Law 2 Protect Ethics Classes

[RealityRules]

THE right to teach ethics classes as an alternative to scripture in NSW schools will be enshrined in law by the state government in a bid to prevent the Coalition removing the classes if it wins power next year.

The government's move is in response to the announcement by Mr Piccoli that the opposition would not support the government's plans to introduce ethics classes by term 1 next year.

www.smh.com.au/nsw/ law-will-protect-ethics-classes-from-being-dumped-by-coalition (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/law-will-protect-ethics-classes-from-being-dumped-by-coalition-20101125-18964.html)


The Minister for Education, Verity Firth, will introduce an amendment to the Education Act today to specify the right of schools to offer ethics to students who opt out of scripture.

The amendment will be supported by the Greens in the Legislative Council, guaranteeing it will become law before Parliament rises at the end of next week and before the election in March.

''The message we have received loud and clear from parents is that they should have the right to choose what is best for their child," the Premier, Kristina Keneally, said.

However, the opposition spokesman for education, Adrian Piccoli, attacked the decision. He pointed out that the Board of Studies had to remove inappropriate draft course material before the trial of ethics classes earlier this year. ''If they want to legislate for a course, which has previously included subjects on terrorism and designer babies to be taught to 11-year-olds, then that's a decision for the Labor Party,'' he said.

A spokeswoman for Ms Firth said: ''First the Coalition failed to listen to parents and now they're trying to scare them. All course material will be vetted by the Board of Studies''.

The government's move is in response to the announcement by Mr Piccoli that the opposition would not support the government's plans to introduce ethics classes by term 1 next year. He said a Coalition government would allow any classes already in place to continue until the end of 2011, but then remove them.

What an honourable move to counter a dishonourable one!.

The government's initial plan was to rewrite education department policy, which bans ethics classes running in competition with special religious education.

But legislation means the opposition would need to get an amendment through Parliament to reverse the right to offer ethics classes. Because there is a good chance the Greens will hold the balance of power in the upper house after next year's election, it is likely the amendment would be voted down.

The Greens MP John Kaye said it was the only way to prevent a Coalition government from dumping ethics classes. ''The Keneally government's decision will be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of parents in NSW who wanted ethics classes as an alternative to scripture lessons,'' he said.

[Praxis]

This is great news and should be done post haste.

I'm not a big fan of Labor but since the Libs are more and more starting to resemble the religious right in Australia, I am very glad Labor are sandbagging the ethics classes that the Libs would destroy so they can keep forcing their religious shit down the throats of children.

This law should be in all states actually.

[BlueDevil]

Wow! How good is that!

[Worldslaziestbusker]

This is some good news.

Predict tomorrow's headlines as the Christian passive aggressive persecution complex kicks into high gear:

"Legi'slation hell say's Pell"

"God being legi'slated out of exi'stence: Jen'sen"

"What price freedom of wor'ship? - Fielding"

Cheer's RealityRule's

[RealityRules]

This is great news and should be done post haste.


"" The amendment will be supported by the Greens in the Legislative Council,
guaranteeing it will become law before Parliament rises at the end of next week. "" Hehehehehehehehehehe :D


@WLB - a new spelling for a certain word - "What price freedom of worseship? - Fielding"

[66 vegie]

I can now breath a bit better knowing that we have a small chance at the Ethics classes going ahead next year.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Plenty of scope for more Angrican taunts too.

You might want to wait until the legislation is processed, but there's bound to be some mirror-shaded-state-trooper, pop-culture bullshit that can be turned to advantage:

"It's the Law!"

[Sieveboy]

Fantastic news, 2 examples of competent work by NSW Labor, first for implementing the ethics course and 2 for trying to make it law (although I suspect they got some backbone on making this a law from the Greens). Still its a good result, break out the popcorn and lets watch the angricans go nuts for jebus.

[Loki]

I'd like to see the proposed wording of the ammendment. Currently it says SRE classes "may" be held. I'd hate to see an ammendment set the provision of SRE in concrete in order to allow an alternative.

[Logic please]

I'd like to see the proposed wording of the ammendment. Currently it says SRE classes "may" be held. I'd hate to see an ammendment set the provision of SRE in concrete in order to allow an alternative.

Loki, from what I can see in NSW, time for SRE must be set aside anyway, but parents can elect to have their children, not partake: LINK (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s32.html)

32 Special religious education
(1) In every government school (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s3.html#government_school), time is to be allowed for the religious education of children of any religious persuasion, but the total number of hours so allowed in a year is not to exceed, for each child, the number of school (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s26a.html#school) weeks in the year. (my bolding)

33 Objection to religious education

No child at a government school (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s3.html#government_school) is to be required to receive any general religious education or special religious education if the parent (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s3.html#parent) of the child objects to the child’s receiving that education.

I agree it would be a retrograde step if, as part of the "trade-off" in amending the law, SRE became even more entrenched in any way. :(

It's great to hear that something legislative is being done, to try to enshrine a secular option to SRE in law :)

It also raises a question though... what if a parent or child doesn't want to attend either SRE or secular ethics? Does that child simply have a free hour per week, or will they be required to choose one or the other?

[Xeno]

@LP, Clause 32(1) is interesting in that it insists time be available up to a limit rather than that the instruction be given. If the instruction were not sought by a clergy and its flock, then it would not be taken up. For the moment that is "dream on" but the current Act does allow religious instruction to fade away over time.

It is also interesting to me that, contrary to the argument-from-numbers, the Act in 32(5) specifies that it is those children being indoctrinated who are to be separated from normal classes, not vice versa, and with no implication the non-instructed should be idle or have no teaching. The latter was part of Departmental policy and arguably contrary to the Act.

[simonecuttlefish]

Forgive my inability to wrap my head around legal speak, but am I understanding these sections right?
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s32.html

(2) The religious education to be given to children of any religious persuasion is to be given by a member of the clergy or other religious teacher of that persuasion authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs. So it is completely divisive? That is, Muslim children can only be taught by Islamic teachers, Buddhist children by Buddhists, Christians by a Christian? ([religious brand] children - what an abhorrent concept, and do denominations/sects/branches of a religion get defined as seperate?)

(3) The religious education to be given is in every case to be the religious education authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.Is this to prevent religious doctrinal pollution from other faiths? That is, specifically to allow for classes, called SRE, that disallow comparative religious study? Is this here to provide an escape clause from section 30?
EDUCATION ACT 1990 - SECT 30
Secular instruction
30 Secular instruction

In government schools, the education is to consist of strictly non-sectarian and secular instruction. The words "secular instruction" are to be taken to include general religious education as distinct from dogmatic or polemical theology. Finally from section 32 again: My initial thoughts.
(5) Children attending a religious education class are to be separated from other children at the school while the class is held. For some reason when I read this for the 1st time, it reminded me of separating those strong enough to go to a labour camp, from those marked for the death camps.

From here (https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/curriculum/schools/spec_religious/PD20020074.shtml):
Context
Section 3.1 Education Act 1990, Sections 26, 30, 31, 32 and 33.

Links to these sections:
Section 26: (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s26.html)
Section 30: (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s30.html)
Section 31: (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s31.html)
Section 32: (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s32.html)
Section 33: (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/s33.html)

[Ernie]

I think the term religious persuasion relates to the sub-groups of the main religions. Thus, the Abrahamic religions comprise Judaism; Christianity; and Islam. And each of these main groups comprises a number of sub-groups. For instance, Christianity is divided into sub-groups comprising Catholics; Anglican; Protestant etc. There is rather a lot of scope for division in religion.
I believe that, in practice, there are separate SRE classes for the sub-groups. An informant tells me that at the schools they have been involved with there are separate SRE classes for Catholics and Anglicans.
The great problem concerns students being told that their particular branch (or sub-branch) of religion is the only one that is right; and this can lead to intolerance. History chronicles the violence that has occurred in the name of religion (as major religions persecuted one another over time). Of course, there is also a mass of evidence relating to persecution and violence between the sub-groups of Christianity.
Religion fails the virtue of tolerance when it insists that only its ways are right, and that other religious views are wrong. Should we be encouraging this sort of division in our multicultural society of today?

[simonecuttlefish]

Religion fails the virtue of tolerance when it insists that only its ways are right, and that other religious views are wrong. Should we be encouraging this sort of division in our multicultural society of today?

Well at least kids in the playground can play "prodos versus tykes" like in the good old days when they played cowboys and Indians. A new updated version perhaps, Christians vs Muslims style "Holy War and Jihad". Maybe it could be "Everyone attack the Jews"!, that's been popular in history.

[Xeno]

If the question is "Does s 32 allow divided and potentially divisive religious instruction?" then the answer is "Yes". It was a bounded sop to the religions after teaching moved from churches to secular governments.

Divided and potentially divisive instruction is more or less what religion is about, so I am not sure what is the final question here. Section 32(5) simply says that such religious instruction is not to be given to students other than those specifically attending the SRE classes (the Education Department mightily confused that point) while s 33 makes explicit that the school can not dump non-religious children into SRE simply to help manage the numbers, if their parents object, even if it is nominally a religious school.

Mention of death and labour camps seems a little excessive in the context, or is it I who have missed something?

[simonecuttlefish]

Mention of death and labour camps seems a little excessive in the context, or is it I who have missed something?

Thanks for the reply, and the death camps thing was just the 1st thing that went through my mind in association with reading "are to be separated from other children" in a religious context. I was not suggesting the tuck-shop ovens are getting an upgrade.

So you missed nothing there, I sometimes type a little more than perhaps I should. Mind you, if the above sounded 1/2 lunatic, you aren't gunna like that I typed in the solar power thread ......

[Logic please]

@Xeno: you've picked it well, I think... on second reading, the key wording appears to be:

time is to be allowed
implying, as you suggest, that there is no actual requirement for it to be taken up by the religion. Thanks for the addtional info :)

IMO, this is the sort of thing, that undermines a secular society - allowance being made for religious instruction, but not (to date) for secular alternatives. This gives religion a further legislative (and arguably govt) "preferred status", denied to other forms of philosophical or ethical training. :mad:

Many of you may have already been aware of this, so I might be a little slow on the uptake :o

[Xeno]

if the above sounded 1/2 lunatic, ...then you might be referring to here (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=148372&postcount=1) where the lunas are measured (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=148535&postcount=9) in small fractions (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=148555&postcount=11).

[simonecuttlefish]

I wonder if we will get this style lessons soon .....
http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/btjesusdied.htm
(My bolding)

Bible Story Activities.
The Suffering and Humiliation of Jesus. Use this activity to help the older children understand that Jesus really suffered pain and humiliation when he died on the cross. If you have a leather whip, show it to the children and explain that Jesus was flogged with a whip. Matthew 27:26.

Make a crown of thorns using limbs from a rose bush. Show the crown to the children and explain that the Romans put a crown of thorns on Jesus' head. Matthew 27:29.

Point out that the Roman soldiers spit on Jesus. Matthew 27:30.

If you have a cane pole or wooden pole, show it to the children and explain that the Roman soldiers hit Jesus on the head with a staff. Matthew 27:30.

Show the children long nails (you can get nails about 6" long at the local hardware store) and explain that the Romans nailed Jesus to the cross with nails about this long. John 20:25.

The people insulted and made fun of Jesus. Matthew 27:29, 39-44, 49.

[Ernie]

Section 32 talks about education, but does what is being delivered in SRE classes qualify as education, or is it really just religious indoctrination?
As an old educator, I think that to qualify as education the SRE classes would have to be based on a formal curriculum. This would specify intended outcomes and the means of determining if the outcomes are achieved.
Importantly, the curriculum would allow learners to discuss and evaluate the concepts being taught in class (just like in the discussion that takes place in the ethics classes).
Moreover, in an ideal world the SRE programs would comprise a series of formal lessons delivered by people with a background in teaching. Most importantly, the SRE program would undergo regular formal curriculum evaluation (just as the ethics classes have done) to ensure that it is educationally sound.
Even if tight controls are imposed there remains potential for passing extreme ideas on to learners. For instance the Bible contains some rather odd views on the role of women in society, and these are not appropriate in our contemporary society. Moreover, groups like the Anglicans have some fundamentalist creationist elements. The danger of young earth creationist ideas being promoted in class is frightening in the extreme!
One answer is to do away with SRE and replace it with a formal subject covering Australian and world society.
Eardstapper