Primary Schools in VIC, Aus to Teach Humanism During Religious Ed. Classes

[Rensa]

So in Aussie schools (in most states, as far as I know, anyway) there's a class called Religious Education, in which trained RE rep from various religions teach the beliefs of their religions to students. Students only do one religion that is elected by parents (unless the parents decide to opt-out of the class entirely - it isn't compulsory). Typical examples include Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Anyway, it seems the Victorian Government 'intends to approve' an RE curriculum developed by the Humanist Society of Victoria.

Originally Posted by The Age

Religion in schools to go God-free
Michael Bachelard
December 14, 2008

VICTORIAN state primary school students will soon have an alternative — religious education lessons taught by people who do not believe in God and say there is "no evidence of any supernatural power".

The Humanist Society of Victoria has developed a curriculum, which the State Government accreditation body says it intends to approve, to deliver 30-minute lessons each week of "humanist applied ethics" to primary pupils.

[...]

Victorian Humanist Society president Stephen Stuart said: "Atheistical parents will be pleased to hear that humanistic courses of ethics will soon be available in some state schools."

But the body that accredits Victoria's 3500 Christian religious instruction volunteers, Access Ministries, says humanism is not a religion and so should not be taught in religious education time.

[...]

The Humanist Society does not consider itself to be a religious organisation and believes ethics have "no necessary connection with religion". Humanists believe people are responsible for their own destiny and reject the notion of a supernatural force or God.

Fundamentalist Christian group the Salt Shakers panned the idea of humanists being given religious education class time.

Research director Jenny Stokes said: "If you go there, where do you stop? What about witchcraft or Satanism?

"If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools."

But RMIT professor Desmond Cahill, head of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, the body appointed by the Government to accredit all non-Christian volunteer religious teachers in state primary schools, has praised the humanist curriculum.

He said he could foresee no problem with approving it. "Our view would be that humanist studies are a legitimate world view just as Catholicism, Anglicanism or Islam is, and that none are any more provable than the rest, just as theism or atheism are no more provable than the other."

Professor Cahill also intends to approve a proposal by Muslim leaders to allow volunteers to teach religion in state primary schools.

"I think there's a greater realisation that Australia's emerging as a multi-faith society, which means the acceptance of non-Christian religions … there's an increasing realisation that the notion of religion has expanded to include all kinds of spiritualities and associated world views, including atheist and humanist world views."

Humanist Society education director Harry Gardner said he had designed a course to be taught from prep to year 6 called "Applied Ethical Education — Humanism for Schools". It covers subjects such as the art of living, the environment, philosophy, science and world citizenship. The curriculum is likely to be submitted for approval next year.

Dr Gardner, a former CSIRO research scientist, said his course adopted the "honesty ethic of science (that is, not fudging results)" with the intention that children would be inspired to think for themselves.

"If accredited for use in schools, the Humanist Society of Victoria envisages that the volunteer teachers would develop a comradely relationship to the regular religious instructors in adjacent rooms," he said.

But Access Ministries chief executive Evonne Paddison said while it was not her decision as to who should or should not have access to state schools, she did not think humanism fell under "the relevant legislation to be classified as a faith-based religion in religious instruction in the way that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism" did.

Ms Stokes said humanists could not expect to have it both ways. "It doesn't make sense because they proclaim themselves not to be a religion," she said.

Religious instruction in state schools should be Christian because "basically we are a Christian nation", she said.

What do you guys think? Are there parallels between this and creationism being taught in science classes?

[Rorshach]

Shouldn't be allowed. Not because of any religious reasons (Satanism has every right to be taught there if they're allowing other religions in the class), but because it's a world religion class, not a philosophy or ethics class. I know this sounds a little bit ridiculous, but I honestly think that this makes sense.

[Smokey]

If humanism can be taught in religious education classes, then creationism ought to be allowed in science classes. It doesn't make sense to have either subject in either class. Humanism is not a religion; why should it be allowed in a religious education class? Like it says in the last few sentences, humanists can't have it both ways. I don't understand why they would push for their views to be included in that class, anyway.

[JValone]

This is why religion should not be taught in schools. It's difficult to define and it's equally difficult to draw a line between what religions are "approved" and what religions are ignored.

[HGW XX/7]

To those saying it shouldn't be taught due to it not being a religion:

Shouldn't it depend on how the classes are structured? If it's focusing on what humanism is and then spending time on why they don't believe other religions, wouldn't that fall under religious discussion?

Discussing why all other religions beliefs are wrong is just as valid as discussing why a certain religion is right.

As far as creationism during a science course: Unless there's actual scientific evidence that creationism might be remotely legit, it doesn't belong there. Unless during the creationism time they could somehow undo science.

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by JValone

This is why religion should not be taught in schools. It's difficult to define and it's equally difficult to draw a line between what religions are "approved" and what religions are ignored.

That isn't the case here. If they actively state that they aren't a religion, they have no business pushing their agenda in a class about religion.

Originally Posted by HGW XX/7

To those saying it shouldn't be taught due to it not being a religion:

Shouldn't it depend on how the classes are structured? If it's focusing on what humanism is and then spending time on why they don't believe other religions, wouldn't that fall under religious discussion?

Focusing on what it is doesn't make it a religion. You could focus on biology and spend time on what it's about and it still wouldn't make it a religion. That's what religious ed classes are about: educating people about religions.

Originally Posted by HGW XX/7

Discussing why all other religions beliefs are wrong is just as valid as discussing why a certain religion is right.

Again, you're missing the focus of the class, which is religious education, not religious discussion.

Originally Posted by HGW XX/7

As far as creationism during a science course: Unless there's actual scientific evidence that creationism might be remotely legit, it doesn't belong there. Unless during the creationism time they could somehow undo science.

That point was made to illustrate the absurdity of including something in a curriculum that clearly doesn't belong.

[Lizzaroni]

Creationism is ****ing retarded and shouldn't be taught in schools. People can already elect to study the religion of their choice, so there's no need to compensate by allowing psuedo-science into the classroom just because Humanism is available (that is, Humanism is an answer to the religions that are already being taught.)

EDIT: And I don't see why a class about religion can't address the question of a lack of religion, especially when the whole process is voluntary.

[Smokey]

It's because it's a religious education class. You're there to learn about a specific religion. Again, humanists can't have it both ways, stressing that they aren't a religion, then expecting their views to be taught in such a class.

[HGW XX/7]

Originally Posted by Smokey

Focusing on what it is doesn't make it a religion. You could focus on biology and spend time on what it's about and it still wouldn't make it a religion. That's what religious ed classes are about: educating people about religions.



Again, you're missing the focus of the class, which is religious education, not religious discussion..

You're educating people on why religions are wrong. That counts as religious education, because they'd be educating people about religions and why they are faulty.

[Rorshach]

Originally Posted by HGW XX/7

You're educating people on why religions are wrong. That counts as religious education, because they'd be educating people about religions and why they are faulty.

Then Creationism in science classes should be allowed, because it's educating people about why scientific theories with evidence supporting them are wrong.

But since it's compulsory, I guess it'd be OK. I was under the impression that the Humanistic classes would be along the lines of "Let's go help people! Atheists, ASSEMBLE!"

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by HGW XX/7

You're educating people on why religions are wrong. That counts as religious education, because they'd be educating people about religions and why they are faulty.

The focus of the class is to educate students about a religion. Humanism is not a religion. Ergo, humanism should not be taught in such a class.

Educating people on why religions are wrong belong in a philosophy class, if anywhere.