Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling
by SMH
Thanks to Joshua Watt for the link.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-two-worlds-collide-threat-of-class-warfare-over-faithbasedschooling/2008/06/01/1212258647635.html
When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling
The debate about 'values based' education is hotting up. John Kaye and Stephen O'Doherty outline the opposing positions on the role of religion in schools.
JOHN KAYE Greens NSW MP and education spokesman: Alarm bells start sounding when young people leave school confused about the boundaries between faith and evidence. They get even louder when the penny drops on the massive state and federal funding that supports the growth of schools that systematically mislead their students. And they reach a crescendo when governments are caught accepting the distortion of education in faith-based private schools.
The growing phenomenon of faith-based institutions needs to be carefully separated from common or garden variety religious private schools. No clear academic definition exists in the literature but in the Australian context it is the schools where reasoning based on testing hypothesis against evidence is subjugated to religious faith. It is the same schools where free inquiry is constrained and critical thinking is confined within the boundaries of religious dogma.
Faith-based schools are not the sandstone institutions of privilege, nor those run by the Catholic church. They are the new engine rooms of muscular fundamentalist religion, where a literalist interpretation of the Bible, Koran or Torah dictates curriculum.
The bellwether test is the teaching of the origins of life in science classes. Faith-based institutions have a primitive antipathy to Darwinian evolution. They invest heavily in confounding students' excitement at discovering the web of life by pushing disproved and outlandish falsehoods like young earth creationism and so-called intelligent design.
Often packaged as a supposedly even-handed presentation of the spectrum of possible beliefs, this deliberate confusion of fact and faith amounts to an act of sedition against rational thinking.
The adverse social consequences go well beyond the scientific illiteracy it creates. This nation can ill afford to compromise the collective capacity to address the challenges it faces. Picking a path through a changing climate, soaring oil prices and an ageing population will be hard enough without a growing legion of citizens who are trained to allow prejudice to overcome reasoning.
State and federal governments are turning their backs on this ticking time bomb. Lip-service registration requirements sanction the distortion of the curriculum. If this nation is to have an education revolution, then faith-based schools need to be subjected to much more rigorous regulation and a program of thorough inspection.
Far from putting the brakes on the spread of indoctrination, both state and federal governments are pouring money into these institutions. Last year the Federal Government handed over a massive $285 million to the 145 members of Christian Schools Australia, up 85.7 per cent on their 2001 funding.
Allowing the gifts of the Enlightenment to be chipped away in the classrooms of fundamentalism is a dangerous path. Governments should act before it is too late.
STEPHEN O'DOHERTY Chief executive, Christian Schools Australia: Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the arguments against choice in schooling are becoming increasingly divisive and anti-religious?
With the school funding issue taken off the table by the Federal Government, at least for the time being, the anti-choice debate has taken on a much nastier tone.
The old cliches are creeping back in. People with religious faith are increasingly targeted as narrow minded or anti-intellectual. Too often arguments against faith-based schooling adopt the patronising tone of superior knowledge.
For Chris Bonnor and Jane Caro, co-authors of The Stupid Country, public schools are "children of the Enlightenment", but in faith schools the teaching of absolute values based on religious beliefs will "limit inquiry".
Worship your "god" if you must, but just don't do it in front of the children. They need to make up their own mind, but only on the basis of an education sanitised of any religious beliefs or values.
Bonnor and Caro actually attribute some of the growth of non-government schooling to parent anxiety, and they come perilously close to arguing that choice in schooling - if that choice is for a faith-based school - is akin to intellectual deprivation.
This argument leads to a line we should not cross, where children are denied the right to an education whose values reflect the faith of their families and community.
The Greens, whose policy is to deprive parents of choice, have already crossed this line.
Thankfully the vision of our major political parties for the progress of our society is much bigger and more inclusive.
In a landmark speech, the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, set out her vision last week for building "a schooling system in Australia which enables diverse expressions of identity and religious commitment and also allows our communities to come together around wider commitments to the common good". It is a good vision.
Students who know themselves and are confident in their own faith are far more likely to be open and generous towards others of faith.
This much was apparent in last week's remarkable Insight program on SBS, where the common respect between students from Jewish, Islamic and Christian schools showed that Australia's democratic future is in good hands.
Theirs is a different Australia than the one I grew up in, characterised too often by fear of difference and cut off from the richness of the outside world.
If we want a truly generous and open future for all, we will do well to support the right to choose, and to celebrate the place of beliefs and values in the progress of our nation.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-two-worlds-collide-threat-of-class-warfare-over-faithbasedschooling/2008/06/01/1212258647635.html
When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling
The debate about 'values based' education is hotting up. John Kaye and Stephen O'Doherty outline the opposing positions on the role of religion in schools.
JOHN KAYE Greens NSW MP and education spokesman: Alarm bells start sounding when young people leave school confused about the boundaries between faith and evidence. They get even louder when the penny drops on the massive state and federal funding that supports the growth of schools that systematically mislead their students. And they reach a crescendo when governments are caught accepting the distortion of education in faith-based private schools.
The growing phenomenon of faith-based institutions needs to be carefully separated from common or garden variety religious private schools. No clear academic definition exists in the literature but in the Australian context it is the schools where reasoning based on testing hypothesis against evidence is subjugated to religious faith. It is the same schools where free inquiry is constrained and critical thinking is confined within the boundaries of religious dogma.
Faith-based schools are not the sandstone institutions of privilege, nor those run by the Catholic church. They are the new engine rooms of muscular fundamentalist religion, where a literalist interpretation of the Bible, Koran or Torah dictates curriculum.
The bellwether test is the teaching of the origins of life in science classes. Faith-based institutions have a primitive antipathy to Darwinian evolution. They invest heavily in confounding students' excitement at discovering the web of life by pushing disproved and outlandish falsehoods like young earth creationism and so-called intelligent design.
Often packaged as a supposedly even-handed presentation of the spectrum of possible beliefs, this deliberate confusion of fact and faith amounts to an act of sedition against rational thinking.
The adverse social consequences go well beyond the scientific illiteracy it creates. This nation can ill afford to compromise the collective capacity to address the challenges it faces. Picking a path through a changing climate, soaring oil prices and an ageing population will be hard enough without a growing legion of citizens who are trained to allow prejudice to overcome reasoning.
State and federal governments are turning their backs on this ticking time bomb. Lip-service registration requirements sanction the distortion of the curriculum. If this nation is to have an education revolution, then faith-based schools need to be subjected to much more rigorous regulation and a program of thorough inspection.
Far from putting the brakes on the spread of indoctrination, both state and federal governments are pouring money into these institutions. Last year the Federal Government handed over a massive $285 million to the 145 members of Christian Schools Australia, up 85.7 per cent on their 2001 funding.
Allowing the gifts of the Enlightenment to be chipped away in the classrooms of fundamentalism is a dangerous path. Governments should act before it is too late.
STEPHEN O'DOHERTY Chief executive, Christian Schools Australia: Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the arguments against choice in schooling are becoming increasingly divisive and anti-religious?
With the school funding issue taken off the table by the Federal Government, at least for the time being, the anti-choice debate has taken on a much nastier tone.
The old cliches are creeping back in. People with religious faith are increasingly targeted as narrow minded or anti-intellectual. Too often arguments against faith-based schooling adopt the patronising tone of superior knowledge.
For Chris Bonnor and Jane Caro, co-authors of The Stupid Country, public schools are "children of the Enlightenment", but in faith schools the teaching of absolute values based on religious beliefs will "limit inquiry".
Worship your "god" if you must, but just don't do it in front of the children. They need to make up their own mind, but only on the basis of an education sanitised of any religious beliefs or values.
Bonnor and Caro actually attribute some of the growth of non-government schooling to parent anxiety, and they come perilously close to arguing that choice in schooling - if that choice is for a faith-based school - is akin to intellectual deprivation.
This argument leads to a line we should not cross, where children are denied the right to an education whose values reflect the faith of their families and community.
The Greens, whose policy is to deprive parents of choice, have already crossed this line.
Thankfully the vision of our major political parties for the progress of our society is much bigger and more inclusive.
In a landmark speech, the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, set out her vision last week for building "a schooling system in Australia which enables diverse expressions of identity and religious commitment and also allows our communities to come together around wider commitments to the common good". It is a good vision.
Students who know themselves and are confident in their own faith are far more likely to be open and generous towards others of faith.
This much was apparent in last week's remarkable Insight program on SBS, where the common respect between students from Jewish, Islamic and Christian schools showed that Australia's democratic future is in good hands.
Theirs is a different Australia than the one I grew up in, characterised too often by fear of difference and cut off from the richness of the outside world.
If we want a truly generous and open future for all, we will do well to support the right to choose, and to celebrate the place of beliefs and values in the progress of our nation.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, June 2, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 56 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #187559 by Vaal on June 2, 2008 at 10:07 am
Students who know themselves and are confident in their own faith are far more likely to be open and generous towards others of faith
So, as long as you have a faith you will be open and generous towards other faiths, yet there is no mention at all of those with no faith, which in Australia is the majority of the population. What a fucktard. Sorry Irate.
Other Comments by Vaal
3. Comment #187570 by aussieatheist_111 on June 2, 2008 at 10:19 am
Bonnor and Caro actually attribute some of the growth of non-government schooling to parent anxiety, and they come perilously close to arguing that choice in schooling - if that choice is for a faith-based school - is akin to intellectual deprivation.
Well...isn't it?
Other Comments by aussieatheist_111
4. Comment #187577 by tieInterceptor on June 2, 2008 at 10:22 am
Funny how STEPHEN O'DOHERTY , talks and says nothing, "a schooling system in Australia which enables diverse expressions of identity and religious commitment and also allows our communities to come together around wider commitments to the common good"
it's like a politician talking,
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
5. Comment #187581 by Cambridge'10 on June 2, 2008 at 10:23 am
It's a tragedy to see a rise in the number of faith schools as well as the gaining momentum of the 'teaching the controversy' argument within the sphere of evolution education. Educating children without resort to superstition is the first step in changing the Zeitgeist against dogmatic fundamentalism. Other Comments by Cambridge'10
6. Comment #187591 by BeyondBelief on June 2, 2008 at 10:39 am
Damn you, Vaal!!! You stole my easy-pickin's line from the idiocy. This means I will have to stretch my search resources to their limits to try to identify another silly line of... oh wait, there's one right away:
If we want a truly generous and open future for all, we will do well to support the right to choose, and to celebrate the place of beliefs and values in the progress of our nation.
What a mealy-mouthed, meaningless statement...
"generous and open future"?? I thought we were talking about a soundly educated populace.
"celebrate the place of beliefs and values in the progress of our nation." Care to have an open, common discussion about which values you think are essential in the development/progress of the nation?
Apparently the "School Voucher" folks have made it to Australia. Talking the mantra of "choice" Bleechhhh!!! Let's just "teach the controversy" while we're at it.
Morally bankrupt... oh, why not... fucktards!!
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
7. Comment #187601 by PJG on June 2, 2008 at 10:50 am
So the parents' right to chose over-rides the children's right to an honest education and the government is going to cover up for them too.
I just hope that, one day, there is a class action (no pun intended) taken by these deceived children against the parents and schools that knowingly misinformed them.
I am a lady so I won't say it.... Oh, OK.... fucktards!!!
Other Comments by PJG
8. Comment #187613 by brainsys on June 2, 2008 at 11:24 am
I was once a governor of a CoE Primary School. Like many it was a historical legacy of a desire to educate local children when there were few alternatives. It still had the best reputation for education.It did have a few crosses scattered around and the hymns were delivered with a little more gusto then the other local primaries. But the driving force was a christian desire to do good for others. If that made christianity or just the CoE look good to kids and parents and encourage them to join up - well that was a benefit. Actually most kids appeared to come out more secular than those from the secular schools. And the 'christian' teachers mostly realised that. Their view was mostly just trying to do good was its own reward.
I tell that story to differentiate christian based schools that deliver education from those who are determined to deliver christianity (or any other religion) to kids as a prime aim.
The latter we don't want. But is the route of abolition feasible atm in the UK or Australia? Would we not get further by allowing them to continue but insist what was delivered was education first. That a bit of Religious Education is permissable but Religious Instruction is not.
Put diplomatically it could put some Catholic and Islam based schools on the spot. In this case having problems with two particular faiths might make it easier than with just one. We are not being 'anti-christian or anti-islam'. Just their right to remove the kids right to a secular education. If they want to add their magic bits out of hours that's their business.
Not perfect but 20 years ago I thought this country was eliminating religion by secularising it rather than abolishing it. Surely a safer way to go? The last few years have seen a sad reversal. We need to decide gain whether abolition or secularisation of religious schools is the best hope in trying to regain a more rational and less divided society.
Other Comments by brainsys
9. Comment #187625 by Border Collie on June 2, 2008 at 11:52 am
I'm in Texas, not Aussieland, but the issues are "similar". Hey, I'm all for religious expression if that's what someone wants to do ... just DO IT IN CHURCH! Keep your religious agendas out of the public schools! However, from what I can tell, nothing is being taught or learned in public schools anyway. They seem to be only concerned with teaching political correctness, sensitivity, cultural relativism, etc. The three R's, science, geography, English, etc. went out the door decades ago. I'm really not in the mood for another dark age, but whatever.Other Comments by Border Collie
10. Comment #187634 by hopeful on June 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I thought this article was going to be agressively against religion in education then it turned into liberal pandering of the kind that got us where we are now.A disturbing trend I notice is that "choice" seems to be the next contrived issue, much like the manufactured controversy of ID, and my old favourite "diversity".
Portraying religious involvement in education as a matter of "choice" gives it legitimacy, and allows people who oppose religion in education to be portrayed as "anti-choice".
I see society becoming increasingly confused over the issues of sameness and difference between peoples and cultures. What should we celebrate and embrace? That we are all the same? or that we are all different?
It seems backward, but I actually think the drive to embrace diversity actually ends up emphasising differences rather than bridging them. Perhaps we need to start embracing our sameness.
Other Comments by hopeful
11. Comment #187643 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The French have got it right. No religion in school period. School is not for religion, it is for education. The two are mutually exclusive - when you need a religious reason for learning something, it immediately ceases to be something that is worth learning.What I hate is the use in this context of that horrible buzz-word "diversity". Particularly in such phrases as "promoting diversity" or "celebrating diversity". It's a sneaky trick. We all approve of cultural diversity, racial diversity, sexual diversity and the tolerance of others who are different from ourselves. That goes without saying. But although people and cultures are diverse, the truth isn't. The origins of the universe and of life are not something that vary from person to person or culture to culture. If a culture promotes beliefs that do not accord with the way it actually happened - evolution by natural selection - then that culture is simply wrong, and in this instance of much lesser value than a culture which has the right of it.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
12. Comment #187661 by notsobad on June 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I need 5 minutes of Carlin after reading so much bullshit."a schooling system in Australia which enables diverse expressions of identity and religious commitment and also allows our communities to come together around wider commitments to the common good"
diversity - check
religious commitment - check
communities come together - check
commitment again - check
common good - check
That's 10/10 on my bullshit meter for political speeches.
Other Comments by notsobad
13. Comment #187662 by aussieatheist_111 on June 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I thought this article was going to be agressively against religion in education then it turned into liberal pandering of the kind that got us where we are now.
If you follow the link you will see that the article actually comprises of two opposing views - one fiercly secular, and the other by a prominent Christian "educator". The editors have compiled the most relevent phrases from each into one article, giving it a "culturally sensitive" wishy-washy tone.
I suggest reading the two opposing views for a greater understanding of the issue.
Other Comments by aussieatheist_111
14. Comment #187672 by SRWB on June 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Cartomancer,But although people and cultures are diverse, the truth isn't. The origins of the universe and of life are not something that vary from person to person or culture to culture. If a culture promotes beliefs that do not accord with the way it actually happened - evolution by natural selection - then that culture is simply wrong, and in this instance of much lesser value than a culture which has the right of it.
Well said. Let's have no more discussion about how wonderfully diverse it is to believe in umpteen different versions of a sky fairy, and how that is good for modern society.
Other Comments by SRWB
15. Comment #187746 by Branko on June 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm
2nd paragraph "And they reach a crescendo..."should be "And they reach a climax..." As anyone with a modicum of musical awareness will tell you "crescendo" is Italian for "getting louder".
Other Comments by Branko
16. Comment #187753 by Drool on June 2, 2008 at 2:23 pm
"This argument leads to a line we should not cross, where children are denied the right to an education whose values reflect the faith of their families and community."
This is my quote pick. Says it all really. Deny the child a decent education so it satisfies the faith of the parents. Grrr.
Other Comments by Drool
17. Comment #187775 by Shuggy on June 2, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Alarm bells start sounding ... They get even louder ... And they reach a crescendoNo, they reach a fortissimo. The whole thing was a crescendo.
- Mistress Pedanté
Ah, I see Branko has beaten me to it. But a climax, Branko?
Other Comments by Shuggy
18. Comment #187781 by calyx on June 2, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I watched the episode of 'insight' that the article refers to. Did anyone else see this?
It was interesting to see, they had a lot of video clips of faith based schools and everyone there saying how awesome it was to have such a great sense of community and all that. :roll: not biased at all.
The atheist viewpoints on the program didn't get that much of a say, the main athiest guy was continually interupted by one of the teachers at a christian school.
I did like the fact that the faith schools visited each other, and talked about their views and that. Personally I realised how silly faith was when thinking about the multitude of different god's.
At one of these visits, a christian girl asked the lecturer (on islam) why women had to wear the veil and men didn't, after flopping around a little he says "god said to do it". Made me laugh.
Other Comments by calyx
19. Comment #187788 by Hobbit on June 2, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Hi All,
Further to this article, see the link below. This is a TV program shown in Australia a week ago. All of the main protagonists are involved.
It shows beautifully how these schools twist the truth to indoctrinate their students.
It's worth a look.
http://www20.sbs.com.au/podcasting/index.php?action=feeddetails&feedid=53&id=13060
Other Comments by Hobbit
20. Comment #187805 by mandrellian on June 2, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Allow me a creo-style quote-mine:"People with religious faith are ... narrow minded or anti-intellectual."
Thank for your indulgence :)
I watched that SBS Insight program the other night and it was actually quite worrying to see Australian kids sitting there and saying "I believe God created the Earth in six literal days". Crikey, I thought we were a shitload smarter than that!
Other Comments by mandrellian
21. Comment #187808 by William1w1 on June 2, 2008 at 6:00 pm
This article seems to me to be a little haphazardly written. Also, it feels like the narrator changes stances at the end. Am I supposed to be revolted by the earlier statements? They make perfect sense to me.Other Comments by William1w1
22. Comment #187818 by dr joneZ on June 2, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Faith-based schooling in Australia is as devisive and sectarian in outlook as anywhere else. Aussies are still a long way from realising the extent to which religion has its hooks into society. Indeed, most down-underlings shy away from discussions of the sort outlined in this article because "nobody wants a shit fight over religion since everyone knows where that leads." There is ZERO intellectual leadership for the atheist mindset out here. We desperately need our equivalent of RD or Hitch or someone to animate the discussion and really ram home a few points. Do any of the other Aussies on this list agree? We are seeing scandal after scandal uncovered in the faith domain, from Mercy Ministries subsidised by Gloria Jeans coffee-houses, The Twelve Tribes of Israel sect subsidised by organic bakeries to the undue influence of the Exclusive Brethren fundy set on Federal politicians. Both Howard and Rudd have ruled out a proper investigation of the Bretheren and Rudd himself is something of a bible-basher it seems. His vitriolic condemnation of the photographic work of Bill Henson is clearly motivated by religious values which dwell at the heart of his "working families of Australia" line. Why is it that NO politician will ever choose the path of reason and rationality? Somebody please name me ONE self-avowed atheist politician anywhere in the world...just one.
Other Comments by dr joneZ
23. Comment #187819 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Why is it that NO politician will ever choose the path of reason and rationality? Somebody please name me ONE self-avowed atheist politician anywhere in the world...just one.How about Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democratic party?
Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell? Roy Hattersley? Mo Mowlam? Ken Livingstone? Peter Tatchell? Oona King?
Actually, how about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(Politics_and_law)
Other Comments by Cartomancer
24. Comment #187820 by dr joneZ on June 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Nick Clegg of the UK Liberal Democratic party?
But is he campaigning on that platform? I'm impressed that you could name one, but how do you rate his chances Cartomancer? The burning firebrands and the stake can't be a long way off...
Other Comments by dr joneZ
25. Comment #187823 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 7:16 pm
It's not really a platform you need to campaign on in Britain. As Blair said, over here you're considered a nutter if you bring religion into politics. Atheism is just not a barrier to public office these days, but strongly professed religious conviction certainly is (how Ruth Kelly from Opus Dei ended up as minorities minister is anyone's guess)Clegg is the leader of the third largest political party in the UK. Very popular with students and down in the Westcountry where I come from. Okay, he's never going to be PM - because he's a lib dem and the majority of people in the rest of the uk have an inexplicable block when it comes to voting for lib dems - but we've had plenty of atheist prime ministers before with nobody batting an eyelid (Atlee for instance)...
Other Comments by Cartomancer
26. Comment #187824 by dr joneZ on June 2, 2008 at 7:23 pm
plenty of atheist prime ministers before with nobody batting an eyelid (Atlee for instance)...
How many would be aware of that? They clearly were not noisy atheists because they are not remembered as being distinguished by their atheism. I could see Ted Heath as an atheist, but people would have seen that simply as another of his eccentricities. How times have changed. In the past it was quaint to be an atheist. Now you risk losing your job and facing death-threats
Other Comments by dr joneZ
27. Comment #187827 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm
In Britain being a "noisy atheist" is not problematic for one's political career. Being noisily religious very much is however, which is as it should be.I sympathise with those unfortunate enough to live elsewhere, where this is not the case.
We tend not to think about the religious convictions of our prime ministers. In fact it seems the British care much less about the personal characteristics of their leaders than many nations do. Admittedly the vast majority of them have been Oxford educated middle aged straight white male christians, but we've had a jewish prime minister (Disraeli), a female prime minister (Thatcher), a prime minister without a university education (Major), a clinically obese prime minister (Churchill), a gay prime minister (Roseberry. Not openly of course, but it was an ill-kept secret) and, as I said, plenty of Atheists. We've even had a closet catholic in Blair - the only reasons he didn't come out openly being that he wanted to make a name for himself in Northern Ireland and didn't want to be considered a nutter by the voting public.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
28. Comment #187836 by acs on June 2, 2008 at 8:07 pm
As an Australian, I have previously stated my shame on this issue. Now I have to do it again.Our Prime Minister is a self confessed "God Botherer" and he is from the left side of politics!!!. So there is unlikely to be any movement on a political front in relation to religious school (Ironically, all of his children went to secular grammar schools).
Australia, like the US and GB is suffering from the invigoration of religion, which many of us had hoped would be over in the 1950's. Oh well, just keep pushing science, logic and fact - hopefully they will come around.
Other Comments by acs
29. Comment #187845 by Lightnin on June 2, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Wow, I'm watching the insight program (see comment #19) and some prat (christian school teacher) in a year ten science class is indirectly saying that a purely materialistic view of evolution is held only by atheists (he gave Dawkins as the only example of someone who would hold this view).Now some muslim girl is talking about how the theory of evolution is taught as being the theory of evolution.
Sorry, I'll stop with the stream of consciousness. Check the program out-basically all the kids at faith schools don't know ZOMG-The islamic girl is death glaring a Jewish girl!
Enough of that. Stop rambling.
Other Comments by Lightnin
30. Comment #187848 by mordacious1 on June 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I offer up Pete Stark, U.S. Congressman from CA 13 district. Has stated that he is an atheist, the first and only atheist (that we know of) to serve in the U.S. Congress. I might add that he is one of a few who voted against giving GW the power to attack Iraq. We need more people like him.Other Comments by mordacious1
31. Comment #187850 by jo5ef on June 2, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I'm an Australian as well and tihis really pxxxs me off. "an education sanitised of any religious beliefs or values" sounds like the best kind to me, youve got your churches for disseminating superstition, isnt that enough?To paraphrase Gillards speech "blah meaningless waffle blah" - thats MY tax money there you're spending Julia and Kev and I'm sick of subsidizing this crap. The worst thing is, we're all locked into it, if you want a better education for your kids than the public schools offer (and some of them are frankly appaling) you have to choose from religious based private schools so noone wants to rock the boat.
As said previously, the French have the right idea.
Other Comments by jo5ef
32. Comment #187868 by mmurray on June 2, 2008 at 11:26 pm
This article seems to me to be a little haphazardly written. Also, it feels like the narrator changes stances at the end. Am I supposed to be revolted by the earlier statements? They make perfect sense to me.
I think you missed the : signs. This is two people talking with different opinions.
JOHN KAYE Greens NSW MP and education spokesman:
STEPHEN O'DOHERTY Chief executive, Christian Schools Australia:
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
33. Comment #187873 by Damien White on June 2, 2008 at 11:54 pm
This reminds me of the email I recieved from Amanda Rishworth during last year's hustings.Amanda was the ALP candidate for the Seat of Kingston, so I wrote her an email asking her for the ALPs policy of teaching creationism in schools. She sent back a very explanatory email stating that the ALP were determined to keep religion out of the classroom.
If anyone wants to see it i placed it on my blog, captaindoobie.blogger.com way back in October last year.
Other Comments by Damien White
34. Comment #187875 by dr joneZ on June 3, 2008 at 12:00 am
I offer up Pete Stark, U.S. Congressman from CA 13 district. Has stated that he is an atheist, the first and only atheist (that we know of) to serve in the U.S. Congress.That's great mordacious1. How, then can we get more intelligent, rationalist types like Mr Stark to go into politics? That would appear to be the question. I seriously admire anyone who is publicly atheist in the USA because they are simply going to cop so much shit from people. Here in Australia, the atheists cower in silence. There is the occasional rap from Phillip Adams - a journo - and the odd inspired response from a reader in newspaper letters columns but other than that, no hint of the kind of intellectual maelstrom going on over this issue as in Europe. I welcome all emails from any Oz Atheists who, like me, despair of the stranglehold that faith-based institutions have on our society.
Other Comments by dr joneZ
35. Comment #187878 by dr joneZ on June 3, 2008 at 12:33 am
If anyone wants to see it i placed it on my blog, captaindoobie.blogger.com way back in October last year.Damien - I'd love to contact Amanda Rishworth over this letter and see where they are with it but I'm getting "can't find the server" messages every time I hit your link.
Any chance you could cut/paste/send it to me as a private message?
Other Comments by dr joneZ
36. Comment #187891 by mmurray on June 3, 2008 at 2:01 am
you have to choose from religious based private schools
That's true but there is the occasional `non-denominational' one like I send my kids too. You can also avoid the fundie ones which the guy in this article represents.
http://www.csa.edu.au/
He is being disingenuous by confusing his type of school with the mainstream religious private schools. The latter are usually not too bad in terms of overt religion. I learnt all my school biology in a Marist Brother's College in Melbourne. They had many issues but they would have laughed at creationism.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
37. Comment #187897 by Laurie Fraser on June 3, 2008 at 2:10 am
Australia is one of the few countries that subsidise those companies that sell "education" wrapped in a religious cloak. We've been doing this for years; our politcal parties (except for the Greens) have acquiesed because of political fear. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
38. Comment #187913 by Ramases on June 3, 2008 at 3:04 am
People do not seem to be reading this carefully, as comments like this indicate."I thought this article was going to be agressively against religion in education then it turned into liberal pandering of the kind that got us where we are now."
There are actually TWO articles. One is by JOHN KAYE Greens NSW MP, against publicly funded religious education. The other, which starts halfway down, is by religious nut STEPHEN O'DOHERTY Chief executive, Christian Schools Australia, is in favour of it. John Kaye's article is great, Stephen O'Doherty's is rubbish. Thought I should point this out to those who seem confused and think they are reading one article.
It is outrageous that here in Australian public funding is going to sectarian religious schools teaching rubbish. Unfortunately here it is very easy for religious and sectarian schools to get funding - despite the fact that they teach rubbish, exclude students and teachers on the grounds of their religion and charge fees, such schools are about 80% publicly funded here in Aussie land. They are also bad schools academically - when cohort and resources are taken into account their academic records are poor. The public funding of private religious schools is a disgrace, and I shudder to think what my taxes are doing.
As a former teacher it is also a pity to see that some atheists are as ignorant as anyone else about educational matters. Take this comment from Bordie Collie,
"...from what I can tell, nothing is being taught or learned in public schools anyway. They seem to be only concerned with teaching political correctness, sensitivity, cultural relativism, etc. The three R's, science, geography, English, etc. went out the door decades ago.
Sorry Border Collie, but you are talking pure rubbish. Preparing young people for modern society and providing them with a good education requires teaching them critical thinking skills, how to analysis, consider, acquire skills and think for themselves, not some silly return to some ill defined "back to basics".
Public schools, which are secular, free, non-religious and open to all are best at doing this. Long may they rule.
Other Comments by Ramases
39. Comment #187916 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 3:15 am
To give some research backing to Cartomancer's note that atheism is no problem to political leadership (and possibly an advantage) look no further than YouGov's recent survey where 74% would be delighted or would not mind an atheist being the UK PM. Contrast that with just 34% as the comparative number for the US President.In fact in the US atheists are about as desireable as Muslims. However a Muslim would do no better in the UK with well over 50% who would be sorry or even angry!
Page 22 of this YouGov pdf document: http://tinyurl.com/6468k4
The three preceding pages have some rather intersting UK/US comparisons on religion. I wasn't surprised by the high US christian belief. I was shocked by the extreme way most believe it. Absoluteley incredible for a nation that put a man on the moon. Or perhaps things have gone seriously downhill in the last 40 years.
Other Comments by brainsys
40. Comment #187971 by Healyhatman on June 3, 2008 at 5:06 am
It's not CHOICE at all!What fucking choice do the children get? I think this quote from the article sums it up quite nicely.
"This argument leads to a line we should not cross, where children are denied the right to an education whose values reflect the faith of their families and community. "
Children denied the right to an education... based on what their fundamentalist family and neighbours tell them is true, based on what the bible tells THEM is true.
Other Comments by Healyhatman
41. Comment #187975 by irate_atheist on June 3, 2008 at 5:14 am
40. Comment #187971 by Healyhatman -
It is - as you quite rightly point out - a crock of shit.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
42. Comment #187977 by mmurray on June 3, 2008 at 5:17 am
But although people and cultures are diverse, the truth isn't. The origins of the universe and of life are not something that vary from person to person or culture to culture.
I take it you are not a post-modernist Cartomancer ? A few years back in Australia we nearly got a national physics curriculum written by post-modernists. It was going to allow all creation stories to be equally valid.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
43. Comment #188024 by j.mills on June 3, 2008 at 6:57 am
Haven't had time to read everybody's posts, but wanted to tell you about my workplace. It's a secondary comprehensive school in the UK and in September it will become an Academy. This means that the government will throw (typically) £30m at it, and continue to pay the running costs, whilst freeing it from the sensible restrictions applied to state schools (admissions, exclusions, staff conditions, curriculum) and handing over control to a private sponsor.
It's a bonkers scheme that is quietly ripping through the UK education system. The sponsor in this case (as in many) is a religious organisation, United Learning Trust, essentially a CoE charity (which puts no money in!).
The county council sold this scheme to the public (to release government funding for other projects) as Promoting choice and diversity. Yet the school is right next to an existing CoE secondary school, and two miles away from any other secondary school in any direction! Where before you had one faith-based school beside a 'secular' one, now you will have two faith-based ones. So much for promoting diversity. (A bankrupt goal in the first place.)
Bugger choice: give me excellence.
(Meanwhile I'm taking a severance payment and scarpering. Yuck!)
Other Comments by j.mills
44. Comment #188039 by Ramases on June 3, 2008 at 7:08 am
Hi j.mills,This is interesting. I have read about Academies, but what I read told me that they do not get greater resources than comprehensive schools. Your informaion would indicate otherwise.
What resources do these new schools get? What is the justification for them getting such favouritism? Do you have any links on this?
This is a genuine inquiry as I am actually intersted due to some studies I am involved in.
Other Comments by Ramases
45. Comment #188141 by j.mills on June 3, 2008 at 9:07 am
@Ramases: you can start at http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/ - which, as the address suggests, takes a position.
Here's the process. The Govt wants academies (g*d only knows why), so it pressures county councils to convert schools. This may be by merging schools, often with a completely new building or at the least massive refurbishment. All schools in England (UK?) are going to benefit from a wave of funding called Building Schools For The Future (BSF), and the Govt is known to be telling counties that they'll go to the end of the queue for BSF unless they 'consider' (= accept) an academy or two. Blackmail, basically.
Counties roll over and ask for sponsors. A sponsor for an academy can be anyone, basically, so long as they can put a bid together including £1.5m to go into an endowment. This can be supplied over 5 years and the school gets only the interest, so it's a pittance really. (If you're a university who wants to be a sponsor, I think the endowment is waived altogether!)
Once all the decisions have been made, a lip-service consultation process is gone through (stage-managed 'debates', biased questionnaires, one-sided information). There have actually been successes in delaying academies through protest at this point, though I don't know if any academies have been quashed outright. I think some plans have fallen through for want of a sponsor.
ULT is the biggest sponsor so far, with a dozen or so academies - more secondary schools (with sixth forms) than many a local authority. The proposed sponsor for an academy in Preston was Carphone Warehouse. Dixons sponsored one, then pulled out, leaving the county to pick up the tab. That Vardy creationist car-dealer fellow has an academy or two.
Once the go-ahead is given, capital costs (mainly for building) of typically £25m are supplied by Govt, along with an extra £1m-ish per year for the first 4 years. The Govt continues to pay all the school's running costs forever. Note the massive inequity this creates with neighbouring schools. (In my borough there are 5 other secondaries - which means all that money will be squandered on just 20% of children, while the rest will inevitably feel second-class.)
Admissions criteria, exclusion policy, what subjects and qualifications to teach, staff pay and conditions, can all be set by the sponsor, who can also decide whether to bother accepting special needs students. (Staff transferring have protected conditions, but only until they accept a change, such as a promotion, for which they'll have to move to the sponsor's own contract.) Academies, as private organisations, are exempt from most education law, including the Freedom of Information Act (!) - which means it is incredibly difficult for researchers to find out what these schools are teaching.
Attainment improvements so far have been paltry, and easily attributed to the huge funding and policy freedoms rather than to 'innovative' private sector leadership. Indeed, the Govt has routinely had to send in its experts to get academies on track - at further expense.
Before the first dozen academies had reached any exam results, Blair expanded the scheme to 200 academies. Before any cohort of students had been through a 5-year cycle in an academy, he expanded it to the new target of 400 - about 10% of UK secondary schools.
The school I'm at will become an academy "open to all faiths and none", but "with a religious character". RE lessons will be "mainly Christian", Christian festivals will be celebrated and all students and staff will be expected to subscribe to the academy's "Christian values" - respect, service, hard work, discipline and compassion. Anybody know where in the Bible that list comes from?! Me neither. The co-opting and re-branding of ordinary aspirations as "Christian values" is something I find particularly galling - is there a school in the world that wouldn't support those 'values'?
If you're really interested, there's a PriceWaterhouse Coopers report, a National Audit Office report and a Select Committee report, variously critical, all online on Govt sites. I expect you've enough to be going on with...
(Oh, here's an MPs Committee of Enquiry report: http://www.antiacademies.org.uk/downloads/MPs-report.pdf )
Other Comments by j.mills
46. Comment #188211 by King of NH on June 3, 2008 at 11:07 am
Why? Why should we allow the myths and legends of a child's family culture to be taught as fact in a school? This is stupid! Other Comments by King of NH
47. Comment #188239 by amalthea on June 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I really abhor the education/indoctrination process we foist upon our children (in general, not you guys/girls, obviously) It's obviously unfair to teach kids all the fairy stories, then tell them only the one about God/Allah/Whatever was true. Then send them out into the world and expect them to behave like reasonable human beings. I was raised Catholic, so the disparity between observable fact and dogma was obvious, and my father was a great champion of reason (at least for me) My personal conviction is that church, state AND school should be seperate.
Like France yes, but with a bit more thought, the French are having a difficult time at the moment because they proposed equality, without expressing any interest in their immigrant communities at all. They STILL have no idea about the religious and cultural make-up of their own country. In the UK, there are questionnaires when you go to a library, asking your ethnic background. This is seen as an invasion of privacy by the french people who live here, they're not used to it, but it's so they can provide books in your language, if you want them. France pushed equality to its limit, now they have no idea who they have in their own country.
For me, the main idea to push against the 'god-botherer's' (they don't deserve capitals) is the idea that you only get one life. That's it. Maybe then we'd all realise that killing people just for a political or financial, sometimes both, motive is DUMB (deserves capitals,I think.
The only way to accomplish that is through education. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that no-one ever came back and said 'Oooohh, heaven is lovely!' It never happens.
Faith = Gullible.
Oh, and yes: A Fuck-tard is an apt description of STEPHEN O'DOHERTY. We'd recognise his catholic roots in an instant in the UK and the US. Blatant apologist, I suspect his mother is still alive and he doesn't want to offend her. It's even possible he still lives with her. Any bios out there so we can check and hit him with Ad Hominem?
:)
Other Comments by amalthea
48. Comment #188281 by bikeshopgirl on June 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Ok, I haven't had a lot of sleep, and so am a bit cranky to start with, but people! This is supposed to be a clear-thinking oasis. Yet it doesn't seem to be a clear-reading one.Commentors 21, 22 & 29 if you won't read the original article properly yourself, then read comments 13, 18, 19, 20, 32 & 38. In particular, commentor 22, can I state the bleeding obvious - in answer to your question - John Kaye is a politician, and is clearly an open (and articulate) atheist.
Righto. Class dismissed.
Other Comments by bikeshopgirl
49. Comment #188282 by Damien White on June 3, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Whoops! Sorry about that, dr joneZ, I can't believe I got the URL for my own blog wrong. Honestly, i'd forget my own head if I hadn't securely stapled it on...Try www.captaindoobie.blogspot.com
Other Comments by Damien White
50. Comment #188289 by Laurie Fraser on June 3, 2008 at 6:41 pm
John Kaye is a Greens representative in the NSW Legislative Council (the upper house.) He is a Ph.D., a rationalist, and a thoroughly lovely man. And, I might say, a passionate advocate of public, secular education. I'm having a meeting with him tomorrow night - I'll let him know about our discussion here, and maybe entice him to add his comments about the issue. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #187539 by mordacious1 on June 2, 2008 at 9:40 am
To borrow irate_atheist's term:Fucktard
Other Comments by mordacious1