This morning we have some good news and some bad news about religion. First the good news: reader John sent me a photo and this link to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Apparently, at least in the state of New South Wales, “Special Religious Education” (SRE) is offered to students in many public schools, and it’s an education in Christianity (“General Religious Education”, GRE, is also offered). I thought that parents can opt out of either, but the report below suggests this isn’t the case. I’m a bit confused, and perhaps readers from Australia can enlighten us. Here’s part of the report:
Parents concerned about religious evangelism in public schools will launch a campaign urging families to opt out of scripture classes as a high profile minister calls for a “quality general religious education program” to replace instruction in specific denominations.
The parent-run lobby group, Fairness in Religions in Schools, has paid for a billboard attacking Special Religious Eduction classes in public schools, to be erected at a busy intersection in Liverpool on Monday.
Fairness in Religions in Schools chief executive Lara Wood said the billboard was in response to what the group sees as evangelism in public schools which they claim is poorly regulated by the NSW government.
“Scripture classes push messages about sin, death, suicide, sexuality and female submission onto children without the knowledge of their parents,” she said.
“The Department of Education has no control over the program and it is time these classes were removed or at least regulated by the government.”
A spokesman for the Department of Education said it works with scripture class providers to ensure the material is “sensitive, age appropriate and of a high standard.”
Screw that; this stuff doesn’t belong in public schools, whether or not it’s optional. What’s the educational point of teaching Christianity in such schools? Leave the proselytizing in the churches where it belongs.
Meanwhile, here’s the billboard designed by the parents, and it’s a good one.
I have opted out for my kids here in New South Wales
Stories like this always remind me of this gem.
Still, from what I hear there are a lot of fundamentalist bible-thumpers in Australian politics right now which isn’t helping the matter.
That’s not true. Abbott is religious, but so is Rudd (the Labor Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010). Both opposed gay marriage (although Rudd subsequently changed his mind in 2013). Gillard (the Labor Prime Minister from 2010 to 2013) is an atheist, but she also opposed to gay marriage (and remains opposed, as far as I can tell).
Religion really doesn’t intrude into Australian politics to any noticeable extent. Both sides of politics appear to be opposed to gay marriage, on balance (the Coalition more so than Labor), but it’s unclear that this has much to do with the religious convictions of the politicians. Moreover, both sides of politics have prominent gay marriage advocates (Malcolm Turnbull for the Coalition and Tanya Plibersek for Labor)
You may dislike the Coalition (the conservative side of Australian politics), but I’ll say this: (1) I’ve never heard any of them talk religion, except when specifically asked about it; and (2) they’re probably more liberal than US Democrats, on balance.
“they’re probably more liberal than US Democrats, on balance”
That’s probably true, but that’s not exactly the highest hurdle to have to get over.
I don’t know the US Democrats passed gay marriage, net neutrality, near universal healthcare…
“they’re probably more liberal than US Democrats, on balance”
The Liberal Party is thoroughly right wing, but they have generally been thwarted by not having control of the Senate. The minute they had the Senate they passed Workchoices to kneecap the unions and start the process of impoverishing the working classes (all of us who work for a living) and enriching their patrons even further.
Give the Libs their head and we’ll all be paying for our own shovels in order to work down the mines for 48 hours a week.
That was indeed a gem. Never seen it before. David deserves an award in recognition of his service to society.
I’d forgotten about that article. Very very funny.
That was a gem! Thanks, I needed the laughs, ’cause Mondays.
I’ve red the e-mail exchange with Darryl several times. It still makes me laugh.
“Purportedly Magic Jew,” that is absolutely priceless.
Thanks for that…damn what a hoot!
I don’t think this report is accurate. My son attends a public school in NSW. He’s in Year 3 now (8 years old), and he’s been there ever since kindergarten. On his very first day there we were given three options: Scripture, Ethics or Non-Scripture (which is where kids essentially have free time to indulge interests such as playing chess or computer games). We left it up to him, and he chose Scripture initially (I wasn’t concerned, because its Church of England stuff… quite wishy-washy… plus he gets a healthy dose of skepticism at home). After a while he got bored with Scripture, however, and opted out (all his friends had discovered that Non-Scripture classes essentially amounted to entertaining yourself in the computer lab… and that sounded like a much better idea to him). So he switched (of his own accord, without me or my wife having to get involved), and I never heard a murmur from the school.
While it is fair to say that it isn’t your experience, it clearly is the experience of other Australian parents, which is why the organisation referenced in the article exists.
http://religionsinschool.com/parents-stories/
It’s not only my experience – Australia is a pretty secular society, and this really doesn’t register as an issue in any of the media outlets (sporadic articles in the SMH notwithstanding). I have numerous friends and colleagues with children in the public school system, and I’ve never heard complaints about the level of religious instruction. I suspect most parents feel that opting out of religious instruction is pretty straightforward, in general, or not with bothering about.
Of course, I agree that religious education should play no role in the public school system in the first place, and I implicitly support the FIRIS campaign. But, as with any lobby, they have an interest in trying making their cause look as pressing as possible. The fact that their “Parents’ stories” page only contains eight entries suggests that this probably isn’t a burning issue in most parents’ minds.
One of the reasons for this is that most parents have no idea what goes on in the RI classes in their schools. They assume it’s all Bible stories and colouring books, as it was in their day. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. The system has been hijacked by evangelical groups and turned into proselytising for Jesus. That is why the billboard was erected.
I just don’t see how you leave this option up to kids. That is the same as the clowns over here in the U.S. who say, teach creationism in school along with evolution and let them decide. That is nuts.
Is there any kind of constitutional/legal issue around this in Australia, or NSW? I know the US has (on paper) strict separation of church & state, but in Canada there are certain ‘protections’ given to religious groups in education, which is why in Ontario we have the absurd situation of state-run Catholic schools (but none for any other religion). It’s kind of a sop to French Catholics that no longer makes sense (not that it ever did!) because, if I remember correctly, there is no longer such a provision for Anglicans in Quebec. Or, at least, Quebec no longer bothers with it.
For some reason, no parties in Ontario except the Green party have made removing the Catholic school board part of their platform. I think it’s because members of other religions now send their kids to the state Catholic schools, and then opt out of the religion classes, thinking they’re getting a better education overall I guess.
We have an almost identical freedom of religion section within our constitution similar to the first amendment. The separation of church and state is a little more blurred but that is more an artifact of our history than anything else and not too serious. We certainly don’t have anyone putting the ten commandments on public property. If they did there is a good bet they would be howled down and it would never get up anyway.
Our Parliaments do start each sitting day with a prayer. There have been pushes to get rid of it or turn it into an agnostic invocation to better reflect the diversity of belief. It hasn’t got up yet and has never been challenged in court anywhere I can find. I don’t think it is because anyone wants it but it more reflects an apathy of the general populace towards religion
Like most English speaking countries, Australia has no official religion, and its government is prohibited by its constitution from establishing a religion. (Only England is officially Anglican although that church has a large presence in other Commonwealth countries. New Zealand requires the !*monarch*! to be Anglican.)
Clearly, unlike the USA, the constitution doesn’t restrain local officials.
Any country that uses the UK monarch as Head of State requires them to be Anglican because the UK does. Same goes for males having precedence over females in terms of succession. Any change requires consensus among all affected states. NZ does not have an established religion.
Queen Elizabeth is more godlike than god as she comes in about a dozen versions as the monarch of each country is legally distinct. I suppose in theory she could be Anglican for NZ and Catholic for Australia if necessary.
There is no way the Queen could be catholic, for any country. That would require her to submit to the authority of the Pope – the avoidance of which was the precise reason why Henry VIII set up the C of E in the first place.
cr
Looks like the Pope is already working through number 2 in Australia if the latest on gay marriage is anything to go by.
I find the idea of the General Religious Education potentially useful. If it is done objectively. I recall Dan Dennett advocated the same. The problem would remain of ensuring quality and objectivity. If taught by an evangelical Christian, the results could be worse than omitting it entirely. On the plus side, it would help many students make a free and fair choice as to how to deal with religious claims. Let’s face it – seeing the various and contradictory gardens of woo spread before your eyes is a sure way of inoculating the young against the plethora of bamboozlers they will face throughout life.
I cannot agree. Why should taxpayer money be used to cover religion of any kind to small children in school. There are much more important things they should be teaching and not wasting time with fictional ideas.
Maybe they should teach classes in Santa and fairies. What kind of wings should they have.
You may be correct, that it would be a waste of time. But it may be useful in reducing religiosity. That is the argument Dennett puts forth for a requirement for a secular comparative religion course.
It sounds plausible to me, though not a given, that shining light on all the major religions and their histories in a primary or secondary school setting could tend to cause some people to become less devout. Doing so may be more effective at reducing religious belief in society than simply keeping all religion out of public schools.
Children are going to get religious indoctrination whether it is at school or not. If there were a secular comparative religion course at school it could perhaps be an active counter against their indoctrination at home and church. I think that the kinds of people that are always trying to get religion, their religion, into public schools probably feel the same way and would therefore strongly oppose such a course being required.
You are correct the kinds of people attempting to get their religion into public school would appose any but their religion. But saying that they are going to get religious indoctrination whether at school or not is a poor reason to come up with this. Please…not on my dime.
Kids in the United States already get a substandard public education and this would further that cause for sure.
I lack your assuredness, but am not presently convinced that it would be worth trying.
Sounded to me like a comparative religions class. Which is okay. You can argue it shouldn’t be prioritized over things like literature, history, math, science, etc. (i.e., not part of the core curriculum), but as an elective I think its perfectly fine. Moreover, there may be some inherent value in giving even lower grade kids one elective out of their 5-7 classes per day; you’re giving up a little potential content in exchange for some lessons on maturity, responsibility, and the idea that they may do better/study more if they have some control over their own curriculum.
I think ultimately Dan decided that GRE was impractical on the grounds of this: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE A RELIGION? Imagine, for instance, Muslims battling to decide how the faith should be described (even historically) in schools?
Perhaps we could enlist Dara O’Briain, the Monty Python crew, oh and maybe Stephen Fry, to put the curriculum together for us.
Yes, I had the feeling that Dennett was more interested in posing the hypothetical than actual implementation. The implication is few religious parent would want GRE, once they considered the possible long-term effects.
That’s not a problem for the teacher or a problem that needs to be solved before you teach the class; that’s a problem the teacher can pose to the students. After spending a semester learning about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, animism, ancestor worship, paganism, ancient polytheistic beliefs, etc., write an essay describing what they all have in common. What are the necessary components of what humans call “religion?” And what distinguishes it from the ideologies humans consider to be non-religious?
A spokesman for the Department of Education said it works with scripture class providers to ensure the material is “sensitive, age appropriate and of a high standard.”
OK, that makes it much better, thanks. As long as it’s of a high standard. It goes without saying that g*d’s high standard bar is by far the highest.
“God says you are stuck in your sin and need to be rescued from his judgement.”
The perfect distillation of Christian dogma. Ceiling Cat help us.
sub
I went to public and private schools in Melbourne during my formative years, many moons ago. I don’t recall ever having to take any religion course. I remember the private Anglican school having opening/closing prayers during some school functions and a priest on the staff, but never any class devoted to it. Are these courses really that traditional, or something that’s cropped up in the last 20 or so years?
If you went to a state primary school any time the last half century you were lucky to escape without doing RE. In the 50s and 60s most primary schools had RE classes provided by the nearest Anglican church. In the 70s churches started running out of volunteers to take these classes and many of them shut down. My kids were in primary school in the 90s and 2000s and all their schools had SRI as it is now called.
More recently it was handed over to Access Ministries, which is an evangelical group that sees our schools as mission fields for Jesus.
http://www.accessministries.org.au/access-news/amen-to-religious-education-the-case-for-sri
I would just caution many of the people posting to this blog who are not Australian. Please do not think that religion is as pervasive in our public life as it is in the US. Religion in schools is not really an issue here although it will eventually die a slow death. We do not have the same penetration in our polity of the religious right that you have in the US. So politics is generally driven by egalitarianism. We have had a number of atheist prime ministers and whilst a couple where voted out of office that was more because of the fact they were atrocious in the role not because of their beliefs. Whilst we have our share of wing nuts and moonbeams they don’t gain much traction. Politicians rank very low on the scales of trust below journalists, real estate agents and used car sales people.
Only about eight percent of our population attend church more than once per month. Most of the others are Christmas only christians etc. Most parents are probably apathetic or don’t realise they can take their kids out of religious lessons. Religious instruction in schools is more of a carry over from our past than anything else. I remember having to go to religious lessons in Primary school in the mid 70s. Clearly it didn’t have a long lasting effect as I am now an atheist.
Religion is generally tolerated but seen more as a generational thing and something your grandparents do
I do agree with the billboard though and as I said many do not even know its going on and they can opt out. So I think it is a good start
Hi Harry
As a fellow Australian, I endorse what you say above – it corresponds exactly with my experience of religion in Australian public life. The influence of Christianity, in particular, is rapidly receding, although I am concerned about the growing traction of Islam in some corners of Australian society. Finally, I was under the impression that Gillard was our first (and so far) only atheist Prime Minister. Have there been others?
Five (Hughes, Curtin, Whitlam, Hawke and Gillard) have been articulate atheists or agnostics. One (Holt) was a nominal atheist or agnostic.