The Problem with Religious Education in Australian Schools

I agree. These children need to be armed with knowledge so they can toss it back at the religious nuts.

Primenumbers, do you really think that is what will happen? Let me explain to you how this works in the real world: the child asks an embarrassing question, then the teacher tells them to leave the class, makes fun of them to the other students while they are gone, and reports to the Principal that they were “rude, disrespectful to the teacher and their peers, and highly disruptive”, and then the kid gets detention.

What is needed is to keep these god-damned kooks as far away from children as is physically possible.

“The UK, which is a Christian country…”
Err… No. Britain has an established church, but is one of the most non-religious contries in the world. Calling it Xian is just plain lazy.

The UK, which is a Christian country, has a secular religious education which covers seven major religions and is taught from a cultural perspective. It encourages community, understanding of diversity, and an appreciation of the variety of cultures within the country.

It doesn’t encourage an understanding of religions, it’s not an education in comparative religion. It’s as you say, rather overt propaganda that is an attempt to encourage admiration for other people’s religions, even if the means are spin, lies, and omission. Being more forgiving I would say extremely sanitized and incomplete. Not that this should surprise anyone.

Once you get tired to trying political means which are designed not to work (after all, their ineffectiveness is the only reason that they’re still legal), here are some effective strategies (that is, which have been successfully used in the past) that you might try:

1. Mass student boycotts. Students are allowed to opt out. Seek solidarity with other students and their parents. If they all opt out, they won’t be in the hall alone. Tell them to bring a book if they need something to do.

2. Provide an alternative institution, in combination with mass student walk-out if necessary. It sounds like the non-certification of Humanists will make this more difficult, but you could still just ask the students to walk off of the school campus for an hour a day, if necessary. (Here and throughout, add the caveat “even if doing so is illegal” where appropriate. Illegalism is the most effective way to bring about meaningful political change.) Walk-outs have been fantastically successful in the past when practiced at the high school level, but it may not carry over to elementary education. Historically, this one is also the most likely to get you shot. It’s a small risk, but limit yourself to the rest of the list if you’re worried about it.

3. Mass student exodus. Take the children out of the school and put them in a new school. If there are no better schools, homeschool them. If the state makes this difficult, one strategy is to enroll them in all of the local schools and then withdraw them from each school at sporadic intervals. Hopefully, the state bureaucracy will become overloaded and give up trying to figure out where the student “should be.”

4. Mass parent walk-ins. Go into the school, sit in on the class. Or stand-in, depending on available seats. The school security will try to tell you that you aren’t allowed to do this. Ignore them. If the cops come, so much the better.

5. Mass demonstrations outside the school. Contrary to what most people falsely assume, blocking traffic and such while doing this is not effective: it gives the police an excuse to get rid of you and it makes it less likely that you’ll get public support. If you can get the news to show up (this will usually depend on the size of the crowd you can get), do so since it will both increase your publicity and decrease the likelihood that the police will attack you. If you can’t, tell those who come to make sure they bring cell phones with cameras and post the footage on YouTube or equivalent.

6. Local media shame campaign. Letters to the editor are a good place to start, so long as you don’t call for a political solution. Use your letters to advocate for other forms of direct action.

7. National/international media shame campaign. Good start on this one above, but, again, to be effective it’s important to focus on nonpolitical solutions. Try to do this in a way that will cost Australia tourism dollars and immigrants (or, whatever type of immigrants the government thinks it wants*).

* Of course, all immigrants are good for the country, but the state may be stupid enough not to realize this.

8. Mass student noncompliance: don’t speak in class, don’t turn in homework, don’t go to class, etc. (Not just the hour that you object to; this sort of thing is much more effective when organized as a “general strike.”)

9. Mass teacher noncompliance. Teachers should ignore lesson plans or refuse to teach. Prolonged strikes tend not to work for teachers, but lightning-strike strategies like sick-ins can be very effective, as the school administrations have to scramble to find a massive number of subs. Get the substitute teachers on board too; this is often even easier than getting the regular teachers on board, as the subs usually have contracts designed to legally allow them to refuse an assignment for any reason.

10. Mass producer noncompliance. If you’re organizing strikes, no reason to limit it to the schools.

11. Mass government noncompliance. The above is most effective if you can include a broad swath of government employees. They don’t need to all come from the same office. One or two people from every bureau will be just as effective, if not more so, than all of the people from one bureau. If you can, get them to quit their jobs entirely instead of just striking.

12. Tax resistance. Some people like to calculate the percentage going to the activity that they dislike and only remit that, but it’s more effective to withhold the entire amount. In the case of churches providing the program for free, the latter is likely to be more effective. Since the government is probably going to notice anyway, I recommend sending them a letter explaining why you aren’t funding their crimes in lieu of sending a check. This is hard to do alone, but if you get a group of concerned citizens who agree to save up the money that the government claims it is owed and use it to help pay legal expenses if the government comes down, it’s usually fairly effective. It’s rarely enough to get the policy changed (unless you can get a LOT of people to join you), but a group that does it in solidarity can usually stand strong enough to convince the government that it’s not worth trying to get the taxes out of you. Check your local laws first. This strategy is risky in the U.S. as Garden Plot (an internal policing act introduced in response to the direct activism of the 1960s) defines tax protesters to be terrorists; combined with attempts by the Obama administration to get anyone it calls a terrorist locked up forever without the need for a trial, tax resistance may become much riskier in the future. One safer alternative is mis-writing your check to the tax bureau, forgetting to sign your tax form if required to do by law, etc. People do it by mistake all the time and eventually sort it out, so it isn’t illegal, but if done by massive numbers of people it could be crippling. (Getting the number of people required to do this on a national level is impractical, of course. But it works well for local taxes.) And it goes without saying that even if you are paying taxes, you should file on the latest date legally allowed.

13. Mass consumer boycotts. This ties in with international media. Organize a boycott of Australian products. After a while, the corporations will get on the government, and unlike you, they actually can get things accomplished through the political means (since, you know, doing favors for corporations is the whole reason the government exists).

There are, of course, hundreds more (revolution, etc.), but these are a good starting point. And I fully realize that most of these may be beyond what you’re willing to do (especially since most of them are illegal). That’s fine. But in that case, remember that the myth that government provides you rights is exactly that: a myth. You get your rights by defending your rights, and these strategies represent the culmination of centuries of study on nonviolent ways to defend your rights. If you aren’t willing to do these things, you should stop pretending that you have any rights.

Many of these will lead to being arrested, typically for short periods. It’s a good idea to arrange child care ahead of time just in case and to keep the amount of money you expect to use in 2-3 months in cash in case your bank accounts are frozen. Also, every once in a while the police will over-react and you may end up dead. This is such a low probability occurrence that I wouldn’t let it stop your activism, but all the same it’s good to have a life-insurance policy (make sure it covers being murdered by the government) and “god-parenting” arrangements set up ahead of time.

I grew up in Queensland (am still here, actually) attending only state schools, and remember the various religious education (RE) hours happening at the ones I attended. This ranged from opting out and spending the hour sitting on the floor chatting, to free time in the library, to forced inclusion with the threat of punishment. In one school (thankfully I was only there for 6 months) when I was about 10 years old, I was hounded so badly by a teacher in RE, to draw a picture of some guy nailed to some cross, that I cried and refused to attend school for the rest of the week.

The chaplaincy program, which hopefully will be overturned …

Not by this federal governemnet. If Steve Fielding, a self admitted young earth creationist, is to be believed, our current PM is even more religious than he is. Apparently, and Fielding said this on the Q&A program a few weeks ago, on their first meeting the PM pulled out a bible and started quoting scripture.

This is why more money has been dedicated to the chaplaincy program: our PM is the most religious we’ve seen yet, a fact that has been completely missed by the media.

we have three kids in a state school in Queensland. we gave them all the choice to opt out of RE after grade one. the oldest two have opted out – the youngest is yet to experience the joy of RE. At our school the kids who opt out get to do other work -complete homework, read novels (swapping fiction for fiction!) which suits the boys fine.

the older one sits outside the classroom in the computer ‘lab’, the younger one in in the classroom as they dont have other supervision (the teacher apologised for this).

having them overhear what is said in RE is not necessarily a bad thing for kids of atheist parents- it has led onto a lot of very useful discussions about science and religion at home. They have realised just how silly the bible storied are and just recently we were discussing Noahs ark and if they had fish tanks on the ark for the fresh water fish – was the flood fresh or sea water, and – cue hysterical laughter – dinosaurs became extinct because they were so big noah decided to take only one of each on the ark.

i think religion education, if taugh at all, should be comparative religion, and taught in the context of society/literature/art – certainly not taught as the ‘truth’. I worry more about kids who arentgiven the opportunity by their parents t opt out – even parents i know who rent particularly religious want their kids to attend RE for the *arrgghh* ‘christian values’. (sorry about typos – wont let me edit)

How it’s handled is very different in each school.

One of my kids, who goes to a specialist autism school, has no religious education whatsoever. The younger one, however, does have a school chaplain and religious education time, but you a) must explicitly opt in, and b) must pay for the cost of materials.

I had naively assumed that this is the way it works everywhere. Julie Cowe’s experience clearly differs from mine.

@Bruce, thanks, that makes a lot more sense because public schools are public trusts, ie set up and given responsibilities by the government, ostensibly for the public good.

There is a lot of religious education that goes on in American schools as well, despite the clarity of Constitutional law on the matter.

My submission to my State MP:-

I have been looking into religious education in my children’s school and am disturbed as to what I have found.

I have approached my school principal about this but she says her hands are tied as it is Education Department policy. She has been good enough to forward me a copy of the relevant policy.( i am happy to post if any one wants but it is large)

I had thought about removing my child from this class but have been informed that he would not be allowed to learn anything else whilst this class was in session due to clause 3.22.6 para 4.

That my child should be prevented from learning by State legislation is an anathema to me and one I find especially offensive given he attends a secular State run school.

I also call your attention to the “opt out” arrangements imposed (3.22.7 para 2). If parents fail to return the correct form within 14 days they are considered to have consented.

In what other area of life does silence give consent? I thought that principle went out with Thomas More and Henry VIII yet here it is alive and well in Victorian public schools in 2010.

I would also point out that as consent is NOT required each year, and as silence is presupposed to give consent, parental consent might NEVER be obtained.

I feel that a fairer, more equitable system would allow those children not in the RI class to be instructed in other subjects.

I also believe that the “opt out” system should be changed to an “opt in” system which would be more in line with general legal principles.

RI could then continue with those students whose parents actively wish them to be educated in this subject.

@Ian Read:

and compare the wording in the guidelines (which are not state law, but policy made by the schools in favor of the churches) to the actual law – which is called “the education act” … nothing in the law directs this to be “opt out”, or “default”.

VIC was secular from 1872 till 1950 when they essentially adopted NSW policy – both VIC and NSW faced steep opposition from churches on the issue of “secular public schools” … remember, before the “invention ” of public schooling in 1872 in AU – the only place to become “educated” was in Church Schools. The fact that AU as a this hour to teach “sunday school” in the schools – was merely a way to deal with the threat that the churches would not permit schooling unless their agenda was supported. At the time the churches in VIC could not agree “which” sect of christian teaching would have the say, so the legislature adopted secularism as policy to deal with the impass. In 1950 however, enough churches got together under the CESS umbrella that they got back into the schools with CRE. It was a “reversal” on 80 years of secular public education in VIC.

Today though, secularism, is understood as one of the great achievements of human rights – and in public schools in AU – is suspended for one hour a week. Most parents just ignore it … and treat it as harmless.

@ mimbles:

offering an alternative is NOT challenging the presence of religion – it is merely challenging the right of the churches to dictate the school policy for one hour a week (ie take our class or sit in the hall).

How the schools feel this is OK in the first place simply related to the fact that they lack the courage of their convictions to stand up to the political will of the churches and say that a secular school system is not letting kids down by teaching ONLY secular subjects.

The churches constantly use “drugs” “bullying” and “family crisis” as a reason why they belong in schools – this is why the chaplains are there – because no one points out that they don’t address the issues they claim to address.

Remember, the 13 yo boy stabbed last month, was at a catholic school. He was surrounded by clergy.

@scott It challenges the presence of religious education in public schools by addressing directly the churches’ claims that they offer the best/only way for kids to receive an education in ethics, and the fact that, in particular, the Anglican church was so opposed to even the trial going ahead shows that the churches are well aware of that point. It also offers parents a more palatable alternative to having their kids sitting around doing pretty much nothing if they do opt out. That then has the potential to lead to much greater numbers of kids doing exactly that. And if significant numbers of kids are opting out of the SRE classes then that puts paid to the argument that it must be ok because most people let their kids attend the classes.

Of course it’s not the perfect solution to the problem but it is a practical first step on the path towards opening up discussion about Dept of Education policy on the matter.

Dear Julie,

Well hes two for two so far. 100%.
That said I never even recieved a reply from the Government.

@mimbles:

I see your point. What I’m trying to say is that when we support the idea of an alternative to scripture in the form of “ethics” we are denying that there is a larger and more important issue at stake here. Now it may be a practical half step, but it is not one based on principle.

If the issue is “kids with nothing to do” why teach “ethics”, and not basket weaving? Are we saying that the religion class is there to fill an ethics hole in the curriculum?

The issue is “secularism” itself. Secularism forbids the state to organize and treat people differently by their beliefs – this is especially bad in the government schools, where many different backgrounds are required to attend – remember school is a mandatory requirement imposed by the state. Children MUST attend school. If you believe religion A go to room 101 if you believe B go to room 102, etc … is exactly what secularism forbids. The fact is that the state has no business doing bible class, it knows this but instead of saying “church is where you teach religion” not in public school, it struck a deal, one class a week, taught by volunteers Why? Because the churches made a fuss and no one had the guts to stand up for the principle and argue back on behalf of principle, they accepted that “religion” is the source of our “values”, rather than “religion is a matter of personal and private commitments outside the scope of the government” … also the politicians use this issue as a sop to the Christian vote – it is the “we are a Christian nation” argument.

These churches openly refer to the public schools as a “mission field” and they are using the power of the state to pursue that mission – that is the problem – and equating their religion class with ethics – only makes it worse, because it undermines one of our highest principles: Secularism.

Do we oppose the current situation because our personal beliefs dissent from those of the church, and we want to hover over our kids and keep bible stories out of their ears? How shallow of us, are we really that lame as parents? No. We oppose this because it is a violation of our highest principles. If it is the former, politicians have every right to say to us, “well the majority disagree with you”, if it is the latter, politicians can say “no matter what the majority want” – our principles dictate that we don’t do it.

Not to sound absurd, but think about slavery. We might all get behind a program to improve the housing conditions of slaves – since slaves can’t own their own houses, but that would ignore the principles, and simply make it an issue of our opinion about how slaves should be treated. However, we don’t object to slavery because of the WAY it is done, we object to it because of the fact that we believe in the principle of personal freedom. Slavery is wrong, no matter how posh their cabins.

Hell maybe we do need an ethics class!

An ethics alternative to religion class is like a fair housing program for slaves – it ignores the principles upon which we have reason to object in the first place. It is not that the kids have nothing to do while religion is being taught – it is the fact that the state is “organizing” classes based on matters of personal and private conscience.

If Australia is a secular nation, and not a religious nation like England, we must stand up for secularism – and the religious, and atheist should make common cause on this, not, as seems to be the case now, stand on opposite sides of this issue.

Supporting alternatives to religion class in school, totally ignores the issue of why this program is objectionable in the first place.

You’re making some odd assumptions about my position on secularism here – and my comment about indoctrination was mostly facetious.

We agree on secularism – and I’m sympathetic with your views on RE (even though I’m a Christian, and studying at a theological college) – I would be mad if science in schools was taught as though it is in conflict with belief in God.

The second paragraph of my initial comment should be read in the context of the first.

You haven’t actually done anything that looks like dealing with the point I’m making (or that I made in my opening comment) – but have instead taken this another couple of steps further away. I believe the man you think I am is now firmly made of straw.

When you say “that is what we are talking about” you are not speaking for me – that is not what I am, or was, talking about.

So long as you are calling for science to be taught in a way that says cosmology does away with the need for God – I will argue that there is a place for religious instruction in schools.

Science is not philosophy. When philosophy – or indeed atheism – is brought into the science classroom, then I think Christians are entitled to offer a counter view (to the atheism, not to the science).

When you say I should have said “Julie, believers and non believers alike should work to encourage secularism in schools”… what you’re doing is missing the point I was making (albeit poorly – apparently)… I don’t think Julie was advocating for secularism in schools – she is advocating for atheism in schools by suggesting that science is incompatible with religious belief.

This is clearly not the case – and is a pretty dumb argument to make – certain religious beliefs (American fundamentalism) flee from science – but only those who poorly understand theology and what the Bible has to say on the matter of science (not a whole lot given that it was written before the scientific method was invented)…

The only reason I know that Jesus is a poor moralist, is because I know what he is supposed to have said.

That is purely subjective and based on your own moral framework – and yet you frame it as objective knowledge. I don’t think Jesus was a poor moralist. I think you’re using your own standards and beliefs as the standards and beliefs that everybody should hold to – which is fine for your own children, but this whole argument against RE is riddled with hypocrisy. If the majority of Australians think there’s a God but don’t go to church I think it’s logical to assume that they want their children learning about the God they think exists somewhere… school seems like a perfectly natural place.

WTHeck are most of you people (except Nathan) so afraid of?
We are not the big bad boogie man.

I am so glad to be able to live without your fearful paranoia in my life.

It is truly a “Peace which transcends all understanding, guarding my heart and mind”* from this kind of hopeless thinking.

But then again, why would I expect to find anything else on an “atheist” website?
*Philippians 4:7

@nathan “If the majority of Australians think there’s a God but don’t go to church I think it’s logical to assume that they want their children learning about the God they think exists somewhere… school seems like a perfectly natural place.”
Don’t you think it more logical that if they believe in God but don’t go to church that they do not agree with the available organized religions and would very well teach their own children about God as THEY understand him – and it would not be very natural at all for an outside party to do this for them?
Churches are for teaching about religion – not schools.

Some parents have reported their child sat for the hour in empty hallways, alone.

Make sure those kids take a good book to school.

Merely responding to your stereotyping in kind.

Yes I agree your stereotyping is very lame.
WTHeck is MVE?

MVE Murray Valley Encephalitis
MVE Market Value of Equity
MVE Midland Valley Exploration (UK)
MVE Midwest Vocal Express (barbershop chorus)
MVE Mid Valley Engineering (Modesto, CA)
MVE muvee AutoProducer (file extension)
MVE Modulo Variable Expansion
MVE Mean Variance Efficient
MVE Multimedia and Virtual Environment
MVE Maximum Voluntary Effort (physical testing)
MVE Museovirasto, Kulttuurihistorian Osasto, Esinekokoelmat (Finnish)
MVE Multiple Version Environment
MVE Most Valued Employee (award)

I assume it is one of these. Interesting, but scarcely germane to the topic being discussed.

I have at no point advocated that children should not be taught about religion merely that they should not be taught that it is “THE” truth to the exclusion of all else. I also object to my child being enjoined to worship Christianity at my State funded secular school.
No other subject is able to be taught without a basis in fact. Why should religion be accorded special status?
As I have already stated in a previous post if we wish to impart good moral/ethical values to our children I would consider it much more efficient to teach these directly via an ethics course, as is being trialled under the St James Ethics Centre in some NSW State schools, than through the use of misinterpretable parables. Or even worse the misogynist and racist examples of the Old Testament.
I note you complain that we all say the same thing. That’s probably because we agree. You don’t? Then offer up an argument as to why worship in schools should continue so as to have a substantive discussion rather than resort to childish insults.