlife should not be in the forefront.

    • kyra says:

      02:39pm | 22/07/11

      Based on the comments I don’t think that “Broad minded mum” is really that broad minded.

    • Sheree says:

      10:15am | 22/07/11

      Jo, I would strongly recommend you go and sit in on one of these half hour scripture classes and form an opinion once you have observed a lesson. I am confident this article would never had the need to be written if you had done a little research in the first place.

    • Chris L says:

      11:22am | 23/07/11

      That would equate to anecdotal evidence, and I have plenty of that to show that RE is evil!

    • Dee says:

      10:18am | 22/07/11

      ... I had an imaginary friend when I was a child but my parents taught me to let him go, not embrace him… They must have had it backwards.

      Keep it out of the schools and leave it for churches, us non god wielding folks don’t have a church. I have painful memories of being taken into ‘RE’ classes despite have signed forms from my parents that I was not to be included. I have no doubt this still happens today.

      All this talk of Atheists, keep in mind that we are not all god hating, bible burning ‘whack jobs’... some of us openly admit that we don’t know the answer and that we also just don’t care. See Agnostic.

    • Whitney says:

      10:20am | 22/07/11

      Out of interest, do those of you who object to religion classes, also object to the inclusion of fables or allegory in English lessons?  I was raised as Catholic, and teach at a Catholic school, but have long since chosen a path that deviates from that of the church’s.  However I am very happy for my daughter to attend religion classes, because I believe that every opportunity to learn about humanity, compassion and community is important.  What’s wrong with kids learning about equality and kindness to others?  I happen to teach religion, and my classes cover all faiths and social issues and never once have I threatened a student with eternal damnation or belittled beliefs that differ from my own.
      I love that the opinions shared on ‘The Punch’ are generally educated, and well-informed, but are we so conceited as to believe that our children require our opinion of the world and no others?  Surely we send our children to school to broaden their minds.  What some of the respondents consider to be brainwashing (perhaps a visit to the class is appropriate if you’re that worried) are in fact the tools by which students will learn tolerance for others and resilience within themselves. 
      We all think our children are brilliant, so how’s this for an idea- ask your child what they’d like to know.  If they are happy enough to take holidays for Easter and Christmas (and one assumes, get presents) perhaps its fair that they learn that there is a ‘give’ element to that particular ‘give and take’  relationship.

    • cerebus says:

      12:10pm | 22/07/11

      @Whitney, “...are we so conceited as to believe that our children require our opinion of the world and no others?”
      No, we believe that our children should be taught crtitical thinking skills, and allow them to make their own informed decisions, which includes deciding to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity.
      Many of the responses on here against scripture classes have said they have no issue with their children studying *about* religion (including all the ones you are presumably atheistic towards), but don’t want them being taught Christian scripture.  *That* would be the way “to broaden their minds”.
      And if you are happy to take Easter and Christmas holidays (implying that as atheists we shouldn’t) then in that ‘give and take’ relationship you speak of, are you willing to participate in the relevant pagan festivals which were co-opted by christianity? Or is it just ‘take’ in that case?

    • Whitney says:

      02:01pm | 22/07/11

      @Cerebus- First of all, thank you for your time and the consideration you gave to my thoughts.  As someone who also teaches English, I agree absolutely that critical thinking skills are a must.  The point I was making, and one you appear to have chosen to ignore was that IN ADDITION to thinking skills and the freedom to adopt (or not) the deity of choice, and knowledge that pagan traditions were in fact absorbed (politically correct way of saying annihilated) by Christian festivals, I am grateful that my children receive a lesson of tolerance, and acceptance.  I teach students who regurgitate their parents’ vitirol all the time; it is very difficult to come to a place where you have respect for others when parents have reinforced intolerance by refusing to allow their children to hear another point of view.  Does my family celebrate Christmas and Easter- yep.  Do my children know why Christmas is in December and celebrated by decorating trees- absolutely.  Do my classes learn about God?-yep. Do I also give them answers to questions about Islam and Buddhism- you better believe it.  I a curriculum that is increasingly overloaded, teaching religion has become so much more (thankfully) than Scripture class- it is the time when students can ask questions about social issues, debate the ethical dilemmas of politics and ask why violence and tragedy exists.  I assume you’d be ok with your child discussing the world around them?  Can we not learn from the past, including the past recorded (not accurately, before you challenge me on this point) in religious texts?  Would you prefer we only learn morality from politics, where the separation of Church and state is so wonderfully upheld! wink

    • cerebus says:

      02:16pm | 22/07/11

      @Whitney, having read your response I suspect we have very similar opinions, despite coming from what could be considered ‘opposite’ sides of the discussion.
      “I assume you’d be ok with your child discussing the world around them?” Absolutely, I actively encourage it.  I do not teach them to believe, but equally importantly I do not teach them not to believe, and I certainly don’t react with vitriol to any questions they have about god.  I am upfront with them about my lack of belief, but have always made it clear that it is a choice they need to make, and I explain the reasons for my choice.
      If religion was taught in school in the comparative way that others have spoken of, I would be happy for my children to study that, but it is the scripture aspect of religious education I would object to….a class in which children are told “there is a god”, “there is a jesus”, and “this is wrong because jesus said so”.  If it is a case of “there are many religions, christians believe xyz, hindus believe abc, etc.” that is different to scripture teachings.

    • cerebus says:

      02:20pm | 22/07/11

      @Whitney, sorry, I forgot to metion that there is no way I would want anyone to learn morality from politics, but luckily being in favour of separation of church and state does not imply that anything that does not come from the church must therefore come from the state.
      Personally I wouldn’t trust politicians as far as I could throw them, whatever side of the divide they’re from.

    • Reggie says:

      12:05pm | 26/07/11

      Cerebus, “Personally I wouldn’t trust politicians as far as I could throw them, whatever side of the divide they’re from.’

      What a ridiculous statement. The trouble is that your politicians have become SO trustworthy that you have NO idea how bad it could really be.

      But returning to the subject. Separating child zealots from the rest, is one of the methods religious terrorists have used to fill their need for suicide bombers.  I could imagine a young group in Australia ill-advisedly deciding to call themselves “Terrorists for Christ.”

    • cerebus says:

      01:02pm | 26/07/11

      @Reggie, you have a higher opinion of politicians than I do. That’s your perogative, but equally it’s mine to say I don’t trust their motives.  I don’t think many of them are in politics to benefit the community, I think they are there for their own benefit.  At the end of the day though, it’s an opinion, you’re free to regard it as ‘a ridiculous statement’ if you so desire…..
      Just to be clear….I don’t distrust them in the sense that I think they are corrupt, I distrust their motives for being in politics in the first place.

    • Reggie says:

      01:54pm | 26/07/11

      Attempting to keep on topic cerebus, everyone needs motivation what-ever they are inclined to do. Politicians and religious zealots both seek goals. The latter is the selfish pursuit of a wonderful after-life and the politicians approach is to ensure they are reasonably comfortable on their journey to oblivion. It’s to be hoped Aussie politicians have a different slant to those who help recruit terrorist bombers but no-matter what, the source is still zealotry. I have heard of many Christian teens returning from religious camp hoping to be killed in a car accident so they could go straight to heaven. I kid you NOT. Don’t mess with such a mentality.

    • Matt says:

      10:21am | 22/07/11

      Why teach kids any of this irrelevant stuff like whittling, yo-yos, and religion? Just let them go home half an hour an early and if their parents decide to teach them useless junk like underwater knitting, then they can learn it outside of school. School is for learning USEFUL skills like maths and english and is also an excellent opportunity for socialising(also an important skill BTW)

    • SalC says:

      10:23am | 22/07/11

      I opted out of Religious Ed in grade 4, spending many a free period playing “Where in the world is Carmen San Diego?”.  Remember that?  I learned a Hell of a lot more (mind the pun) learning about the WORLD around me, not about some made-up fairy tales, and I turned out all right.

    • Andrew says:

      10:29am | 22/07/11

      We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.    Pope Benedict XVI

      I am not a religious man but I recognise religion as playing an important role in moral development, something that is sorely lacking in children these days.

    • Mark G says:

      11:40am | 22/07/11

      Quoting pope Benedict is not a good start to your argument. This is exactly what I have talked about in other posts. Its the Idea that our society is somehow slipping into chaos because we are losing our faith. That a world without religion is non-definitive and driven by egos and desires.

      Wait, is pope Benedict argueing that the religious world is definitive and not driven by egos? When modern religion keeps changing its interpretation of the bible as science discredits it. When theists keep using the argument ‘You can take the bible literally’. Sounds definitive to me *sarcasm*. When the very structure of the Catholic Church is based around an almost feudal leadership structure where ego driven priests shoot their way to the top. Desire driven culture? What like paedophile priests? or is that a bad example? This is the typical religious dribble about mankind losing its morals because it is losing its religion.

    • cerebus says:

      12:15pm | 22/07/11

      @Andrew, “I recognise religion as playing an important role in moral development”
      Does that imply that your only reason for being moral is a fear of punishment, a fear of not making it to heaven?
      Or are you implying that atheists have no cause to be moral?
      I can assure you as an atheist, I have morals, in some cases I would maintain moreso than christians who object to things like same-sex marriage, and I do not need a religion to provide those morals.

    • Andrew says:

      01:13pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark G J.I notice you rubbish the man and not what he says, that says a lot about you. It is no coincidence that the decline of the western world is linked to the decline of the church.  The church is comprised of human beings, fallible. Robots like yourself who only have faith in your new religion, science, fail to grasp that and instead fall into an easy sort of smug sarcasm when it comes to rubbishing an institution that your entire society was built around. People like you have a childs understanding of faith and the church.

      @cerebus Funny how you people ignore the massive amounts of good things the church does every day. Things like helping the homeless, food drives, running aged care centers, providing a sense of community and belonging etc etc and instead focus on non-issues like gay marriage. Anything to rubbish the church hey? Praise Dawkins. I think most internet athiests are children still raging that mummy and daddy made them give up a WHOLE SUNDAY MORNING every week to go to dumb stupid church. Blooo a blooo a a bloooo.

    • cerebus says:

      01:30pm | 22/07/11

      @Andrew, “..notice you rubbish the man and not what he says, that says a lot about you.” after which you procede to do exactly that to me. Nice.

      Leaving your ad-hominem attacks aside, can I suggest you reread what I said. At no point did I say the church does not do good things. I asked you to clarify your statement which appeared to make some generalisations about morality.  You can still clarify your position if you wish.  I suspect I may have hit a nerve with the same-sex marriage reference, but that’s a discussion for another time, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

      Again I ask, do you feel that those without religion have no cause to behave in a moral way?

    • Mark G says:

      02:19pm | 22/07/11

      “I notice you rubbish the man and not what he says.”

      Andrew,

      Exactly where did I rubbish Pope Benedict? Most of my last post was rubbishing the quote you posted. It the normal attempt of religious group to mix up morality with religion. That’s not an attack on Pope Benedict, its an attack on what he is saying. Or is that not allowed.

      ‘The church is comprised of human beings, fallible. Robots like yourself who only have faith in your new religion’

      Holy crap when did I become a robot. So you are arguing that to be human you have to be religious now. I assure you that I am very much human at least last time I checked. A wonderful evolutionary part of being a human is critical thinking. That’s not to say the theist don’t critically think but to call that atheists robots who are just mindlessly following their new religion is like the pot calling the kettle black.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      10:29am | 22/07/11

      “...I have painful memories of being taken into ‘RE’ classes…”

      Sure you did.  All that reading and learning must have been excruciatingly painful.

      And it’s clearly altered how your life turned out too I’m sure.

      Still celebrate Christmas and Easter though I’ll bet.

      Don’t mind the holidays either.

    • Jason says:

      11:48am | 22/07/11

      “Learning”?

      From the atheist point of view, “learning” about religion as tantamount to memorising every mention of “shoes” in Lord of The Rings by rote. Except with a heaping helping of indoctrination.

      Margaret, there’s no god, get used to it.

    • cerebus says:

      12:17pm | 22/07/11

      @Margaret, as I mentioned earlier to Andrew, by suggesting that as atheists we shouldn’t have christmas and easter holidays, are you implying that you celebrate the pagan festivals they are based on and co-opted from? Or is this a one-way argument?

    • Marc says:

      12:42pm | 22/07/11

      Christmas and Easter are good old fashioned Pagan holidays, of course we should celebrate them.

    • Andrew says:

      01:21pm | 22/07/11

      @cerebus You talk about christmas and easter being pagan. Yet you still celebrate these pagan traditions. I guess religion is ok when it personally benefits you. Once again:

      We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires

      But hey it was said by one of those DUMB religious types. What would they know compared to the fountain of wisdom and intelligence that is your typical internet athiest.

    • cerebus says:

      01:41pm | 22/07/11

      @Andrew, yes, I do still celebrate those holidays, but I was not the one making the claim that they should somehow be restricted to christians only.  I celebrate them as I suspect most do, buy buying chocolate for easter and by buying (and hopefully receiving) gifts at christmas.
      If you feel these holidays should be purely christian, I assume you do neither of the above?
      Your quote about relativism seems to also suggest that my earlier impression that you feel that without religion there is no cause to be moral and that as atheists we feel we can do whatever we want? And again, to me that suggests that you are only moral out of a fear of punishment. Feel free to correct me if that is not the case.  As for atheists being free to do whatever they want, if that was the case you would expect the majority of the jail population to be atheist, whereas studies (albeit in the US, I am not aware of any in Australia) show that the overwhelming majority of the prison population is actually religious.

      I will say it again, I am an atheist, yet I have no trouble leading a moral life as I know it is the right thing to do, not becase a) some beardy bloke in the sky told me to, or b) I’d really love to do all those nasty things but I’m scared of punishment from that same beardy bloke.

      I am fine with religion, but it should be a personal thing, it should not be taught in a state school.

      “But hey it was said by one of those DUMB religious types. What would they know compared to the fountain of wisdom and intelligence that is your typical internet athiest. “
      At no point have I referred to you as DUMB, so you can keep your sarcasm to yourself. I will refrain from pointing you to the studies correlating increasing levels of education with decreasing belief in a deity.

    • Jason says:

      01:52pm | 22/07/11

      “You talk about christmas and easter being pagan. Yet you still celebrate these pagan traditions. I guess religion is ok when it personally benefits you. Once again:”

      Just to answer on behalf of cerebus:

      When I “celebrate” christmas (or as a jokingly tend to call it, “Newton’s birthday”), what I’m celebrating is NOT a pagan tradition but an opportunity to have a few days off and go sit in a nice park with a big group of my friends, drink a few beers, play a bit of cricket, eat some nice food and celebrate the life I have. It’s got jack to do with pagan traditions.

      But, y’know, don’t let the facts stop you. You haven’t seemed to so far.

    • Reggie says:

      02:11pm | 26/07/11

      Not forgetting Jason that showing respect for these Christian Holidays is one of the many ways we non-conformists accommodate the foibles of the Christian factions. We’d do the same for Jews and Mormons and anyone else who wants to push for more time off. I’d hope the Christians would be just as respectful if we instituted a National Druids and Equinox Remembrance Day.  Four holidays a year. March, June, September and December 22nd.

    • Brodie says:

      10:29am | 22/07/11

      Great article, Jo.

      Of course, the comments have devolved into ‘Christians-vs-Atheists’ nonsense, which is off topic, in my opinion. Scripture classes, Chaplains, ‘Shine’ and ‘Strength’ programs, etc. (in my 13 years of experience as a State High School teacher), ALL perpetuate outdated and damaging gender role expectations. Boys are told they must provide for their wives and children, and girls are told to be dutiful wives and mothers.

      I have been shocked and outraged by some of the things I have heard chaplains and scripture rep’s tell students. Spend the money on putting qualified counsellors and psychologists into our schools.

      Also, I never even learned to walk the dog. Does that mean I’m going to hell?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:05pm | 22/07/11

      “...ALL perpetuate outdated and damaging gender role expectations….”

      Of course let’s instead discuss the normalcy of Bridget’s two mummies or the fact that Toby is third in a intergenerational welfare spiral because no-one in his family gives a good goddamn about who is the provider as long as it’s the government.

      And love thy neighbour and thou shall not kill are sooo over-rated an outdated concepts.

      And of course Christianity is the only religion that preaches such “outdated and damaging gender role expectations”, right Brodie?

      “...Does that mean I’m going to hell?...”

      If you don’t believe there is a Heaven, why do you believe there is a Hell?

    • Jason says:

      01:45pm | 22/07/11

      “And of course Christianity is the only religion that preaches such “outdated and damaging gender role expectations”, right Brodie?”

      Translation:

      ALL THE OTHER RELIGIONS DO IT, THEREFORE IT MUST BE OK.

      It’s not OK, Margaret.

      Oh, by the way, I’m pretty sure the original “Am I going to hell?” was facetious. But I’ve never found christians to be all that good at spotting irony and sarcasm in the past., why would I expect that to change now?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      03:09pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason

      “...It’s not OK, Margaret…”

      Despite the deep misogny inherent in most, I see only one religion on trial here.

      Clearly you misunderstood the question.

      I guess the wearing of a burqa should not be seen as an “outdated and damaging gender role expectation”, rather it’s simply that she is choosing to wear such a fetching Freedom Sack.

    • Chris L says:

      04:30pm | 22/07/11

      “I see only one religion on trial here” - Maybe that’s something to do with which religion gets included in state sponsored education. If muslims were being invited into schools to indoctrinate the young I imagine you would be joining us in condemning the idea, perhaps with even greater enthusiasm that we could muster.

    • Jason says:

      04:35pm | 22/07/11

      “I see only one religion on trial here.”

      In the case of SRE, you’d be correct. Because only one “religion” has been afforded the privilege of exclusive access to children’s minds in state-funded schools in contravention of all secular principles and, possibly, the constitution.

      However, I consider myself an equal opportunities atheist. I hold scorn for all religious propositions equally, and haven’t yet found one that isn’t absurd in its self-centred arrogance. Once people are persuaded to believe the absurd, well, you can persuade them to do, say and think plenty of other stupid things besides.

    • sylvie says:

      04:01pm | 23/07/11

      @Jason,  You reveal yourself, at last!

        “.......I hold scorn….......self-centred arrogance”.

      This explains your agitation.
      Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

    • Cat says:

      10:29am | 22/07/11

      I sent a note to say I didn’t want my son attending RE at his state school - his teacher decided to send him anyway. I found out when he came home telling me all about god and how his teachers had said god was real and so it must be true - it is absolutely revolting that this happened. Likewise, the lords prayer was said at assembly and none of the kids were told they did not have to say it if they did not believe in it, it was upsetting every time I attended school assemblies. At his current school there is no RE as nobody has offered to teach it, we did have it but the person in charge of it was brilliant at talking about many different religions and never phrasing beliefs as truths, I was happy for him to learn about different religions but for the parents who opted their kids out, those kids were kept in the SAME classroom, just at the back of the room - they heard everything and had to sit doing nothing while everyone else had fun activities and colouring in, again, revolting practise - no parent who wants to opt out would be comfortable with this arrangement but parents dont know because they are not there when it happens. The Chaplaincy programs point to very few complaints - but if parents knew what went on there would be far more, but parents assume things are being conducted respectfully or may not even know they have to opt out of anything. Schools need to do a MUCH better job of being clear about what is on offer and what the alternative arrangements are. My preference for the state schools is for broad religious study to be included and specified RE classes to not be allowed, I want the chaplaincy program withdrawn from stateschools also.

    • stephen says:

      10:38am | 22/07/11

      Never read so much cynicism from a gal before in me life.
      Not only do you need scripture my dear, but also Grace.
      And how un-lady-like not to have either ?

    • Chris L says:

      04:44pm | 22/07/11

      Let alone she’s seeking to instruct men, which is forbidden in the bible!

    • Watcher says:

      10:41am | 22/07/11

      Many many years ago, I insisted at my son’s local school that he did not attend scripture, to my way of thinking school was to learn about things that he would need in later life. Instead he did mathematics, he went onto to do extremely well in advanced math, and is now a manager in a large Australia Company. Whilst I am I suppose you would call an atheist, due to bad experiences with the Catholic Church, he went back to the church, when he felt he wanted to, in later years. I am happy that he has done so. Whatever makes him happy, makes me happy. But I still feel, school is for school work, Ethics I think is a good alternative. We all need to be ethical in life if we want a happy stress free life.

    • Mark G says:

      12:06pm | 22/07/11

      Whilst I am I suppose you would call an atheist, due to bad experiences with the Catholic Church,

      That’s not an Atheist. That’s a disillusioned Catholic. It is often assumed that the only way that a person could become an Atheist is if they have had a bad experience with organised religion. That losing your faith has something to do with disillusionment with god. This is often used as a defence to discredit atheist beliefs as nothing more than bitter attacks on the church.

    • Jason says:

      12:17pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark_G

      Nice of you to redefine someone’s self-description for them. No arrogance there then.

      I don’t see a way, from Watcher’s comment, to make the determination “atheist or disillusioned catholic?” either way. There’s no mention of the key answer to the key question “do you believe in a god or gods?”

      Yes: Theist
      No: Atheist

      Perhaps both of you might find this clarification useful, perhaps not.

    • Mark G says:

      02:29pm | 22/07/11

      Jason,

      You are right and I would say that Watcher probably is an Atheist at heart under your definition. But like you say that’s a persons self description. The point I was making is that a bad experience with the church is a poor rational for declaring yourself an atheist. You can be a devout Christian without being part of organised religion.

    • Jason says:

      04:45pm | 22/07/11

      Entirely true. And you can also be both an atheist *and* a disillusioned catholic. I know a few.

      SO we’re on the same page? good.

    • Adam says:

      10:44am | 22/07/11

      Do any of you actually understand the etymology of the word doctrine? It just means knowledge or understanding. To indoctrinate is to teach! Everybody indoctrinates their children. But so goes the ad-hominom nonsense of some atheists, if we teach children about science it’s critical thinking, but if we teach them religion it’s brainwashing. That idea is brainwashing of the highest order! Have any of you who hold this line even considered the philosophical basis of science and the massive assumptions built into it? Are you even aware that science is built upon a philosophy of science? Are you aware that a great scientist can still have no understanding of science? Has that concept even crossed your mind?

      The uncritical nonsense some atheists come out with is a joke. I have no problem with science, but I know it has massive assumptions built into it. And I don’t even pretend to understand all those assumptions. Your constant brainwashing in setting up science against religion serves only to demonstrate your massive ignorance in regards to both these topics!

      Yes I am a minister, but I also studied to be a genetic engineer and loved it. So I do have a fair grasp of both topics.

    • Jason says:

      11:44am | 22/07/11

      “ad hominEm”.

      You’re welcome.

      As to the meat of your post. How about you just re-imagine for a moment that state schools were teaching solely, oh, I don’t know… MUSLIM SRE and making it difficult for *your* kids to opt out?

      Amazing how you can be incapable of a little abstract reasoning, yet so self-satisfied and puffed up about your own philosophical and scientific prowess.

    • Adam says:

      12:46pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason

      So your reply is not to. You don’t deal the philosophical basis of the argument at all, instead you through out a meaningless example and a typo. If they, ‘whoever they are’ wanted to Muslim SRE only, then I’d opt my kids out, and let them read in the library. Or I would volunteer to teach them SRE at the time. Show me where parents are being forced to do anything! Someone’s opinion is not force, so don’t even attempt to use the example in the story above. It’s not coercion in any true sense of the word.

      Your argument is meaningless and doesn’t even come close to addressing the meat of my argument. By your reply you haven’t even understood the meat of the argument. Everybody indoctrinates, but using a word with negative connotations doesn’t win an argument, it just perpetuates uncritical thought. If you are going to reply to someone, at least make an attempt to understand what they are saying.

    • Jason says:

      01:36pm | 22/07/11

      “Show me where parents are being forced to do anything! “

      Adam, you’re a plonker. It’s not about parents being “forced” to do anything.

      As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the very basis of SRE is discriminatory, handing a privilege to a narrow special interest group in *state* schools. It is also often abused, with children being herded into SRE against parents’ wishes, sometimes blatantly, sometimes due to “error”, sometimes due to peer pressure or pressure from teachers. Or sometimes merely because they’re bored to tears at being provided nothing else to do.

      As for you volunteering to do christian SRE if muslim SRE were the only option, well, you’ve missed the point. That is NOT an option in this scenario. There is no multi-stream perfect-world solution where every parent gets their choice of SRE stream. There’s what you get and you’ll lump it. There are even christians in this thread who are disappointed that the SRE their kids received didn’t meet with their expectations, because it’s run by nutty evangelical groups and not their ideal picture of a “moderate” christinanity.

      The only sensible way to proceed is to adhere to the secular principle of equal treatment for all, and in pragmatic terms, since we can’t cater to everyone, this means no SRE for anyone. Teach your kids religion at home or at church, where they belong. A well-writte GRE syllabus would also fulfil this principle.

      I am, of course, unsurprised at your attempt at a defence, since you’ve already admitted you’re a minister. Essentially, you tell people lies for a living. I wish you’d stuck with science instead of wandering off down the primrose path of wacky supernatural nonsense

      As for “everybody indoctrinates”, well yes, everybody probably does. But for some of us, we try to use evidence to persuade, not supposition and supernatural claptrap to berate.

    • Chris L says:

      04:54pm | 22/07/11

      Etymology often has little relation to contemporary defenition. You would no longer say you’re feeling gay would you? Nor do people go out collecting faggots of wood. (Honestly I’m not obsessed, those were just the first two examples I thought of).

      One thing you said went a little over my head so I’d appreciate if you would clarify for me. When you say there are scientists that have no understanding of science, are you talking about the philosophy of science that you mentioned or is there some other meaning?

    • scotty says:

      09:57pm | 23/07/11

      “Adam Show me where parents are being forced to do anything!”

      They are being forced to fund the classes!!!!

    • Concerned says:

      10:49am | 22/07/11

      Another extremely biased propaganda filled opinion column to go along with the anti God agenda of this website. At least you guys are consistent with your message I’ll give you that.

    • Jason says:

      11:37am | 22/07/11

      Demonstrate to me with empirical, repeatable evidence that there actually *is* a god, and I’ll stop thinking of you as merely deluded.

    • Mark G says:

      11:51am | 22/07/11

      Ummm a few days ago there was an article by a theist going on about how flawed Richard Dawkins views were. If this website is pushing an anti-god agenda they are not doing a very good job of it.

    • Chris L says:

      11:32am | 23/07/11

      @Mark G - It’s harder to identify bias when it’s in your favour. I’m certain that Concerned never even noticed the pro-religious articles.

    • sylvie says:

      04:27pm | 23/07/11

      @Chris L.  The reasonable, persuasive tone of your posts/arguments impresses me.  Ok, now my query -  Why are so many atheists angry/bitter/snide?

    • Reggie says:

      11:08am | 25/07/11

      We know how easily persuaded you are sylvie so it’s hardly surprising that you’ve persuaded yourself that many who are bitter, angry or snide are atheists, while I find that many who are religious, are NOT only bitter, angry and snide, but are also terrorists.  Why would that be?

    • Peter says:

      10:50am | 22/07/11

      If there is no God, and the universe created itself out of nothing and then everything randomly moved around until, somehow, we randomly came into being, then what does it matter what anyone believes?  Why is it SO important for atheists to push their beliefs? 

      By chance we came to be, and very soon we will cease to be.  In what way can there be any significance in what anyone does or believes? (There is a good Calvin and Hobbes cartoon on this subject.)

      The implication from many militant atheists is that religion is evil, pushing religion on (especially) children is evil, and so on.  But on what basis do you define good and evil? With no absolute standard everything is relative.  And if everything is relative then, really, there is no such thing as good or evil or morality of any kind. 

      So from a purely atheistic perspective, it shouldn’t matter.  In arguing so strongly for their belief system and vigorously attacking alternate belief systems, they seem to be saying not that there is no god, but rather “I hate God” - whatever that name “God” means in their thinking.

      This is thus a very religious argument, of one group strongly pushing their belief system while simultaneously attempting to prevent others from promoting their own belief systems.

    • Catherine says:

      12:26pm | 22/07/11

      Why does it matter? Because we are alive, and we are aware. In a cold and mostly empty universe we are a speck of awareness and life. It matters to _us_ that we, and those we care about, do not suffer. God or no god.

    • Mark G says:

      12:42pm | 22/07/11

      Militant Atheists? That’s a new accusation. Last time I checked the news or my history books there is no atheist Holy war or Jihad going on.

      What basis do you define good and evil? The same thing that religion does. Human decency. As mentioned in previous posts there are many examples of good and bad morals in the bible. Most Christian religions pick and choose the good bits of the bible to teach as behaviours to follow and leave out the bad stuff like murdering the unfaithful. How do they pick and choose which stories are right and wrong? By the same mechanism as atheists do. You said it yourself ‘With no absolute standard everything is relative’. So what makes the religious standard any better.

      Why do atheists argue against religion. Simple. Because religion attempts to impose itself on all our lifestyles. For example (from a Christian perspective) stopping gay marriage, opposing abortion ect. From an islam perspective. Pushing sharia law, inhibiting the rights of women ect.

      Let me respond to your Calvin and Hobbes dilemma.

      ‘By chance we came to be, and very soon we will cease to be.  In what way can there be any significance in what anyone does or believes?’
      Because everything we do and say has an impact (be it very small) on the universe as a whole. We end at death but what we have done in life will always linger. Our very existence alters the nature of the universe. We control our fate not the omnipotent sky fairy.

    • Al says:

      12:44pm | 22/07/11

      The majority of Atheist DON’T push thei belief (or lack thereof) onto others. There are a few who do but unlike the majority of religions they tend not to go around trying to convert people.
      I have yet to meet and Atheist doorknocker or an Athiest handing out pamphlets regarding their beliefs to strangers in the street.
      The majority of Athiest simply go “believe what you want, but keep your delusions to yourself”.
      As for Athiest having no idea of what is good or evil, it is called ethics and personal responsibility for your own actions. As opposed to ‘Gods rules’ and ‘God will forgive my sins so it doesn’t matter what I do, as long as he forgives me’.

    • andye says:

      01:10pm | 22/07/11

      @Peter - “Why is it SO important for atheists to push their beliefs? ” Atheists dont have taxpayer funded program in schools to teach Atheist stuff, as far as I am aware… so it seems like you are upset that atheists are able to express their point of view as private individuals? Perhaps you would be happier in a theocracy?

      “By chance we came to be, and very soon we will cease to be.  In what way can there be any significance in what anyone does or believes? “
      If the threat of eternal punishment is the reason to be good, what does that say about your morality and ethics? Are you unable to tell the difference between good and bad or ethical and unethical without being told?

      And of course you conclude by deciding Atheists are driven by hated of god. I think most atheists would be happy if religion stopped trying to affect our rights and choices. Is there a big Atheist lobby? No, but these is a big Christian lobby… and that lobby is busy pushing laws that affect the rest of us. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married then. Stop telling my beautiful friends who have committed to each other for life that they cant get married. Don’t like some video games, movies, tv shows? Dont watch them. Stop lobbying to enforce your own morality on the rest of us and we might stop being so hostile.

    • Drafnel says:

      01:35pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark, regarding militant atheists,

      Unfortunately atheist rhetoric has become shriller and more intolerant over time. I fear that some young, impressionable minds brought up in that environment - with the belief that they are far superior to anyone who has any beliefs - may display their atheistic indoctrination violently.

      I hope it is not so, but since atheism as a loud, attention-demanding, uber-superior religion has only existed for a few decades, I fear the excesses of militant atheism will become a feature of the coming century of future history. I hope I am wrong, but the current atheistic attitudes of superiority and being the ‘absolute and only truth’ are jarringly similar to those that have led other religions to the darkest periods of history.

      Let me put it this way - the only kids at my kids’ school who regularly mouth off and abuse other children on the basis of religion are atheists. Or, to be more accurate, they have been indoctrinated with strong, abusive, ‘superior’ atheism by their parents. What do we have to look forward to in another 10 to 40 years from now?

    • andy says:

      02:18pm | 22/07/11

      @Drafnel - Try being an atheist in the USA, especially in the south. Atheists are discriminated against there and there are a number of examples of violence. Perhaps you should deal with christians who are intolerant and violent before becoming concerned about some speculative future violence?

      “Let me put it this way - the only kids at my kids’ school who regularly mouth off and abuse other children on the basis of religion are atheists. Or, to be more accurate, they have been indoctrinated with strong, abusive, ‘superior’ atheism by their parents.”
      In Alberta, Calgary an eleven year old was constantly violently harassed for being an Atheist. Some of the harassers were pastors sons, one of whom threatened him with a knife. He was forced to change schools.

      Intolerance is everywhere, and if you are somehow trying to prove that Atheists are jerks and deserve it? You are just another hate-peddler. If religion can stay out of my life and the laws of the land, then you can do as you wish. I don’t have any problem with religion as long as it leaves me the bloody hell alone.

    • Mark G says:

      02:49pm | 22/07/11

      Drafnel,

      You make some good point regarding the fact that with strong opinions it is possible for atheists to become militant in the same way the religious followers have in the past. In fact anyone who has an uncompromising view could be driven down this path. This is a very human trait.

      The reason why it is more difficult for atheist to become militant is their is no real doctrine or consistent set of beliefs to being an Atheist. Most atheist debate amongst themselves as much as they debate with Theists. That’s not to say that a particular segment of atheists who choose to solidify their beliefs into fact (very dangerous in any situation) would not become righteous enough to be militant. This is always something that any culture must be wary of. Being militant doesn’t prove your point.

    • Drafnel says:

      03:23pm | 22/07/11

      @Mark, I didn’t have a point other than expressing my concern that militant atheism is real and growing. That fact alone is not proof of the validity of theism or atheism, and I did not intend it as such. Atheism itself might be rational, but any system of belief which purports to be the only truth will pick up followers, and those followers can be dangerous. Atheists seem intent on ignoring and/or denying this growing and real problem. The popular image of an atheist is a research scientist. But the real atheist on the street is increasingly an ignorant yobbo who subscribes to Atheism because he believes it makes him superior. Atheism is being crippled / degraded / diluted by its own success and will soon start having to face the problems of a ‘grown up’ religion.

      So enjoy your consequence-free sniping while it lasts. You’re comparing the sins of a 4,500-year-old with the sins of a 200-year-old and feeling self-satisfied that the 200-year-old has not caused as much violence (yet) - leaving aside the contentious claims relating to Mao Zedong, Soviet Communism et. al.

    • Chris L says:

      11:44am | 23/07/11

      @Drafnel - I see the point you’re making and it seems you are on a similar point to MarkG. Indeed, fundamentalism is the danger of any religion or position against.

      You do, however, continue to portray atheism as just another religion. You fail to comprehend the idea of living life specifically without a religion. I get the feeling this is a truly difficult concept for those who were raised to feel that one must choose a side. The fact is that atheism is nothing more than saying “I don’t endorse any of the religions put before me.”. Quite simple and eloquent, the position of atheists toward your religion is the same you have toward religions that are not yours, for example the Olympian Pantheon.

    • Ray says:

      10:54am | 22/07/11

      The new cool: bash anything that doesn’t fit within your own Weltenshauung. And you wonder why intolerance is increasing in society. I don’t bear scars from my own Lutheran high school upbringing (am not Lutheran), but obviously must have done you some real damage somewhere along the line to merit such a vitriolic response.

    • Jason says:

      12:25pm | 22/07/11

      If you think that’s vitriol, you’d probably best avoid my blog, Ray. And get a sense of proportion.

    • sylvie says:

      02:00pm | 22/07/11

      @Ray,  Agree -  it’s the new cool, alright. 

      Atheists have become so insistent, so hostile, so negative. 
      Banging on about their non-belief.
      Boring and predictable

    • Jason says:

      03:51pm | 22/07/11

      I notice neither of you whiners actually address the truth value, merely your own subjectively-arrived-at perception of “hostility”

      The other possiblity is that theists find atheism confronting because, deep down, they *know* they’ve got no evidence for the claptrap they spout, and atheists going around *talking* (gasp! what cheek!) exposes this fact, making them squirm uncomfortably in their cassocks.

      Cognitive Dissonance FTW

    • sylvie says:

      04:27pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason,  Who, exactly, is squirming in a cassock?

      You’re over-excited, Jason
      Banging on
      Boring and predictable

    • sylvie says:

      04:49pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason, this is where your ‘cool’ deserts you? 

      ‘twld’ve been cooler to let the comments go unremarked.

      Are you the High Priest of the Non-God?

    • Mattb says:

      10:57am | 22/07/11

      I started my schooling in the public system before finishing in a private catholic school. Looking back (nearly 20 years ago now!), there really wasn’t that much difference apart from the extra week of holidays each year. The curriculum was the same the only difference being a mass/ study class on Thursday’s where students, catholic or not, could chose between going to school mass in the chapel or going to a class room to do their homework or read a book.

      There was only one time I was made to feel different from my catholic class mates and that was when one of my teachers out of the blue asked the class to stand up. Then he told all the Catholics students to sit, leaving myself and two students standing. He then went on to tell the class something along the lines of ‘look at them, they are not Catholics, this is a catholic school, and these students really don’t deserve to be here’. I still have no idea what he was trying to prove, but, hey it really didn’t bother me, at the time I think myself and the other two students wore it as a badge of honor, like we were rebels!.
      I look back now and wonder why I never told my father about it, maybe it was because the same teacher also used to turn a blind eye to my mates and I smoking ciggies on the other side of the oval at lunch time!, but I’m sure he would’ve had something to say in response considering he was spending thousands of dollars a semester in school fees to send me there.

      I do believe that education about religion should be taught in all Australian schools, however, every religion should be covered from christianity through to Jedi. Yep, that’s right, if some are willing to claim they follow the teachings of the Jedi then so be it, who are we to tell them they are wrong. Teach students a balanced, well structured view of each of the worlds religions, throw some ethics classes in there too and let them decide, if any, which one they want to believe.

    • Mathew says:

      10:57am | 22/07/11

      It’s all well and good being an atheist. But it would be wise to know at least something about religion and god. Not to have it hammered into your head but just another custom of our society that some people follow. Maybe forget about it for primary aged kids (their parents can guide them how they see fit). When kids are high school age maybe then their brains are smart enough to decide for themselves if they want to pursue or ignore it.

    • Jason says:

      11:36am | 22/07/11

      Yep. That’s General Religious Education - GRE. Not Special religious education - SRE or “scripture”.

      “Scripture” is the christian-only, one-sided, this-is-true, your-atheist-parents-will-burn-in-hell variety. Indoctrination, in other words that come to me completely at random.

      You’re welcome.

    • Arno says:

      02:38pm | 22/07/11

      Jason… Jesus loves you and no REAL Christian would ever pass judgement on your soul.. that’s God’s job.

      You’re welcome smile

    • Jason says:

      03:44pm | 22/07/11

      @Arno

      If this “Jesus” fella loves me, then I think it’s up to him to say so in person, don’t you? What, is he 12 years old, shy and and passing notes in class?

      As for “Real” christians, well, if no REAL christian would pass judgement on my soul, then the national statistics are woefully out of whack. I get judgement passed on a regular basis, and if those judgemental people are not real christians then I guess we’ll have to amend the forthcoming census so there’s a separate category for them.

      You know, so that the “real” christians don’t get lumped in with those nasty fake ones.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      08:09am | 24/07/11

      nice to see the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy still gets a run from time to time.

    • P. Darvio says:

      11:09am | 22/07/11

      Yes - school children should actually be taught what’s actually in the Bible (and also what’s in the other 2 Abrahamic Faiths).

      School children must be taught the Bible actually advocates the following

      Gays must be killed
      Children who misbehave must be killed.
      Harry Potter fans (as wizards) must be killed
      A fictional and deluded Christian Missionary called Jesus roamed the Countryside in Palestine, killing defenceless pigs (all 2000 of them - so animal cruetly is OK because Jesus did it), depriving a poor farmer of his trade, cursed out of season fig trees, and told parents they had to follow Old Testament BIBLE LAW (which also approves Abortions) and kill their children if they misbehaved, and that a BIG wooden boat, during a BIG flood carried Dinosaurs that become extinct because some man called Noah didn’t feed them or they fell off that BIG wooden boat and drowned because they didn’t have their pool floaties on…(OK OK I made up that last bit about the pool floaties…how religious like that is !!).

      Children must be taught that these religious books are barbaric evil books that advocate hate, violence, racism, rape, child abuse (which is why Christian Priests rape children – because the Bible says its OK) and murder, the mass genocide of Billions of Humans. Children should also be taught that Billions of dollars is given to religious people each year by taxpayers to perpetuate these evil myths and scare defenceless children with crap.

      Yep - I’m all for Scripture Classes…..

    • Potato says:

      11:36am | 22/07/11

      Watch out there Darvio – the bible also says that non-believers (like you) should be put to death…

      ‘Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged …’ (Deuteronomy 17:12)

      I love the bible, people who claim it’s the word of fairy in the sky conveniently forget to mention all the bad bits about murder and violence….its like “hey, this is the rule book….but we just follow whatever rules we want, I mean, we pretty much ignore all those bits at the back….” 

      Cracks me up ….

    • Potato says:

      11:36am | 22/07/11

      Watch out there Darvio – the bible also says that non-believers (like you) should be put to death…

      ‘Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged …’ (Deuteronomy 17:12)

      I love the bible, people who claim it’s the word of fairy in the sky conveniently forget to mention all the bad bits about murder and violence….its like “hey, this is the rule book….but we just follow whatever rules we want, I mean, we pretty much ignore all those bits at the back….” 

      Cracks me up ….

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:29pm | 22/07/11

      Quote: Watch out there Darvio – the bible also says that non-believers (like you) should be put to death…

      Yes – this is very true - and that’s want I meant about the mass Genocide of Billions - lets see the Christian Bible, and its followers, advocate the violent slaughter of over 4 Billion people (That Christian Hitler and that that trained Christian Priest Stalin would be proud) - 4 Billion+, plus all those gays, all those Harry Potter fans (no wonder the head of the Christian Church and also its chief exorcist has condemned the Harry Potter books and that JK Rowling, that she is hiding the devil……maybe she is a witch and the Christian Church and its followers need to burn her or some other barbaric Christian ritual ?), ......pure sick evil – please please keep our children away from these rubbish faith systems in our schools.

    • Drafnel says:

      12:41pm | 22/07/11

      Potato, perhaps you should read your carefully selected verses a little more carefully.

      Who said that to whom, when? The Bible is largely written in narrative form: this happened, that happened, this person said that and that person did this.

      So you have found a verse where one person in a particular situation said (to a particular group of people at a particular time) those choice words you have so gleefully quoted.

      Yes, and? By all accounts, that person probably did say those words to those people at that time. And so… what?

      The Bible does not even hint that such words would be applicable to anyone else at any other time than that bit of the narrative. A student of the Bible (which I am not but some relatives are) asks himself whether that narrative has any relevance or illumination for us today - perhaps as a metaphor for the student’s private morality, as an example.

      Why would you lift a quote from a narrative and try to pretend that it’s a literal, general instruction to all? And why, with your glib, intentional unwillingness to think, would you seemingly consider yourself superior to those who are capable of reading such things in context, actually thinking, and maybe even learning something?

      Classic atheist. Selectively stupid.

    • Mitch says:

      12:59pm | 22/07/11

      @P. Darvio: You really are a laugh a minute dude. Truly, you’re not actually this paranoid are you? Noone could be.

    • Potato says:

      03:10pm | 22/07/11

      This is exactly what I am talking about Drafnel - If I quote a ‘bad’ bit of the bible religious people jump up and down and say - its all about interpretation, that bit doesn’t apply now, we’ve moved on and its something from the dark ages etc etc….but then they pick other bits and say they are completely relevant (there is only on Lord etc)....  If our interpretation of the bible changes with time and follows the expectation of society, then what value is it?? You have a rule book where you can bend, change or alter the rules as you go along!  You can’t this decade stick by a rule hard and fast and fight tooth and nail because the bible dictates something (opposition to gay marriage at the moment for example) and then in ten years time look back and go – well, that was back then, we’ve interpreted it differently now.  If you keep doing that what credibility do you think it brings to followers of the bible??  You are telling me that the rules you follow today, and the bits of the bible that you stick to hard and fast may NOT be that important after all, because 10, 50 or 100 years from now you can change your mind about the bits that were right? IS that what you are saying?

      The truth is that when Christians say that the bible provides moral guidelines for our time, they are lying.  What provides moral guidelines is society and societies expectations…. And you confirm it by saying that we can ‘re-interpret’ the bible as we go along. Its just that Christians are always 2 decades behind everyone else…

    • Drafnel says:

      06:53pm | 22/07/11

      @Potato, true points well made. There are huge discussions within Christianity at the moment (and indeed continually over the past 2,000 years) about the points you have raised. It goes right to the heart of what the Bible is and what Christianity is about.

      But reading in context is pretty much rule #1 for understanding the Bible. A few examples…

      1. In the Bible narrative, the ten commandments were given to the ‘people of Israel’ as part of their covenant with God. Are they relevant to non-jews at all? Many Christians say no; at least not as commands, but they are useful and instructive for morality in general.

      2. All of the ‘violent’ instructions in the Bible were given to the people of Israel as part of their military campaign to take over the land of Israel. Many Bible scholars today even go so far as to claim (admit?) that much of it was written as polemic to justify military actions. How relevant are these instructions today? Again, most Christians say “not at all, except maybe allegorically”.

      To what extent does the Bible reflect the cultures of the times the various parts were written?

      Should the moral instructions in the Bible be taken as absolute commands, or as an ‘ideal’? Whose ideal? For what would such an ideal be useful?

      What is the role of grace in our attempts to understand and apply what is in the Bible?

      With literary criticism and research increasingly revealing the ‘human’ nature of Biblical authorship, many holy cows of Christian teaching are crumbling. Some Christians embrace this while others feel threatened and get defensive.

      Ultimately, it’s a process and a discussion that has to happen and is happening.

      Yes, it’s a pity that RE in schools tends to be run by fundamentalist evangelicals, thereby giving a skewed, minority view of Christianity.

      But I would still hold that it’s healthier to engage in the conversation and gain the benefits of a few millenia of often deep, committed, sincere and challenging thought and debate than to impulsively chuck the whole thing out and insist that anyone who even considers such things is a deluded fool living in fantasy-land. And it’s also wrong to think that Atheism will be immune from having its own irrational, potentially violent ‘evangelists’, possibly in the very near future. The fault lies with human nature and is not unique to religious believers.

    • Servaas says:

      07:08pm | 25/07/11

      It is because people skipped scripture classes that they think like P.Darvio does. P.Darvio’s argument is actually one for compulsary religion classes so that kids can actually learn what the various faith groups actually believe.

    • Secondmouse says:

      11:26am | 22/07/11

      Most people don’t care about religion one way or the other but still write Catholic or Anglican on their census. Why should a school agree to change it’s habits to suit the wishes of a handful of strident atheists. At our school (many years ago) non-religious children went to the library and did revision, while other branches went to other classrooms, so a lot of kids left the room at scripture time. The Catholics had the music room and it always used to smell like incense afterwards. To me, that aways seemed so much more interesting and exotic than reciting the lord’s prayer, listening to bible stories and doing the colouring-in the same pictures every year.

    • Jason says:

      12:06pm | 22/07/11

      > Most people don’t care about religion one way or the other but still write Catholic or Anglican on their census

      Then they’re deluding themselves and the census. If they have no religion, they should write “no religion”. That way, policy can reflect what the populace actually wants, rather than what relatively narrow interest groups want.

      Did you know less than 10% of Australians attend church on a regular basis? You wouldn’t know it, from the way religious education is being run.

      http://www.censusnoreligion.org/

    • Potato says:

      11:28am | 22/07/11

      I feel somewhat qualified to comment, as the product of 18 years of Catholic education, married to a teacher (who is also trained in sociology and has a Masters in Theology) the ‘scripture’ discussion is one that is often tossed around in our household.  Lets replace ‘scripture’ with any other subject in the discussion. Imagine that a teacher of Latin wanted to create a system whereby EVERY student of all ages would be forced to undertake Latin classes every week, with the alternative being that you spend that valuable time doing nothing else (because we don’t want to have any subject conflict with Latin, right?)  Would that be acceptable?  What if parents said that Latin was not really something that their child needed to learn, and they would prefer that they learn French, or even art (or ANYTHING of value)….. But the Latin teachers said ‘NO NO NO…its LATIN, or its nothing….’. Would that be considered fair???  This is exactly what the proponents of scripture are saying… you will learn OUR lesson, or you can sit there twiddling your thumbs because we consider that our one subject is THE single most important of them all…. How many parents would think it acceptable for LATIN teachers to take this stand. And not just take the stand, but actually threaten to prevent legislation from getting though parliament (as Fred Nile has done) if they don’t get their own way…?

    • sylvie says:

      07:37pm | 22/07/11

      @Potato,  Okay by me.  Latin is a great subject, once you get the hang of it.  ‘Course it’s not easy, so that would be a problem.

    • Fiona says:

      11:28am | 22/07/11

      In my kids religion classes in secondary school (a Christian school too), they actually studied religions from around the world, their histories and different philosophies, with no religion being held up as the ideal. They actually found it interesting and we don’t attend church ourselves.
      With the younger 2 we had a permission slip that gave you the option of nominating a preferred religion, if you wished. As we don’t go to church I’m happy with my kids knowing about the families traditional religion. They don’t seem indoctrinated yet and one is in grade 6.

    • Jason says:

      12:12pm | 22/07/11

      That would be GRE, not SRE. General versus “special”. “Special” is the kind most non-religious folks have a problem with

      You’re welcome.

    • thatmosis says:

      11:31am | 22/07/11

      I dont care one way or the other if religion(sic) is taught in schools but there should be schooling in other parts of the curiculum for those that dont want to go. Just sitting around doing nothing is a waste of time and money and a form of punishment for those kids.

    • Mark says:

      04:28pm | 22/07/11

      Then volunteer to run them. If all the non-believers are so passionate about this, then get in and run the classes.

    • Lucy (or lucifer) says:

      11:32am | 22/07/11

      I am 21 years old and remember having scripture when I was in primary school. My parents pulled me out of it because I would cry whenever they would swear (said damn) because this meant they were going to hell.
      When I was in high school I went to a youth group but they told me I was dead inside unless I accepted god, so I stopped that too!
      I wonder where the crazy ideas from non reilgous people come from? They’re just haters!

    • Alex Clapp says:

      11:37am | 22/07/11

      I am surprised your sister didn’t volunteer to take the Ethics classes.  She might have done everyone a favour.

    • Jo Thornely says:

      11:50am | 22/07/11

      I’m surprised that the assumption is that she didn’t.

    • Bilby says:

      01:12pm | 22/07/11

      Jo - Considering that you wrote that your sister was told that there was no ethics class, with no further mention we can reasonably assume that there is still no ethics class.

      Does you sister take such a class? Is she prevented from doing so by other commitments (work, younger children, whatever)? Did she offer and was rejected? Please do tell us, as we are all clearly operating under a false assumption. Or are we?

    • Jo's sister says:

      01:49pm | 22/07/11

      I volunteered to teach ethics classes. That was less than a week ago, so the situation hasn’t changed yet.

    • Bilby says:

      02:24pm | 22/07/11

      Jo’s sister - Well see that would have made a better tag. Instead of just shitting on what’s on offer, you’ve tried to do something about it. It may just be me, but I reckon including that little snippet would have changed the tone of the entire discussion (not that I really stuck to the topic much anyway, but this caught my eye).

    • MH says:

      02:24pm | 22/07/11

      @Jo & Jo’s sister: Will the Ethics classes touch on the fact that it’s probably unethical to link the volunteer-only RE program to the partially government-funded Chaplaincy Program, implying that RE is funded to the tune of $165M, when it is not, and then publish that in an on-line journal?

    • David Stasey says:

      04:40pm | 22/07/11

      Give it a rest MH, this is your second post on this. Jo wrote a largely tongue in cheek piece so didn’t research the difference. It is not a material error in the context of the piece.
      Actually it is pretty easy to conflate the two since they are both run by the same organisation and neither has a place in state education.

    • MH says:

      05:28pm | 22/07/11

      @David Stasey: Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. Of course the error is material. This issue is consistently ‘confused’ in this forum. If she’s going to write an inflammatory article and include a ‘fact’ that leads to confusion and ‘coincidentally’ makes her point seem even more pertinent to opponents of RE, then she deserves to be called to account.

      So… Jo… honest mistake?

    • David Stasey says:

      06:40pm | 22/07/11

      @MH
      I said straight up that you are technically correct and it was sloppy. At least Jo has the guts to put her name to her work.
      I also said that the issues are near enough the same in both problem and solution. Pretty sure that the majority on both sides would agree with that. The error is NOT material.
      You’ve made your point on the first issue so stop harping and address the real one. Or is harping on a technicality up there with the best you’ve got?

    • Sam says:

      11:41am | 22/07/11

      Jo if your sister, yourself or other like minded people feel so strongly about this issue maybe one of you could volunteer to run the ethics class.

    • Reggie. says:

      10:03am | 24/07/11

      Sam(antha) If parents were more ethical about the education of their children, ethics classes would not be necessary. First step, present options NOT dogma.

    • Luce says:

      11:53am | 22/07/11

      “The chocolate of hypocrisy melts at the same temperature as the pious stuff, y’know.”

      Quality! This has to be one of the most enjoyable articles I’ve read on the punch yet.  And points for the Minsky’s mention. It definitely ranks with some of the more hellish places around.. Well.. unless it’s 3.30am and its the only thing open, and you’re well smashed. Then it is quite possibly amazing, especially when the piano guy is there.

      Regarding the content of the article, I have nothing further to add. Good job, Jo.

    • BCD says:

      11:54am | 22/07/11

      Teach the kids how to read, write and count first, then we can debate the merits or otherwise of fantasy and commercial business education subjects such as religion.
      Everyone has a right to their beliefs, so to those who say religion is a must think outside your bubble and have some consideration for those of us who don’t think that. Maybe then we might be able to cultivate a more tolerant breed of people overall to all our benefit.

    • Chris_D says:

      12:21pm | 22/07/11

      @BCD, it seems you are missing the whole point.  No one is “forced into these “brainwashing” religious classes.  If children don’t want to go, or more likely their parents don’t want them to go, then they don’t have to.  As you say, everyone has a right to their beliefs, so why can’t the children be presented with the information, and make their own minds up as they grow?  Isn’t that the whole point of educating children?  To make them smart enough to work out problems for themselves?

    • BCD says:

      12:33pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D, No mate i am not missing any point at all, quite the opposite in fact. I have already said my kids have a choice, and they choose no after attending these classes for a couple years. Their call not mine.
      In regards to education, schools are to educate on reading, writing and counting. Life skills. I am sorry but religion has no place in this system as its not a life skill. Sunday church is where religion belongs.
      Can’t make it any clearer. You are trying, as do so many other religious people, to make people like me feel like i am depriving my kids of something vital. Sorry dude, but that makes your argument void on the “everyone has a right to their own beliefs” statement which you implied you agree with?

    • BCD says:

      12:34pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D, No mate i am not missing any point at all, quite the opposite in fact. I have already said my kids have a choice, and they choose no after attending these classes for a couple years. Their call not mine.
      In regards to education, schools are to educate on reading, writing and counting. Life skills. I am sorry but religion has no place in this system as its not a life skill. Sunday church is where religion belongs.
      Can’t make it any clearer. You are trying, as do so many other religious people, to make people like me feel like i am depriving my kids of something vital. Sorry dude, but that makes your argument void on the “everyone has a right to their own beliefs” statement which you implied you agree with?

    • Jason says:

      12:34pm | 22/07/11

      @Chris_D

      If only that were true. In practice, though, as can be seen from a number of comments in this thread, parents’ wishes are often ignored, convenient “clerical errors” occur and pressure is brought to bear (both by peer groups and by teaching and support staff) to wheedle kids into SRE. There’s even political pressure by whackjobs like Fred Nile to apply the boredom principle by cancelling ethics classes, leaving non-SRE kids with nothing to do for the period. If you can’t convince them to opt for SRE, bore them until they cave in.

      So it might just possibly be you that’s missing the point old chap, sorry.

    • scotty says:

      09:58pm | 23/07/11

      “Chris_D - @BCD, it seems you are missing the whole point.  No one is “forced into these “brainwashing” religious classes.”

      But we’re forced to PAY for them!!!

    • Drafnel says:

      12:10pm | 22/07/11

      Jo, your article is based on misinformation. Firstly and probably the biggest: the school chaplaincy budget funds school chaplains, which is NOT the same thing as scripture/religion classes. The chaplains are mostly found in high schools where they make themselves available to the students who are really struggling. It’s common for a chaplain to support students who are thinking of suicide and going through various kinds of turmoil.

      Secondly, many atheists’ preoccupation with burning in hell is not even close to a vaguely accurate reflection of mainstream religion. Those religious groups that may have such a focus are called sects and cults. Anyone who’s studied the Bible knows that the concept of hell doesn’t even appear as such throughout the entire Old Testament. Most of the mainstream ‘flavors’ of Christianity are very light on any teachings relating to eternal damnation.

      Go ahead and knock the primary level religion classes, by all means. But don’t use ignorance and misinformation to try to bolster your claim.

    • Jason says:

      12:31pm | 22/07/11

      “many atheists’ preoccupation with burning in hell is not even close to a vaguely accurate reflection of mainstream religion”

      Who’s talking about “mainstream” religion? In fact, most SRE and NSCP work is done by a narrow group of pentecostal evangelical nutbags. That’s the thing, you see. The ones who are aggressive about promoting their sect are the ones willing to put the time and money into the indoctrination programme.

      So you’re defending the wrong target, old chap. Sorry.

    • Neil Gardiner says:

      12:34pm | 22/07/11

      If I was “thinking of suicide and going through various kinds of turmoil” the last thing I would want would be a bible waving, lord fearin’, non qualified guy from the God Squad. ... Sorry, I meant to say chaplain. (Damn autocorrect)

      Do these people have any actual qualifications in dealing with kids who are having problems, or do they just have the wisdom of God on their side.

    • Drafnel says:

      12:51pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason, I take your point and unfortunately I have to partly agree based on what my kids are getting in school. The school’s literature actually said it would be religious instruction in which no particular religion is preferred (which I was happy for them to get), but in practice it is highly evangelical (which I’m discussing with them to see what they’re absorbing).

      @Neil, don’t knock the chappies, mate! They are the most qualified people who are willing to do the job, even if they have no formal qualifications! I believe there’s been a push to get at least formal counselling qualifications among chaplains. My point was that chappies and the chaplaincy budget have nothing whatsoever to do with RE in primary schools, and the author’s attempt to tie the two together is a deplorably misleading abuse of the readers’ assumed ignorance.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      12:21pm | 22/07/11

      To cover all of the usual suspects:

      1)  Absence of belief is not the same as belief.  if that were true, we would all be actively not believing and purporting our absence of belief on every subject imaginable.

      2)  Religious education is not the same as other education, unless you are teaching it as a myth.  It is not provable, as maths, geogrpahy etc…are.  It is simply opinion and any given religion is simply one opinion in the tens of thousands humans have created.

      3)  The argument that the State is providing time, not education is a dodgy way of ignoring the point.  If you are not providing an alternative during that time, and you force that time on all students, then what would happen if we extended that idea to encompass the entire school day?  Sorry, you can’t do anything except religion here.  But we’re not providing religious education, just the time for it.  It’s like handing someone who wants to shoot the prime minister a gun in parliament and then claiming you weren’t responsible.

    • Mark says:

      12:21pm | 22/07/11

      Let’s face it, where would ‘The Punch’ be without the old chestnut of race and religion baiting? Day after day after day. So Jo, do you do this for money? Do you incite hatred for the almight dollar? Do you actually remember the day you became bitter? Walk outside darling and take a deep breath of fresh air, surely it has to be a positive step in your life.

    • Jason says:

      01:09pm | 22/07/11

      Wait a minute, are you actually equating religion, a choice with race, an inherited trait?

      Equating racism, the judgement of a person based solely on the color of the skin (or other heritable factor) with the conscious choice of belief in a deity?

      My, don’t we have pretensions.

      Fact is that theists have chosen to believe in a deity without good evidence, and, more importantly, *take actions* based on that belief, primarily here indoctrinating other people’s children, but also don’t forget the whole stopping people getting married thing, the homophobia, the misogyny, the *actual* racism and all the other attendent horrors.

      Do you actually think they’re equivalent? Or are you merely posing for attention?

    • Mark says:

      04:24pm | 22/07/11

      “Posing for attention”? @ Jason, I think you have summarised your post to perfection. Read what I wrote again, if you can’t keep up, I can break out the hand puppets.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      12:28pm | 22/07/11

      It is important to some atheists to push their lack of belief in a god as a defensive response against those people for whom it is important to push their belief in a god. Action and reaction, it is a natural thing.

    • Jason says:

      12:42pm | 22/07/11

      OK. Then why don’t you settle the matter once and for all and provide some actual evidence that this god thing exists?

      Can’t?

      You see, for many of us, it’s not merely about a lack of *belief*. It’s about a demonstrable lack of *a god*.

      Frankly, I don’t mind if kids learn about religions. They appear to be important to some people. But to teach them one specific religion as though it’s true? That’s a bad move.

    • MH says:

      03:01pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason: “Some evidence” for you: the universe exists. Scientists almost unanimously agree that it didn’t always exist and that when it came into existence, all matter, energy and time itself came into existence with it. So, if literally nothing ‘natural’ existed before the universe came into existence, then the cause seems most likely supernatural.

      There’s some evidence for you. Have we managed to “settle the matter once and for all”?

      (I imagine not).

    • Jason says:

      03:11pm | 22/07/11

      @MH

      “The universe exists therefore god”?

      Am I reading you correctly?

      Why not “The universe exists therefore the World Tree Yggdrassil binds together Niflheim, Midgard and Asgard, realm of the Aesir, mighty gods that they are”?

      Seriously, are you even trying? Do you have any idea how idiotic that was? Here, listen to Lawrence Krauss outline what science knows about Universal origin:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

      Listen carefully, you might learn something

    • MH says:

      03:33pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason: Your response is about what I expected. You asked for “some evidence” and I provided it. You can’t seriously debate issues of the supernatural if your starting point is that the supernatural can’t exist.

      Your insult was a little unwarranted, I was just responding to your request for evidence.

      Unfortunately, I can’t watch your video because YouTube is blocked at my place of employment. maybe you could precis it for me. What’s your explanation for how the universe came into being out of nothing?

    • Jason says:

      04:31pm | 22/07/11

      “You asked for “some evidence” and I provided it”

      No, you didn’t. You drew a line in crayon between “thing A”, which we know to exist, and “thing B”, which we don’t. Then you stood back, spread your arms and yelled “TADAAAAA!”

      That is not evidence. It’s a leap of faith. It is equivalent to saying that we know bigfoot exists because there are forests. Or the Loch Ness monster exists because “well there must be SOMETHING in that lake, right?”

      Furthermore, the best you could possibly squeeze out of that is a deist prime mover whose properties cannot reasonably be measured, due to it existing *outside* our current universe. You can’t get from there to a zombie carpenter who was actually a god who sacrificed himself to himself because an ape he invented ate some fruit from a tree.

      As for the video, copy the link and take it home. It’s roughly an hour long, so to precis it is kinda difficult in a blog comment. Suffice to say that modern physics and cosmology explains the universe quite well without resort to “magic man done it”. The total measurable energy of the universe is as close to zero as we can measure it, given current technology, and well-verified quantum mechanics describes exactly how a zero-energy state can decohere and “create”, for want of a better word, space, matter, energy and ice cream.

      If you saw the word “idiotic” as an insult, well, tough. I actually thought it was a fairly accurate description of your attempt.

    • David Stasey says:

      04:41pm | 22/07/11

      Oh you’ve convinced me MH.
      We don’t know what came before therefore god. Or something.
      Over the past few thousand years (and particularly since we’ve struggled from under the Christian dark ages) we’ve learnt the answers to a lot of mysteries. These answers all had one thing in common. Not god.

    • MH says:

      05:48pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason: Gosh, we’re getting nastier and nastier aren’t we?

      You asked for “some evidence”. I gave you some. I’m not saying “Universe = there must be a God”. I’m saying a universe out of literally nothing is “evidence” for the supernatural, given what we know about the natural world. That’s all you asked for.

      So, you actually wanted an entire treatise on Cosmology, Physics Theology and Apologetics? Sorry, I don’t have time and it won’t fit into a Blog post either. So why don’t you take a look at some of the works of, for example, William Lane Craig, Greg Koukl and J Warner Wallace? Here’s some links:
      http://www.reasonablefaith.org
      http://www.str.org
      http://pleaseconvinceme.com

      Enjoy.

      @David Stasey: I wasn’t trying to convince you. As I said to @Jason, I was just responding (albeit, a little tongue in cheek) to Jason’s post that “some evidence” would “settle the matter once and for all”. I knew it wouldn’t and I knew it would just set me up for a heap of vitriol but, hey, you need to be pretty thick skinned to be a Christian these days. Maybe you could take a look at the links I posted for Jason too.

    • David Stasey says:

      06:42pm | 22/07/11

      @MH
      No matter how you like to spin it you said “I don’t know = supernatural”.
      Then you linked me to three CREATIONISTS. I’m still busy getting my head around holocaust deniers, flat earthers and anti vaxers before I can get to these nutcases.
      Also, no further correspondence until you have the courage in your beliefs to post your full name.

    • Mh says:

      11:05am | 23/07/11

      You guys are asking for evidence. Read it. As I said to Jason. You can’t be taken seriously in a debate about the existence or not of the supernatural if your starting point is that the supernatural can’t exist.

      And my full name? Oh… you mean like Jason, Tubesteak, Tim The Toolman, Luce, Potato etc?

    • MH says:

      11:37am | 23/07/11

      @David Stasey: BTW, writing “CREATIONIST” in Caps does not constitute an argument. And if you read any of the links I posted, you’ll find none of the writers are creationists, in the sense you understand, apart from believing that the universe is God’s creation.

    • David Stasey says:

      01:10pm | 23/07/11

      @MH. OK, I’ll give you one more free one.
      “BTW, writing “CREATIONIST” in Caps does not constitute an argument”
      Agreed. It was to emphasise the stupidity of yours.
      BTW, I’ve read enough of your links (I may well be a scientologist. Have you read Dianetics?) Craig is a fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which is the hub of the intelligent design movement. Koukl’s own site (your link!) is full of creationism and links directly to Answers in Genesis for crying out loud. J Warner Wallace is a creationist. I refer you to his website. (Oh wait. That was your link! Have you read it?) Are you a minister or something? You seem to be very good at telling lies for Jesus.
      Your argument about acceptance of the supernatural in order to discuss god is nonsense. They are the same thing. This is precisely what you were asked to provide evidence of.
      “And my full name? Oh… you mean like Jason, Tubesteak, Tim The Toolman, Luce, Potato etc?”
      Agreed. And I haven’t entered a dialogue with them.
      I am reluctant to argue with fools. I will not argue with cowards. You are over qualified on both counts
      This post is a free community service.

    • MH says:

      03:00pm | 23/07/11

      @David Stasey: I think I preferred you when we weren’t speaking.

      Of course the links I posted are to sites by people that believe God created the universe. They are Christians after all, what would you expect? My point was that none of them are of them are literal young earth seven day creationists, which is what I assume you mean when you write CREATIONIST in caps.

      Greg Koukl’s site also links to “The Atheism Web” and “Absurdities in the Bible”. The links pages carry the disclaimer “Stand to Reason does not necessarily endorse…” Greg is not a young earth creationist.

      Your argument boils down to: “I don’t believe in God or the supernatural and therefore anyone who does must be stupid.” Maybe that’s good enough for you and the people in your life that you get to shout at. I don’t find it very compelling.

    • David Stasey says:

      04:57pm | 23/07/11

      @MH
      I can’t believe that I am replying again. It will not happen again without something new from you AND identification (or a damn good explanation as to why you refuse to be associated with your own views).
      “My point was that none of them are of them are literal young earth seven day creationists”. YES THEY ARE. What do you think the Discovery Institute is? Don’t you even read this discredited rubbish that you post for others? These people are clever enough to know that YEC makes them look stupid and go to great lengths to try to disguise their belief only to come unstuck talking about Noah and such fairytales – like your friend Koukl.  “Greg is not a young earth creationist” Errr, yes he is. Obviously google is not your friend. (and links to AiG etc are in his main section, others are quarantined under “opposing views”).
      I have never said that I do not believe in god (or the supernatural). I have simply seen no evidence. You claimed to have some but have repeatedly failed to produce it then have the gall to put words in my mouth when this is pointed out.

    • Reggie says:

      11:19am | 25/07/11

      MH “Scientists almost unanimously agree that it didn’t always exist and that when it came into existence, all matter, energy and time itself came into existence with it.”

      Ignoring your assumption of unanimous agreement, you’ve left out the words, “in its current form.”  Any consideration of the form of the universe in a previous disposition is pure lolly-gagging, as is the theory of god.

    • Al says:

      12:32pm | 22/07/11

      I find the use of the word heathen in this article offensive.
      Firstly, not all those who refuse scripture classes are non-religous, there are many religions whose beliefs are not taught in any scripture classes.

      Secondly, the meaning of heathen actualy has NOTHING to do with non-belief.
      A heathen from its original meaning is ‘Someone who dwells on the heath’, or in otherwords a country dweller, particularly of the peasant class. This was hijacked by christianity as another name for unbeliver as many of these people actualy had no access to churches and as such were viewed as ‘unbelievers’.

    • Nathan says:

      12:45pm | 22/07/11

      There is a fundamental difference between religious indoctrination and ethical education. For the former is based on superstition, storytelling and fear. The latter is based on what is observed, in the real world, as positive for both the individual and the majority.

      “God” (if, hypothetically it does exist) is the worst possible source of morality we could teach our children. The “God” of most religions is a morally bankrupt villain of the worst kind. It is the polar opposite of anything I want my child emulating or respecting. God is ethically inferior to me. God is ethically inferior to every single human being that exists. God is worse than Hitler, worse than Hussein. There is nothing that mankind can do, that can even approach the vain, hedonistic, cruel and evil practices of the “God” so many of us worship.

    • dodo says:

      12:48pm | 22/07/11

      i think your sister should insist that her son stay at school over Christmas because obviously Santa is a fake and you don’t believe in Jesus, what is Christmas to you then? Should be just another day at school. If you can follow the crowd and enjoy Christmas Turkey and Easter Eggs without the belief of Jesus ( the core reason these season exist in the first place ) then why not let your kid follow the crowd and enjoy the scripture class?! Having an extra knowledge ( and who knows, the wisdom to discern fiction and facts ), is never a bad thing.

    • Nathan says:

      01:13pm | 22/07/11

      Our children will continue to observe those holidays (Easter, Christmas), because those days have evolved beyond the silliness that spawned them. Those days are now about family. They are about putting aside the rest of life, to stop and spend time with loved ones. They’re about zombies, nor magical wood-workers getting nailed to wooden crosses. They are not about anything religious. They are instead, about what actually matters.

    • Jason says:

      01:21pm | 22/07/11

      @dodo

      Hate to break it to you, but “Christmas” is merely the latest incarnation in a long string of midwinter festivals which segments of humanity have been partaking in ever since the birth of agriculture.

      As for the wisdom to discern fiction and facts, well, your implication that Jesus is definitely real definitely marks out where you stand on that. Fact is there’s no way to discern the existence of a real, actual jesus from a mere story. It is indistinguishable from fiction.

      Of course, if you take the supernatural bits as necessary, then you can definitely write him off as a primitive superhero. And I do.

      “why not let your kid follow the crowd and enjoy the scripture class?”

      You’re welcome.

      Now, as for: “If you can follow the crowd and enjoy Christmas Turkey and Easter Eggs without the belief of Jesus [..] then why not let your kid follow the crowd and enjoy the scripture class”

      Because enjoying a midwinter festival with your family without the religious claptrap is by no means equivalent to sending an impressionable child into an environment in which he or she will be taught fiction as though it is fact.

    • What the? says:

      12:57pm | 22/07/11

      Oh no, not another anti Chaplain blog to get the buttons pushed. This thing has been done to death, move on.

    • Jason says:

      01:22pm | 22/07/11

      Actually, anti-SRE, but nice try.

    • Weary says:

      01:16pm | 22/07/11

      If they were my kids I’d prefer they wasted half an hour a week than they wasted their whole life being religious.  If they’re feeling that left out they can always go to the library and read fiction - that’s all the other kids are doing anyway.  And don’t let these words I made up and pulled out of thin air upset you - I don’t let the bible upset me.

    • Weary says:

      01:16pm | 22/07/11

      If they were my kids I’d prefer they wasted half an hour a week than they wasted their whole life being religious.  If they’re feeling that left out they can always go to the library and read fiction - that’s all the other kids are doing anyway.  And don’t let these words I made up and pulled out of thin air upset you - I don’t let the bible upset me.

    • Pommyman says:

      01:29pm | 22/07/11

      How would all the Christians feel if an Islamic volunteer group started taking RE classes in schools and teaching Islamic tenants? I’m sure that you would all be comfortable with it am I right? They are teaching about God after all, as they are an Abrahmic faith system.
      If you are against this, then why is this not the same as those who don’t want their children to have a Christian lesson?

    • JT says:

      01:38pm | 22/07/11

      This really isn’t anything more than blatant intolerance packaged up as ‘modern thinking’. The humorous thing is that often the people who are so intolerant of things such as this on the other hand champion themselves as being fashionably open minded and tolerant. I guess it just depends on what you choose to discriminate about. If it’s something like Christianity, you’re just enlightened and modern. Anything else - Islam, homosexuality, immigration - you’re a rednecked bigot. I just can’t see what the difference is.

      Wouldn’t the best way be to accept everything that comes our way in life without judgment and an open mind? To be inclusive and not exclusive?

    • Jason says:

      01:56pm | 22/07/11

      Is it really intolerant to not want your child lied to by adults they’re presumably meant to trust? That’s what’s happening when a child is pushed into SRE without their parents’ full informed consent. Is it intolerant to want to remove a colossal privilege afforded to a narrow religious minority through a supposedly secular state system? Is it intolerant to want children taught what’s true, not what’s hoped to be true by religious nutcases?

      If that’s intolerance, sign me up.

    • cerebus says:

      02:01pm | 22/07/11

      @JT, what exactly is being discriminated against? Nobody is saying we should get rid of religion, you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want.  What we are saying is that scripture has no place in a public school.  If a religious education is what a parent wants then either provide that religious portion of the education yourself, or send your children to a private school (which btw should not be receiving any public funds).
      What is it about that that you feel is not open-minded?

    • Al says:

      02:59pm | 22/07/11

      I’m not dicriminating against ANY religion. practice and belive whatever the Hel you want.
      Just don’t preach it to me (i.e. try to convert me) when I hold my own belief and don’t teach it to kids in a secular school (that is the role you choose for your belief systems authority figures).
      BTW - EVERYBODY discriminates EVERY day.
      Have you made a choice today, yes, then you discrimnated against the opposite choice.
      There is no such thing as a person who doesn’t discriminate.
      The main point is that those who don’t choose to believe a specific religion should not be forced (or even encouraged) to attend classes that espouse those religions and these classes should not be taught in or funded by our taxes.
      A General religous course which teaches about many different belief systems and compares them is very different to a scripture class which teaches one religions view (even when it has been PROVEN inaccurate and/or incorrect and yes, I DO mean PROVEN).

    • melle says:

      04:36pm | 22/07/11

      @Jason….. Sign you up?  I’d say you’re already signed up.

      Someone said “atheism’s the new cool” -  calm down!

      Enjoy

    • kc says:

      01:57pm | 22/07/11

      i wonder why it is called an ethics class, the last thing you learn in these classes is ethics. why not call it what it is bible studies. as a catholic school girl i am very much against this class (unless it is in a catholic school). to clarify i am not religious and hated having to do the religious class at my school, i would of happliy sat out in the hall and done nothing for an hour.

      let it be the childs choice.

    • Al says:

      02:28pm | 22/07/11

      Ethics classes have nothing to do with religion, it is Scripture, General Religous Studies or Specific Religous Studies which is to do with religion.
      Ethics class is the supposed option for those who don’t attend Scripture, General Religous Studies or Specific Religous Studies.

    • Jason says:

      02:37pm | 22/07/11

      I think you missed the memo. Scripture class (SRE) is not the same as Primary Ethics.

      As for the child’s choice, well, last time I checked there were a great many things that kids were not given a choice over. Parents might be better, given that kids aren’t adult-level reasoners.

    • What's The Biggie? says:

      02:46pm | 22/07/11

      I don’t understand how people are equating the lack of a scripture class to promoting atheism. The lack of a Star Trek class does not mean the school is Pro-Star Wars.

      I went to public primary and high schools and we had no scripture/religion classes (various religions were touched upon in history class, but none were singled out and the religion itself was not the focal point of the lesson). How did I learn about religion? By the people around me. My parents, both lapsed Catholics, taught me what they knew. My grandparents, who were more involved with the Catholic Church, taught me a little bit more. The Sunday Club (a few hours on a sunday that focused on activities with some Christian values thrown in) that the army base chaplain ran for all the army kids was an option. My parents said it was up to me if I wanted to attend or not, and depending on how I felt I either attended or didn’t. My Mother’s uncle, an Anglican who became a Quaker and is a Youth worker involved in a program with other spiritual guidance counsellers (Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish etc) was always happy to answer what ever questions I had to the best of my abilities. Now, all grown up, I’m what I call a Positive Atheist. I don’t think there is a God, but if there is, I feel comfortable in the way I live my life that He won’t have an issue with me.

      I guess my point is that if you believe in something, and truly believe it’s the best for your children, you and your community will be able to teach them everything they need to know. Your church and your personal interactions with your children will be how they will get their religious education. If you feel they need more, there are plenty of religious schools. The lack of a dedicated class at a state school will not ram atheism down your childs throat. Most likely they will not even notice it’s missing. And if they do come home with questions because someone (another classmate most likely, but possibly a teacher) said that God doesn’t exist, then you will use your faith to help them understand.

    • Timmy says:

      02:50pm | 22/07/11

      Scripture in schools saves a lot of money ..... here’s how
      Teachers work to a “load” of face to face teaching hours. The unions get a little bit upset if teachers are asked to work above that load. Furthermore, working above that load makes them less effective as teachers.
      Let us say that a teacher’s load is 40 hours per fortnight and we have 1 hour per fortnight of Religious Education. For every 40 teachers, if they took back that hour, we would have to then hire another F/T teacher to cover that 1 hour.
      In NSW, let us say (for mathematical ease) that only 40,000 teachers working at government schools would be effected by removing scripture. That is 1,000 extra teachers. If each teacher costed on average $100,000 (that is conservative), that is only an extra $100,000,000 that the government has to put into the education system, but that is just NSW.
      What is that I hear you say? Use the money from the Chaplains? The Chaplains should be non-religious and be referred to as pastoral care workers. They should be as independent from the system as possible. Their role is important (or would be if it were not tainted by the religious title.)

    • Al says:

      03:08pm | 22/07/11

      Or they could simply reduce the hours for students to attend that day by 30mins and advise parents that if they want their kids educated in a specific religion to send them to that particular church (or equivelent) for this education. No extra cost for extra teachers.
      Some parents won’t like it though as they would have to organise additional child minding etc.

    • Jason says:

      03:14pm | 22/07/11

      WOW.

      Am I reading you correctly?

      Is the religious block seriously reduced to hokey maths and “scripture saves money?”

      Or is this trolling on an epic scale?

      OH, THE LOLS

    • Timmy says:

      04:13pm | 22/07/11

      I am not putting this as an argument as to why scripture should stay in schools, but as to why it will stay in schools. 

      The powers that be will not provide an alternative to scripture unless it is free and palatable. If you feel strongly enough, run an ethics class. Otherwise your braying against religious influence in schools carries as much weight as the donkey down the road.

    • Jason says:

      04:42pm | 22/07/11

      @Timmy

      I see. Still LOLtastic though.

      I would run an ethics class, if my work commitments didn’t make it vanishingly impractical. Perhaps if I were to change career tracks sometime in the near future that will shift.

      For now I have to satisfy myself with doing what I can to protest against the absurd level of privilege afforded the god-botherers of the world, and expose their utter fail wherever I see it. Every little helps.

    • James Hunter says:

      03:11pm | 22/07/11

      for the secularists and atheists maybe something usefull like sex education or who and how to phone for emergencies or supermarket and bus/train courtesy .
      Of particular use may be lessons in comparative religion designed to show what a load of rubbish the other kids are off doing ?

    • Jason says:

      03:38pm | 22/07/11

      Sadly, the religious lobby doesn’t want kids to do anything else of substance during SRE time, and the education departments seem to agree.

      Which is one of the objections we all have, of course.

      Primary Ethics is getting there, but witness Fred Nile’s recent tantrums to see how much the christianistas hate it when there’s an alternative to scripture available.

    • stephen says:

      03:15pm | 22/07/11

      Perhaps classes in ‘Holy Ignorance’ ,( an account of identity markers between religion and nationality, language - and that the deference of the islamic faith to the Arabic tongue may here be noted - class, political ideology and gender) might change the writer’s mind : the kids won’t have be a part of trans-gender/kin-group exercizes just yet, you know.
      But you sound afraid of something ; surely it is not the anti-intellectualism of creed values that scares you ; what about the term ‘culture’ ?
      Ah yes, that’s it, isn’t it ?
      And it is what scares the pants off any be-Jesus Aussie who cannot fathom mutual expectations or the responsibility of belief which might be interrupted by a life of backyards and trowels of amateurisms.
      Culture - any culture - pushes us out of ourselves and to real understandings, and to defer it, (it is inevitable, really) is to defer consciousness.

    • Al says:

      03:33pm | 22/07/11

      I’m sorry I am having huge difficulty trying to interpret WHAT you are actualy saying here!
      As for the statement re: Culture. Hate to tell you, culture and religion are very different things.
      Religion may have an influence on culture and vice versa, but to say sugest that religion is culture is simply inaccurate and false.
      There can be culture WITHOUT religion and there can also be religion without culture.
      For example, there is pop-culture which doesn’t involve religion at all, it is simply based on whatever happens to be popular. but I guess you don’t consider that a culture (I think? It’s difficult to tell what you are trying to say).

    • Comatose says:

      03:35pm | 22/07/11

      Your comment has has ‘defered’ my ‘conciousness’, I am unconcious now!

    • James Hunter says:

      03:42pm | 22/07/11

      stephen,
      You are easily confused if you think for one moment that there is any ,any corelation between religion and culture and the estremists in Judeism,Christianity and Islam show this fully.
      Shows how little relationship there is between religion and civilisation too

    • stephen says:

      05:52pm | 22/07/11

      Al,
      Only an Anthropologist would legitimately reduce culture to religion.
      So many writers now wish to deny the connection : so many others are antagonistic to religions precisely because of it.
      Culture is different to religions.
      I was only explaining this, in an oblique way, (so’s to get in more meaning without ranting.)

    • HighLow says:

      03:33pm | 22/07/11

      Religion is an important part of the world and children should learn about it. Just because you may not believe in it doesn’t mean there’s no value in understanding it. It will lessen ignorance in people would make a change for the better.

    • cerebus says:

      04:03pm | 22/07/11

      @HighLow, how will teaching children christian scripture lessen ignorance in the world?

    • Tracy says:

      04:06pm | 22/07/11

      But they are not teaching religion - if they were, GREAT!  I agree, it’s an integral part of the history of our species.  They are teaching the bible, as in “if you don’t believe in the Christian God you will go to hell”.  Now how do you think a non-Christian 6 year old child might feel if they had to sit through that?  Not nice.  There are plenty of Christian schools, leave the secular ones alone please.

    • Jason says:

      04:21pm | 22/07/11

      You’re mistaking GRE for SRE, I think.

      Well-implemented General Religious Education would be a _good_ thing. Vested interests, however, oppose that in favour of SRE, which is indistinguishable in many cases from straight-up indoctrination and propaganda.

    • The sins of our parents says:

      03:42pm | 22/07/11

      It’s unfortunate how innocent children suffer because of the poor choices of their parents. Learning about the good things God has done for us, and yes that may mean that we learn about the reality of hell, is no crime. Money well spent to leanr about this. Of course there are people teaching their kids how to be witches, how to read the stars in order to know our future, how to hold hands during a seyance, that hugging trees is the greatest moral good that we can experience, that gay love is real selfless love, that if we don’t stop carbon emmissions the world is going to end, so on and so on… There’s a special tax lined up for the last one. One religion is being replaced by another. It’s still to be determine what the make of the ‘other’ religion will be. But one thing for sure - it’s not from heaven.

    • Jason says:

      04:18pm | 22/07/11

      “Learning about the good things God has done for us”

      Any evidence that this god thing exists? Repeatable, solid evidence, I mean, not mere hearsay and delusion.

      As far as I can make out, there is no more evidence for god than there is for the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. And I’ve been asking the evidence question for a long time now. All I ever get is equivocation, fail and general nonsense.

    • Alannah says:

      06:52pm | 23/07/11

      What a load of shit! I for one don’t believe there is a god as without proff it comes as only hear say fiction. It’s up to the parents if religion is taught within the family boundaries and quit frankly i’d rather the schools concentrate on real education not religious bull shit. Parents are blamed so much these day’s it’s a joke! Since when is it my roll to full teach my child what a school doesn’t? How can religion be more important then the three RRR’s? Like religion is going to get you into uni or get you a job and i’d much rather my kids be pulled out of RE to concentrate on areas they are failing.

      On another note I find if rather odd there was only one GOD and we have a million different religions, how can that be. Beside take a look at Kingaroy apparently Jesus has moved their with Mary and they met over 2000 years ago ummmmm really LOL. I thought Mary gave birth to Jesus and that her partner was Joseph. So fast faward 2000 years and now Jesus is alot older then Mary by about 10+ years. But in my opinion this is 100% incest and where in the bible does it say incest was ok? Where in the Australian Law does it say incest is OK and NOT a criminal offense? I already know the answer and that is why i think religion is a croc of shit.

    • Up The Abbottohs !! says:

      03:43pm | 22/07/11

      Today Sydney australia is wet,cold and pouring rain +12C . Its Sydney Australia’s wettest July since July 1950.
      Take the dog to the car. Drive to the bush areas. Then let the dog out of the car.
      Then go home and go top bed. Let the dog walk itself home into oblivion.
      As for God, I am sick of Gary Abblett as Australian Rules is what Sydneysiders regard as ” What I call Bullshit”
      Long live Rugby League! Drop Dead, Australian Rules !

    • melle says:

      04:40pm | 22/07/11

      Beautiful and sunny in Brisbane!

      Up the Abbottohs!

    • stephen says:

      06:39pm | 22/07/11

      Sunny in Brisbane for the next week.
      Up the AFL.

    • Tracy says:

      03:54pm | 22/07/11

      I wonder how many parents have actually sat through a ‘religious education’ class in their child’s school?  For those who may not be familiar with what is being taught..  In April they told six year old children that Jesus was nailed to a cross, beaten and tortured while the crowd looked on and cheered.  I know this because I was there (as a volunteer) in the next room teaching a group of non-Christian children to count to ten in French.  Regardless of religious beliefs, I know what I’d prefer my grade one child to be taught.  In order for anything to change in our not-so-secular state schools, more parents need to opt-out their children from receiving bible lessons.  Unfortunately, parents are not advised by the school that they even have a choice in this though.

    • Bilby says:

      04:30pm | 22/07/11

      Do you mean to tell me that around Easter time, the class was told the story of the crucifixion? What an outrage! Maybe they should have been told that Jesus was showered with petals and gently escorted to his feather bed where he slept blissfully for three days?

    • Tracy says:

      05:49pm | 22/07/11

      Certainly would be a nicer fairy tale Bilby!  But that’s not really the point, and I think a lot of Christians are missing it.  It’s not about your religion.  It’s about forcing it on children who don’t share your belief.  Without prejudice or sarcasm, do you *honestly* agree with teaching the bible to non Christian children who attend secular state schools?

    • Bilby says:

      07:23pm | 22/07/11

      Tracy, my kid, a non-Christian (despite my apparent defense. That has more to do with the rapid opposition than actual support.), attends scripture by choice. I attended scripture as a compulsory part of school. I think it’s important, and I don’t think it does any harm. It’s not a bad framework in the absence of any other.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      08:18am | 24/07/11

      It’s not a bad framework in the absence of any other.

      Wanna think that one through a little bit?

    • Lisa H. says:

      04:16pm | 22/07/11

      In all my years of religious education classes, I never once got a ‘hellfire and damnation’ speech. Really it was more of a cultural education.

      That false premise and smug judgements contained in this story are *exactly* what anti-religious people bang on about, in relation to religious people. Ironic, no?

      Never had an experience even remotely similar to Tracy’s either…perhaps I just didn’t attend the right school…

      I also (idly and non-judgementally) wonder if parents who object to their children learning of Jesus’ violent demise are also as vigilant in relation to M rated tv, movies and music. Violence seems ubiquitious in entertainment these days… even Cars2 involved murder!

      Perhaps, as with sex, kids are going to find out about religion anyway. Better to have them learn about it in a formal and managed setting.

      Otherwise, what’s wrong with the library? To manage a parallel stream seems a bit ott. Other alternative is probably what the author would prefer: marginalise religion even further, to the point where those wierdos just disappear from the public system altogether.

    • Jason says:

      04:38pm | 22/07/11

      “marginalise religion even further, to the point where those wierdos just disappear from the public system altogether.”

      That would satisfy the secular principle of equal treatment, sure. Or a good, well-managed GRE program could be brought in to replace SRE

      I don’t see either of these happening at the moment, but we can all dream, can’t we?

    • Tracy says:

      04:52pm | 22/07/11

      Hi Lisa.  The point is, it is not religious education, or cultural, and the kids are not “finding out about religion”.  I really wish they were, honestly.  The RE teachers are not saying “this is what Christians believe..” and “this is what Muslims believe..”  etc - they are saying “there is a GOD and you must believe in him”.  Do you honestly think that’s fair to children who don’t happen to have the same beliefs as you?  Would you want your child taught the Quran I wonder?  Remember, we are talking about STATE schools here, not private ones.

    • LisaH. says:

      10:20pm | 22/07/11

      Well, actually the RE teachers saying ‘this is what Christians believe’ and ‘this is what Muslims believe’ is exactly what I experienced in my crappy public school education…

      i graduated in 1989…praps my headmaster was onto something?

      I just believed it was standard public ed religious ed.

      Nothing else about my underfunded country high school was particularly cutting edge…

    • Tracy says:

      04:52pm | 22/07/11

      Hi Lisa.  The point is, it is not religious education, or cultural, and the kids are not “finding out about religion”.  I really wish they were, honestly.  The RE teachers are not saying “this is what Christians believe..” and “this is what Muslims believe..”  etc - they are saying “there is a GOD and you must believe in him”.  Do you honestly think that’s fair to children who don’t happen to have the same beliefs as you?  Would you want your child taught the Quran I wonder?  Remember, we are talking about STATE schools here, not private ones.

    • LisaH. says:

      11:17am | 23/07/11

      Also, I’ve been puzzling it out, but I don’t get the comment on the Koran.
      Is that a dog-whistle to my supposed bigotry? (the bigotry I exhibit by not slagging all religious education off the bat)
      Or perhaps it’s a fair question…

      I actually wouldn’t have any problems whatsoever with being taught ABOUT the Koran, Hinduism, Jewish practice and belief, whatever.
      We had a very basic entry-level discussion of them at school,, as I mentioned earlier.

      I would like to see cultural influences on religion (and vice versa) brought in more deeply in religious studies, so that it developed as a social studies type program.

      It would be interesting to discuss all the positives and negative outcomes of religion (eg support of nuclear family and monogamous marriage through Christianity etc) rather than just a list of all the good and bad deeds of the various Churches.

      But I guess this would be well outside the scope of a half hour per week!

    • n_dude says:

      05:14pm | 22/07/11

      I think for primary school children to be taught religion is not appropriate as they lack maturity. For high scholl students studying different religions would be appropriate.

      My issue is around the scripture classes in primary school. When I was there it was very much how the author described it - surrender to Jesus or go to hell! The funny thing was that none of the catholics in my school went to scripture because it was taught by Anglicans. Unfortunately my parents wanted me to be exposed to other religions and it became difficult as a 9 year old to explain the sort of fears the teachers were trying to instil.

      In the end it convinced me that my religion which is much more open to other beliefs was better than Chrisitianity.

    • Servaas says:

      05:26pm | 22/07/11

      Also thought, have scripture classes in the mornings first thing then those who hold other beliefs can start school a bit later on that day. Or, the other alternative is to start a school based on relativism (good luck with that!). Fro reading Punch posts regularly, there are very large amounts following atheistic or similar beliefs in Aus and therefore the numbers to fill teaching positions and classes would not be a problem.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      05:53pm | 22/07/11

      Firstly Religious instruction has nothing to do with the chaplaincy program.
      RI is a very watered down version of any religious teaching for crying out loud (or is that for Christ’s sake) 1/2 an hour a week of the “god teacher” as my grand daughter calls her RI instructor is hardly indoctrination.
      Secondly the majority of our ethics and mores are Christian hence Judaic. Of the ten commandments three are relevant, the seven deadly sins concern your relationship with your Lord or Master or employer or better. Non- fundamental Christian ethics and morals aren’t so bad as to discard them just be a parent who discusses these with your children and tell them that they can be achieved (now that we have identified them) without a subjugation to a divine power. And remember the most ethical and morally benevolent belief is to be had in true anarchy where everyone is absolutely equal.

    • michael says:

      06:13pm | 22/07/11

      I don’t really have much to say about the scripture classes, but those that apparently went to catholic schools and have not been scarred for life ... obviously weren’t paying too much attention.

      I mean the highlight of the catholic school year is easter - which is nothing more than a celebration of human sacrifice - a cult of blood and death worship.  (the fact he rises from the dead a couple of days later and sets his friends hair on fire is hardly a softener here).  The doubting Thomas story is a particularly nasty bit of brainwashing for a young mind, especially the bit about putting his hand in jc’s chest.

      And every visit to church one is constantly reminded of this blood worship - the church is surrounded by the 12 stations of the cross (some of which are reminders of judgement day / hell) and fronted by a larger-than-life sized carved statue of a man bleeding to death in agony from his head pierced with thorns, wrists pierced with nails, and a spear through his heart.

      It’s sick and disgusting and i’m quite angry I was put through that sort of abuse as a young kid.

      2000 years of constant fine-tuning of the indoctrination has made it a very effective tool for political power.  This is all religion ever was.

      I feel about as sorry for anyone over the age of 12 who still believes such nonsense as those who believe in father christmas, faeries, alien visitations, or watch funniest home videos.

      Time to grow up and become an adult.

    • Mark B says:

      07:26pm | 22/07/11

      Well said Michael, I was raised a Catholic and couldnt wait to make my own decisons, Can quickly see that christian faith has many versions, whats right wrong etc . Raised my chilldren in caring environment with NO official religon but learn lifes skills. Caring, give, community etc. Do however only venture to church for those funerals, weddings that use them. When I go creamation not in a hole in the ground will do.. and Ill be happy with my bit and my kids can likewise make own decisions as they have to pt out of religious part of school.

    • Craig says:

      06:57pm | 22/07/11

      Once again Jo, the atheists win the battle when it comes to tirelessly superior performances in the intellectual journo, media piece. Save it for God. You will get the chance to offer your well thought out defence for ridiculing truth. To no avail. You will be able offer your self absorbed sense of wisdom against the most recorded events in history, you of the truly intelligent. Good luck. Let us all know how it goes.

    • Tamagotchi says:

      07:28pm | 22/07/11

      Nawwe, I’ve been educated under Catholic schools and it’s not so bad! Everyone basically… just bludges the R.E class. It’s all just meditation, reading some bible passages but it’s nice because there are heaps of stuff on how to live your life i.e being a good person. And it teaches about all the world religions, there differences & similarities. Heaps of discussion about whether there is a God. (It’s not what the school says that ‘There IS ONE TURE GOD’, it’s all just discussion.) In Primary it’s singing songs…. don’t even remember the other stuff. Hahahaha.

    • Government Educator says:

      08:10pm | 22/07/11

      trouble is the student excluded from these classes still has to be supervised. So they have to go to another room during the sessions. There fore you can’t expect to use the time as “teaching/learning/revising” the regular classroom teacher has to supervise the scripture teacher who is usually some one from a local christian church group.  When they start offering the chance for children to have “scripture” from non christian volunteers then I’ll be supportive.
      Total waste of government education class time.

    • george says:

      08:26pm | 22/07/11

      Wow, what a bunch of atheists we have on here. Look at yourselves the lot of you? i bet all of you are from broken homes, divorced, cheating and jealousy must be a part of all your lives. Why cant we just let each be to their own. History tells us that Jesus existed and multiple sources talk about his divinity. But you all criticise it because this religion shows you that you are all doing the wrong thing. We only have 10 commandments and you cant even live by them. Please remind yourselves what religion founded all these schools. And as a 31 year old with 2 kids i will make sure they know about the sufferings of jesus becaue through him their sins are forgiven and they will gain repentance through him. Isnt it amazing how quickly you can all hate on christianity. I dare you to speak about islam like this. seriously disgusted with some of your attitudes.

    • Andrew says:

      11:45am | 23/07/11

      @ George:
      Usually I wouldn’t waste my time rebutting narrow minded comments such as yours, however, in this case you have raised my ire. I am confounded at how you can immediately partition all Atheists into being sourced from “broken homes.” “Divorce, cheating and jealousy” are not shown to be correlated with a person’s religious posture (or lack thereof) and it is exactly these absurd jumps in reasoning (or lack of reasoning) that I wish to protect my children from thinking is acceptable. I am “seriously disgusted” with your application of reasoning and logic.

    • im says:

      08:30pm | 22/07/11

      I vote for self-learning via internet as perfect pastime for free thinking youths. But then don’t all children deserve to be free thinkers?

    • mick says:

      10:26pm | 22/07/11

      What this debate forgets is that scripture taught kids well for many decades.
      God has been forgotten in our so called christian country.  No wonder that morals are out the window and people frequently behave badly.  And now we have heathens who demand that scripture be removed in favour of ‘ethics’ classes.  Ethics of course change as the society changes whilst God does not.
      Ok, believe what you will. Scripture classes are free.  They are run by people with little teaching experience but by people who are the real McCoy.  I know who I’d prefer to be guiding my child in an increasingly selfish and unaccountable world where more and more kids are going off the rails.
      When parents lose their cjildren in the growing up process and look to blame someone they need to blame themselves for dismantling something which has served this country so well for so many years.  Self learning?  Yeh, get real.  It’ll work about as well as self regulating Dracula in the blood bin.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:29pm | 22/07/11

      Umm, constitutionally Australia is a secular country, but hey whatever…..

    • Eva says:

      10:51pm | 22/07/11

      I kept my kids out of the scripture class but they got upset because that meant they missed out on lollies. I was unrepentant even for lollies my kids weren’t going to get permission from me to do it. I really believe that they should be scrapped and an ethics and philosophy class take its place.

    • LisaH. says:

      11:10am | 23/07/11

      What is the basis of ethics, though? My understanding is that anything as permissable with consent. eg You can eat another person, as long as that person agrees?
      Is that the basis of ethics?
      Philosophy seems similarly circuitious, I’m not sure these are necessarily suitable theories for very young people to study, as there is much more to correct behaviour than simple consent.

    • Reggie says:

      01:05pm | 26/07/11

      Sorry to see the funny side of this but I was just reading how all these guys in a life-boat in the Pacific drew lots to see who they would eat next.

      Then there’s the problem of opting OUT of these classes and missing out on the lollies. To take a more positive view, perhaps those who choose to go to the classes should opt OUT of the party the remaining group are going to have while they’re off learning about things that are not so worldly.  I’m sure it’s not a competition in blandishment or both would be boring as bat-shuit. ummmmm If lollies are a reward for going to one class then the sky’s the limit for the remainder.

    • TheRaptured says:

      05:20am | 23/07/11

      If people think Christianity is being attacked now, wait for the soon rapture, it is coming! . It will collapse the world economy completely. Hundreds of millions of people disappearing at once. The atheist will want to kill every remaining person who thinks about a god for their plight the athiest has been left with. Get over this people, these are the last days, this is the spirit war on mankind by those who reject and rebel against god and godly ways.

    • Lisa says:

      08:19am | 23/07/11

      The problem is the chaplins are usually from pentecostal churches, there lies the problem, the over the top cult christians

    • John in Alice says:

      09:26am | 23/07/11

      Nearly every athiest rant about religion uses the same old “shove it down my throat” expression.  Nothing can be shoved down anyone’s throat if their mouth is closed.  While I can’t speak much about Australian schools/churches, the old “Hell and damnation’ sermons went out of style about a century ago in America.  Perhaps Aussies have not contemplated the separation of church & state - including the schools.  As a Christian, I would not want some clown I don’t know teaching my children about THEIR beliefs. 
      Violence is increasing in our schools and it’s those heathens who insisted we take corporal punnishment away that we have to thank.  This isn’t an article about improving our educational system, it’s just another silly athiest rant against Christians, and if I wanted a truly humorous poke at religion I’d rent an old Monty Python movie.
      As an honest effort to remove religion from our public schools, this article is a dismal failure.

    • graham says:

      01:57pm | 23/07/11

      A failure? The wee lass certainly got your bellows blowing. Do you really believe that “hell and damnation” has disappeared from the Bush & Co bible belt or are you just another false pretender from the pagan rites camp? And do you really think that violence is increasing in our schools because the staff, the adult staff, were disallowed to use violence on our children? And should our children’s mouths be closed? You and your worshipped priests would love that, wouldn’t you.
      Incidentally, you are right about the Monty Python crew. They really nailed your sad little fairy tale to the wall, didn’t they.
      I can understand you not wanting some stranger filling your child’s head with “their beliefs”. I mean look what that did to you.

    • Renee says:

      09:28am | 23/07/11

      Why even bother explaining to someone with a mind as closed as that of Jo Thornely?  It simply doesn’t occur to people like her that our enormous problems with disciplining our children, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, suicide and crime rates are directly related to wholehearted rejection of Godly values and Christian faith.  This rejection is now so strong that even to profess Christianity has one ridiculed as some sort of naive, happy-clapping idiot.  Very sad to see our children taught negative faith values today, very sad indeed.

    • ASDF says:

      10:48am | 23/07/11

      Renee,
      I am not Christian, nor do I have drug and alcohol issues, teen pregnancy or committed suicide or crime. I think that you will find that there are strong reasons behind these issues, such as addictive behaviour, depression, or maybe just a really horny teenager who had a contraception accident. Is it that there is an argument to not teach religion or that we not teach Christianity in our public education system? Because there are many other religious to choose from that have the same values as Christianity. In my experience, being well adjusted has nothing to do with belonging to a particular religious denomindation. I hope to a God that I am not sure exists that I raise my son to be be a good and kind man with strong ethics, not because he wants to please a deity, but because thats who he is.

    • LisaH. says:

      12:00pm | 23/07/11

      I see what you are saying there ADSF, in that many ‘malfunctions’ in human life can be attributed much more specifically (and usefully) than just as a lack of faith or Godliness.

      But in a pragmatic world, you could also say that those with faith and organised religion seem to do better on those measurements of emotional well being, mental health, sexual health, family cohesion etc.

      I’m very pro-science, but science does not yet do well with mental (spiritual) well being… I was shocked to read recently that up to 90 per cent of pre-psychosis diagnoses may actually be false.
      http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12185

      I’m not sure religious education can be any more than a cultural study. It is not going to turn children religious, or even give them a sense of well-being - it is only a half hour program per week.

      Surely, at the end of the day, family is the beginning, middle and end when it comes to ‘world view’ propaganda.

    • graham says:

      02:35pm | 23/07/11

      Does Jo have a closed mind? Or do you. The rejection of unbelieveable stories by increasingly educated young people is the cause of the church’s grip on the minds and wallets of the vast majority of Australians being loosened. Common sense tells young people particularly that an archaic message of angels, reincarnation, snap creations of birds and animals and people and trees and mountains is a no-go area for anyone with any intelligence. If the problems you have disciplining your children are because of a lack of faith, perhaps your children have realised that you are wrong in trying to instil false values in them. You know, you go to hell if you disobey the church, you are damned forever if you speak the lord’s name in vain, all of that nonsense. They simply have no faith in you, and as their father you owe them more than that. Yes, it is sad to see your children taught negative faith values today. Perhaps if you opened your mind you would realise that.

    • ASDF says:

      10:13am | 23/07/11

      I have a bachelors degree in religious studies and also happen to be an Atheist. Hell would have to freeze over before I allowed my child be taught about religion from someone with vested interests. Whilst the scripture in schools is primarily taught from a Christian based point of view it is nothing more than a government funded brainwashing scheme. On the otherhand, if the schools abolished it and turned it into a cultural/social/religious awareness program provided by an unbiased educator, I would enrol my little dude in a heartbeat. Great article, summing up the feelings from the majority of the Athiest/Agnostic population.

    • Tracy says:

      10:37am | 24/07/11

      perfectly said smile

    • William Morgan says:

      05:18pm | 31/07/11

      Would you be saying the same thing if it was a socialist/green driven propaganda lecture driven down the throat of your “little fella” Right I would like to see that.

    • William Morgan says:

      10:15am | 23/07/11

      We have an atheist not married childless prime minister setting the example,Socialist Greens pushing the atheist dogma, so the last place to learn some form of ethics and how to treat your fellow humans is through the scriptures and by example at schools. By the way are we not a christian -democratic country ?

    • Ross says:

      01:21pm | 23/07/11

      A “Christian-Democratic” country is a contradiction in terms.

      If you are saying that your entire lives are governed by some supreme dictatorship then that necessarily excludes Democracy.

      If you want an example of the ethics pushed by Christianity then you may want to take a look at all the murder, rape, and pillage that God himself commands in the old testament. Not to mention the eternal torture of the dead introduced in the new testament by the so-called ‘Gentle Jesus’.

      Don’t you dare say that Christianity is the “last place to learn some form of ethics” when ANY secular ethicist or moral philosopher can teach you *real* ethics without the threats of torture and death.

    • graham says:

      02:48pm | 23/07/11

      And in Rome you have an unmarried, childless, (presumably), ex-Nazi, setting the example for you. I’ll take our P.M. any day, thank you. And we are not, repeat not, a christian-Democratic country. The two are mutually exclusive. Ten percent of our population are declared believers in the superstitious dogma to which you and the other idiots subscribe. You are however totally correct in one statement you made.
      “... the last place to learn some form of ethics and how to treat your fellow humans is through the scriptures” Spot on mate.

    • Ben says:

      11:15am | 23/07/11

      I got kicked out of Scripture in Year 4 because the teacher asked how we were created and I explained the basic grasp I had of evolution which I’d picked up from a documentary series called “Life on Earth”. I was confused, traumatised and quite scared by her negative reaction. I thought I had the right answer and didn’t understand why she was so angry. It’s one of the few things I remember from year 4. Basically I was banned from Scripture after that and remember wandering around the school aimlessly by myself with a tennis ball when my friends were in class. I didn’t “get” religion ever. Angry weirdos who don’t want to understand reality.

    • paul says:

      12:07pm | 23/07/11

      i dont think its right for religion to be taught in schools. if parents wish their child to have religion then take them to church and let them be bamboozeled by experts. school is for learning the most important things in life not be subjected to the beliefs of those that would wih to push their own agendas

    • Ross says:

      01:10pm | 23/07/11

      Frankly I think it’s disgusting that tax-payers’ money is being spent promoting a religion that has resulted in so many deaths, so many atrocities, so much persecution, so little value, and so many terribly boring TV shows.

      To make matters worse it’s being done to *children*! The very segment of society that needs the most guidance and most true knowledge. They are being taught absolute rubbish just because of tradition and lobbying by too-loud religious groups.

      It really is a shame that people can’t see the harm that this does to the fragile minds of kids.

    • ASDF says:

      02:24pm | 23/07/11

      I have to agree wholeheartedly on the boring TV shows!  My main concern over Christian religion being promoted in the education system, is for children who are of other religions who are being sidelined, and more importantly, the message that chaplaincy has given to the gay and lesbian community. I daresay that there have been many adolecents struggling with their sexuality who have gone to chaplaincy for advice, to be given the church’s viewpoint, rather than be told that it is ok to be whoever they are. Pushing religious agendas onto confused and vulnerable children is abhorrent. If my son is ever confused about anything, I would rather he talk to me, someone who is qualified, or to someone who has been through it. Although we are athiests with a hint of agnostic under my roof, I don’t permit the catholic side of the family or the strong athiests to push their agenda onto my child, and would rip a teacher a new one if they dared to.

    • Dr. Time says:

      03:34pm | 23/07/11

      The scripture and the ethics of the bible are not what children should be taught… unless genocide, taking slaves and offering your daughters to an angry mob to be raped is okay in your personal view.

      Still, if you want little Timmy or Dakota to be like a Bronze Age sheppard…

    • TheRaptured says:

      09:46pm | 23/07/11

      And where in the bible does it exactly mention the exact word, “genocide”? where in the bible does it mention taking slaves is good? Where does it mention in the bible offering your daughters to an angry mob to be raped? If so, of what context?  Did God rape or did man rape?

    • DavidS says:

      01:53pm | 24/07/11

      @ TheRaptured
      Have you even read the rubbish you swear by?
      Daughters offered for rape. Genesis 19:8
      Slavery is rife through both testaments. It even implied in the tenth commandment.
      Genocide. No, the exact word was not in existence but what do you call the annihilation of entire cities? You can give me the references for that.

    • Alan says:

      03:42pm | 23/07/11

      $165 million on School Chaplaincy? Really?
      If you elect for your child not to attend, you should be entitled to some sort of tax refund.  If enoight people took this path, the whole idea could be scrapped in public schools.

      If you pay to send your kid to Catholic school, fair enough. But public school? Pah!

    • JB says:

      06:17pm | 23/07/11

      Ok so by your logic, I should be exempt from paying the medicare levy completely as i have private health insurance. School isn’t just about learning the ABC’s, it’s about giving the kids emotional support and helping them become descent human beings! Not bully thugs which graduate ti jail after they complete school. If you scrapped the Chaplaincy program, do you honestly think they are going to divert the money back into the education system somewhere? Seriously if you do you are deluded!!!

    • Alan says:

      08:36am | 24/07/11

      Yes JB, I shouldn’t have to pay the Medicare levy. I also, as a South Australian, should not pay a Queensland Flood Levy - to rescue a state government that couldn’t be bothered INSURING their infrastructure.

      Are you really claiming that children who fail to attend religious education turn into bullies? Is that where you think bullies come from?

      Oh, and I never said the chaplaincy money would go to education. I just think, as a taxpayer, that identifying and eliminating wasteful processes should eventually produce a more efficient system. Your tax dollars at work, rather than wasted.

    • Stephen says:

      03:51pm | 23/07/11

      The 165 million dollars spent on the national school chaplaincy program is not about SRE. SRE is run by volunteers from local churches who give up their own time to teach it with out being paid. Sometimes the local church youth or children’s minister will also teach SRE, meaning that yes they are paid but by donations from the people who go to their church not the government. It is because of this that ethics needs to be run by volunteers not paid teachers. If this is a problem for anyone then set up an independent organisation that receives donations and then have people who work for that organisation give up their time to go and teach the ethics classes. If you want to complain about the current arrangement then volunteer your time. Otherwise keep it to yourself. And please don’t confuse things like the national chaplaincy program with SRE they are separate things.
      The national chaplaincy program is partly designed to give extra support to the children by giving them someone they can talk to. Yes this is not perfect and perhaps someone with a psychology degree would be better suited. It is this fact that the NSW Department of education and Training has such high incentives for people to get psychology training and do this job instead of the chaplains. Again if you have a problem with it, retrain, become a psychologist they will pay for your degree and guarantee a job for you after you finish. I am sick and tired of people just jumping on bandwagons with no understanding of what actually takes place. And I say this as a Primary teacher. oh and on a side note to my knowledge the churches in NSW at least are coming to the party in terms of child protection screening and training. Every volunteer i speak to has to go through a training course at least once every two years.

    • FOLLOWER says:

      05:21pm | 23/07/11

      All those that have condemned Chritianity have no idea what they are talking about. What hope does Athiesm really give you? Teaching children about God at least gives them an opportunity in life to see if they really want to follow God. All I can say is that - If Athiests are wrong, what do Christians have to lose? However, if Christians are right, what do Athiests have to lose?

    • Al says:

      08:37am | 25/07/11

      What hope does Atheisim offer:
      The hope that people will take responsibility for their own actions and will treat each other with respect as their is no magical forgivness for wrongs from a higher power. Also teaches the finality of death, once you are dead that’s it, no reward, no punishment, so you better take responsibility for your actions now.

      What hope does Christianity offer:
      Follow the rules and after you die you go to heaven.
      Don’t follow the rules but have your sins forgiven by God before you die and go to heaven.
      Otherwise burn in hell.

      Yep, I know which I will stick to. I like being responsible for my own actions thankyou.

    • Steve says:

      09:09pm | 25/07/11

      Al I am so sorry that someone has misguided you about what Christianity is all about. It is not about following rules but instead about coming to accept the great gift of love that Jesus gave by dieing on the cross and rising again. It is this gift of love that is totaly undeserved and can not be earnt through following rules or actions. Its called Grace. Christianity is not a jump through hoops or repeat the magic words kind of deal. You either come to a realisation of what Jesus has done for you and accept it or you don’t. Through this you can receive hope through Christ and learn that death is not the end. I hope that someday you will find this out for yourself.

    • A. Ramone says:

      05:33pm | 23/07/11

      All you Atheists are so boring and really are the most uninteresting people on Earth.  Misguided, foolish, and unable to see the big picture.  Why even bother trying to explain.  It is your misguided ignorance that will see the moral decline of this country hit rock bottom and in this vacuum created all sorts of new evil…one of them being Islamic will get a foot hold.  At least when it all goes pear shaped i will have the pleasure of knowing you might just maybe regret your ignorance.  I could explain more but i doubt you all clearly lack the intelligence to comprehend.

    • Reggie says:

      01:26pm | 25/07/11

      Gee Ramone you must have been about to pop an aneurism when you wrote that. Was this a deliberate attempt a religious suicide or were you trying to tell us something? You may have succeeded with the first but you certainly failed miserably if there was a second.

      Only thing you’re right about, you’re “misguided, foolish, and unable to see the big picture” and not once did you “think of the children.”

    • Adam says:

      07:43pm | 23/07/11

      I really don’t understand why this is such a big issue, everyone is going to make their own decisions about this as they get older. Scripture isn’t “shoving” religion down kids throats, it is at best informing them of their own belief, to which I think it’s acceptable. You cannot seriously think that any kid can make a responsible decision if he/she doesn’t have at least some exposure to religion. Needless to say SRE allows for those who want to teach ethics to teach it, there’s nothing stopping them, if you don’t give the kids an alternative then they’re going to sit there.

      Schools, in my view, are there to teach children not just science or maths or English but also about the wider world, our values and history and to give them exposure to all of these, not to ban a school of thought. It should be a culture where kids/teenagers can debate, experiment and have discussion about rather than pumping out culture illiterate children because a certain group want a hand over fist approach to the whole thing.

      If someone can come in off their own time to teach, whatever it is. It’s a bonus to our society and freedom of thought.

    • Tracy says:

      09:43am | 24/07/11

      Hi Adam.  You are absolutely, 100% right.  Kids should be taught about religion and then have the chance to make up their mind about it themselves.  And you’re right, kids can’t make informed decisions if they don’t have exposure to religion.  Which is exactly the problem.  Our state schools are not providing general religious education. They are teaching the bible like they teach geography or maths.  In the same way as our children are learning 1 + 1 = 2, they are being told that there is one true god, who made the world in seven days and created Adam and Eve.. etc.  This is very confusing to children who are not from Christian families.  Schools (in Brisbane at least) are not inviting any other religion or ethics educators into the classroom - only Christian ones.  And this is the problem.  So, in fact, entirely the opposite of “freedom of thought” is occurring.

    • Roy says:

      08:09pm | 23/07/11

      Church and state are supposed to separate, keep churches, for that matter ALL religions out of public schools. Sunday school is where RE belongs.
      How dare christians say I have no morals, while the Catholic church is stil doing its best to keep child molesting by its staff quiet (dont tell the police, tell the church) its their own form of sharia law.
      On the news tonight they have found lots of dinosaur fossils, Christians explain that one, haha.
      I notice some also say that its the churches that look after the poor. John Howards govt ensured that churches get millions of taxpayer $, that they supposedly give to the poor. Is that audited, what do they do with the money?
      I have noted christians saying that our church puts a meal on for the elderly once a month, what do atheists do?
      Well as an atheist PAYE taxpayer, I pay my tax and donate to non church charities. While churches don’t pay any tax on their massive landholdings and business interests and hand out charity as they see fit. Here have a loaf of bread and this bible too. (how do you cook a bible).

    • ifonly says:

      08:24pm | 23/07/11

      Today’s adults came to their moral position based on a great many influences including their religious education. They are sure they are right. They seek to deny their children access to the same influences that they had. Will the adults be disappointed when their children don’t hold the same values

    • Len says:

      08:48pm | 23/07/11

      They discontinued religious education for a reason many years ago. There were to many children attending states schools with differant beliefs and they could not cater for them all. What makes them think they can now?

    • Your name:Barry says:

      01:01am | 24/07/11

      Sunday school is for religion.
      School days should be better spent..

    • Evan says:

      04:55am | 24/07/11

      I was made to wait outside the door of the classroom while the other students learned about the christian religion, I remember once the teacher told the other students that I would be going to hell because i didn’t believe in god. this was in an Australian public school in 1988. my parents just didn’t want me to be indoctrinated into a religion at school and that i should also be able to make my own choices in what I believe in, so they asked that i did not attend these classes. I choose not to be part of a religion that would be cruel enough to tell a primary school child he would be going to hell because he is not attending a class, that is evil, evil behavior. and i am sad that children are still being left out , made to feel guilty , and that this evil religion is still hurting children today just like when I was young.

    • Mike says:

      05:11am | 24/07/11

      I haven’t read the entire thread, but I like what I’ve seen of Bilby’s comments. He is no fool who admits that there is much he doesn’t know. Banning religious education only encourages ignorance… how can people have an educated opinion of something they know nothing about? Surely, any claims as big as those that various religions make deserved to be considered rationally. If they’re incorrect, so be it. If they’re correct… well you wouldn’t want to have brushed them off without any thought… And let’s face it - how would we know without investigating them?

    • graham says:

      01:30pm | 24/07/11

      Well said, Mike. A few more comments from people like you would see this childish argument resolved. Why don.t you contribute more often.
      Your proposal is an excellent one. Have the religous leaders teach the children what is required of them so that they can improve their own lives and the lives of others. And if the disagree tell ‘em how well it has worked for the Taliban, al Qaeda etc. That’ll show them that you’re right, won’t it Mike.

    • Mandi says:

      05:49am | 24/07/11

      WOW!  So many angry people out there!  I’m glad my children have experienced both state & Christian schools.  It’s amazing some parents would ‘alienate’ their children from their peers for fear of them being
      ‘indoctrinated’.  Seriously?  How many times a week does your school hold a ‘religious’ class?  I’ll bet you spend more time demanding your children eat certain foods, watch certain TV shows(or not) .. either way .. aren’t YOU the one forcing YOUR opinions onto your children?  Why can’t you use what minimal time is spent exposing your children to ‘religion’ as a bonding session at home with your children to talk about what they have learned and why YOU think it’s not right.  Then and only then can your children truly make an informed decision about what is right for them - NOT what is right for you!  Think about it ...

    • Reggie says:

      01:02pm | 25/07/11

      Thought about it.  What?  No Islamic school Mandi?

    • Cathy says:

      07:43am | 24/07/11

      My son’s school does the following:

      All classess are not having scripture or RE or whatever you want to call it AT THE SAME TIME - it’s called rostering if your friends school can’t sort that out then they clearly are stupid

      Each class has a buddy class - those students who are not allowed to go to scripture go to their buddy class with work sent by their teacher to do for the 1/2 hour block.

      At my sons school they discuss different religions each week and have talks from members of the community involved in those non-christian religions which I am hoping will assist in building tolerance…

      Of course if one wants religion out of schools then prattling on about it in a vindictive manner will not work, just makes you look embittered. I was brought up catholic have never felt that I was going to burn in hell or be stuck down by a vindicative person in the sky. I made decisions about God many years ago and have decided that there is no such thing - I will allow my child to make his own decision about God via appropraite instruction and guidance and with a broader view of religion and all it’s about then what only one person can give him. I do not want my child to have opinions based purely on what his mother and father think becasue if I did that I’d just be indoctrinating him wouldn’t I?

    • Tracy says:

      10:03am | 24/07/11

      Hi Cathy,  your son’s school sounds awesome!  I’m guessing it’s not in Queensland?  There’s a law here which states that any child not attending bible study (aka:  RE) can not do anything in that time which might give them “an educational advantage” over the other children.  So, this means the teachers cannot assign them any work, and those children can not sit in on another class.  Nope, I’m not kidding.

    • David Stasey says:

      10:58am | 24/07/11

      @Cathy
      I am one of the noisy ones against “scripture”.
      What you have just described is exactly what I am arguing FOR.
      It is what the religious nuttbaggers are arguing AGAINST.

    • David Stasey says:

      10:58am | 24/07/11

      @Cathy
      I am one of the noisy ones against “scripture”.
      What you have just described is exactly what I am arguing FOR.
      It is what the religious nuttbaggers are arguing AGAINST.

    • amused says:

      11:01am | 24/07/11

      Superintendant Chamers: “Religion Has No Place In Public Schools The Way Facts Have No Place In Organized Religion. That says it all for me.  The child can go to the Library and study or do homework. Religion sucks.

    • Lilly says:

      11:46am | 24/07/11

      @Thomas Anderson - interesting you say you went to a catholic school and never had eternal damnation shoved down your throat. I went to a catholic school too and was repeatedly told, in these exact words, that I, personally,  was “condemed” and that “god is angry with you”, for anything from forgetting my lunch to not singing the correct words in church songs. We were told all non catholic people were going to burn in hell, even if they were good people.

    • The Enlightened One says:

      12:08pm | 24/07/11

      Jo, what is it that you really fear?  Acceptance that religion is simply a guide to life that strives to eliminates all the evil that you actually do fear?  I suggest you research the latest in cosmology, the latest scientific theories and you should be enlightened.  Of course you successfully seek controversy here and that is your aim, my suggestion is for your benefit.  Enjoy the journey.

    • Stacey says:

      12:15pm | 24/07/11

      When i was at primary school in the 90’s we had RE.  Our class enjoyed it because we didn’t have to do any school work for that time.  The two jehovah’s witnesses got to sit outside for that time and i only knew what a jehovah witness was is because i asked my mum why they didn’t have to do RE.  Looking back Religious Education was ‘christian education’ there was no mention of muslim faith or buddihism… so to say that all the religious information is being given to children is absolutely false.

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      02:28pm | 24/07/11

      John of Brisbane ……

      Thanks for the laugh, I mean really……. “Athiestic (which by the way is a registered religion)”

      LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

      Oh, if you’re actually serious …..

      Get a dictionary.

    • GP says:

      03:29pm | 24/07/11

      I started my walk with God at primary school and have continued for nearly 30 years because I have experienced life, hope, acceptance and a sense of purpose…...who is going to deny what I have experienced?

      Jo, just because you went through the motions for 19 years doesn’t mean the govt shouldn’t spend $165m on a program that has the capacity to influence a person’s life for good…..even if its one.

    • Al says:

      09:00am | 25/07/11

      Actualy, any money spent by the government should be put through a cost/benefit analysis.
      $165m per year on a program that assists private institutions to express their own opinions and objectives to children is not a good cost benefit analysis.
      If they want to do scripture classes, let them fund it (not the government).
      Oh and just to give you the opposite view to your own, I spent years at different churches and got - No Hope, No Acceptance and No sense of purpose.
      And it wasn’t just 1 church or branch, I went to numerous different ones with the same result.
      As for scripture classes, I attended and it was a colossal waste of time. I didn’t go to school to listen to fairytales. Many of the bits in the bible that are taught as truth in scripture have been PROVEN false in a historical context. (E.g. The exodus - didn’t occur because there were no Isralites at that time in history, they were Caninites who developed this story to solidify their power as a city state. The Ark, well I won’t go through the massive errors there. Many ‘Christian festivals’ and ‘holy days’ were also ripped off from the Pagan religions including: Easter (Oestra), Christmas (Mid-winter) etc.)

    • bob says:

      04:18pm | 24/07/11

      Get your children a guitar then they could join a metal band and burn down the churches smile

    • Phil Rawson says:

      09:21pm | 24/07/11

      Do you think we could perhaps just let children decide for themselves as to whether or not they want to follow a religion? This topic seems to be entirely about people deciding on religion for someone else. It should never be up to the parent (either way). It should always be up to the child. No matter how ridiculous religion/atheism seems to the parent.

    • Reggie says:

      12:33pm | 25/07/11

      You know what Phil ... superficially that sounds right to me too, EXCEPT ... we forget that there are religious tigers out there seeking to devour our children and turn them into followers of whatever freak beliefs they are pushing at the time.  I’ve seen it happen. It’s NOT the children deciding at all, it’s that they are CONSCIOUSLY manipulated by adults with specific agendas. 

      The rational decision making ability of children is questionable to as late as 25 years of age, as reflected in the car insurance and their mold-ability for military service. Sure there’s a range, but these religious “tigers” are up to all the tricks.  They ALSO know that no loving parent is going to attempt to dissuade their offspring from something that apparently makes them happy.  All part of that religious circle, an answer for everything and it’s all quite sickening.

    • Phil Rawson says:

      01:32pm | 25/07/11

      Reggie, I think you need to re-read that which I previously wrote. You may feel that way, but it’s not your choice to make for someone else. For example, my parents raised me in an exclusively Christian home and I wish that they did not. I wish I had more choice in the issue to make on my own. And it works both ways. Trust me. (Pardon the pun)

    • Reggie says:

      09:10pm | 25/07/11

      It doesn’t change anything Phil. My point is that no matter how gracious parents are about letting children decide for themselves, there are still those who take advantage of their pliable personalities to force them into the mold they demand.

      It is conceivable that some parents may become so resentful as to become violent. Then we would have the self-righteous being held up as saints and heroes of some crazy faith or even non-belief. Let’s face it, all of them are crazy when it comes to fantastic belief or resentment of it.

    • Em says:

      10:32pm | 24/07/11

      Oh for goodness sake, didn’t the witch hunts end a few hundred years ago?

      I went to a Catholic primary school and an all-girls Catholic high school in the 80s and 90s.  Whilst I do remember primary school RE classes being more about the stories of Jesus and learning to be good, decent people. Yeah, sure, there was the whole “indoctrination” thing (ie, we did the whole Reconciliation thing, the First Communion thing and the Confirmation thing) but I was a kid and really, all it meant to me was a)I get to be the centre of attention for the day and b)I loved being in church because it was (and still is) a gorgeous building. It started my love of architecture. 

      It was when I hit high school and was actually allowed to think for myself that I decided I whilst I was not in any way religious at all, it was still interesting to learn.  And we did learn about other religions of the world, but then, our RE classes also turned into Sex Ed classes as well - thoroughly entertaining and no, we weren’t told that abstinence is the only way, for those of you who might harp about that particular subject.

      It (the practice or the theory) never did me any harm, in fact I think, now that I’m older, it was a positive thing to experience - knowledge is power.

      My parents put me into Catholic school because they thought it was the better education system. Compared to some of the intolerance and occasional abject hatred demonstrated by those who were educated through the state system, I think I win.

    • Al says:

      08:48am | 25/07/11

      Why is it that so many of the pro-scripture threads seem to be missing some of the big points:
      1) Atheists are NOT against teaching about religion. However they are against teaching religion. A BIG difference. Teaching about religion would be - this is what XXX believes, this is what YYY believes etc.
      Teaching religion is ‘this is the one and only truth, believe and follow it or you will be punished.
      HUGE difference.
      2) As for Athiests having no morals etc. etc.
      This is just pure BS. I spent years looking into various different religions and in the end came to one conclusion. These religions don’t care an iota about me, they just want to enforce their rules and make money.
      As such I choose to not be associated with any religion and have never been happier. If my child came home and said they wanted to attend church I would let them, confident that eventualy they will see through the BS using reason.

    • Edward says:

      01:08pm | 27/07/11

      Ah reason, that seductive temptress. Leading towards a non-existent truth using an objectivity that doesn’t exist.

      Everyone has their own reason.

    • Steve Lucas says:

      09:39am | 25/07/11

      What’s up with this article?  There is no argument formed or valid opinion it’s just another blog that makes fun of other people’s belief.

      It’s starting to become less about the debate on religion and more about who can ridicule the most and generate the most comments with most of the comments producing more insults.

      Jo, so you were religious for 19 years of your life?  Did that only mean that you went to church for Easter and Christmas only?  If so, then it’s not being really religous is it?  Church is more of an after-thought for you except when you decide to jump on the bandwagon twice during the year… similar to the bandwagon approach you’ve taken from other columnists who merely make fun of religion for shock value and popularity points.

      Maybe you should take time to write something of value that is thought provoking and not just to please the masses.

    • Reggie says:

      12:16pm | 25/07/11

      Steve .... the problem with an article such as this is that it strives to have readers question their position in relation to there religiosity or lack thereof.

      Many teens are mentally whipped into a religious frenzy by those adults with a religious agenda. No doubt much of this frenzy will rebound on them later, well after the perpetrators have washed their hands of the responsibility for damaging young minds.

      It’s NOT a debate about religion because for the religious there is NO debate. They do NOT wish to consider any options, their minds are made up. May I suggest that the reason so many people are casual about their religious practices is that they are not convinced and they merely act out of a implanted notions.

      You leave the impression that you are one of those. You do NOT appreciate either religion or the actions of the religious being subject to doubt.

    • Steve Lucas says:

      01:31pm | 25/07/11

      Ah Reggie, you leave the impression that in your mind - and according to your comment - any and all people with religous faith are zealots?  With zero tolerance for individual thought or reason, with the sole purpose of ‘mentally whipping’ their religious agenda?  That’s a gross generalisation don’t you think?

      I belong to a faith, but I’m not intolerant of people outside of that faith just as they aren’t intolerant to me.  But the difference is I know why I chose to be a part of my faith and why it’s important for me regardless of the imperfections of those who force (which are few, I won’t deny their existence).

      My gripe with this article isn’t one of the authors ideals as to why she isn’t religious any longer, it’s one of the position of ridicule that she seems to take without offering anything else.  How about offering up an article on how she got to where she is, the reasons behind her decisions?  Offering up questions or answers that others are considering at this time?  I’d like to read from that perspective, regardless of it being about leaving a faith, I’d find that fascinating.

    • Reggie says:

      08:55pm | 25/07/11

      Steve your invitation for this journalist to explain how she got to where she is, opens up an opportunity for you to do the same. I fear you would not like that.

        Her ... or even ...my ..explanations would serve as a case against your reasons for believing in nothing other than on the basis of unqualified faith.  Then you’d say we were attacking your beliefs. Not at all. You have nothing more than your beliefs to offer and I am not interested in all your deviations that are little more than an extrapolation of those unquantifiable beliefs.  As I said somewhere before, you are NOT interested in debating reasons for your faith, they are unassailable.

      Matter of fact, even your being here to participate in this discussion suggests that you feel a need to defend your beliefs, which also suggest a lack of faith. Take it ones step further and we arrive at your need to spread the faith so that you feel more confident in your beliefs.

      See, we can all unravel the tangled web you weave.

    • Russ says:

      10:14am | 25/07/11

      Deep down athiests believe in God.  They are just so frustrated at the lack of evidence that they spend their time trying to justify through reason and logic that there is no God.  Someone that actually doesn’t believe in God wont care about this debate.

    • David Stasey says:

      11:08am | 25/07/11

      It’s taken 3 days, 4 hours and 29 minutes but we finally have a winner.
      Surely no-one can top this!!

    • Reggie says:

      11:38am | 25/07/11

      Such tiresome condescension. They could also be concerned that so many people can be so easily duped.

      Or they may be worried that religious with open-ended beliefs are capable of the very worst atrocities, such as killing infidels or non-believers or blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors.

      They may also be concerned that implanted belief in god as a child leaves them vulnerable to irrational diversions, make sure you ask Jim Jones when you see him.

      They may also be concerned that having discarded reason and logic, the religious are also irrational and illogical.  All these question need to be considered before either accepting of discarding them, something the religious believer does NOT believe.

    • Patrick McIvor says:

      01:28pm | 25/07/11

      It’s very divisive to tell readers that religious education is school chaplaincy. You know it’s not the same thing… right?

      Religious education is a non-funded, volunteer-run, volunteer-participated-in program that runs in some state schools.

      Whereas the Chaplaincy program is funded by the government ($165M), with a focus on supporting the overall wellbeing of students - and in fact chaplains are specifically restricted from pushing their religion at school, because it is not the purpose of the chaplaincy program.

      Chaplains do valuable work, and they deserve a fairer appraisal than what you have published.

    • MrsQ says:

      05:03pm | 26/07/11

      just a quick note Patrick - you mentioned that RE is “volunteer-participated-in program that runs in some state schools”.  It’s actually a participated-OUT program program that runs in ALL state schools.  And most schools don’t even let you know you can opt them out.

    • Jim says:

      04:45pm | 25/07/11

      Do most Christians push the “you’re going to Hell” line, or “God is good” line? I’m interested to know.
      Also, Jesus came to reconcile us with God. Hence if you don’t want to be reconciled with God, that’s your choice. Hell is what we get when we have an absence of God. Simple as that.
      if you don’t believe in God, then it really doesn’t matter for you then to be reconciled with him.
      Then even if God is real, it shouldn’t matter either way to you if he is absent in your life and possibly after life.
      Many people posting on here seem most upset by having others tell them what they should think. Fair enough.

    • Servaas says:

      12:38am | 26/07/11

      Note to atheists: you can’t fall back on ridiculous arguments of having ‘inbelief’ or being ‘non-believers’ as an absolute position. You are maybe not Christian, not jewish, not Muslim, not Hindu but there is no such thing as believing in nothing. Some agenda will be pushed, if it’s not Christian it will be Jewish, if it’s not Jewish it might be Viking, if not Viking some New Age stuff, if not that Secular Humanism (which is basically a mix of all other religions which seem appropriate at the time). Brainwashing will happen, the question is just who do you prefer to brainwash your kids? Or better even, how about you brainwash your kids or truly teach them what you believe is true or how to discern truth for themselves (in other words: be a good parent) and let them listen to whatever nonsense and spit out the lies or let them discuss what they’re being taught with you. All parents have the right to complain if their kids are being taught nonsense as well, especially if you’re paying for it: Christians can complain, ‘atheists’ (the concept just doesn’t make sense) can complain and Hindus can complain. Atheists will have to deal with fact that no one is going to give in to what they want if they continue to talk nonsense and the same applies to Christians or whoever else wants to thow around irrational arguments to push agendas. Atheism itself is irrational at its core though and therefore it is impossible to make a rational argument by using atheism as an argument. Unless your definition of atheism is one of fence sitting when it comes to deciding ion whether you believe there is a God or not but then please be consistent and remain on the fence throughout.

    • David Stasey says:

      07:38am | 26/07/11

      It seems I may have made the declaration 13 hours and 30 minutes early. You’ll have to step it up Russ.

    • Reggie says:

      08:54am | 26/07/11

      Servaas.  “Note to atheists: you can’t fall back on ridiculous arguments of having ‘inbelief’ or being ‘non-believers’ as an absolute position.”

      Your need to classify all who do not follow your (unstated) beliefs is noted. While we’re on the subject of ridiculous arguments, the subject here is about children being used as immature religious zealots. Your in put sounds rather angry for a mature “person” so I am led to suspect you are one of these young zealots.

      “You are maybe not Christian, not jewish, not Muslim, not Hindu but there is no such thing as believing in nothing. “

      Unfortunately it seems you’re wrong, that there is a rampant belief in nothing. Like the more modern video games, all religion is based on fantasy, extravagant flights of fancy and a straight line that extends from poverty to plenty to riches and beyond to a heavenly perfection. Evolution “absolutely SCREAMS otherwise.”
      “Some agenda will be pushed, if it’s not Christian it will be Jewish, if it’s not “Jewish it might be Viking, if not Viking some New Age stuff, if not that Secular Humanism (which is basically a mix of all other religions which seem appropriate at the time). Brainwashing will happen, the question is just who do you prefer to brainwash your kids?”

      My goodness you are quite evil, aren’t you. Not an attack I assure you, merely an observation. I guess this terminology probably came into the conversation around the various conference tables in Eastern Europe in 1942. Acting under orders was not a valid defense there either, they were forced to carry the responsibility for their own actions just as any reasonable society should demand of parents. Beating a child into mental submission and conformity leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth. However, since “possession of your children” is seen by you as authority to subject them to your will and the bible backs-up your “possession” rather than your “duty,” you would prefer no-one disagree with you. 

      “Or better even, how about you brainwash your kids or truly teach them what you believe is true or how to discern truth for themselves (in other words: be a good parent) and let them listen to whatever nonsense and spit out the lies or let them discuss what they’re being taught with you.”

      The “even better” is an interesting departure. It all sounds more accommodating but you’ll have to convince me that your reference to the following—-  “truly teach them what you believe is true or how to discern truth for themselves (in other words: be a good parent) and let them listen to whatever nonsense”—- is NOT loaded with all sorts of judgments and pre-suppositions on your part.  Succinctly, i think you’re being deceptive.

      “All parents have the right to complain if their kids are being taught nonsense as well,” ... parental judgment and demand for conformity?

      “especially if you’re paying for it:” WTF!!

      “Christians can complain, ‘atheists’ (the concept just doesn’t make sense)”

      Atheists? Your name and classification leading to your confusion.
      ” Atheists will have to deal with fact that no one is going to give in to what they want if they continue to talk nonsense” 

      What? But Christians can continue to talk nonsense, and what is nonsense? From your POV, anyone who does NOT agree with you. You ARE young aren’t you?


      “Atheism itself is irrational at its core though and therefore it is impossible to make a rational argument by using atheism as an argument.”

      Your attempt to defend your own religious irrationality has no bounds. You can shake the Bible in the air exclaiming at the top of your voice that “THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN” and still be struck stone dead by a bolt of lightning bolt from above. Not from God, by physics. 

      “Unless your definition of atheism is one of fence sitting when it comes to deciding ion whether you believe there is a God or not but then please be consistent and remain on the fence throughout.”

      Atheism defined? Belief? Consistent? I’d have thought it everyone’s duty to challenge extremism and I have yet to perceive a religion that is NOT extreme.

    • Servaas says:

      10:58pm | 26/07/11

      Sorry Reggie, I replied below instead of to the same thread.

    • Servaas says:

      10:40pm | 26/07/11

      “Your need to classify all who do not follow your (unstated) beliefs is noted. While we’re on the subject of ridiculous arguments, the subject here is about children being used as immature religious zealots. Your in put sounds rather angry for a mature “person” so I am led to suspect you are one of these young zealots. “

      Thank you for noting my need. Yes, I was quite irritated because this was not the first article I’ve read relating to the issue and it gets to one at times. Why is “person” in quotation marks? Just for interest sakes.

      “Unfortunately it seems you’re wrong, that there is a rampant belief in nothing. Like the more modern video games, all religion is based on fantasy, extravagant flights of fancy and a straight line that extends from poverty to plenty to riches and beyond to a heavenly perfection. Evolution “absolutely SCREAMS otherwise.”

      All things are not as they seem however. I am yet to meet a person with a belief in nothing. Evolution, as in people’s interpretation of matter through the use of scientific principles combined with beliefs?

      “My goodness you are quite evil, aren’t you. Not an attack I assure you, merely an observation. I guess this terminology probably came into the conversation around the various conference tables in Eastern Europe in 1942. Acting under orders was not a valid defense there either, they were forced to carry the responsibility for their own actions just as any reasonable society should demand of parents. Beating a child into mental submission and conformity leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth. However, since “possession of your children” is seen by you as authority to subject them to your will and the bible backs-up your “possession” rather than your “duty,” you would prefer no-one disagree with you.”

      As with the scientists mentioned above, observation leads to incorrect deductions because of preconceived ideas many times.

      “The “even better” is an interesting departure. It all sounds more accommodating but you’ll have to convince me that your reference to the following—-  “truly teach them what you believe is true or how to discern truth for themselves (in other words: be a good parent) and let them listen to whatever nonsense”—- is NOT loaded with all sorts of judgments and pre-suppositions on your part.  Succinctly, i think you’re being deceptive.”

      Ofcourse I judge and presuppose, who doesn’t but allow them to make up their own minds as well and talk to them about the alternative views too and explain yourself.

      “What? But Christians can continue to talk nonsense, and what is nonsense? From your POV, anyone who does NOT agree with you. You ARE young aren’t you? “

      I specifically said Christians shouldn’t talk nonsense either, nonsense is nonsense irrespective of the person’s beliefs just as truth is truth irrespective of a person’s beliefs. No, not anyone who doesn’t agree with me, anyone who doesn’t make sense according to me I will consider talking nonsense. I’m always open to others’ opinions and if you would like to give your view of atheism and why it could be considered a foundation for reason/argument I ‘d like to hear it and if you don’t mind question it?

      “Your attempt to defend your own religious irrationality has no bounds. You can shake the Bible in the air exclaiming at the top of your voice that “THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE IN” and still be struck stone dead by a bolt of lightning bolt from above. Not from God, by physics. “

      What is so irrational about my faith? Do you even know what I believe?

      “Atheism defined? Belief? Consistent? I’d have thought it everyone’s duty to challenge extremism and I have yet to perceive a religion that is NOT extreme.”

      Yes please, unless I jumped to the incorrect conclusion and you’re not atheist? Religion in itself is not extreme is it? Rather certain of its followers? I’d say the minority of all people follow their religion/beliefs to the extreme.

    • Anthony says:

      08:42am | 28/07/11

      This falls back into an old argument! You are effectively stating that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!

    • Servaas says:

      06:51pm | 28/07/11

      No, I’m not. But if you are adament that I am please explain it to me.

    • Jay says:

      03:26pm | 27/07/11

      Maybe you could brainwash them with Global warming crap instead. There is nothing wrong with scripture and people who say otherwise are ignorant.
      Our society laws are framed upon the 10 Commandments, although we have bent the rules:

      I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

      Not good if you are a Scientologist.

      2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

      Hmm to those people (including me) who have listed their religion as Jedi in the Census.

      3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

      In trouble here as are most AFL, ARL and A league fans.Blame the umpires!

      4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

      Unfortunately this one has been taken out of our hands by the evil Liberals who argued for years that sunday shopping should be allowed.Now we play AFL every day of the week. We are doomed.

      5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

      What about if you have gay parents? Could be a problem.

      6 “You shall not murder.
      Ok with that one. 1 out of 6.

      7 “You shall not commit adultery.
      2 out of 6.

      8 “You shall not steal.
      Unless you work for an Insurance, Bank or Superannuation Company, you should be ok.

      9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
      He deserves it.

      10 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

      Please with all the reality shows on at the moment how can you not covet anything?

      Abject fail see you all in Hell.

    • Servaas says:

      12:23am | 28/07/11

      Jay, read past Deuteronomy and you’ll see Hell is not your only option brother. You can actually choose against Hell too. Why do so many people stop reading somewhere in the Old Testament?

    • MrsQ says:

      03:00pm | 29/07/11

      There’s a census coming up.  I am SO putting Jedi as my religion!  Am thinking that if enough people do that the schools might have to allow it as a religion and the kids can learn science fiction for half an hour every week?  ......  Oh hang on, that’s what they are already doing.

    • Dan says:

      10:18am | 28/07/11

      This is truly pathetic, I mean really - is there any straw left in the barn after all the men you’ve built here today? I reached ‘Reason 1’ and had enough of this truly awful piece of polemic. I realise that religion is The Punch’s ‘cash cow’ for comments, but please - a little more intelligence wouldn’t go astray.
      One thing this woman’s son might have learnt in religion lessons is how to turn the other cheek - something that the author of this article might do well to practice. I don’t see Christians and other people of faith making fun in the media of all the ‘stupid’ atheists - so why do the non-religious think they have a right to do so? Honestly. Get a life.

    • Servaas says:

      06:57pm | 28/07/11

      Thanks Dan. All I also want is for atheists to explain to me their position and what they believe, how they argue from that position and so forth but they seem unwilling. I honestly don’t get atheism - I get the position but I don’t understand how people who take that position then engage in arguments?

    • Jacqui says:

      09:59pm | 28/07/11

      I’m always baffled when people say they don’t get atheism, and atheist argument, when the very definition of it is an absence of belief. It’s hard to argue for something that isn’t there.
      I shared my views about my children’s education a while ago, here
      http://www.wheresmyrider.com/2010/05/should-ethics-be-taught-in-schools-bloody-oath.html
      Suffice to say, humour seems a necessary evil in this argument,  as pity is so patronising

    • Servaas says:

      12:45am | 29/07/11

      Ok, let me explain. I get that an atheist doesn’t believe Jesus when he says he is the Son of God, or he doesn’t believe anyone else’s claims to be God and so on. But do they not believe in any god/creative force at all? Or is it just that they don’t believe they will be held accountable by that God? Why do they care about what is taught to children or what laws are implemented for what reasons? Or on what basis do they disagree with those who want to do it? Is it purely comfort, as in it doesn’t sit so well with me and therefore I will oppose it? Because they don’t have any grounds from which to call something right or wrong and good or bad, they’re view point does not allow for that. Unless they simply regard their own authority as sufficient?

      I’d like to discuss this because I’d love to know more.

    • Jacqui says:

      05:14pm | 29/07/11

      No. We (I) don’t believe in any higher power outside of oneself. So, no creative force responsible for making our amazing planet and all the things in it. We’re just lucky to have evolved to become what we are, where we are, from our beginnings as micro-organisms, to the humans we now are. When our time here is done we will return to the earth as every other living thing does, and decompose.
      We hold ourselves accountable, which I think is a far greater responsibility, and if things don’t go our way, then that is the luck of the draw.
      In some ways it is a sad existence - having been brought up to believe there will be a fabulous afterlife for me if I do the right thing while I’m here, it’s rather scary to realise there won’t be. That when i die, I die, end of story. But, as I mentioned in my own blog post, once you stop believing and having faith, with evidence and facts, you can’t go back.
      I am always careful to not sound insulting to believers, as I used to be one, and a small part of me wishes I still did (for that afterlife business), but believing in a god is like believing in an alien having complete control over my life and this world, and I can’t.
      I don’t begrudge you your faith, I applaud people’s differences, and I left it open for my children to decide, but for us, ethics classes means a good education in good morals, simply without the higher being. It’s so much better than the wasted time they have in non-scripture.

    • Servaas says:

      10:55pm | 29/07/11

      Thanks for the reply Jacqui. But you have to admit though that your whole explanation you gave me about how you see the universe and your place in it is what you believe? You don’t put it down as a concrete fact do you? I guess you believe this based on literature you read (programmes you watched, people you spoke to, etc) combined with logical argument as to which of what you heard you regard as true and which not? That is exactly what I did: I grew up in a household with certain beliefs, received input from teachers, television, books, random other people,etc (some of these were similar to that of my parents while others differed) and from what I’ve been exposed to I choose what I believe and what I don’t. About six years ago I became convinced that what I read and heard about Jesus (as in the Bible) is true - before this I was agnostic. I then started applying His teachings and still measure everything in life against it, I expose myself to what others believe as often as possible still and consider the validity of it and still the Biblical claims are the only ones that make practical sense to me.

      But I hear your position and disagree with you that you can’t go back - but from your perspective, fully, you can’t. Until you do of course but that you’ll have to see in time. Atheists turn to God all the time after they have encountered Him (not as in ‘ooh, that moment felt so spiritual/divine!’ but as a constant companion) and it’s fine if you think to yourself now: what is this guy smoking?

      Why do you believe God is like an alien having control over your life? Is that how he was made out to be by those around you or who taught you about Him? I specifically believe the God described by the Bible is the only real one, not another one crafted by man.

      And also (excuse all the questions) for God to be a reality to you would He have to fulfill certain criteria/expectations otherwise you would not be able to believe in his existence or should His existence merely have to be undeniably likely? Hope you get what I’m asking - as in, is the possibility of God existing at all just impossible, and does what you see around you confirm that, or do you expect Him to take a very specific form/likeness before you would consider him existing at all?

      If you don’t mind would you provide me with your blog address?

    • Servaas says:

      10:58pm | 29/07/11

      Sorry, the on provided above is yours. haha. Will have a look.

    • Jacqui says:

      10:31pm | 30/07/11

      Hi Servaas, Now I am concerned this will end up as a bit of a circular argument, as we both seem to respect each others beliefs without quite understanding them. I’ll try to start at the beginning of your questions. Yes, I do think there is concrete evidence enough relating to the formation of this planet and the subsequent life on it for me to be satisfied with the explanation, and yes, previously I had believed the complete opposite as that was what I had been taught until that point.
      The god as an alien thing is simply an analogy, rather than saying (as I have heard) imaginary friend, or such, as I feel that is a little condescending.
      I’m curious, was there a particular thing that made you change from agnostic to believer?
      As for your last questions, I wish i could answer, but in my mind there is no way god (any god) would be able to become a reality. I sometimes may hope a higher power could intervene to change an inevitable direction in my life, but deep down know it’s futile. Perhaps you may be satisfied with this answer - my mother (a lapsed, but faithful catholic) maintains that she will come and haunt me when she is dead to prove there is an afterlife. Only problem is, for me, that still doesn’t show the existence of a god smile
      Again, please don’t think I disrespect your beliefs, because I don’t. I just want mine to be respected, too, and I would still like my children to be moral and upstanding citizens, even if they will only suffer in this life, if they are not smile

    • Servaas says:

      07:02pm | 01/08/11

      Ok, cool. I definitely respect that you hold beliefs and really honour you for admitting to holding them seeing that some atheists insist faith is totally non-existent in their lives while none of us can see in full and we have to make steps of faith daily.

      The obvious outcome of freedom of religion, freedom of belief, or whatever freedom, is conflict however. So although society will tolerate eachother’s beliefs and respect eachother’s opinions when the tyre hits the road conflict will happen, arguments are necessary and certain beliefs can’t co-exist (practically) at once for the obvious reason that they’re directly opposing one another. A typical case is this one discussed here: what do we teach our children?

      What lead me to give my life over to God was the following (and obviously I will explain it from my current worldview which is ‘Christian’ which means I believe in a spiritual realm as the primary one, I believe God’s character is deducted from the Bible and through the life of Jesus (not simply traditions of men), I believe God is a person with whom I can have relationship, I believe we were created to have relationship with Him and then of course in the Enemy who is out to keep us out of relationship with God and that we are all in a constant spirtual battle):

      I grew up in a protestant religious environment, looking back at it now not too Christian really, more a case of it is good and safe to live according to the biblical ways. So it wasn’t hecticly forced or anything but obviously had an impact on my thinking. Then you start living life and see that it’s actually nonsense - a good way to live but not truth. That became my view of all religions basically. I lived for the normal things of this life: I wanted to be good, do good things and lived to my full potential. I was pretty much subject to secular humanist thought. I came to the point where I couldn’t take it anymore and told ‘the real god’ he must make himself known because I wanted truth, whatever that might look like. I’m not going to share the full conversion testimony now, it might get a bit long, so fast forward…

      I came to a place where I had know argument against God as described in the Bible, repented of my old life and got spiritually renewed by Him. (Because if he is for real the obvious thing would be to come to him in the fashion he descibes in the bible and if it is for real it will happen as described)

      That was just more than 6 years ago and to this day I’m in realtionship with Him, He keeps delivering, I keep reading up and watch dvd’s about world religions, debates between believers of all the different faith movements, check out scientific arguments stemming from the various beliefs, read papers and sites like this one and still it is only God that makes sense. ‘Evidence’ and argumenst can obviously only take us that far, in the end the proof is in the eating: I see how God sets people free from spirtual bondages, how He speaks the same words to people around me and myself, how he heals the sick, deliver people from demons - as the Bible explains life and its practicalities so it happens.

      The best way I can suggest for you to ‘see’ this is to get hold of the documentary film ‘Furious Love’ - it’s one of the most profound films I’ve seen but like with most things Christian it rarely enters the mainstream (that is about to change though). I’ll even purchase and post you a copy if necessary?

      To me as an individual it doesn’t make a difference what others believe but to know truth and the effects of it in my life and see others still blind to it (I don’t say this as an insult, hope you understand that I truly believe every person can only experience true joy in God, outside of that it is a second rated life), that is always frustrating.

    • Servaas says:

      06:00pm | 02/08/11

      I have to add as well, if they really teach scripture the way many suggest above: focussing on hell only and using it as a way to keep kids in check in stead of actually telling them about God and what the bible actually teaches, it is maybe good to protest against them and get decent teachers in.

    • Jacqui says:

      09:29pm | 02/08/11

      Yes, it’s true, there are some dodgy teachers out there, and it seems there is not much of a filter system or any checks and balances, so to speak!
      It’s also very true that God can set people free from spiritual bondage, heal the sick, and deliver them from demons. I do believe that. But it’s only for the people who have faith smile The rest of us will have to rely on ourselves.
      I have enjoyed your insight, Servaas.

    • Servaas says:

      09:03pm | 03/08/11

      Ok Jacqui, thanks for the time. We will leave it at that disagreement then (I still find your position very strange though - not believing in God yet believing He sets people free? smile (I’m not sure how to do the fancy smileys you do but that’s the old school keybord one right there) But yes, my questioning of atheism will remain a life long battle I guess) and from my side I hope you find and acknowledge truth when you encounter it.  This is a debate that could get very heated and I myself usually struggle to hold back on the sarcasm and what not when engaging in it but I believe it is a necessary debate and it is obviously better when we do play the ball (idea, philosophy, opinion, or whatever) and not the man, so thanks again for that.

      Do look out for that ‘Furious Love’ dvd though, even if it’s just to gain better perspective of where a big part of the ‘bible believing, fundamentalist, so-called right wing’ part of the church is heading: pretty much conservative theology and liberal practice.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      07:14am | 04/08/11

      Hi Servaas thank you for sharing, I was encouraged and uplifted by your faith in our God of Love and I commend you for your strong stand for Him against Atheism. What unbelievers don’t understand is that God is our filter system so we share from the heart as He leads and empowers us to do so.

      I have been a R.E teacher for over 15 years and this is my heart choice, I also remember Jesus said not to stop the Children from coming to Him because such is the Kingdom of God and the Scriptures tell us they are to have a firm foundation that will last them throughout life, this is why we are to teach them God’s Truths both by word and example because it is the only really firm foundation that we can base our lives on. My focus like many R.E teachers is to share with the Children God’s great Love for them and all Mankind and His Compassion, Provision and Power and there are so many real life stories in the Bible that show very clearly these Truths.

      But I’m not opposed to speaking the Truth in Love which sometimes needs to be tough Love to those who are mature enough to understand, such as those who post on Punch etc. Jesus and the Disciples were faithful to share the full Gospel and so have been many other Christians through the ages. We are to warn others about making wrong choices in reference to their relationship with God and their eternal destination, because we know if they reject Him and His guidelines where they will spend Eternity and like God who does not want anyone to perish, I don’t either and I’m sure you and many other Christians feel the same. But like you I don’t judge them, they may come to heart repentance on their deathbeds by the good seeds that have been planted, only God knows their Eternal destiny.

      I’m an Evangelist at heart and gifted in this way as you seem to be also Servaas and it is my heart desire to share God’s Truth, having been deceived by Evolution and knowing the bondage of being an Atheist.

      One thing I would like to affirm from the Scriptures is if we have been Born again of God’s seed and are perfected in His Love,  unlike Jacqui claims to have done ?? we will not loose our faith because our assurance in the reality of a Loving God does not come from our head but our heart, and as you also shared many know about Him but don’t know Him or His Truth and sadly this is also True for some who claim to be Born again but live wordly lives - 1 John 3:1-11

      The DVD Furious Love sounds good, but not sure where to get one, maybe a Christian book store, I will have a look.

      The cute smileys seem to be posted by Punch unless you found a way of putting one on your post, they amuse me and I’m sure others.

      I would love to hear your full Testimony Servaas even if not possible on Punch, so if you have time to share, my e-mail address is…  anne.stocks@yahoo,com.au

      Thanks again - Christian Love Anne.

    • Servaas says:

      11:04pm | 04/08/11

      Thanks Anne, yes the dvd could be available at certain bookstores, otherwise get it from here: http://furiouslovefilm.com/

      I’d share my testimony in more detail through your email address yes. Will only do so in a while though seeing my email access it limited at present.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      12:20am | 06/08/11

      Thanks for the Link Servaas and I look forward to hearing from you, there is no rush, when you can is ok, it seems I might have posted the wrong e-mail address again, not sure why it’s rejecting,  I have never had trouble on previous posts, I offer it mainly for those who want to share in more detail or want me to share in more detail,  anyway I have double checked it this time…

      anne.stocks@yahoo.com.au

      I looked at the trailer on your link Servaas but was not sure what their focus was, although I do agree some Churches have got it wrong, our focus needs to be on God not Satan and demons, but we are to be still aware of them and their deception, this is why we need to be able to discern between real Miracles and signs and wonders that were prophesied in Scripture and those that are counterfeit, anyway I’m going to see if I can get the DVD as you suggested next week and I will let you know how I find it.

      Take Care - Christian Love Anne.

    • Anne Stocks says:

      08:15am | 07/08/11

      Al says .... What hope does Atheism offer: Teaches the finality of death, once you are dead that’s it, no reward, no punishment…..So have you died Al, you seem to be very sure Christians are wrong and there is no Afterlife as they share, sorry but unless you have indeed died it is just guesswork on your part, but as Christians we do have proof, but of course you believe God is lying to us in the Scriptures and you have proved this by dying and coming back to tell us - Good on you and very sad for you.
      But of course you have studied God’s Truth in detail also haven’t you Al so your refuting God’s Truth comes from having proved it wrong or is it just your own or someone else’s worldly understanding.
      No doubt like other Atheists who post on Punch you believe the propaganda and lies on the Internet written by other deceived Atheists, and even by some who claim to be believers but are not in the True God of the Bible He is only as they imagine Him to be and they twist Scripture to fit Him into their own agenda and understanding. It saddened me to read some of the lies that were posted from their quotes in this and other Topics but also surprised me that they were believed without evidence as to their Truth.

      Yes I believe as some claimed who posted that many Religions have Superstition as a base but this is not the Truth with Christianity, it has Power and Wisdom and is based on Truth…Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, He is not just a human being propagated by Mythology and Superstition that Pagans have made into a god,  this is very evident as you read the Prophesies in the Bible that have been fulfilled and Truths that we know today which only God could have known when man recorded them as He asked them to many centuries before they happened.
      Space , Medicine, Man’s Eternal Destiny, Animal behaviour, the Worlds formation and destruction etc all are addressed and many of the Prophesies have already come True word for word and the rest will also…

      Why do I share God’s Truth and other Christians,  because we believe without a doubt it is the only way and we care enough to warn others that they are in danger if they reject it.
       
      Perhaps you would like to hear the Testimony Al and see the Video of a Christian man who did die and came back to tell us all about it and it is recorded that he was clinically dead so it is not deception, also others have been brought back from the dead both in Bible times and in our times ....
      Testimony ...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2onp_kgMgI8
      Videos ....   
      http://video.google.com/videoplay decide=3682855866783766146
      http://www.aglimpseofeternity.org/content.php?folder_id=14
      Kind regards Anne.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

#Thomson will never get brothel tapes, CCTV-in-brothels experts tell the ABC. http://t.co/7YFORBBJ

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd there's always time for Din Tai Fung.

ToryShepherd

@drpiotrowski will be there just in time for Din Tai Fung

Daniel Piotrowski

@ToryShepherd I hope that's in your piece tomorrow. Also - are you coming over this week or laaaaaater?

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter