NSW citizen David Hutt doesn’t like non-religious ethics classes. Particularly if they’re “non-judgemental”. Because ethics is all about judging people, and telling them whether they’re “right” or “wrong” according to the vagaries of an ancient text: if you don’t believe in an invisible man in the sky who’ll judge you when you die, then why would you not go around murdering people?
The very idea of giving students a non-religious alternative – instead of just wasting their time while other kids are being “taught” – is profoundly disturbing.
First, it gives the Christian classes some competition, and what kind of religion can attract new adherents without having it forced down their throats at the beginning? How are kids supposed to find the one true religion if they get options?
And second, it gives kids the idea that non-Christians can aspire to be good, ethical people, which is absurd.
Hutt is right to be angry, and this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his main job as NSW Director for the Australian Christian Lobby, which must be why he doesn’t mention his links to the lobby group most self-interested in maintaining its stranglehold on education, and why the details are only available if you click on his name to read the bio (on a separate link). If you don’t think to check, you’ll never know. Anyway, it’s entirely ethical to omit critical details to misleadingly alter readers’ approach to your argument if it’s FOR JESUS.
Meanwhile, Miranda Devine is similarly unimpressed, although that appears to be more because she thinks that the absence of a doctrinaire religious belief system is in itself a “religion”.
Devine concedes that her representation of the St James Ethics Centre is criticised by Dr Sue Knight of the University of South Australia, the person who assessed the trial, as a “misconception”, but neither describes Knight’s actual argument nor responds to it.
In fact, I suspect that “there are no right or wrong answers”, the quote to which Miranda keeps referring, is not a fair summary of the non-religious ethics course (it makes it sound like their version of “ethics” boils down to little more than “anything goes”, which is absurd), and I’ll update the post later in the morning with a response from the St James Ethics Centre and (if she’s contactable while on leave) Dr Knight.
And does Miranda really want to define a philosophy that requires no faith, whose “answers” are fallible and prone to constant revision, as a “religion”? Wouldn’t that undermine what’s so special to her about hers?
71 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Their US sisters are supporting them on Case STX Steigers and Challenger MT975-B’s. The most powerful tractors ever built.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Monkeywrench@6
“I wouldn’t get too panicked. Both my daughters received religious ed. at an Anglican school. ( albeit a very thorough, wide-ranging syllabus that covered all major religions including Buddhism). ”
Hopefully they teach another religion next year. I will have to write to the principal & ask whether they can have a morals & ethics class.
Lindsayb@15 “comparative religion”. Thanks for that, I was wracknig my brain for ages trying to think of the correct term.
S.applin@13 “Declaration of interest: I spent the first 20 years of my life being active in Church life, and after moving out of home researched atheism and the theory of evolution extensively. Having looked at both in detail I have come to the considered position that I am an atheist”
An identical experience to my own, although by 15 the answers to the questions just werent satisfying anymore.
“What we have going now is looking more and more like a fundamentalist christian conspiracy being pushed by the American christian right, which is a truly frightening group to be allowed to brainwash Australia’s children in their early formative years”
With the popularity of Hillsong here in Australia, bringing this sort of rock musical religious experience to the masses, its probably not far away before we have our own “Holyland” funpark like the USA has:
http://www.holylandexperience.com/
The movie “religulous” covers one of their stage shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0KzVr3zEaU
Its enough to induce projectile vomiting.
Angra@44
“Here’s a definitive list of atrocities from the Old Testmant –
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/bible_atrocities.html”
Great link. I hadnt seen that before but have been using a similar site for years. http://www.evilbible.com/
A treasure trove of information religious folk dont like to talk about
I was going to bring up the Trolley problem too, but with respect to Devine’s outrage at there being no right or wrong answers. In the trolley problem (or similar ones, like the Trolley + Fat Man on the bridge problem) the “Kill one” and “Let 5 die” can both be “right” answers, but letting 5 die and then killing the one anyway is definitely wrong (“Wait for the trolley to pass, and then push the fat man off the bridge!”).
If anyone is really more than passingly interested in the how, why and what of all this fundamentalism creeping into our institutions, read “The Family” by Jeff Sharlet.
Our very own Bruce Baird even gets a mention.
Getting back to Philosophy, one classic problem relevant to Ethics is that of free will. It has obsessed philosophers and theologians for thousands of years and is a great way to introduce students to moral debate. One classic worth reading is Dilemmas by Gilbert Ryle.
“I did something yesterday, so it was true a thousand years ago that I was going to do it?”
Can statements about the future ever be logically true or false? “The sun will rise tomorrow” can never have the logical certainty of “the sun rose yesterday.” A more practical example ‘is it worthwhile learning to swim?’ If so, why?
Maybe relevant to discussion on climate change.
The last word must go to Socrates. He is obviously the best footballer. He beats Leibniz hands down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck&feature=fvst
Another tractor angle! The innovative TRH – the Philosophers tractor.
“In this way the same tractor can be used in a different way, in accordance with the need of the moment. A concept that coupled to the hydrostatic transmission and the oscillating chassis mirrors the philosophy of the TRH itself: maximum multi functionality at work with maximum simplicity and comfort for the operator.
The TRH is in fact the only reversible tractor with a hydrostatic transmission, permitting the extraordinary availability of choice between an infinite speed range, in both drive directions thanks to the electro-hydraulic inverter as well as both the “Automotive Eco-Power” device that handles the tractor’s forward speed and the “Speed-Fix” device that allows for the setting of the ideal speed in accordance with the application and for it to be automatically maintained.
Furthermore the TRH is fitted with ACTIO™, a full chassis with oscillation that guarantees maximum stability, grip and safety on all types of ground: an exclusive Antonio Carraro technology, developed with twenty years of research and experience.
Greater possibilities, greater productivity and less stress: The TRH is not just a new tractor but a new way of working. A new philosophy in tractor design!”
Angra @57
Hmm. That sounds like the tractor for people who can’t drive in reverse, or do a three-point turn. Maybe there’s a place in the tractor market for some sort of voith schneider drive? Not sure how it’d work, though.
I would like a lesson on the ethics of paying out of court settlements Church to pay compo to abused girls’ families But for the church ethics classes on questions like these are simply too difficult.
?
On second thoughts, I think Bolt has used a TRH to automate the administration of his blog. All settings to automatic.
“maximum multi functionality at work with maximum simplicity and comfort for the operator”
Here’s a thought (which gets us back to the OP). If you made a tractor amphibious (which can be done) then fitted a Vorth-Schneider prop to the PTO you’d have a tractor that could walk on water.
Angra, If you could guarantee SRE was going to be taught by tractor-driving nuns in a field not small-minded evangelicals, I’d make it compulsory. And a reality TV show.
Great idea Holden! We can call it ‘Habits Die Hard.’
This resonates for me because I have kids starting school, and doubtless they will be exposed to religious eduction, which in many cases is just a front for Christian proselytising. I have a big problem with that. On the one hand I completely reject all that nonsense as so much made up mumbo jumbo with little to teach my boys, and think they would be far better served learning humanist ethics. On the other hand I don’t want my boys sent off to the library for a wasted hour (though maybe not wasted) and make a fuss in a small community. Also, I respect the place Christianity has in our culture as the basis of many stories et cetera. Oh and my wife may be a non-believer, but doesn’t believe in rocking the boat.
The Humanist Society Victoria has developed a suitable syllabus for school kids, but former education Minister Bronwyn Pike refused to allow it in schools. See http://vic.humanist.org.au/ under articles. Of course, I don’t think there will be any progress under the Libs.
So, do I kick up a fuss, or let sleeping dogs lie? There’s no chance of my boy becoming indoctrinated, he’s got more common sense than that, but it’s the principle of the matter, the more refuseniks there are, the clearer the message that gets through, the less federal and state funding that flows…
wilful Could you get involved in the process of the religious education on offer. Don’t just let the course be delivered by well-meaning but uninformed local parishioners from one sect. Insist that at least a range of Christian – and preferably Jewish, Hindu and Muslim- positions be presented, and that some questioning of the texts and account of their translation and modification over time be included in any course.
OOH – Can we please have a Creation Theme Park funded by the taxpayer just like this one? I’m sure David and Miranda would love it!
“Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear defended state tax incentives that could surpass $37 million for a religious theme park in Northern Kentucky. Beshear announced plans for the park, called Ark Encounter, in a Capitol news conference. The centerpiece of the proposed park is a 500-foot-by-75-foot wooden ark built to replicate the biblical Noah’s Ark.
The Answers in Genesis group, which started the Creation Museum that opened in Petersburg in May 2007, will handle daily operations of the theme park, expected to be completed by 2014. A Grant County official said it would be built on 800 acres off Interstate 75 south of Williamstown.
Ark Encounter will include the ark, live animals, event venues and a children’s play area, among other things. The ark will be made of various types of wood and capable of floating.
Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, showing visitors how the world was created in six, 24-hour days 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. It has dinosaurs next to depictions of Adam and Eve.”
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/01/1548034/creation-museum-to-get-wooden.html#storylink
The “answers” of religion are fallible and prone to constant revision too, it’s just that most religions don’t like to advertise the fact.
Surely you mean three hundred cubits, by fifty cubits, Angra? I hope it’s made out of gopher wood.
Why am I thinking in every other aspect these evengelicals would think of themselves as ‘small government’ fanatics?
Oh Angra!
http://www.theage.com.au/world/holy-row-creates-headache-for-modern-day-noahs-ark-20101206-18msp.html
I only came to this link recently, possibly accidentally, possibly from a link to a link etc. For anyone still checking this article or receiving advice re later posts, on 1st December Matthew of Canberra asked if anyone had a link to the report. Go to det.nsw.edu.au/about-us/news-at-det/news/ethics-report (inserting the relevant Internet prefixes), and you will find links on the right-hand side under “Further Information” to the final report and to feedback (public submissions) to it.
The reason this post is so late is that I originally looked for this article at a link in the Crikey archives which brought me to a blank page — see crikey.com.au/2010/12/01/on-mission-to-destroy-ethics-classes/ (inserting prefixes again) for what I am talking about including one comment — mine. When my comment did not result in any change, I emailed Crikey. I received an automated acknowledgement of receipt, but the blank page is still blank. The link to that blank/white page article, also dated 1st December, is still in the Archives (presently on page 26, where I cannot find a link to this page where I am now commenting).
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All