This is why private education is far better than public.

At least there, we don't have any nut-jobs telling us what we must believe and that religious and ethics classes. 

Children need to make their own choices and not be indoctrinated. Religion has and does provide a good degree of balance and tolerance in society and has done so for thousands of years. 

Yes I support Ethics and Religious Classes too.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/ethics-classes-in-nsw-primary-schools-growing-despite-barriers-to-enrolment-20170124-gtxppa.html

The Department of Education removed the ethics option from the school enrolment form last year in a move that critics said amounted to an attempt to deliberately hide it from parents, following former Premier Mike Baird's office's discussions with religious groups. 

As well as ethics being omitted from the enrolment form, principals do not have to inform parents about ethics classes until the parent has twice returned paperwork rejecting religious education. Children not enrolled in ethics or religious studies engage in "meaningful activities" such as sitting in the library.

When you actually think about it it's a disgrace the government can get away with hiding it at all.

Lessons in friendliness for Australians needed

Or just use this. http://www.primaryethics.com.au/

the Federal government needs to draft a national ethics curriculum and make it mandatory in all state schools

Teach evolution.

Why bring up the Jews?

Freud would be proud :)

I too look forward to 50 silver shekels from my rape victim's parents.

Granted this was ~10-15 years ago, but a few teachers at my christain school in Sydney Northern Beaches told us the earth is a few thousand years old. Our science teacher spent time showing us scientific proof that Noah's flood happened.
Also many og my moderate christian parents normal seeming friends strongly believe it.

Also noticed a surprisingly large amount of young people in the west beleiving in ghosts.

Edited by neanderthal: 18/9/2015 11:20:34 PM

Well done Victoria for moving into the 21st century. That just leaves NSW and Qld dragging the chain.

[size=6]Religious instruction scrapped from curriculum[/size]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/religious-instruction-scrapped-from-curriculum-20150820-gj425e.html

Victorian schools will scrap special religious instruction from class time, with changes to the state's curriculum throwing the future of the controversial program in doubt.

The Andrews government has ordered that the weekly 30 minute program move to lunchtime and before and after school in 2016 to make way for new content on world histories, cultures, faiths and ethics.

Classes that address domestic violence and respectful relationships will also become compulsory for all prep to year 10 students from 2016.

The state government says students miss out on essential learning while special religious instruction takes place.

The state government said students were missing out on essential learning while SRI took place.

"Extracurricular programs should not interfere with class time when teachers and students should be focused on the core curriculum," the government said in a statement.

The decision to axe SRI from the curriculum has been met with fierce opposition by chaplaincy organisation Access Ministries, the main provider of religious instruction.

The organisation's chief executive, Dawn Penney, said the government failed to consult SRI providers and nearly 30,000 Victorian parents about its decision.

Ms Penney was seeking "urgent discussions" with Education Minister James Merlino on Thursday about the changes, which could deter families from the program.

"The decision contradicts a clear statement made prior to the last state election that the government would support SRI."
Mr Merlino said qualified teachers would deliver the new faith and ethics content.

"This new content helps all school students, regardless of their background or faith, to understand the world around them and the ideas and values that shape that world," he said.

Lara Wood, a spokeswoman for Fairness in Religions in School, a group that has spent the past four years campaigning against SRI, claimed victory. "We won, we got what we wanted."

She said religious instruction providers were proselytising in primary schools while students missed out on learning.
Australian Education Union Victorian president Meredith Peace, another opponent of SRI, welcomed the announcement, saying state schools should be secular.

"We didn't believe SRI was consistent with that."

She said students who did not opt in to the SRI lessons were sent to the library or sat in corridors.

SRI providers have battled to keep primary school students in the program after the state government changed its policy in 2011, requiring parents to "opt in" to the classes rather than "opt out".

Enrolments fell from 92,808 Victorian students in 2013 to 53,361 – a 42 per cent plunge.

The inclusion of respectful relationships education into the curriculum coincides with the Royal Commission into Family Violence.

It follows a pilot that ran in 30 Victorian schools, and will focus on challenging attitudes and behaviours that can lead to violence against women.

Prevention of Family Violence Minister Fiona Richardson said that new focus on respectful relationships in schools would help address gender stereotypes and discrimination.

"Respectful relationships education is key to combating prejudice and preventing violence – we're including it in the curriculum so that every Victorian school teaches students these important skills and content."

Domestic Violence Victoria chief executive Fiona McCormack applauded the government for incorporating domestic violence prevention into the curriculum.

"The time has come, we've got to start intervening earlier, and educating children at a young age about respectful relationships," she said.

But opposition education spokesman Nick Wakeling said Premier Daniel Andrews has broken a pre-election promise about SRI, creating chaos for parents.

"This decision by Daniel Andrews will create chaos for thousands of parents whose children will be forced to attend these classes out of school hours." he said.

"Parents in schools across Victoria will face the prospect of juggling new and varied after-school hours pick-ups just to suit the ideological whims of Daniel Andrews."

That sounds like an insane comparative religion class. It sounds really comprehensive too.

Out of interest, Draupnir, what year levels did you go to school in Australia and Sweden? Are you half Swedish or something? You'd think the comparative religion classes, in any case, would be more interesting in high school than primary school.

Extract of Topic Summary. Target age of Children - Kindergarten.

Evaluating ethical beliefs: the importance of disagreement and argument

The discussions that take place in Primary Ethics classes are aimed not only at helping students become clearer about their own ethical views, but also at encouraging them to evaluate those views and the views put forward by others. Evaluating a belief involves assessing the reasons on which the belief is based. But, as John Stuart Mill has famously pointed out, evaluation requires more than this.

It also requires us to recognise and assess “the reasons on the opposite side”. As Mill puts it:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good,
and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the
reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no
ground for preferring either opinion ...” On Liberty, Chapter 2.

In order to assess an ethical position (whether our own or another’s), we must engage with the arguments of those who disagree with that position.

The Primary Ethics Curriculum then, is designed to encourage students to engage in critical dialogue, to voice disagreement and to make clear the reasons behind it – to voice dissenting arguments, in other words. But such arguments are to be offered not with the aim of one upmanship or, as in a formal debate, winning a contest. Rather, they are to be seen as part of a genuinely collaborative process directed at understanding and progress towards truth.

Following Lipman and many others, we will call this process ‘respectful’ disagreement: ‘respectful’, because it is based on an attitude of respect for ourselves and others as reasonable, thinking individuals, as well as respect for the process that leads to understanding and truth.

Respectful disagreement encourages students to see the limitations of their beliefs; to realise that coming to reliable beliefs about complex moral issues requires sustained thinking as well as a questioning of their underlying assumptions and, in addition, that this process involves engaging in dialogue with those whose beliefs differ from theirs.

I agree with manbumrubs on this too. I also blame clicktivism.

Talking to my lad this morning and he tells me his ethics teacher has stopped volunteering. Now he sits there colouring in with his other SRE heathen mates.

He can hear them in the next room though and tells me they finish with a prayer and an "Aami".

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/nsw-school-prayer-group-audit-targets-extremism/2721043/

SCRIPTURE classes will be exempt from an audit of all prayer groups in NSW state schools as the government cracks down on student exposure to violent extremist ideologies.

Premier Mike Baird announced all prayer groups would be reviewed, regardless of denomination, following reports last week of a Year 12 student preaching radical Islam at a Sydney school.

He vowed NSW schools would not become breeding grounds for hate.

"Our schools should be, and are, havens of tolerance, places where students can explore the reaches of imagination and knowledge," he said.

"We will never allow them to become the setting for extremist ideologies."

A spokesman confirmed religious education classes would not undergo the audit.

"The prayer groups are held at the school - but not part of the special religious education (scripture) classes," he said.

Mr Baird told a media conference the investigation would target extremist minority groups, not Muslims.

"We're doing this together... I have been nothing but absolutely in awe of the Muslim leadership," he said.

"They have been determined to stamp out extremism."

The government has invited submissions to a $4 million program launched last month aimed at countering violent extremism.

"Our schools, our police and other authorities are operating in a new and different world, as far as risks to our young people are concerned," Mr Baird said.

"These new risks mean that, collectively, we are going to have to be vigilant, and take action as necessary."

Counter-terrorism police will also brief Education Department officers, the NSW Secondary Principals' Council and the NSW Primary Principals' Association.

Last week police began investigating a student at Epping Boys High School in Sydney following allegations he was espousing violent Islamic ideologies to his peers.

There were suggestions the boy may have been linked to 24-year-old Milad bin Ahmad-Shah al-Ahmadzai, who was jailed last year for threatening to slit a police officer's throat during phone calls in 2013.

You're probably far more qualified to speak on Swedens behalf but from what I've seen Scandanavians are generally far more open minded than us.

Fair call. I partly went to school here and in Sweden. We had scripture here, and were taught about the bible, whereas in Sweden it was truly comparative - We had guests every second week or so that would do a Q&A with the students. We had Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Rabbis etc come in. I would say that 99% of the class was agnostic/atheist before then in any case, so most of the questions were regarding ethics and morals rather than the core beliefs of supernatural kinds of things. I agree that I can't see that going down too well over here with parents.

Personally I'd love to see a religious nutjob try and actually defend this.

If nothing else it would be an interesting insight into how their pathetic minds work.

That's the hard part I think, making it comparative and honest. I was taught as a 10 year old that Noah's flood was real. To me it's almost child abuse to teach children such misguided beliefs as facts.

I think religion is important and learning about all religions especially. A lot of religions are a basis of our cultural values and those of other cultures. However being such a personal thing I can't imagine having an Imam or a Rabbi come in to talk to Christian kids of vise versa going down too well.

Agree. The only religion that should be in schools is comparative religion classes, and even then, that should be an elective.

I agree with Muz on this.

What a joke. Scripture in society is as useless as nipples on a breastplate. If you want your kids to learn about Christianity (lets face it, no Imam will ever be invited to a public school) do it at home.

This undermines freedom of religion by removing freedom from religion which is equally important. We get enough religion forced down our throats as it is.

It helps when mates control the media. First step on getting onto the right track is to limit political donations and actually have accountability in the media.

Disgraceful:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/nothing-ethical-in-government-promotion-of-religion-20150719-gick5f.html

Nothing ethical in government promotion of religion:

Parents will not allow the removal of the option to select ethics classes for their children to be swept under the carpet.

The current school enrolment form asks parents whether they prefer their child to attend scripture lessons, ethics lessons or other supervised activity.

Who would believe that the Premier of NSW would rule that this form must be changed so that parents will no longer be able to select ethics lessons for their children?

Well, following intense lobbying by the churches, that's what Mike Baird has done. Although parents have a legal right to send their children to ethics, the only choice on the form will now be scripture. The decision deliberately discriminates in favour of scripture classes to the disadvantage of ethics classes.

This discrimination against parents who want their children to attend ethics classes is profound. Unlike the providers of scripture classes, Primary Ethics, the charity that is the sole approved provider of ethics lessons in schools, may never know that there are parents at a school who would prefer ethics to scripture or quiet supervision for their children.

Sadly, this change in the enrolment form is in response to lobbying of both the Premier and Education Minister by the churches. The secret plan to change the enrolment form came to light only after Freedom of Information requests by Primary Ethics.

The churches' opposition to ethics classes as an alternative to scripture is hardly surprising. However, one must ask what moral compass they use to insist on their legal right to have scripture as a choice on the enrolment form while shamelessly exploiting political opportunity to have the equally legal alternative of ethics classes removed? Do the churches really believe that their self-proclaimed evangelising obligations justify removing parents' rights to choose ethics on the same basis as scripture?

No amount of rationalisation or dubious claims of there being "a confusing form" can blind the community to the reality that the churches have no qualms about discriminating against children whose parents don't choose scripture.

Imagine the outcry if the shoe was on the other foot. What if ethics was the only choice on the enrolment form and religious parents had to jump through bureaucratic hoops to enrol their children in religion classes?

No doubt the churches will be celebrating this roadblock to the provision of ethics lessons in schools – a "victory" that will be seen by many as the churches again acting unethically in their misguided pursuit of self-interest.

Naturally, churches lobby; but what has led the Premier to make such an unprincipled decision? Political commentators have observed that the Baird government needs to secure Fred Nile's vote for the rest of its four-year term. Nile is aggressively opposed to ethics classes. Baird denies any connection between the decision and political necessity. Perhaps then it is Baird's personal faith that explains his preferencing of scripture over ethics lessons. Either way, the rights of parents should not be sacrificed on the altars of either political accommodation or the Premier's personal religious beliefs.

If this is not discrimination by the government on religious grounds, then what is?

Neither the Premier nor the Education Minister have consulted Primary Ethics about this, which suggests that the Premier has never had any interest other than to favour parents preferring scripture at the expense of parents interested in ethics.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs where, rather than celebrating and facilitating the rights of parents to choose as they see fit, the Premier and the churches have successfully colluded to undermine what once was a fair selection process.

Those who believe that all parents should be treated fairly in matters affecting their children at school will not rest until this decision by the Premier is reversed. If it takes the formation of an Ethics political party to counter the Christian Democrats, then so be it.

If it takes an army of volunteers to stand outside every school handing out brochures advising parents of their children's right to ethics lessons, then so be it.

Baird, notwithstanding his confidence and indifference to the fair treatment of all parents, will learn that when it comes to their children's rights, mums and dads always win in the end.

Bruce Hogan chairs Primary Ethics.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 22/7/2015 12:37:25 PM

According to me or Ray Hadley and Alan Jones?

If it's those blokes then it's the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of hard working Aussie battlers.

If it's me I'd define it as the 75% of Australians that say they believe in God but don't go to church.

I can count on 2 fingers the absolute true, devout Catholics I've ever met that weren't clergy.

One bloke was one of 21 brothers and sisters and the other was one of 19.

Presumably their mother's uterus' eventually fell out because they'd stopped having children by the time I met them.

Those 2 were happily married so on that basis 100% of devout (some would say mental) Catholics marriages are steadfast examples we should all look up to.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 7/7/2015 03:58:58 PM

Define Christian ;)

50% of Christian marriages end up in the divorce courts.

It's not particularly interesting because it doesn't tell us anything surprising at all. People have different values.

No disrespect intended but people living in an organized marriage under Sharia Law probably feel the same way because they don't know any different.