ETHICS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.?

[66 vegie]

Look's like if the Lib's get in at the next state election..their going to cancel the Ethics classes.

I was thinking about NOT voting Labor in the next election...but now I just don't know.

I just love this line from Peter Jensen.

"Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen said the ethics rollout was "a bad decision ... which will impoverish the education of many NSW public school children".

How absurd...I've never read such rubbish in all my life.


Ethics classes will be rolled out across NSW public schools next year but their future is already in doubt after the opposition pledged to scrap the controversial program if it wins the March state election.

Cabinet approved the classes on Monday after considering the recommendations of an independent evaluation of a trial program run in 10 schools earlier this year.

NSW Premier Kristina Keneally said of the 745 community submissions received in response to the evaluation report, 730 were in favour of them continuing.

Advertisement: Story continues below
The classes - run by the St James Ethics Centre as an alternative to religious lessons - will begin from the first term next year and initially be offered to years five and six.

They will then be progressively rolled out to children in kindergarten to year four.

Individual schools will decide whether to offer an ethics program.

"This is about government responding to the wishes of parents, many of whom have been asking for greater choice for many years," Ms Keneally told parliament on Tuesday.

"Ethics classes will provide a legitimate and educational use of time for children of parents who have elected not to participate in scripture classes."

The ethics classes would run alongside existing Special Religious Education (SRE), Ms Keneally said.

"These classes have no effect whatsoever on the teaching or scripture of special religious education in our schools," she said.

"Ethics classes will be offered on the same conditions and the same manner as special religious education, and the government will make no changes to special religious education."

However, the ethics program could be shortlived, with the opposition saying it will scrap the classes at the end of 2011 if it wins the March election, as is widely expected.

"While the NSW Liberals and Nationals understand the importance of ethics, we do not believe it should be positioned as an alternative to Special Religious Education," opposition education spokesman Adrian Piccoli said.

"We don't think that students should have to choose between Special Religious Education and ethics classes."

Australian Christian Lobby NSW director David Hutt welcomed the opposition's promise to axe the program, saying it guaranteed "a bright future for SRE".

"There is now a clear choice for voters on this issue in the lead up to the March election," he said.

"No one is opposed to the idea of children being taught ethics in schools, however the St James Ethics Centre's proposal was unworkable, and put ethics classes, something all children should be able to attend, in competition with SRE."



"Philosophical ethics is not a real alternative to the study of religion and it is unfair to confront parents with the dilemma of having them both taught at the same time," he said.

The Federation of Parents and Citizens Association NSW said it was "extremely disappointed" by the opposition's support for the "status quo".

"Scripture classes as they are run in public schools are not engaging," federation president Helen Walton said.

"And those children who don't attend aren't being given any option of any meaningful learning experiences."

[Praxis]

The Libs are more and more embodying the religious right in Australia. This may well be an early warning bell and voters would do well to take notice.

As for Jensen, he's long been a purveyor of crap and I wouldn't take much notice of him. He's as hollow a trumpet as that idiot Jim Wallace.

[66 vegie]

The Libs are more and more embodying the religious right in Australia. This may well be an early warning bell and voters would do well to take notice.

As for Jensen, he's long been a purveyor of crap and I wouldn't take much notice of him. He's as hollow a trumpet as that idiot Jim Wallace.

I'll try not to get to upset just yet...but it's not looking good for Labor in the next election.

This is why with us freethinking folk, we dislike the religious folk so much when they say thing's like the crazy statement Jensen just made. I'm off to bed.:(

[Xeno]

"Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen said the ethics rollout was "a bad decision ... which will impoverish the education of many NSW public school children".Already being impoverished by SRE.

Australian Christian Lobby NSW director David Hutt ... said ... "No one is opposed to the idea of children being taught ethics in schools, however the St James Ethics Centre's proposal ... put ethics classes, something all children should be able to attend, in competition with SRE."

"Philosophical ethics is not a real alternative to the study of religion and it is unfair to confront parents with the dilemma of having them both taught at the same time," he said.Not much of a dilemma to most parents, based on the rate at which they pulled their kids out of SRE to put them into ethics classes. Does the ACL have a problem with market choice?

I think it is also worth recalling that there is no legislation requiring SRE in school hours at all. If Mr Hutt fears religious students would be disadvantaged by missing out on education in ethics, he can advocate abandoning SRE time in school hours. They already have church on Sundays and presumably committed parents to instruct their own children. The Act allows it so it is only a policy change, just like introduction of ethics classes (despite the confusion the churches successfully raised around that issue).

[RealityRules]

Nero? Nero? Where art thou Nero?

[Sieveboy]

Very disappointed in the NSW Libs, NSW Labour finally gets 1 (count them 1) thing right and they have to destroy it.

To the <insert left wing party here> my vote goes.

[nibble]

So what did these not for profit institutions use to bribe the Libs? Eternal salvation? :mad:

[loubert]

One step forward, two steps back....

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

This is exactly why I will not formally vote for the next election. Because I don't see much point in voting: there's guaranteed to be some dickhead or another in power, and he/she is going to fuck it all up for everybody else.

[BlueDevil]

Sounds like you guys in NSW should start sending letters and emails to the Liberals stating that you will not under any circumstances vote for a party that won't allow secular ethics classes in schools.

If they get a barrage of objections they may think again. Could be worth a try.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

One step forward, two steps back....

It's not a fait accompli, and if this does fall through, I only see it as one step back. If they make scripture class mandatory, then I'll eat my words. The frustration comes from starting so far on the back foot in the first place.

[cyclist]

I'm in the same boat as other posters. This is something that the Labor Party is getting right, and while I want to see them gone, the Libs aren't exactly enamouring themselves to me with a policy like that.

At this stage, I am probably going to do the same as I did last State Election, give neither major party my vote. At the State level (in NSW at least), you don't have to number every box, you have to put down a certain number of preferences, but you don't have to number everything.

James

[TimB]

What a crap start to the day. I guess we shouldn't expect anything different from the Liberal party (that's Liberal spelt with a "RC" for religious conservative" just in case you think the word "Liberal" means something else.

I might even vote Labor now.

[Sieveboy]

I'm in the same boat as other posters. This is something that the Labor Party is getting right, and while I want to see them gone, the Libs aren't exactly enamouring themselves to me with a policy like that.

At this stage, I am probably going to do the same as I did last State Election, give neither major party my vote. At the State level (in NSW at least), you don't have to number every box, you have to put down a certain number of preferences, but you don't have to number everything.

James

I always number the boxes, to ensure the that Christians Democrats are stone cold last, right next to Fundamentalist Firsts as well.

[slim]

I know there is an ethics classes related thread, but I think this news article deserves a little more dedicated airtime...


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/school-ethics-classes-appear-doomed-at-final-hurdle-20101123-185r7.html

School ethics classes appear doomed at final hurdle
Sean Nicholls STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
November 24, 2010
THE state government's plans to introduce ethics classes into primary schools are in disarray after the Coalition announced it would not support them as an alternative to scripture if it wins power next year.

''While the NSW Liberals and Nationals understand the importance of ethics we do not believe it should be positioned as an alternative to special religious education,'' the opposition education spokesman, Adrian Piccoli, said.

''We don't think that students should have to choose between special religious education … and ethics classes.''

Advertisement: Story continues below
On Monday, state cabinet approved a change to the wording of the Department of Education policy which forbids ethics classes being run at the same time as scripture classes.

Under the government's plan, the St James Ethics Centre, which ran a successful trial of the classes in NSW primary schools this year, would provide course material and volunteer teachers for all children from kindergarten to year 6. The program would be funded by donations.

The Premier, Kristina Keneally, told Parliament yesterday that the first classes would become available for children in years 5 and 6 by term one next year.

Responding, Mr Piccoli said that if the Coalition won the election in March, as the polls indicate it will, it would not support the classes.

''If there is a need to build on the existing teaching of values and ethics then it should be through the curriculum or a course offered to all students, not just those of parents who do not wish their children to undertake scripture,'' he said.

Mr Piccoli said if classes were in place and the Coalition won the election, it would allow them to run until the end of next year.

The push for ethics classes began because under the current policy, students who opt out of scripture classes are banned from doing other classes and are left to read or do other activities. But the government's plan has been strongly opposed by the churches.

The executive director of the St James Ethics Centre, Simon Longstaff, was ''extremely disappointed'' with the Coalition decision.

If ethics classes did not compete with scripture, the problem of children opting out of scripture being forced to do less meaningful activities would not be solved.

''The Coalition has chosen to put institutional interests ahead of the hundreds of thousands of children in NSW,'' he said.

Asked how the announcement would affect the centre's willingness to continue preparations for the introduction of the classes in January, Dr Longstaff said he did not know.

''We have to make an assessment about whether it's responsible to ask the community to invest their time and money into a venture that may be futile,'' he said.

''It may be that we press ahead because it is the right thing to do. But that needs to be put to the parent community, which has carried the day on this.''

The Minister for Education, Verity Firth, said the opposition's position clashed with the wishes of parents.

''The message we have received loud and clear from parents is that they should have the right to choose,'' she said.

''It's not up to politicians to decide for them.

''No one can seriously argue that it's unreasonable for children who don't attend scripture to be offered an alternative.

''The opposition's position on this is simply an insult to parents.''

[bruce1937]

Once again politicians pandering to church lobby groups to ensure voting support.
They have no ethics!!!!

[Praxis]

Slim, I'm going to merge this into the running thread over in Family Matters, where 66 vegie already has a post on the Libs' scary proposal, but separate to the other thread on Ethics Classes in general.

Cheers :)

[slim]

Slim, I'm going to merge this into the running thread over in Family Matters, where 66 vegie already has a post on the Libs' scary proposal, but separate to the other thread on Ethics Classes in general.

Cheers :)

Oh alright...

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee110/mrschlim/smileymeme.jpg

Agree with the scary sentiment on this one.

For what it's worth, I don't know that the Libs are pandering to any particular church lobby. As unpleasant as it is, I get the impression that these guys are true believers - the ultra right-wing Christian kind. I should know as I'm related to a bunch of these village idiots, and they're always parroting back the same rhetoric.

I could be completely mistaken in my belief, but the dropping of anti-Muslim scare pamphlets, the individuals within their ranks that arc up about Muslim MP's being elected, the fact that the conservative Christian commentators enjoy leg-humping them, all kind of point to LNP as being a party of conservative, militant Christians.

[66 vegie]

Sounds like you guys in NSW should start sending letters and emails to the Liberals stating that you will not under any circumstances vote for a party that won't allow secular ethics classes in schools.

If they get a barrage of objections they may think again. Could be worth a try.
Already in the making...I'm writing a letter to my local council and the National Liberal party...have to watch how I phase it...not to many angry words.

Any Ideas would be great ??...I'm not a great letter writer when it come's to politics.:confused:

[Loki]

This could potentially be a big problem for the libs. Take-up of ethics in the trial was a high percentage of eligible students (does anyone have the actual numbers?). If a similar percentage take up the offer next year then the libs will look extremely silly if they then try to stop it.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Already in the making...I'm writing a letter to my local council and the National Liberal party...have to watch how I phase it...not to many angry words.

Any Ideas would be great ??...I'm not a great letter writer when it come's to politics.:confused:

Hi 66Veggie
My first draft went off on a tangent about SRE, but I scrapped it because it didn't deal directly with the issue at hand. I made a case that SRE should be canned, not that the ethics classes should go ahead.
In my second attempt I sought to keep it short and to the point by sticking to the information used in the debate as it stands. Pointing out that SRE is divisive, discriminatory and sometimes gets implemented by YEC morons, while true, didn't address that the Ethics Classes have been successful and should go ahead regardless of who weilds power next year. To make this an election issue shows a contemptible disregard for the time and self esteem of the students being excluded by the SRE program as it stands.

Being interstate (currently international) my voice isn't likely to carry any weight, but it will be heard nonetheless.
WLB

[66 vegie]

This could potentially be a big problem for the libs. Take-up of ethics in the trial was a high percentage of eligible students (does anyone have the actual numbers?). If a similar percentage take up the offer next year then the libs will look extremely silly if they then try to stop it.

True..but I know how much pull these Christian party's have over the big guy's. this is just one small problem for them amongst a million and one other thing's they have to fix for this state to be on level with the rest of Australia....they'll try to say were making a mountain out of a mold hill with the ethics issues.

I just hope we have the energy to go one more round. Not to sure how many kids were in the trial...but 700 + public schools are in support of the Ethics classes going ahead in there schools.

[66 vegie]

Hi 66Veggie
My first draft went off on a tangent about SRE, but I scrapped it because it didn't deal directly with the issue at hand. I made a case that SRE should be canned, not that the ethics classes should go ahead.
In my second attempt I sought to keep it short and to the point by sticking to the information used in the debate as it stands. Pointing out that SRE is divisive, discriminatory and sometimes gets implemented by YEC morons, while true, didn't address that the Ethics Classes have been successful and should go ahead regardless of who weilds power next year. To make this an election issue shows a contemptible disregard for the time and self esteem of the students being excluded by the SRE program as it stands.

Being interstate (currently international) my voice isn't likely to carry any weight, but it will be heard nonetheless.
WLB

Great idea. sticking to the point..nice and straight forward..it's hard to keep the emotion out of a formal letter...you have to try to keep it professional, that way hopefully some will take you serious.

[RealityRules]

This could potentially be a big problem for the libs. Take-up of ethics in the trial was a high percentage of eligible students (does anyone have the actual numbers?). If a similar percentage take up the offer next year then the libs will look extremely silly if they then try to stop it.

They might look silly, but they wil be pandering to their support base - the churches.

The Libs are going to win the NSW election next year regardless of this issue and probably regardless of whether it is an election issue or not, unless polling is so strong that swinging and Liberal supporters would vote elsewhere for this one issue.

[Mundo Pablo]

It's on again, the coalition Opposition here in NSW have said this morning they will wind back the ethics educ. in schools if they win the election (Mar.'11) Artical in todays abc.net.au/thedrum from Simon Longstaff of the St James Ethics Centre (Protium might make a link for me,-thanks!) Simon is behind the ethics in schools curriculum etc.

[66 vegie]

Hi.

I've got this same thread going on in Family Matters..if you would like to have a look over there.:D

It's very disappointing.

[Mundo Pablo]

Thanks 66, I'll have a look.

[Mundo Pablo]

Hey BlueDev, thats worth doing, we have a Lib. sitting member down here. I'll get a letter going.

[MunkyJam]

Even the religious zealot in my science faculty that runs JOLT (Jesus Over Lunch Time) in our state school thinks that this is a good idea. Even she can recognise that atheist students would only just now be getting the sort of ethics lessons that children are supposed to be getting in SRE.
Personally though it seems much better than SRE as it's not based on fairy tales. And I agree that students shouldn't be forced to choose between SRE and Ethics. So give SRE the arse altogether and just have weekly Ethics (which is actually meant to be incorporated into all programming in schools anyway).

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

MunkyJam: Although I do agree with your motive 100% I think the idea is too sensible and too sane for any government to implement. :p

The problem is that they need to get votes from teh stoopid to be in power as unfortunately, they are people too.

Expecting that to happen is like expecting churches to be exempt from receiving tax benefits.

[gruber]

I read in the Sunday Telegraph (or herald) a story written by one of the columnists saying that all the Ethic classes are, are for Atheists and the Greens to force their way into the schools and undermine the christian ethics of this country.




BAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

[Ernie]

We hear so much about Christian ethics. Do the Christians take responsibility for the intolerance and bullying in the schools? I think not. Do they take even responsibility for the abuse within church organisations? And what about all those cover ups? How can they continue rant on about the Christian ethic?

Putting the concept in some context, religious ethics are actually a small part of the overall ethical theory. And Christian ethics are but one part of religious ethics. It’s time to let the politicians know that the society they represent wants to move into the twenty first century, and society needs to embrace the whole of ethical theory, not just one little bit of it!

If enough noise is made pre-election they will take notice. It is, after all, all about votes.

Eardstapper

For a good (but solid) read on ethics see Singer P A (Ed) Companion to Ethics Blackwell Publishing 2009

[66 vegie]

I'm trying to post as much info on the Ethics classes debate as I can. Here's another article from the SMH. The politicians are so scared of losing the church vote...that they will let something as wonderful as the Ethics classes fall to the ground just to keep the cash coming in from the religious.:mad:

This could be a win for Labor...if the Lib's try to hard to scrap the classes, it may sway the voters over to Labor ( I'm not sure if the Ethics Classes have reached over to the wider community..or if it's just Parents and Educators that are in the know.?? + the very one sided religious community.)


Losing poll position with ethics stance
Sean Nicholls
November 27, 2010
Ads by Google

Courses in Sydneywww.cce.usyd.edu.au
Short courses at Sydney University. Open to everyone. Enrol online.


After months of ducking and weaving, the Coalition has finally revealed its position on ethics classes as an alternative to scripture in NSW schools: it is against them because children who attend scripture classes would be disadvantaged.

The argument goes that children who want to attend scripture but might also find an ethics class attractive should not be forced to choose.

Advertisement: Story continues below
But there is a bit more to the announcement, made late on Tuesday by the Coalition's education spokesman and deputy leader of the Nationals, Adrian Piccoli.

A closer examination shows the Coalition is not just against the classes if they ''compete'' with scripture. Their position, in effect, bans schools from running ethics classes as part of the curriculum.

It was not explicit in his press release, but Piccoli told the Herald the Coalition would not be interested in allowing ethics classes at another time during the regular school day.

The reason: it would involve ditching another class to make room for an ethics class, which it is not prepared to do.

The position is at odds with the claim that the issue is one of relative disadvantage.

It also lends weight to the charge coming from the St James Ethics Centre, the government's partner in the ethics classes, that the Coalition is being dictated to by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, and his Anglican counterpart, Peter Jensen, who have been campaigning hard against them.

Piccoli has said a Coalition government would remove any ethics classes that had been put into NSW primary schools under Labor by the start of the 2012 school year.

If the government's timetable is accurate - it says classes will become available for years 5 and 6 students from term 1 next year - Barry O'Farrell could be banning hundreds of classes across the state within his first year as premier.

Labor moved yesterday to legislate to protect classes from such a move, but that will work only if the Greens win the balance of power in March, which is not guaranteed.

Any ban on the classes is likely to be met by a lot of furious parents. Could the influence of Pell and Jensen be the reason O'Farrell is willing to suffer what is shaping up as some electoral pain?

This was certainly hinted at by the comments of the Nationals' leader, Andrew Stoner, in an interview with the Herald in September, before the decision of the shadow cabinet was made.

Asked for his position on ethics classes, Stoner, a former Coalition spokesman for education, said he was ''personally relaxed about them. However, the churches are not. And I think we need to take their concerns into account''.

He went on to say that he thought the quality of some scripture classes ''is not good'' and there was a high dropout rate.

''I think in that circumstance some education in the principle of ethics is desirable for these people who are opting out,'' he said.

''However, you will need to have the churches on side with you to achieve that. And it's clear [Labor] haven't been able to do that. And I, for one, regard churches as being an important part of our society, and I listen to them. If their concerns haven't been resolved, I don't think government should get ahead of that part of society.''

The immediate chatter around the decision focused on the influence on O'Farrell's shadow cabinet of the so-called Religious Right faction, led by the upper house MP David Clarke.

For Labor, it might just be a gift that has dropped into its lap just before the election campaign.

[Flyingphil172]

Already in the making...I'm writing a letter to my local council and the National Liberal party...have to watch how I phase it...not to many angry words.

Any Ideas would be great ??...I'm not a great letter writer when it come's to politics.:confused:


I just sent this off to my local member:

Judy Hopwood
Member of the Legislative Assembly
Member for Hornsby
Member of the Liberal Party
　
　
Dear Judy,

As you would be aware, the NSW government has approved the introduction of ethics classes to NSW public schools, a move that the Liberal party opposed.
I would like to recieve some input into the rationality behind the Liberal partys rejection of the ethics classes.
　
The ethics classes were proposed as a way for those student who didn't attend scripture, to have a meaningful class to attend. Without them, these students are not allowed to learn anything and have nothing to do. Is it the policy/preference of the Liberal Party to have these students who opt out of scripture do nothing? Or does the Liberal party plan to introduce another subject for these students (please explain the subjects if so)?

Various media sources stated that the Liberal Party's opposition to the ethics classes was that it should not be held in competition with scripture as the scripture students would then miss out on the ethics. This is the same as saying "as some people miss out, therefore every single person should miss out".
As it stands, religious students have been getting one extra class/subject as part of their education and non religious students have got zero. Is this fair? With the ethics classes run in competition with scripture, its means both groups get one class each. If the ethics classes were held seperately so that everyone could attend ethics, the religious students would then be getting two extra classes and the non religious only get one - how is that fair?
Furthermore, religion is supposed to contain ethics anyway. Why would students need to attend ethics classes after having attended religious ones? This poses the question that the Liberal Party believes religion does not contain ethics or that it contains the wrong kind of ethics. Please explain.

[66 vegie]

I just sent this off to my local member:

Judy Hopwood
Member of the Legislative Assembly
Member for Hornsby
Member of the Liberal Party
　
　
Dear Judy,

As you would be aware, the NSW government has approved the introduction of ethics classes to NSW public schools, a move that the Liberal party opposed.
I would like to recieve some input into the rationality behind the Liberal partys rejection of the ethics classes.
　
The ethics classes were proposed as a way for those student who didn't attend scripture, to have a meaningful class to attend. Without them, these students are not allowed to learn anything and have nothing to do. Is it the policy/preference of the Liberal Party to have these students who opt out of scripture do nothing? Or does the Liberal party plan to introduce another subject for these students (please explain the subjects if so)?

Various media sources stated that the Liberal Party's opposition to the ethics classes was that it should not be held in competition with scripture as the scripture students would then miss out on the ethics. This is the same as saying "as some people miss out, therefore every single person should miss out".
As it stands, religious students have been getting one extra class/subject as part of their education and non religious students have got zero. Is this fair? With the ethics classes run in competition with scripture, its means both groups get one class each. If the ethics classes were held seperately so that everyone could attend ethics, the religious students would then be getting two extra classes and the non religious only get one - how is that fair?
Furthermore, religion is supposed to contain ethics anyway. Why would students need to attend ethics classes after having attended religious ones? This poses the question that the Liberal Party believes religion does not contain ethics or that it contains the wrong kind of ethics. Please explain.


This is fantastic..we need more people like you and your great writing skill's.:)

I'm still working on mine...I'll post it soon.

[RealityRules]

Miranda Devine's latest rant in her column

AT last the NSW Opposition has showed some backbone in rejecting social engineering “ethics” classes in NSW primary schools. There has been a whiff of subterfuge about the classes ever since Nathan Rees proposed them in the dying days of his woeful premiership.

For one thing, there is the enthusiastic support of the Atheist Foundation and the Greens, who see the classes as a backdoor way to impose their own unrepresentative beliefs on children.

For another, do we know enough about the motivations and funding of the St James Ethics Centre, which ran a trial of the classes, and would provide course material and volunteer teachers, paid for by anonymous donors?

Church opposition to the classes is not just driven by concern that students will be lost from existing scripture lessons. It is that the ethics classes are a Trojan horse for undermining Judeo-Christian ethics and replacing them with an evangelical form of moral relativism.

blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/ column_evangelical_moral_relativism_isnt_ethics (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_evangelical_moral_relativism_isnt_ethics/F)

[Loki]

The comments are pretty pathetic, the old "this country was founded on ...." and "oh noes, they want to deny our kids morals" bullshit.

[RealityRules]

I agree, Loki. The old pathetic superficial fallacies.


These 2 letters to the editor in today's smh make interesting proposals
No compromise, so scripture must go
Mike Ticher (Postscript, November 27-28) says positions on the ethics class saga are well entrenched. I have campaigned for the ethics classes, but now I am changing my position.

We offered a respectful compromise. But now, since the churches behave as though public schools are a battleground for children's souls, and politicians behave as though discrimination in Department of Education policy is acceptable, my conclusion is we have been fighting the wrong fight.

Public schools are supposed to be inclusive and embrace diversity. There is nowhere else for the non-religious to go. We need to make scripture available only before or after school hours, if on public school property at all. Do we want to continue fighting for the ethics course, enabling the churches to maintain their places in public schools, or do we want them out?

Catherine Walsh Ashfield
.................................................. .................................................

I have been following the ethics classes debate with great interest. I found the recent arguments against competition with scripture by the Liberal Party and the Australian Christian Lobby particularly persuasive. But they do not go far enough. It is similarly unconscionable for parents to be forced to choose between the various denominations of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Each class should be scheduled at a separate time so a child may attend all if their parents wish.

If some parents wish to opt out of all but one, their children may sit in the library during the time allocated for the other classes. We wouldn't want them having any meaningful instruction during these periods, as that would obviously be unfair.

Robert Hirst Gordon

www.smh.com.au/national/letters/Mon 29 Nov 2010 (http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/whatever-this-works-message-its-not-racist-20101128-18ca5.html)

[Loki]

Submitted mine.

The choice is quite simple. Allow our children the chance to think and make decisions for themselves, or continue to shove vacuous inanities down their throats.

Why don't you want our children thinking?

The last comment to go up was 12 o'clock so I'm not holding my breath. A case of getting a few supportive comments and then locking to prevent seeing any which might dissagree with your wibble?

[Flyingphil172]

I bet mine won't get published but I sent it in anyway:



So Miranda, your concerned about undermining Judeo-Christian ethics ?

I was wondering, do you follow Judeo-Christian ethics by suddenly becoming "unclean" and "committing sin" during your menstrual fuctions and isolating yourself from everyone for 7 days? Then do you "cleanse your soul" by taking two doves and pigeons into church to be sacrificed? This is the Judeo-Christian ethics described by the Leviticus 15:19-33 for this situation.

Or do you just follow "Aggressive secularism" by simply using a tampon and just getting on with life.

[RealityRules]

Submitted mine. The last comment to go up was 12 o'clock so I'm not holding my breath.

A case of getting a few supportive comments and then locking to prevent seeing any which might dissagree with your wibble?

Standard News Corp fare. Very slack at posting comments on anything.

They seem to have become a haven for the Catholic die-hards, like Miranda Devine, especially in the Australian

[BlueDevil]

I was wondering, do you follow Judeo-Christian ethics by suddenly becoming "unclean" and "committing sin" during your menstrual fuctions and isolating yourself from everyone for 7 days? Then do you "cleanse your soul" by taking two doves and pigeons into church to be sacrificed? This is the Judeo-Christian ethics described by the Leviticus 15:19-33 for this situation.LMAO :D


PS By the way according to the KJV you can sacrifice turtles or pigeons. I have always wondered how common turtles would be in the deserts of the middle east??? Any zoologists know?

(Various versions of the bible say doves, pigeons, turtledoves and turtles - must create confusion for many women)

[BlueDevil]

@BDevil: Turtledoves, not the teenage mutant ninja thingies.

This is yet another reason why King James Only christians are anachronistic knobs.

"29And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

Who am I to question the wisdom of King James? Besides I reckon turtles are a lot more exciting than turtledoves. Pigeons, doves and turtledoves are very passe.

[BlueDevil]

@BD: Fair enough. Why would you trust me?

After all, I was a theologian.

Yeah...but I am reliably informed that reformed theologians are noted for remarkable honesty!

I just reckon turtles make for a much better story than turtledoves. And if christians can pick and choose what bits of the bible they want to use, and what versions they use, then I figure so can I. And to use that well know cliche - Never let the truth get in the way of a good story

[BlueDevil]

Awesome turtledove photo!!

[gruber]

People keep saying Australia was founded on christian vaules.... 5 points for those who can list the "vaules" Australia was founded on

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

To add to what gruber said, "do not lie/do not steal" are NOT "Christian values" and they have been around for centuries before those goat herders decided to smoke whatever they were smokin' - eating your children 4 jesus and stoning adulterers and burning witches on the other hand...

[simonecuttlefish]

People keep saying Australia was founded on christian vaules.... 5 points for those who can list the "vaules" Australia was founded on

1) The punishment for stealing food is to be sent as slave labour to the other side of the planet to expand your empire.

2) Black people are rubbish, and should be legally considered as not to exist

3) If someone is currently living in a place you wish to occupy, murder them.

4) All resources are to be stripped and sold.

5) When people come begging for food, put poison in the flour you give them. This stops the embarrassment from happening again.

[gruber]

5 points and back on topic now. Liberals are the churchs bitch when it comes to the ethic classes

[Senexis]

The Libs are more and more embodying the religious right in Australia. This may well be an early warning bell and voters would do well to take notice.
As a strategy this mystifies me. The religious proportion of the population is trending down, and the non-religious trending up.

I should think hitching your wagon to a group that is (literally) dying out to be short-term at best.

Did they learn nothing from the Federal Election? It was only a few months ago, surely they haven't forgotten the astonishing rise of the progressive secular folks and the staggering drop in popularity for friends of the botherers.

Interesting that the head of the Christian Lobby has publicly stated that ethics is worthwhile and should be available to all children...wonder if he meant to do that?

[RealityRules]

Originally Posted by Praxis
The Libs are more and more embodying the religious right in Australia. This may well be an early warning bell and voters would do well to take notice.

As a strategy this mystifies me. The religious proportion of the population is trending down, and the non-religious trending up.

I should think hitching your wagon to a group that is (literally) dying out to be short-term at best.

It is those clinging to the vestiges of conservative and fundamental religion that are ensconced in the Coalition Right - i.e. the Liberal/Coalition "Religious Right" who don't know how far removed and wrong they really are

[cyclist]

I think that a lot of parents are apathetic about religion, and see the ethics classes as a good alternative to the SEC. They were probably only putting their children through SEC as they wanted them to do something rather than nothing.

There were a lot of parents pulling their children out of SEC and putting them in the Ethics classes when the trial was on. How many of these parents are likely to change their vote so that their children are going to be able to continuing attending the Ethics classes? I suspect some will, but probably not enough to stop the Libs from getting power, and I suspect this is what My O'Farrell is gambling on. It isn't risky enough for him to lose the next election, but he manages to the keep the religious right happy.

James

[RealityRules]

@ cyclist/James

O'Farrell and Co had better get ready for the uprising to have SRE removed if the 'ethics-and-SRE' compromise is not allowed.

[Goldenmane]

People keep saying Australia was founded on christian vaules.... 5 points for those who can list the "vaules" Australia was founded on

Blackfellas aren't people.
The Monarch is so by Divine Right.
We claim this land in the name of the Monarch.
We'll fucking kill you if you dispute any of that.

Pretty Christian, all in all. Given a particular social context for the term "Christian".

[RealityRules]

SMH Editorial Monday 29 Nov 2010

The ethics of free choice
THERE are two reasons why it is extraordinary that the NSW Coalition has joined religious leaders in opposing ethics classes in state public schools. First, both the Liberal and National parties are supposedly ideological champions of personal freedom - which is what this debate is really about. And second, with an apparently unlosable state election looming, the Coalition is promising to cancel a program which it knows enjoys broad public support. It is possible that Barry O'Farrell and colleagues judge NSW Labor to be so on the nose that they will will win the state election anyway, but such a contrary position risks alienating many voters who were otherwise expecting to see the Coalition breeze into Macquarie Street in March.

The ethics classes debate is not about the right to religious education, but the right to free choice. For more than a century Australia's religious institutions have enjoyed a once-a-week monopoly over a slice of our children's class time. Scripture classes were enshrined in the 1880s during the turbulent shift away from church-run schools to a free, secular public school system open to all. Ever since, teaching at NSW public schools has been suspended once a week to allow representatives of mainly Christian faiths to take over at the blackboard. In 1880 it may have been unthinkable that a range of mainly Christian scripture options would leave any child out, let alone that large numbers of unbelieving parents would exclude their children. But today hundreds of thousands of the state's public school students are left twiddling their thumbs in so-called non-scripture classes every week, just to ensure no learning competes with the time allocated to Special Religious Education.

The proposed ethics classes have been successfully trialled and offer an overdue alternative to this lost learning time. It is true that Australian "values" coincide with much of what most religions teach. But ethics is about seeking personal answers to questions for which there are many possible solutions. This is not the same as a religious education which prescribes right and wrong within the moral codes of various faiths. There have been complaints that children could miss out if they want to attend both programs. But there were also loud objections when shops were first permitted to open on Sunday morning while church services were in full swing. To continue to tolerate the empty school hours of non-scripture classes leaves a sizeable number of families hostage to religious interests and denied a free choice. Unfortunately, the Coalition seems to have handed its agenda on this issue over to the same special interest group.

www.smh.com.au/ editorial/Mon-29-Nov The ethics of free choice (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/china-get-rich-go-to-jail-20101128-18ca4.html?from=brisbanetimes_sb)

[66 vegie]

SMH Editorial Monday 29 Nov 2010


At the end of the day...the churches are only concerned about two thing's one: losing money,two : if you have children dropping out of scripture your number's in that school go down..then you have to stop that particular scripture class, because you don't have the number's anymore to run the class....if you lose children you lose parents " If little Johnny's not going to class anymore then were not going to take him to church every Sunday....we only let him take scripture so we don't have to go to church." It's not about Ethics or the kids or religion, it's about a business surviving and thriving in the greater community...take away the number's and the business suffers. I only wish they were honest about it.

[RealityRules]

@ 66vegie. I agree it is about losing adherents and financial support for their business, but they can still provide a scripture teacher for 5-12 kids as easily for 25-35 kids.

The focus on ethics v SRE, particularly by the Angrican church, suggests they are really really on the edge of the oblivion abyss. The Sydney Angrican Diocese area includes 4 million people, yet only 40-60,000 (1-1.5%) are members of their clique. They are a very small minority getting smaller, yet they claim way too much influence and plead too much. Furthermore, they really believe people can only be saved by worshipping their idol and the fiction around him.

[66 vegie]

Now Fred Nile is getting in on the act. He also has no idea as to what the Ethics classes are about.:mad:


NowThe Rev Hon Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has issued an SOS – Save Our Scripture in his speech in the NSW Parliament on the proposed Ethics Classes.

"I wish to issue an SOS—Save Our Scripture—in an effort to save our scripture classes. The Premier has announced that the State Government plans to introduce a so-called ethics course into New South Wales schools in 2011, even though the election will be held on 26 March 2011 and at this stage it is obvious that the Labor Government will be defeated. In those circumstances, how can the Labor Government introduce a new curriculum subject into our State schools?

I am very pleased that the Coalition has reinforced its opposition to the so-called ethics course. During parliamentary debate, the Coalition revealed that it will oppose the so-called ethics course. The shadow Minister for Education, Skills and Youth Affairs, Mr Adrian Piccoli, has stated:

‘While the NSW Liberals & Nationals understand the importance of ethics we do not believe it should be positioned as an alternative to Special Religious Education. We don’t think that students should have to choose between Special Religious Education (or scripture) and ethics classes.’

‘We are sceptical of the real reason behind NSW Labor’s sudden decision on this issue. Like a range of social issues brought on at the end the four-year parliamentary term, it appears to be driven by political considerations and not the best interest of children’

I agree with the views he has expressed. The Anglican Archbishop also issued a statement condemning the Government's decision. He referred to it as ‘a bad decision, made under political pressure, which will impoverish the education of many NSW public schoolchildren’. The Archbishop went on to state:

‘Philosophical ethics is not a real alternative to the study of religion and it is unfair to confront parents with the dilemma of having them both taught at the same time. The ‘examined life’ starts with a well-rounded education.’

‘Our concerns are for the children who now will be denied an introduction to the great questions posed by the faith-traditions. For example, even though the ethics lesson plans were not publicly released, it is apparent that they did not include clear guidance on right and wrong.’

The president of the New South Wales Council of Churches, Reverend Richard Quadrio, also has described the Government's plan as speculative and unworkable. He stated:

‘How are the St James Ethics centre going to recruit the hundreds if not thousands of volunteers needed to teach these classes if they are to begin in 2011.’

‘Is the government going to fund the St James ethics centre who admitted that their resources were stretched by teaching only two grades in ten schools during the trial?’

The Catholic Church issued a statement through Bishop Ingham. He stated:

‘Criticism of the failure of lessons to provide clear direction about right or wrong, or to give a moral compass, stand out as clear issues in Dr Knight’s report on the trial.’

Dr Knight states that, in her evaluation, it does not provide clear direction about right or wrong. Bishop Ingham went on to state:

‘Additionally, the questions raised by Dr Sue Knight about the sources of funding for the course and the volunteers to teach it, have not been adequately addressed.’

Some people have suggested that the decision to introduce an ethics course was made to appease the Greens, as was the case with previous bills that have been rammed through the Parliament that related to same-sex adoption, same-sex surrogacy, same-sex relationships and the permanent Kings Cross shooting gallery. Are they part of a hidden agreement between the Greens and the Labor Party in return for Greens preferences at the upcoming election on 26 March 2011?

The church is concerned about the ethics course because it is in clear competition with scripture classes. Contrary to an agreement that the ethics course would be offered only to children who opted out of scripture classes, we know that in schools that introduced the ethics course all children were offered ethics classes. Invitations were sent home to all students in those schools to attend the ethics course. On top of that, in some schools the teachers were personally involved; there was the added attraction of a primary school teacher saying, 'I'll be teaching this ethics course. Please come to the class.' In some schools attendances at scripture classes decreased by 50 per cent, some decreased by 70 per cent, and some decreased to only one student. So the ethics course is an attack on scripture classes. SOS—save our scripture classes!" Rev Nile stated.

[Xeno]

The church is concerned about the ethics course because it is in clear competition with scripture classes. ... In some schools attendances at scripture classes decreased by 50 per cent, some decreased by 70 per cent, and some decreased to only one student.Bingo.

So the ethics course is an attack on scripture classes. SOS—save our scripture classes!"Another who objects to parental choice.

[Loki]

Another who objects to parental choice.

and to giving kids tools with which to think for themselves.

It's all a cynical play for bums on seats. The funny thing is that they don't realise this is obvious to everyone else as well.

[wolty]

Thinking out loud.

I find it really interesting the concept of religion versus ethics. That is what it really comes down to in the eyes of a majority, I would think.

For all the attacks on ethics classes by the religious right, the average person in the street (who doesn't have any religious affiliation) will cut to the chase. Religion is going up against ethics.

Then we have the opposition of people like fred nile (who, I think most think is a nutter) and the average Aussie has a very clear choice in their minds. Viva la freedom.

The groundswell and editorials for ethics teaching are (hopefully) unstopable now. The religious right really should take their bat and ball, cut their losses and go home. The continuing vitriol is doing much more harm than good to them. But it is all good for ethics, good for teaching, good for atheism and good for critical thinking.

[Xeno]

and to giving kids tools with which to think for themselves.I find it really interesting the concept of religion versus ethics. That is what it really comes down to in the eyes of a majority, I would think.

For all the attacks on ethics classes by the religious right, the average person in the street ... will cut to the chase. Religion is going up against ethics. Following on from Loki's comment, I think people will recognise exactly that, flabbernator (although I doubt you could 'nator anything in that getup). The contrast has become both sharp and understandable, and they have already voted with their [children's] feet.

[wolty]

Following on from Loki's comment, I think people will recognise exactly that, flabbernator (although I doubt you could 'nator anything in that getup). The contrast has become both sharp and understandable, and they have already voted with their [children's] feet.

:D

The sharpness is also the divide between an archaic system and a modern value system. People are realising they can think for themselves and they are liking it.

[BlueDevil]

The Catholic Church issued a statement through Bishop Ingham. He stated:

‘Criticism of the failure of lessons to provide clear direction about right or wrong, or to give a moral compass, stand out as clear issues in Dr Knight’s report on the trial.’


I thought that was the idea. Confront the kids with difficult ethical situations and let them discuss their own views on it.

This differs from the religious viewpoint where an authority tells you what is right or wrong and you obediently follow their wisdom.

Jehovah seemed keen on the idea of killing people for all manner of things, such as cursing your parents, being homosexual etc. I am hoping that a class of primary kids could develop better ethical guidelines than god came up with.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The only issue here BlueDevil is that the kids may end up having their parents (who may just as well be filled with all that godly lurve) and may be told not to listen to them teachers.

Unfortunately (I hope I am wrong about this) this issue does not seem easy to mitigate.

[Flyingphil172]

Letter from Barry O’Farrell in response to my letter (shown earlier in this discussion);



Thank you for your email about the NSW Liberals & Nationals’ decision on the ethics trial. I’ve read your email and have noted your comments. I attach a copy of our decision for your information.

As announced, my colleagues and I don’t believe there should be competition between scripture and ethics and, despite the wording of the State Government’s announcement, in practice that’s what they are proposing.

I understand the concerns parents have about the activities available to students not choosing scripture. The Department’s policy states that these students could be involved in activities like homework, reading or private study. If elected, I am keen to ensure this is in fact happening.
As a parent of a current public school student – and a former School Council member – I know ethics and values are already embedded in curricula, school policies and other programs.

It’s a point this State Government has been keen to highlight in the past. If there’s a need to build on these existing programs, my colleagues and I believe it should be done to benefit all students.

Thank you for informing me of your views on this issue.


Barry O’Farrell

[Xeno]

... my colleagues and I don’t believe there should be competition between scripture and ethics...No problem. Drop scripture. It's what the majority of parents want.

Legislation needed? Ask the Greens and Labour. I'm sure they'll be happy to wave it through.