Schools ethics debate is testing the patience of Job

JJJ says:

08:52am | 27/04/10

I agree with you Josh. It’s a great story to be studied for conflict and drama. It’s packed with it. It’s probably prodominantly appropriate for high school though, because I would say it’s rated at last R 15+ with all the sodomy, sacrifices, and revenge.

Milton Caine says:

12:11pm | 29/04/10

It is worth noting that when the States took over the schools from the Churches (The only education that was on offer was established by the various churches)  the agreement was that there would be offered one period of religious instruction per day and that no other class would be offered at the same time. This has been reduced to one period once a week and now a competing course on offer. The ethics of a Government, a Minister and a Department that would renege on such an agreement, to the extent that they have, can not be trusted to set up a high quality ethics program.

Matt says:

12:58pm | 29/04/10

JJJ.  Having read the thing, I have to disagree with you when you say “It’s a great story to be studied for conflict and drama. It’s packed with it.”  Sure, there is conflict and drama, but it’s not a great story.  I’ll ignore the immorality of the thing and consider it just as a work of fiction.

Firstly, much of it is very boring.  You have to read through a lot of boring begating, which is stripped of all the interesting begating details; a lot of it is extremely repetitive, the gospels are a particularly good example; and much of it is just lists of rules.  And don’t get me started on Psalms.

Secondly, it has very little suspension of disbelief.  It’s hard to identify with a lot of the very one dimensional OT characters and some of the stories are too ridiculously absurd to take seriously.  If I can’t buy into the character and the story, I might as well be reading a menu at McDonalds.

Thirdly, it lacks a good story arc.  Sure, as a collection of short stories, some of them are pretty good (Job and Lot are amongst my favourites) but as a whole, it doesn’t really gell into a consistent narrative.  A little bit too much dues ex machina for my liking.

Fourthly, internal inconsistencies.  Sure, you can explain away the fact that god goes from wrathful and vengeful to loving and forgiving with the establishment of a new covenant through the ressurection, but if our sins were forgiven, why are women still afflicted with pregnancy pain, which was a punishment for original sin?  That’s just one, there are many more.

Fifthly, suspense.  Suspense is an important element in fiction, but when the jews go to war with the (insert ancient tribal name here) you know that they are going to win in genocidal proportions.  Every time.  It’s just not much fun reading through to the foregone conclusion, even when they mix it up a bit by insisting that moses stick his arms in the air to gain victory.

As an aside, the MA15+ nature wont matter for school english classes.  I mean, they study shakespeare already, and that stuff has some seriously R18+ moments.

Matt says:

12:58pm | 29/04/10

JJJ.  Having read the thing, I have to disagree with you when you say “It’s a great story to be studied for conflict and drama. It’s packed with it.”  Sure, there is conflict and drama, but it’s not a great story.  I’ll ignore the immorality of the thing and consider it just as a work of fiction.

Firstly, much of it is very boring.  You have to read through a lot of boring begating, which is stripped of all the interesting begating details; a lot of it is extremely repetitive, the gospels are a particularly good example; and much of it is just lists of rules.  And don’t get me started on Psalms.

Secondly, it has very little suspension of disbelief.  It’s hard to identify with a lot of the very one dimensional OT characters and some of the stories are too ridiculously absurd to take seriously.  If I can’t buy into the character and the story, I might as well be reading a menu at McDonalds.

Thirdly, it lacks a good story arc.  Sure, as a collection of short stories, some of them are pretty good (Job and Lot are amongst my favourites) but as a whole, it doesn’t really gell into a consistent narrative.  A little bit too much dues ex machina for my liking.

Fourthly, internal inconsistencies.  Sure, you can explain away the fact that god goes from wrathful and vengeful to loving and forgiving with the establishment of a new covenant through the ressurection, but if our sins were forgiven, why are women still afflicted with pregnancy pain, which was a punishment for original sin?  That’s just one, there are many more.

Fifthly, suspense.  Suspense is an important element in fiction, but when the jews go to war with the (insert ancient tribal name here) you know that they are going to win in genocidal proportions.  Every time.  It’s just not much fun reading through to the foregone conclusion, even when they mix it up a bit by insisting that moses stick his arms in the air to gain victory.

As an aside, the MA15+ nature wont matter for school english classes.  I mean, they study shakespeare already, and that stuff has some seriously R18+ moments.

Matt says:

01:01pm | 29/04/10

Milton, Government has made a new Covenant with His people.  All the old deals are out the window, there is a new way of doing things.  This happens all the time under the most moral and righteous beings that can be conceived.  Ref:  New Testament.

Ally says:

02:34pm | 29/04/10

My favourite part of the Bible is “The Book of Revelation”. Wouldn’t that make a fantastic blockbuster of a movie? It’s got everything in it that a teenage boy could want. What an amazing imagination the author(s) had!

Chris says:

08:52pm | 29/04/10

More value can be gained from Shakespeare than the bible

curious says:

09:58am | 27/04/10

I’m interested in the two separate accounts of creation in Genesis - I know the main one, but where’s the other one? (And no, I’m not pentecostal).

persephone says:

10:14am | 27/04/10

Genesis Chapter 1 outlines the ‘God made the world in seven days’ scenario. In this version, birds, sea life and animals are created before man. Man is created in the plural - a number of people, not one or two - and told that the completed world around them was made specifically for their use.

Genesis Chapter 2 has God creating a barren universe, without animals or plants, creating a single man out of dust, and then creating animals and plants for him. He then creates a woman.

So two very different chronologies.

A Bob says:

10:28am | 27/04/10

The first account has God going by the name Elohim and He speaks mankind into existence. The second case has God as Yaweh and He creates Adam by taking a handful of dirt, spitting in it to make clay, and fashioning Adam from it.

God goes by numerous names in the OT, some resemble the names of Canaanite gods and show how Hebrew religion evolved from the local ones.

Akos Balogh says:

09:49am | 27/04/10

John Neve said: ‘Even today most of the worlds conflicts have a basis in misplaced faith’.

Sure, but faith in what? How many of the conflicts today originated, and are carried on, by people who take the Christian bible and it’s teachings (such as Jesus teaching on loving your enemies) seriously? To put all ‘faith’ and all ‘religion’ in one basket shows a profound ignorance of the fundamental differences between the different religions. Not convinced? Just compare any country that has a strong Judeo-Christian heritage (e.g. the west) , and then compare it to countries whose heritage is based on other religious beliefs (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism). You can’t tell me that a Christian heritage hasn’t been a blessing to those of us here in the west - or would you prefer to raise a family in places such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc?

Futhermore, as one who fled communist eastern Europe, I can confidently say that the most intolerant, barbaric regimes in human history have been overtly secular ones (e.g. Nazism, Communism). Why? Well, when you replace Christian moral absolutes with secular ones (hint: there are no secular moral absolutes), then anything is possible - liquidation of Jews, or of anyone deemed to be an ‘enemy of the people’. It is only the Christian moral framework that gives a rational reason for holding to the absolute worth of the individual. Secular ethics will not give us a RATIONAL reason to hold to such a thing. Sure, it may give us a PRAGMATIC reason, (e.g. it is good for society), but then we’re at the mercy of those who might persuade us that what is good for society is that we liquidate Jews, or those who oppose the ‘workers paradise’. We’ve seen enough of such behaviour in the 20th century, don’t you think?

As for teaching our youth to ‘think for themselves’: it’s pretty hard to teach youth to think for themselves when you’re implicitly teaching them that Scripture is irrelevant and unimportant. Why not give youth a chance to check Scripture out for themselves instead? That way they can at least make a more balanced decision about ethical issues.

The Scriptures, let’s at least spend some time on that.

John A Neve says:

10:20am | 27/04/10

Akos Balogh,

I really think you have answered your own questions. I used the term “faith” because all “faith(s)” have killed more than they have ever saved.
As to the “christian moral framework”, try telling that to many young people over the last few enlightened years. Look at the history of “Christian” countries. That leading light communism our Joe was, needless to say, trained in a seminary.

No, I am sorry Akos but religion, any religion, is a blight on mankind.

Steely Dan says:

12:51pm | 27/04/10

@Akos,
“Futhermore, as one who fled communist eastern Europe, I can confidently say that the most intolerant, barbaric regimes in human history have been overtly secular ones (e.g. Nazism, Communism).”
Nazism was overtly secular? Look up the term ‘Gott mit uns’, and explain its secular purpose on a Nazi uniform.
And Stalin (himself a former seminarian) persecuted all churches at first, then supported the Russian Orthodox Church (and then re-persecuted it).  Neither action - persecution or state support - is a secular activity.  Secularism is the separation of church and state.  The state has no business backing a church, and certainly has no business persecuting one.  You need to understand what secularism is before you can criticise it.

TC says:

02:03pm | 27/04/10

John, Id say you talked yourself out of your argument.

Blind faith is a problem and stems from a lack of education on the faith. It is the uneducated, ingnorant and plain stupid who are talked into being religious warriors, bomb chuckers,  kamikazis, and crusaders.

I havent done the research but it would appear there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a lack of education is common amongst those who become religious zealots. There would also likely be eveidence to suggest that religious education (not indoctrination) reduces the participation in conflict.

Knowledge and understanding is never a bad thing in my experience. Ignorance on the other hand has awful potential.

John A Neve says:

03:57pm | 27/04/10

TC,
It is good to see you agree with me!!
Your post just confirms what I said at the start, a good rounded education and the ability to think fo one’s self and the scriptures are a waste of time.

Yob says:

07:31pm | 27/04/10

My take on the article was that it’s not about teaching faith, but about learning the hostorical influences the Bible has had. Think of it like the Magna Carta…although, that document is still relevant….think of it like Shakespeare. No longer relevant but lends itself to providing historical and literary context to our world.

Ken West says:

09:38pm | 27/04/10

@John A Neve
@Steely Dan

You guys are being woolly-minded when you try and link Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany with Christianity.

Both men scorned Christianity and the Church, but used them for propaganda purposes when it suited their long-term goals. Both men lived in cultures steeped in Christian heritage (you point out Gott Mit Uns and the Orthodox church in your posts) but both sought to overthrow those cultures. Both men were heirs to 19th century ideologies that were based on Deist or Atheist worldviews (Social Darwinism, Marxism).

Let me recommend Alan Bullock’s excellent biography “Hitler and Stalin: parallel lives”. He doesn’t try to equate these men, but contrasts and compares them. And his conclusion about these men? Neither man had any time for religion.

Ken West says:

10:40pm | 27/04/10

@Steely Dan

You say “You need to understand what secularism is before you can criticise it” but it’s also worth understanding it so one can defend it!

The dictionary.com site (I’m in a hurry!) defines “secularism” as “1. secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element”

Both Soviet Communism and Nazism clearly fit this description. The only evidence I need to present are the youth and educational programs these regimes set up. Both Komsomol and the Hitler Youth sought to mold future party members. Both regimes reformed university education along ideological lines, Marxist-Leninist on one hand, and Racist on the other.

As for the other assertions ... ‘Gott mit uns’ was on the Wehrmacht uniform but not the SS uniform, so it’s not a Nazi Party slogan ... Stalin was educated in a seminary, and despised what he learned… and religious persecution has been clearly practised by regimes for secular purposes, whether you want to believe it or not.

Tone says:

11:18pm | 27/04/10

Social Darwinism is a disparaging term that is poorly defined.

Stalin did spurn religion, despite his seminary years, until he re-opened churches and seminaries during WW2.

Hitler didn’t spurn religion, but turned on those who opposed him, and it was piece-meal opposition that allowed him to engage some religious quarters, and supress others.  He was variably supported by the German Catholic Church, but more supported by the Vatican.

John A Neve says:

06:52am | 28/04/10

Ken West,
I do wish you’d read what I wrote and not what you dream. I have nver mentioned Russia or Germany.  What I wrote about Stalin was a statement of fact.

Both men used religion for their own ends, so what?
Politics is the art of manipulating the masses and religion does exactly the same thing for the very same reasons, Power & Control.

Ken, I have never read the books you mention, but I suggest you read them both again and think deeply about their message.

Akos Balogh says:

08:18am | 28/04/10

@ John A Neve:
‘No, I am sorry Akos but religion, any religion, is a blight on mankind.’

It seems to me that your position is very strongly held. Fair enough. But I’ll let some atheists argue against such a position:

1) Have a look at what Times correspondent Matthew Parris had to say about Christianity in Africa (which he experienced first-hand):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

2) And check out what an atheist writing for ‘The New American Thinker’ has to say about Secularism’s ongoing debt to Christianity:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/secularisms_ongoing_debt_to_ch.html

@ Steely Dan:

The German Wehrmacht may have been able to keep it’s belt buckle under Nazism, but ideologically,  Nazism was heavily influenced by man-centred enlightenment philosophy - e.g. Hitler’s favourite philosopher was Nietzshe (the one who proclaimed ‘God is dead’). I think the comment by Ken West on this thread makes this point well. As for what secularism is? I’m using the term in a philosophical sense, rather than merely the separation between church and state:it is a view of the world where God either does not exist, or has no relevance to everyday life.

Thanks for the discussion!

Ken West says:

09:57am | 28/04/10

@John A Neve

I apologise for causing you to feel I was putting words in your mouth. I should have responded to you and Steely Dan separately.

By the way, I am currently re-reading Bullock’s biography as recent conversations have renewed my interest in this area. Bullock’s summary of the worldviews of these men is worth quoting, particularly given what you’ve said about the evils of Politics and Religion and the value of “thinking for ourselves” ...

“In such matters [namely Christianity, pagan mythology and astrology], [Hitler] shared with Stalin the same materialist outlook, based on the nineteenth-century rationalist’s certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity. On the other hand, Hitler’s own myth at least had to be protected, and this led him, like Napoleon, to speak frequently of Providence, as a necessary if unconscious projection of his sense of destiny which provided him with both justification and absolution. ‘The Russians’, he remarked on one occasion, ‘were entitled to attack their priests, but they had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures and that a creative force exists.’”
- Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, Alan Bullock, 1991,  p412

... and ...

“Both [Hitler and Stalin] were remarkable only for the roles they assumed. Outside of those, their private lives were insignificant and impoverished. And each of the roles was consecrated to a vision of a world which, however great the differences between them, were equally inhuman - worlds in which whole populations could be uprooted and moved about; whole classes could be eliminated, races enslaved or exterminated; millions of lives sacrificed in war and even in times of peace; individual men and women dwarfed by the scale of the monolithic structures - state, Volk, party, army, giant industrial complexes, collective farms, labour and concentration camps - into which they were organised.”
- Ibid, p413

Both men rationalised mass murder. John, you say we should “teach our youth about life, the environment, justice, health, truth and most importantly, to think for themselves” and I take that to mean you see Reason as being the guide here.  But I fear that we Humans are all too capable of rationally justifying others’ Hell for our own Heaven, and I think that’s what you mean when you say “blind faith has killed more people than it has ever saved”.

So what holds Reason in check so we don’t end up simply justifying our own evil behaviour? I fear you might be engaging in your own form of “blind faith” if you think that teaching people to think for themselves will do this.

Steely Dan says:

01:20pm | 28/04/10

@ Akos
One of Hitler’s primary justifications for his anti-semitism was passages from the OT, as well as Calvin’s anti-Jewish rants.  This is not secular reasoning whatsoever.  Hitler was critical of the teachings of many churches, but not of the broader category Christianity itself - Hitler even advocated Germany taking up what he called ‘Positive Christianity’ (a sort of orthodox Christianity with the anti-Jewish stuff highlighted).

@Ken West
Why do you say that Hitler was influenced by ‘social Darwinism’ (which for the record has nothing to Darwin himself)? And you also seem to be equating atheism, oppression of religion and secularism (I’m an atheist and a secularist; Hitler was a Christian and in favour of crushing some churches and installing his own brand of national theology; and Stalin was (we assume) an atheist who at various times crushed or backed religions as a means of social control). Marx was critical of religion (as I am), but I’ve never seen anything in Marx that advocates oppressing it.  I agree with Marx’s ‘opium of the masses’ quote but would never advocate the state infringing on the right to believe or worship together.

The definition of secular doesn’t help as it could describe a regime that oppresses religion, and a regime that doesn’t (which I advocate).  I use the term secular as a true separation of church and state (as Locke advocated). Meaning that the state does not support or oppress religions or individual churches, and that no church should hold any power over the government outside of its right to have believers elect their representatives like everyone else - as (almost) happens in Australia.

“‘Gott mit uns’ was on the Wehrmacht uniform but not the SS uniform, so it’s not a Nazi Party slogan”
That’s still a clear violation of the separation of church and state. If the federal government put ‘Jesus is awesome’ on the ADF uniform, but the ALP party slogan is ‘Unionists do it collectively’, I would still have every right to say that the Rudd Govt was not secular. And I wasn’t implying that Stalin was religious, only that its ironic.

HughM says:

03:14pm | 28/04/10

Joseph Stalin trained for several years to be a priest in a Georgian seminary, but left not able to pay fees. He then discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a Marxist revolutionary, eventually joining Lenin’s Bolsheviks in 1903.  He married and they shortly had a son, but his wife soon died, with Stalin saying all human feeling died.

Stalin remained religious, even pious, throughout his life (Conquest, 1991). 

Historian Edvard Radzinsky used recently discovered secret archives to find that Stalin’s reversal on bans against the church during World War II followed a sign that he believed he received from heaven (Radzinsky, 1995).  After a mysterious retreat, he began making his peace with God. Something happened which no historian had yet written about. On Stalins orders,  He concecrated a new church hierarchy and Russian Orthodox Churches were re-opened, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened and many priests were brought back to the camps. In Leningrad, besieged by the Germans and gradually dying of hunger, the inhabitants were astounded, and uplifted, to see wonder - icon ‘Our Lady of Kazan’ was brought out into the streets and borne in procession.

Conquest,R. (1991) Stalin: Breaker of Nations.

Radzinsky,E. (1996) Stalin: The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia’s Secret Archives.
Doubleday, 1996 (ISBN 0-385-47397-4); Anchor, 1997 (ISBN 0-385-47954-9).

HughM says:

03:19pm | 28/04/10

Secularism has been variously defined as
(1) ‘promoting neutrality/fairness in the public square’,
(2) ‘separating governance from religion’,
(3) ‘managing a society of diverse beliefs’,
(4-6) ‘a regime of religious regulation’, ‘opposition to religious or spiritual influences’ and ‘eliminating religion from politics and society’.

The first three are what could be described as ‘pluralist’ conceptions, the latter three ‘eliminative’. 

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/4860

Steely Dan says:

04:34pm | 28/04/10

@ Hugh M
Thanks for that, I probably didn’t appreciate that there were that many definitions in usage.

HughM says:

05:47pm | 28/04/10

@ SteelyDan.  you’re welcome.  Intersting that Stalin’s religiosity persisted, and he used it.

James1 says:

01:45pm | 29/04/10

To be fair Akos, the best societies in human history have also been secular.  Australia, for instance, was founded as a secular nation and remains one to this day.

Brendan says:

07:32pm | 08/05/10

Quoth Ken West, “being woolly-minded when you try and link Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany with Christianity.”

Yet scores of Catholic and Protestant Germans dutifully gave effect to Hitlers orders and plans, having democratically elected him in the first place.

Wake up, West. No more wide-eyed cherrypicking of the good and disowning of the bad. Religion is what religion does - the whole kaboodle.

Fredd says:

10:37am | 27/04/10

General Religious Education (GRE) is in the NSW curriculum - Yr 3(?) - and gives an overview, and probably a trip to a few places of worseship.

Morals and ethics are independent of and older than religion (the ancient Greeks, Confucius, Buddha, etc)

neil says:

02:54pm | 27/04/10

Correct Fredd,

In fact most of the morallity and philosophy attributed to Jesus in the NT is lifted straight from Buddah (circa 500 BC) and Socrates (circa 400 BC)

Even the virgin birth and miracles like walking on water and turning water to wine are lifted straight from Buddah. This merger into the Jesus story most likely occured along the trade roots from Asia through the middle east to Europe as the stories were retold they we just merged together. When the Jesus story made it to Greece it was the followers of Socrates, the Cynics who wrote them down and created the NT as we know it and they merged their beliefs in as well.

Why teach from a cheap rip off when you can teach from the real thing.

Steely Dan says:

12:04pm | 27/04/10

Absolutely agree.
And as for increasing Biblical literacy - I can’t see this as being anything more than a fairly transparent method of state-backed proselytisation and/or a waste of time for school students.  Bible study as a guide to history might be fascinating, but that’s a university subject, not something that needs attention in between maths, physics, english and biology.

Jen says:

10:08am | 27/04/10

Mate that just makes me so sad and angry when I read another case of religious brutality (in all its many forms - verbal, physical). I love studying ethics too - in fact I teach it at college level. I also love the bible - not for its religious value but because it talks about something I don’t get from ethics, and that’s a relationship. I have found that I can read the bible and let it separate itself from all the crappy dogma.

Seano says:

11:04am | 27/04/10

My sisters and I were dragged around the country growing up and as the eldest I went to I went to 13 different state primary schools in NSW/QLD/VIC. We all can relate multiple tales of “religious brutality” from the different schools we attended. This says to me that the idea of scripture being taught by unqualified proselytizing ratbags is inherently wrong.

Teach about religions and belief not belief.

Milton says:

10:50am | 28/04/10

You may have good issues to examine and you now want to deal with ethics and upon what will you want it grounded. The ethics that supported apartied?  The ethics that support power of the fittest? Upon what will it be founded? Will you borrow Christian principles? Will you borrow Buddism priniples?
Apart from a foundation on which all are agreed there can be no common ethics.
I have read some thoughtful submissions that critisize the failure people to apply well a religious faith and that is justified; but is this a failure of the religion or of one applying their life to the religion, or the religion to the life?
Am I to judge the new ethics classes by how well they are lived out?
You may choose to reject religion but if God is, your lack of belief will not cause Him not to exist. Much in life is in the relm of the unknown and though many choose to deny it accepting the things by faith is a part of every day life. Even some things we can prove have basic assumptions upon what we base them that we canot prove but accept (by faith) as fact.
Worth a thought.

Markus says:

11:35am | 27/04/10

Even more reason for us not to just pretend it wasn’t the most influential text of the last 2000 years, for better or for worse.
It was at the core of all Western development (or lack thereof in places) since the fall of the Roman empire.
Plus it contains themes and proverbs that are still in use in English today, but being used incorrectly in most cases because the person has not actually read the Bible!
I have always thought Bible study should be included in a history or social studies type course (someone suggested in English as fiction which could also work).
Studying it purely as a text will not forcefeed beliefs to the children, quit your fearmongerging.

KH says:

12:47pm | 27/04/10

The problem is that whenever the bible shows up in education, it is taught as fact, and that is where my problem is with the idea of teaching it in schools.  If you want your kids to learn about this nonsense, send them to sunday school.

Michael says:

07:39pm | 27/04/10

I hope you take your own advice KH, and not subject your children (if, indeed you have children) to literary garbage like Shakespeare or Germaine Greer.

Tedd says:

05:45pm | 28/04/10

@ Markus: Christianity and the Bible was a primary reason for the fall of the Roman empire

John A Neve says:

10:48am | 27/04/10

JEQP,

You claim “the world’s conflicts have a basis in geopolitics, power and wealth and I’d agree.

But tell us JEQP, aren’t most of the world’s religions especially Christianity intertwined with geopolitics, power and wealth?
Most Christian rulers/despots held a sword in one hand and a Bible in the other.

Chris L says:

06:23pm | 27/04/10

JEQP makes a good point and it was also raised above by John A Nerve. It is blind faith that allows tyrants to commit atrocities. Religion is usually used to focus this faith, but unthinking devotion to the state worked pretty well for Stalin and Pol Pott.

I think education without the doctrine is the way to make the world better. Teach all young people to think logically and (most important) independantly rather than rely solely on the assertions of others, clergy or otherwise.

A Bob says:

10:36am | 27/04/10

If the teach “The Wealth of Nations” they should also teach “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. That was Adam Smiths major work and the former was meant to be read in its context. Capitalism would have a much more human face if people understood his entire philosophy of ecenomics rather than just a few bits that they like.

Smith was very altruistic. When he couldn’t finish teaching a course he offered to pay his students back for the lessons thay would miss. After his death, the value of his estate was found to be almost zero. He had quietly given most of it away during his life.

Smith was deist and not at all religious.

Vicki PS says:

06:23pm | 27/04/10

Marley, my past must be even murkier than yours, because every state school in Queensland had R.E. slotted into the weekly timetable.  And by the way, your education must have been a little neglected: Darwin’s seminal work was titled “On the Origin of Species (by Means of Natural Selection”.  “Origin of the Species” is a common error.

On the broader issue of Dr Clarke’s argument, I cannot understand how anyone can insist on separating Western history, science, literature, citizenship, ethics, law and so on from an understanding and knowledge of the Bible.  It is inseparable from our cultural history.  Where do these nay-sayers think our ethical values originated?  Scholarly study of the Bible does not require belief, merely a willingness to explore why people believe.

Craigles says:

09:08pm | 27/04/10

VickiPS, morals and ethics are independent of the bible and individual religions.  As is science, and most law.

Morals and ethics pre-date all the major religions, too.  See Greek and Egyptian history, Aristotle, Buddha, Confucius, etc, etc.

Justin says:

10:06pm | 28/04/10

Vicki, “Origin of the Species” is a perfectly acceptable title for Darwin’s book in the same way “The Wealth of Nations” is a perfectly acceptable title for Smith’s book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”.

Perhaps your education was not so grand?

Ras Putin says:

02:47pm | 27/04/10

Agree with you Blossom; but i am appalled that they still attempt to brainwash children with religious rubbish in N.S.W. public schools..  Is it done in any other state in Aust.??

Jeff says:

12:13pm | 27/04/10

Where some churches have made it all about them, their traditions and ceremonies, it alienates people on the outside. It’s like watching a rugby huddle, it looks as though something very important is going on but all you can see is backsides! The churches are effective are those who connect people with a loving God, fulfill the call to meet peoples needs and are outwardly focused.

Steely Dan says:

12:32pm | 27/04/10

I can just see Greg Clarke whispering through gritted teeth: “Jeff, Ixnay on the orshipway!”

Greg, like everyone else here, Jeff can see this for what it is.  Not a secular learning activity, but a priest in sheep’s clothing.

Seano says:

12:41pm | 27/04/10

Well said Steely…

Jeff says:

01:04pm | 27/04/10

I find the Bible equally useful for every day life i.e. business, relationships, ethics, conflicts etc. as I find it helps with my faith.

Steely Dan says:

01:20pm | 27/04/10

@Jeff,
The fact that you’ve seen the article and said straight away “Great idea, I derive religious meaning from the Bible, so the kids should too!” - instead of -  “Great idea, there are non-religious benefits from my holy book too!” speaks volumes about Greg’s argument.

If the Bible was not your holy text, would you pick it up and think that it’s so helpful it should be compulsory reading for high school students?

Jeff says:

01:41pm | 27/04/10

@ Steely Dan

In short, yes. Among other things it is the foundation of our legal system. I can’t see why it can’t do both things.

A Bob says:

02:18pm | 27/04/10

“it is the foundation of our legal system.”

The rule of law was a creation of the Republic of Rome in about 500 B.C. Most of our ‘modern’ legal principles are derived from this which is why so many legal terms are in Latin.

The most enduring social device we get from Christianity is the idea of charity, but not law.

KH says:

02:24pm | 27/04/10

Occasionally religions come up with something that vaguely resembles logic - for example - “treat others how you want to be treated” - nothing wrong with that idea - I don’t care if some tool in the 6th century wrote it down and claimed it was something an imaginary person said hundreds of years before that.  It is still a perfectly logical idea.  You don’t need religion to make these kinds of assertions.  To function as a group of largely unrelated human beings, there have to be some rules, and this seems to be a reasonable one.  But not everyone is reasonable, so the law and its secular punishment system is there to cater for that.  You absolutely do not have to have any in depth knowledge of the bible to understand concepts such as this.

Steely Dan says:

03:40pm | 27/04/10

@KH - you’re right, but we don’t have any reason to believe that the ‘Golden Rule’ is a religious concept at all.  It’s a lot older than the sixth century!  It’s funny to see people defending their religion by claiming obvious ethical rules of thumb like ‘murder is bad’ as revelation from their own holy text!

A Bob says:

01:12pm | 27/04/10

No, the oldest was maybe 95AD. Still, long enough to get their story straight, which they didn’t

Tedd says:

02:24pm | 27/04/10

The proposal is that the canonical gospels (Matty, Marko, Luke, and johnno) were written 60AD-95AD, yet it is probable the forerunners to them were around a lot earlier; and they were in turn modified over the next few centuries in the lead up to the Council of Nicea that took the 2nd or 3rd C Tertullian notion of the trinity to be a central tenent.

TheRealDave says:

03:13pm | 27/04/10

If you were born prior to 1980 then yes, we were all taught that the Gospels were written 100-300 years AFTER Christ. Modern revisionist christian scientists have ‘revised’ that timeframe down to give it a less ludicrous timeframe…and even then they stillc an’t explain the glaring innacuracies, disagreements between versions, and the wholesale pitching out of other contemporary works.

Above all, the entire Chritian ‘faith’ was invented during Nicea - including the decision, by vote no less - that Christ was indeed the Son of God.

Constantine wanted a unified one voice, one god, one religion system and he got it out of Nicea - facts be damned. We live with that Roman legacy to this day. SO blame the eyeties

M B Andrews says:

02:38pm | 30/04/10

Stephen, you really ought to read this book you criticise. Even a quick flick through reveals there’s about half a dozen different genres in the Bible. Yes, poetry is one (in Psalms, notably), but there’s also personal letters (from Paul, Peter and John), history (the Books of Samuel, Kings) and works of biography (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

I’m afraid your ignorance merely proves Dr Clarke’s point. There’s a whole generation of people who need to read the great books, starting with the Bible.

Tedd says:

06:32pm | 30/04/10

Alleged biographies, and all from one or two sources, so not 4 of them.

alleged personal letters.

Or, fiction

Craigles says:

04:57pm | 27/04/10

Beth, it takes a community to raise a child, and some parents are so far removed from the concept of community, society and the basic philosophical concepts of truth, logic and ethics, that it is only fair that all children get presented with these - and the opportunity to evaluate them - outside the home.

Then they might be in a better position to discern belief and its foundations (or lack of)

monkeytypist says:

02:56pm | 27/04/10

Sally, I’m sorry, but some of us get offended by the idea that the only way for children to learn about love and compassion is to buy into a belief system that asserts any number of logically and ethically questionable things, accepting it purely on the basis that other people (yes, people, not divine beings) ask us to without any good objective evidence.  For too long those who are genuine free-thinkers, those who want to challenge the teachings of the establishment, those who want to know the truth whether it makes humans feel better or worse about themselves, have been excluded, villified and ridiculed as amoral, worthless, devious, and under command from the devil.  As a person who is none of those things,  I would like for others to respect my right as a human being to determine what I humbly love and what I don’t.  Many free-thinkers forbear from demanding that the religious apologise for starting wars and persecutions, or for protecting child abusers, for turning the minds of children to hate and intolerance, or for giving comfort to suicide bombers and the violent.  Personally, I think that is a fairly big dose of sacrificial love right there.  But if God wants me to feel differently, he knows my number.

stephen says:

02:58pm | 27/04/10

I love you Sally.

Scott Glennon says:

03:01pm | 27/04/10

@Sally,

If someone wants the bible read they can goto church for free and have it read to them or get a free copy of it.
I think the issue is whether the tax payer is happy for money to be spent teaching children a fable. I’m not..

Scott Glennon says:

03:23pm | 27/04/10

@Tired,

You know what I know exactly what you mean, I feel the same way about Lindsay Lohan. I like that alot of thought went into your comment the way God intended.

Chris L says:

11:07pm | 27/04/10

Actually, Tired, his article was about forcing people to read the bible as part of school curriculum. Perhaps if you read the comments above with a more open mind you would see the “genuine arguments” that people are putting forward toward this idea.

bec says:

07:50am | 28/04/10

No, Tired, you’re wrong.

I have a problem with poor, unscrupulous teaching. I have a problem with poorly designed curriculum, badly delivered by untrained people who run the risk of psychologically or emotionally damaging young people. I have a problem with people who are incapable of moving beyond the literal and teaching the Bible incorrectly: as if the teachings are trapped in a vaccuum and are entirely removed from a historical and political context entirely different to our own. I have a problem with a multidisciplinary subject like religion (which covers literacy, psychology, history geography, civics and the arts) being taught discretely without addressing any of those component factors.

I don’t want some nutbar who doesn’t know the order of the Ten Commandments and who probably eats prawns in a polyester shirt while decrying homosexuality teaching anybody *anything*, much less the origins of the universe.

Tone says:

07:33pm | 27/04/10

I was not created, and I am not free.  Whether I am faulty is for others to say.

monkeytypist says:

07:54pm | 27/04/10

Ah, so the 40-60% of congenital birth defects for which there is no known explanation are really just God’s margin of error?  How comforting for those children as they get to appreciate how mysterious His ways are.  Or was it just because the misused free well of the parents was punished by afflicting their children?

monkeytypist says:

09:31pm | 27/04/10

No DJG, I don’t count on God changing his plans in response to my argument, but I do believe that humans who promulgate belief in a non-existent God might realise the logical fallacies and lack of empirical evidence that underline their position if they are taken out of their self-reinforcing comfort zone.  It’d be nice, but I don’t have control over it.  Life goes on (up to a point).

Is Christianity “the biggest ride known to man?”  Hard to assert.  It’s not the oldest religion in the world, nor the world’s longest-lived (check out Egyptian polytheism for starters).  There’s a third possibility, and a more likely one: that Christianity, on a universal scale, is really just *irrelevant*; that the Bibllical narrative is the opposite of universal; that the most important fact of Christianity is not that its key historical assertions are false (although they mostly are), but that they simply don’t matter a jot.  We can believe, or not believe, but we’re all going to end up in the same place.

Aztecs believed that human sacrifice to the Sun was supremely important to stop the world being engulfed in darkness.  It must have seemed a deeply shocking revelation to them to know the truth, but it’s hardly shocking to us.  Similarly, it’s hardly shocking or appalling to me that Christianity’s claims could be false.  In fact it’s extremely likely that they are false, and I’m certainly not in the habit of being shocked or surprised at extremely likely events being found to happen.

Christianity is only “important” if its believers’ assertions are taken at face value.  If we go by the evidence of our senses and not the lack of evidence that is put forward as part of a Christian’s claims, then you could spend one hour a week going to church, or 20 hours a day, or 0; but in a cosmic sense *it doesn’t matter* which of the three you choose.  At a cosmic scale, nothing whatsoever changes if we invest our time or effort into faith.  This is the atheist perspective.

The idea of geocentrism (that the planets, the sun and the stars all orbit the earth) was maintained for millenia despite available contradictory evidence (the uneven motion of planets), but it was never seriously attacked because people’s socially-reinforced preconceptions didn’t allow it to be.  That didn’t make it a malicious lie, just an objective falsehood.  And more importantly, as Galileo said “e pur si muove” - the planets continue to move in the way they do no matter what human beings might have to say about it.  Kind of puts faith into perspective.

God Follower says:

01:52pm | 28/04/10

You’re too right it puts faith into perspective, monkeytypist…

James1 says:

03:14pm | 29/04/10

So who did Jesus say he was?  And according to who?  And what was their agenda in recording it and adding their own spin to the story?  So many questions, so few answers.

Chris L says:

11:23pm | 27/04/10

A strawman argument DJG. Even without believing in any theism people still have feelings and care about those around them. This is a human trait not an exclusive religious one, and can be seen in many species in nature. (A species that did not cooperate or even trust each other not to be murderous would need a very high birth rate to survive.)

Atheists try to argue the point in the hope that we can repeal some of the more oppressive aspects of religion that influence the law to inhibit freedoms. I would like to be able to know my access to information is not being controlled by an internet filter designed to prevent me from seeing “unwanted material”, which does not refer to illegal material (that stuff is already… illegal). I would like to be free to decide my time to die if I became so ill that I no longer valued living.

This doesn’t mean I’m happy to chop up my neighbours, because I am still a moral person without the need of threats of eternal damnation.

monkeytypist says:

11:30pm | 27/04/10

I suppose the first thing to say is that plenty of atheists *do* not worry about it and go about doing other things, because frankly a life without God is becoming easier and easier to lead.  Atheism is worldwide one of the fastest-growing belief systems in the planet.  As with most human belief systems, there are always going to be more or less passionately committed, and it is the passionate ones who are going to be keen for debate.

You’ll notice in my post above that I was very careful to talk about “cosmic” significance as opposed to “human” or “social” significance.  One of the key discoveries of science is that, far from being the most important things in creation, living in the literal centre of the universe (as the writers of the holy books assumed), human beings are in every sense peripheral.  The earth is a middle-of-the-range planet orbiting a middle-of-the-range star in an off-centre part of a middle-of-the-range galaxy that is one of literally hundreds of billions.  For most of the existence of this statistically insignificant planet we have not existed.  And far from being qualitatively and quantitatively different from all other forms of life, we are directly related to those lifeforms.  We are not even at the “centre” of life on earth.

Two thousand years ago we didn’t realise there *was* a difference between something that was significant to humans and something that was significant on a cosmic scale.  Now we do, and as a result, we should be deeply suspicious of anything that (a) comforms very closely with demonstrably human tendencies (the desire to belong to an in-group; the desire to find patterns of significance in every-day occurrences; the “intentional fallacy”, and (b) doesn’t conform in any significant way to the principles of science, the only way we’ve discovered of interacting with the physical world in scales and from perspectives that are not human.

Why should we care?  Because we are human, and being human is an intensely social experience.  People can live lives that they consider to be happy or unhappy.  People can have their tax dollars spent on something valuable like providing vaccinations or on foolish and wasteful enterprises.  People can have their lives dominated by beliefs about guilt and sin that destroy relationships and cause terrible personal anguish.  People can give birth to more children than they can’t afford to feed out of a fear of birth control.  People can be abused by authority figures and have that abused dismissed or swept under the carpet.  People can have their personal happiness and well-being destroyed on the basis of disputes over points of religious teaching.  Religion has an effect on all of these things.

In particular, in our society, to say that someone is “religious” is generally a compliment.  That *should* matter (on a societal level), if religion is based on falsehoods.  Would you be happy that children were taught that a particular human system of thought (like, say, Aztec sun-worship) is so significant to our culture that it should never be questioned and never be subjected to scientific scrutiny?

If you, not believing in fairies, lived in a society where everyone was constantly giving thanks to the fairies for things, telling you that you were a bad person (maybe disowning you) if you couldn’t see why leaving saucers of milk out for the fairies every night was important, spending your tax money on fairy festivals, excusing gross acts of cruelty and prejudice on the basis that the people involved were very sincerely committed to fairies, having your mental well-being questioned on the basis that you didn’t talk to the fairies, asking you “what is your problem with fairies” every time when you mentioned they don’t exist, etc. etc. etc., you might start to think that your *society* was angry at you for a reason that was well, unfair.

What I’m saying is that, given that it’s unlikely in the extreme that human religion has any of the cosmic significance that it claims, it’s not a useful thing for us as humans to use as we try to learn more about ourselves and the world.  It hides and clouds our ability to look at the world honestly, and frankly, it regularly impinges on the ability of others to lead happy lives.  The whole basis of religion is to compel people to follow things without any clear evidence, and when a whole society subscribes to that view as being praiseworthy by default, it can make life difficult for anyone who disagrees.

Ally says:

02:07pm | 28/04/10

Oh no… someone on the internet is wrong (again)! I’ll keep this short John. Adultery is not a crime in this country (although it is morally wrong) and is not punishable by any of our laws. As for the other stuff… it’s mostly just common sense in order to live well in a civilised society. We don’t need to read the Christian Bible to inherently know this stuff. Anyway… I thought it was “Blessed are the cheesemakers”!

monkeytypist says:

02:16pm | 28/04/10

I assume you can tell the difference between a statement about reality (e.g. “grass is green; e=mc squared”) and a statement about ethics (“you must cut your grass to within a certain length by council order; using nuclear weapons is morally wrong”).  It’s important not to get the two things confused.  Only the first kind of statements can have a true/false value.  Statements of moral value cannot be evaluated according to true/false settings.

Christianity makes a number of truth-evalauble claims (eg. “Jesus rose from the dead”) and uses these as the basis for making claims about morality (“homosexuality is wrong”).  It is the truth-evaluable claims that I regard as probably false, because there is no evidence to suggest that they are true.

St. Paul himself says that if Jesus has not risen from the dead then “our faith is in vain”, which means that moral claims of Christianity are meaningless if its truth value claims are wrong.  In my view, claims about what is right or wrong should not be based on whether some supernatural claim (e.g. God exists, Jesus rose from the dead) is true or false, because no supernatural claim that we know of has ever been validated as true.

Even if Christianity provides the best possible ethical system (and I would contest that strongly), and even if its adherents practice what they preach, which they often don’t, why do we have to accept supernatural paraphenalia in order to follow it?

If something is true, we should believe it.  If it is false, we should not believe it.  If we don’t know, we should suspend judgement.  But even if Christian morality is great, which is very open to question, it’s not an argument in itself for believing in God.

Chris L says:

03:08pm | 28/04/10

The current scientific theory for the origin of cooperation and altruism is that our species required these traits to survive. A species with our kind of birthrate would not survive if people just killed each other at whim and did not cooperate and pass on their knowledge to the young.
This theory fits all the currently available evidence and, indeed, makes sense to me.

What I don’t understand is, if feelings and morals came from a god why did he miss a few people, such as the criminally insane? I’ve known people with chemical imbalances that prevent them from feeling empathy, which is not their fault, so why would their actions be considered a sin if god made them that way? Others might have been taught since birth to hate certain people and will have no opportunity to see how wrong their parents are, how could a god judge them for this lack of opportunity?

Besides, how does being told to love people by a book actually cause you to love people? If you can will yourself to have such feelings why do we find some people attractive but others not?

I cannot force myself to believe in the god of the bible any more that the gods of Greek mythology. Neither make any sense or logic to me, nor has any evidence ever been produced. If one chooses to follow a religion regardless out of desire for reward (heaven) or fear of punishment (hell) then they are disingenuous and are perpetuating a lie.

ChelseaLee says:

03:11pm | 28/04/10

Well said, DJG. I guess that poses another question: Is life without God really easier?

What is easier, is blaming God for the state that the world (and everything in it) is in. We refuse to have anything to do with God, and kick and scream to get what we want. The moment he takes his finger off oh-so-slightly to let us live the way we like, the world goes into chaos, and we turn around and blame him for it… His hands are tied.

Chris L says:

03:11pm | 28/04/10

DJG the human race had morals and values before they invented religion. People have always been selfish (even the religious) and it is little different today than from thousands of years ago.

Was it Plato who complained about the selfishness of “young people today”?

monkeytypist says:

08:14pm | 28/04/10

Careful now!  Re-read what I said: “a life without God is becoming easier and easier to lead”.  I didn’t imply that it was easy in the first place.  And I’m not talking about a lack of imaginary gods to talk to for spiritual solace; i’m talking about the fact that most of the time, admitting a lack of belief in God, even to one’s family and friends, would be a time of painful ostracism and possibly even violence - something that many believers forget or ignore.  When you’re a fish, you don’t have a word for water; when somebody “unplugs” from your culture’s dominant superstition, they get treated as a weirdo, a trouble-maker, a deviant, a heretic, take your pick.  That prejudice is fading, thankfully, and more and more, the people who have always nurtured their quiet doubts for decades without saying anything are now finally feeling free to express them.  Thank goodness for them and for us all!

No, life as an atheist can be difficult.  But rewarding and satisfying as well!  We *don’t* all spend our time wallowing in self-loathing, as believers sometimes assume.  We have rich, fulfilling, varied lives - we’re only here for a limited time, after all, so we try to make the most of it.

Do atheists feel guilt?  Very often!  Sometimes, in a similar fashion to people who are gay or have otherwise “disappointed” their parents and family, they have to deal with these psychological and social pressures.  But we can, and do, transcend them.  Religious guilt is a terrible, pointless thing most of the time.

Believe it or not, we don’t go around butchering and murdering people; we can usually trust our own abilities to work out whether what we’re doing is right.  Pretty much in the same way most religious people do, in fact.  Show me a person, religious or non-religious, who has never experienced self-doubt and I’ll show you someone who has serious psychological deficiencies.

How do I think the world is going?  Pretty much as well or as badly as it always has.  I don’t think humans are any less moral, any less inclined to do nasty things to each other than they always have been.  I see plenty of things about the world that I’d like to change: real action on climate change, greater protection for the rights of minorities, a society that guarantees actual life opportunities for the poor and marginalised instead of treating them like charity cases.  And in my own way, I’m working to try and improve these things through political and social activism.

It’s the people who believe that “our society was once better” who are truly deluding themselves: the conformist, stifling, oppressive place this once was, where difference was a sin and endlessly bewailed in private; where abuse of a domestic or sexual nature was viewed as just “what happens” instead of a gross injustice, when nobody ever bothered to question prejudice or to reach out to the poor and marginalised - now *that* society was a terrible place.  It’s still with us to a degree, but i’m not going to put on my rose-tinted religious goggles and pretend that problems like sexual abuse don’t really exist - or haven’t always really existed.  I’d prefer to deal with reality in the cold light of day.  As Bertrand Russell said, the open spaces have a beauty of their own.

Ally says:

12:34am | 29/04/10

DJG & ChelseaLee: I think you have slightly misunderstood monkeytypist when he said “a life without God is becoming easier and easier to lead”. I think he meant (correct me if I’m wrong) that as atheism is becoming the norm in our country, it is becoming easier to identify oneself as being an atheist (or godless) without fear of retribution or ridicule. The fact that we don’t believe in a god or gods has little effect on how easy or hard ones life is. I’m just glad I don’t live in the US!

Chris L says:

06:42pm | 28/04/10

Morality seems to be constantly evolving DJG. In biblical times there was nothing immoral about slavery, even most slaves seemed to accept it, yet today slavery is considered outrageously immoral. Stoning an adulterous woman was once considered a highly moral act, and still is in some places, but today in this country it is considered a malicious and illegal act. It seems to me that humanity has been inventing and honing the idea of morals since conception and are still trying to get it right.

For me there are some current morals I do not understand. No-one has satisfactorily explained to me why prostitution is immoral or why certain words in the Anglo-Saxon language are bad. On the other hand there are some no-brainers that have been agreed upon for thousands of years such as morals against murder and theft. I think a few thousand more years will see us get this down to a fine art and I also think that the importance of religion in this matter has seen its day.

Tone says:

07:12pm | 28/04/10

Morals were considered by the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Confucius, Buddha, and other ancient societies.

I read somewhere the discussion, negotiation and conciliation approaches of the North American Indians influenced some of Americas Founding Fathers and the drafting of the US Constitution.

Akos Balogh says:

10:12pm | 16/05/10

@skepdad:

You wrote:

‘There is this thing called secularism - the separation of church and state.  Maybe you’ve heard of it.

Australia is not a “christian nation”.  It is a nation of people of all religious faiths, and of no religious faith.  Christian indoctrination has no place in taxpayer-funded schools.’

I agree that a Western secular democracy should not be promoting any particular church or a religion over another, but as a society we still have values that are derived from various worldviews/religions - and western ethics have been very much based on the Judeo-Christian worldview. Just visit the islamic, buddhist, or hindu countries, and see the difference.

However, I take your point that there has been, and currently is, a shift away from Judeo-Christian foundations.  And this is where it gets interesting, because although the state might not favour any particular church or religion in a secular state, it still nevertheless pushes a certain worldview/philosophy/ethical viewpoint. And sadly, as a blatant example,  it’s quite obvious what the state is pushing with regards to the rights, and status, of unborn children. The ideology of a woman’s right to abort babies, whatever the right’s/wrong’s of it, has won over the alternative (Judeo-Christian) view of the status of an unborn infant. So my tax dollars go to funding abortion on demand: but of course, the state doesn’t favour any particular ideology/worldview/ethical position now, does it?

And the public schools, and the public university that I went to, did they not favour particular ideologies and ethical positions in this regard? Of course they did - how many public intellectuals speak up about the rights of an unborn infant (for example). And let’s not get into media bias - as a Christian, I’ve yet to hear a fairly reported media story involving Christians, let alone concerning an issue that goes against secular biases.

I find it quite ironic when I hear people so concerned about religious groups forcing their views onto other people, and yet these same people do not realise (or do not care about) the subtle persuasion, and complete lack of objectivity, that goes on in public schools and in the media already, who unashamedly promote a secularist (i.e. philosophical naturalist) point of view.

Steely Dan says:

02:32pm | 30/04/10

Yes, MB, they do.

Did you think this was somehow under threat?  Or did you think that taxpayers had the right to demand that other children be taught their religious values in a state school?

Fredd says:

06:34pm | 30/04/10

Yes, a well-rounded education, free from indoctrination, is the right of all children, including GRE (general religious education) that might include visits to several places of worseship.