Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Exi5tentialist]

Schools are constrained by a lack of resources. What you describe, Exi5, is utopia. We have to find workable solutions for the real world.

However, I fundamentally disagree that my kids should be told about religion by the religious. To me this is like bringing in the sick to talk about medical advancement.

The only people qualified to talk about religion from a truth perspective are scientists. And they will never be given that opportunity. Religion itself is an interesting and important aspect of humanity. Schools should be able to cover it adequately without resorting to hands on experience.

I was sure people would want to be dismissive of my suggestions for introducing a few minor changes to our education system, but really I don't think that describing schools having visiting speakers is a "utopia". I am talking about the real world. I do not understand why these proposals would be considered to be so unrealistic; I think they are perfectly practical in this world. The only thing lacking is the will, and that deficiency is born of fear, which is a shame.

Having kicked the proposals into the long grass by describing them as utopia, apparently they are still causing a problem because there is opposition to children being told about religion by the religious. I personally don't see what is so wrong with bringing in the sick to talk about medical advancement - where they have aspirations for it, or where they have been cured by it. That is a poor analogy anyway. Religious people are not sick, however much Richard Dawkins wants to portray them as such. They are just religious people.

I fail to see how scientists have any better handle on the 'truth' of religion than any of us, so getting them to talk about religion isn't going to be particularly enlightening for anybody. I still fail to see the objection to religious speakers, if we consider religion to be so interesting a subject. We would welcome hands-on experience in every other subject, what is the big objection to hands-on experience with religion? I don't see it.

[tattuchu]

I hope the bastard aliens recycle their rubbish. I don't know what they do on other planets, but I'm very careful to put my recyclables in the recycle bin. I think it's important.

[Magicziggy]

Do you have kids?
What is your experience of working with the school system, internally or externally?

It may help you to understand my perspective to know that I have kids currently in Australian schools. I went to school in the uk and currently teach science and maths in Australia. It might help me to know if you have any practical knowledge of the internal workings of an education system where resources are constantly being squeezed and demands for what schools deliver increased. We already have to find time for; road safety, Internet safety, sexual health, bullying...

Whatever RE is delivered will have to compete for time and resources and there won't be much of either. But it does sit neatly in the humanities, as a discussion topic of comparative study. To raise awareness if nothing more.

I thought about my analogy and know it was clumsy. I left it because I do think of the religious being delusional in the Dawkins sense. You are welcome to try and change my view.

[Exi5tentialist]

Do you have kids?
What is your experience of working with the school system, internally or externally?

It may help you to understand my perspective to know that I have kids currently in Australian schools. I went to school in the uk and currently teach science and maths in Australia. It might help me to know if you have any practical knowledge of the internal workings of an education system where resources are constantly being squeezed and demands for what schools deliver increased. We already have to find time for; road safety, Internet safety, sexual health, bullying...

Whatever RE is delivered will have to compete for time and resources and there won't be much of either. But it does sit neatly in the humanities, as a discussion topic of comparative study. To raise awareness if nothing more.

I thought about my analogy and know it was clumsy. I left it because I do think of the religious being delusional in the Dawkins sense. You are welcome to try and change my view.

Whether I have kids or not is not a qualification for holding a valid opinion about religious education in schools. Actually I have 14 years' experience working with the school system, from the age of 4 to the age of 18 when I was learning a number of different subjects. Although I therefore have plenty of experience, I am sure any reputable teacher would not want to take an arrogant view that only teachers are qualified to talk about the school system and that anyone outside it should be ignored. It is interesting that this argument is being deployed against someone who is advocating the teaching of religion, but not against people who are advocating that it should not be taught, since whatever takes up the space left by religious education would itself place pressures on resources. To be honest it seems rather a cheap shot to take.

I am sure there are plenty of pressures on schools and I have no doubt they are as under-funded now as they were when I was a student in them. Capitalism does not like paying out money to the public sector, that is no reason to think that the only world available to us is one determined by capitalism or that any alternative view is 'utopia'.

[Magicziggy]

Quite clearly, I am not using it as an argument against you as you portray.
I am simply wanting to understand your background. It helps.

[Magicziggy]

And I would maintain that having kids in the public system offers a different perspective on this discussion.
It does not necessarily make my views any more or less valid.

[Exi5tentialist]

Quite clearly, I am not using it as an argument against you as you portray.
I am simply wanting to understand your background. It helps.

Well, that wasn't clear at all actually so I am glad I have had the opportunity to assist in heading off that particular problem before it occurred. Personally, I don't assess the value of somebody's argument on their background, and I don't see how it helps. If they have knowledge I don't, I'm sure the knowledge will speak for itself, they don't need to advertise it, do they?

How does having kids give a 'different perspective'? (unless you mean 'a better perspective') Really you cannot get away with just leaving that as it is. In what way is the perspective 'different' without (in your view) being 'better'?

[Magicziggy]

Quite clearly, I am not using it as an argument against you as you portray.
I am simply wanting to understand your background. It helps.

Well, that wasn't clear at all actually so I am glad I have had the opportunity to assist in heading off that particular problem before it occurred. Personally, I don't assess the value of somebody's argument on their background, and I don't see how it helps. If they have knowledge I don't, I'm sure the knowledge will speak for itself, they don't need to advertise it, do they?

How does having kids give a 'different perspective'? (unless you mean 'a better perspective') Really you cannot get away with just leaving that as it is. In what way is the perspective 'different' without (in your view) being 'better'?

I said different because it is not necessarily better.

I am particularly sensitive to the local issues that affect my kids in school. While I may have a broad agreement with the notion (for example) of homework, I get particularly narked by the amount and types of tasks my 14 year old gets set from some of his teachers. Therefore my own perspective as a parent is vastly different from my global perspective on the exact same issue.

My kids don't have any RE component to their education. If they did, I would expect it to be balanced and delivered from a neutral standpoint and I would monitor it as closely as I do everything else. But I wouldn't object to it.

What I do object to are the churches who muscle their way in to offer external stuff like fun plays at Easter, which the school then laps up. This is my younger son now. See David Thorne(*) for the exact scenraio I'm talking about. My son didn't want to go (we supported his choice) and sat in a computer room with one other kid playing games. Thus he was deprived of normal lesson time because the school prioritised religious indoctrination. I object to this. And this is the perspective of a parent, which I maintain differs from looking at it from a purely external viewpoint.

(*)http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html

[Exi5tentialist]

I said different because it is not necessarily better.

I am particularly sensitive to the local issues that affect my kids in school. While I may have a broad agreement with the notion (for example) of homework, I get particularly narked by the amount and types of tasks my 14 year old gets set from some of his teachers. Therefore my own perspective as a parent is vastly different from my global perspective on the exact same issue.

My kids don't have any RE component to their education. If they did, I would expect it to be balanced and delivered from a neutral standpoint and I would monitor it as closely as I do everything else. But I wouldn't object to it.

What I do object to are the churches to muscle their way in to offer external stuff like fun plays at Easter, which the school then laps up. This is my younger son now. See David Thorne for the exact scenraio I'm talking about. My son didn't want to go (we supported his choice) and sat in a computer room with one other kid playing games. Thus he was deprived of normal lesson time because the school prioritised religious indoctrination. I object to this. And this is the perspective of a parent, which I maintain differs from looking at it from a purely external viewpoint.

Yeah yeah, you can keep arguing that your perspective as a parent is 'different' without being 'better', I don't mind.

What is the school doing having fun plays at Easter? Was the play about Easter? What a funny thing for a non-religious school to be doing.

It sounds like your son has learned how to get a good skyve at the expense of religion. What better lesson could there be from religious indoctrination?

[Magicziggy]

I said different because it is not necessarily better.

I am particularly sensitive to the local issues that affect my kids in school. While I may have a broad agreement with the notion (for example) of homework, I get particularly narked by the amount and types of tasks my 14 year old gets set from some of his teachers. Therefore my own perspective as a parent is vastly different from my global perspective on the exact same issue.

My kids don't have any RE component to their education. If they did, I would expect it to be balanced and delivered from a neutral standpoint and I would monitor it as closely as I do everything else. But I wouldn't object to it.

What I do object to are the churches to muscle their way in to offer external stuff like fun plays at Easter, which the school then laps up. This is my younger son now. See David Thorne for the exact scenraio I'm talking about. My son didn't want to go (we supported his choice) and sat in a computer room with one other kid playing games. Thus he was deprived of normal lesson time because the school prioritised religious indoctrination. I object to this. And this is the perspective of a parent, which I maintain differs from looking at it from a purely external viewpoint.

Yeah yeah, you can keep arguing that your perspective as a parent is 'different' without being 'better', I don't mind.

What is the school doing having fun plays at Easter? Was the play about Easter? What a funny thing for a non-religious school to be doing.

It sounds like your son has learned how to get a good skyve at the expense of religion. What better lesson could there be from religious indoctrination?

Parental views are very skewed. What's best for my kids will not be best for everyone's kids. My views do not necessarily align with the majority of parental views.
I don't suggest my views are superior to yours, as much as you would like me to assert as much. I simply maintain my right to say what I think in contrast to what you think and, where I feel it is necessary, to explain where I'm coming from.

[Exi5tentialist]

Parental views are very skewed. What's best for my kids will not be best for everyone's kids. My views do not necessarily align with the majority of parental views.
I don't suggest my views are superior to yours, as much as you would like me to assert as much. I simply maintain my right to say what I think in contrast to what you think and, where I feel it is necessary, to explain where I'm coming from.

So if external speakers (a priest, an imam, a rabbi) were to enter the school to talk about their religion, you'd withdraw your kids from the class? Or would you let your son decide for himself? Or - do you know what's best for him?

[Jason]

what I remember of my teenage reading of Sartre, Camus and Nietche, they were a rather decidedly humorless lot.

It's been brought to my attention lately that too many people read Nietzsche in their early years, long before they could understand and appreciate him.

[Magicziggy]

Parental views are very skewed. What's best for my kids will not be best for everyone's kids. My views do not necessarily align with the majority of parental views.
I don't suggest my views are superior to yours, as much as you would like me to assert as much. I simply maintain my right to say what I think in contrast to what you think and, where I feel it is necessary, to explain where I'm coming from.

So if external speakers (a priest, an imam, a rabbi) were to enter the school to talk about their religion, you'd withdraw your kids from the class? Or would you let your son decide for himself? Or - do you know what's best for him?

Firstly, the issue of giving him the choice about withdrawing from the excursion was not about the religious content of the play, which would have been minimal I'm sure. I try to help him to question that which is asserted without proof and would have hoped he could have seen the play for what it was was. However, his choice not to go was not skiving as you suggested earlier. My objection has always been that those who choose not to attend are isolating themselves which is very hard for a 9 year old to think about doing.

Your question is about an example that could not happen on school grounds. With respect to attending an excursion for such an event, yes, my son would have the choice.

I know you don't think background helps, but here's some anyway.

My father, a non-practising muslim, withdrew me from every religious event in (UK) primary school. That included school assemblies where the daily prayer was said. I would sit in a classroom by myself until that formality was over. Later I was given provision to stand in assembly and not have to bow or close my eyes. Not that anyone should have noticed because they all had there eyes closed, right. This is the 70s we are talking about. He gave me the strong message to think for myself and that school RE was very one sided, in favour of Christianity. When I eventually started attending RE lessons I knew he spoke the truth. He made that choice for me. One that I probably wouldn't have made for myself. That perspective allows me to think one step further for my children and give them that choice, where I had none. With the provision that I monitor what is being delivered and kicking up a stink if it, in my opinion, becomes indoctrination. So far, it hasn;t happened and the only issue is the school's continued acceptance of invitations by one church for freebie plays. However, in a white Christian suburb, not surprisingly, few other parents object.

[Hermit]

I think our society is strongly structured according to the religious principles of mainstream organised christianity: patriarchy, authority, fear and blind obedience are mainstays of capitalism and these principles are intimately connected to christianity.

This is true. Our erstwhile Prime Minister, John Howard, is of the same opinion, and he thinks that this is a good thing. "I […] regard the Judaeo-Christian influence on Australia as the single greatest influence for good in the Australian community. […] My belief in the centrality of the family, my very strong belief in private business enterprise, my very strong belief in the I think the stabilising influence of the Judaeo-Christian ethic in this country.(2004)." To him religious indoctrination (of the christian variety) is desirable, not despite the judeo-christian values it inculcates in young minds, but because of it. Most of religious "studies" in Australian government schools are of that variety on account of most instructors being outsourced, as it were. In Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia in particular, some denominations pay the salaries of church representatives who work in the government schools as full time chaplains. They are not formal members of the government school teaching service, but in effect they are full time staff members. Here we are not looking at religious studies, but at religious indoctrination.

As if this were not bad enough, Howard introduced the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP). It was financed to the tune of 90 million dollars for the first three years, and further funding was made available under succeeding Prime Ministers. Last year our incumbent PM allocated another $220 million to the project. The NSCP is charged with the task of providing students with spiritual guidance and helping them with get through extracurricular difficulties such as drug addiction, depression or family problems. For some reason, the main accredited organisations are christian and of a proselytising bent, such as Access Ministries (Victoria), GenR8 (New South Wales), the Scripture Union (the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania), Schools Ministry Group (South Australia), and YouthCARE (Western Australia).

To give you an idea of what their principal aims are, check these excerpts from a speech given by Access Ministry's CEO at a conference. She said that the chaplaincy program, to which her organisation supplied 97% of staff in Victoria's government schools, is an "extraordinary opportunity to reach kids, with the good news about Jesus... Under God, many come to faith. Some find their way to church. What really matters is seizing the God-given opportunity we have to reach kids in schools. Without Jesus, our students are lost." In case that didn't make things clear enough, she added: "Churches in the West are on a slow death march. We have the opportunity to create life… What a commandment, make disciples. What a responsibility. What a privilege we have been given. Let's go for it." Their website commented: "Follow Jesus and fish for people...we celebrate people who have been fishing…Some putting a little time aside in their week to teach [Scripture], for others putting whole careers aside to become chaplains." The other organisations are of similar vein.

Of course the "spiritual guidance" project at Australian government schools is not to be confused with religious studies, but much of the personnel engaged in the former, is also involved with the latter. "Religious studies" in Australian schools is increasingly becoming a cover for proselytisation, and I do not think that is a good thing. I don't want it any more than, say, crusaders campaigning for the adoption of the stork theory of procreation in biology, Eve being a result of rib surgery on Adam's body in evolution, intelligent falling in physics, or any other dogmatic advocacy by those absolutist zealots. Unlike them, science teachers don't represent their subject matter as The Truth. They tend to be quite upfront that scientific theories are amended, discarded or superseded in time.

[JimC]

I think our society is strongly structured according to the religious principles of mainstream organised christianity: patriarchy, authority, fear and blind obedience are mainstays of capitalism and these principles are intimately connected to christianity.

This is true. Our erstwhile Prime Minister, John Howard, is of the same opinion, and he thinks that this is a good thing. "I […] regard the Judaeo-Christian influence on Australia as the single greatest influence for good in the Australian community. […] My belief in the centrality of the family, my very strong belief in private business enterprise, my very strong belief in the I think the stabilising influence of the Judaeo-Christian ethic in this country.(2004)." To him religious indoctrination (of the christian variety) is desirable, not despite the judeo-christian values it inculcates in young minds, but because of it. Most of religious "studies" in Australian government schools are of that variety on account of most instructors being outsourced, as it were. In Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia in particular, some denominations pay the salaries of church representatives who work in the government schools as full time chaplains. They are not formal members of the government school teaching service, but in effect they are full time staff members. Here we are not looking at religious studies, but at religious indoctrination.

As if this were not bad enough, Howard introduced the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP). It was financed to the tune of 90 million dollars for the first three years, and further funding was made available under succeeding Prime Ministers. Last year our incumbent PM allocated another $220 million to the project. The NSCP is charged with the task of providing students with spiritual guidance and helping them with get through extracurricular difficulties such as drug addiction, depression or family problems. For some reason, the main accredited organisations are christian and of a proselytising bent, such as Access Ministries (Victoria), GenR8 (New South Wales), the Scripture Union (the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania), Schools Ministry Group (South Australia), and YouthCARE (Western Australia).

To give you an idea of what their principal aims are, check these excerpts from a speech given by Access Ministry's CEO at a conference. She said that the chaplaincy program, to which her organisation supplied 97% of staff in Victoria's government schools, is an "extraordinary opportunity to reach kids, with the good news about Jesus... Under God, many come to faith. Some find their way to church. What really matters is seizing the God-given opportunity we have to reach kids in schools. Without Jesus, our students are lost." In case that didn't make things clear enough, she added: "Churches in the West are on a slow death march. We have the opportunity to create life… What a commandment, make disciples. What a responsibility. What a privilege we have been given. Let's go for it." Their website commented: "Follow Jesus and fish for people...we celebrate people who have been fishing…Some putting a little time aside in their week to teach [Scripture], for others putting whole careers aside to become chaplains." The other organisations are of similar vein.

Of course the "spiritual guidance" project at Australian government schools is not to be confused with religious studies, but much of the personnel engaged in the former, is also involved with the latter. "Religious studies" in Australian schools is increasingly becoming a cover for proselytisation, and I do not think that is a good thing. I don't want it any more than, say, crusaders campaigning for the adoption of the stork theory of procreation in biology, Eve being a result of rib surgery on Adam's body in evolution, intelligent falling in physics, or any other dogmatic advocacy by those absolutist zealots. Unlike them, science teachers don't represent their subject matter as The Truth. They tend to be quite upfront that scientific theories are amended, discarded or superseded in time.

In particular for state schools, which should not be a vessel for targetted prosletysing. The chaplain's program trys to use the spin that they are acting as "counsellors"... What bullshit...