SRE on Trial

A group called “Youthworks” which touts itself as being “the major provider of Scripture resources and training of teachers for Anglican and Christian SRE in NSW State schools for many years” has thrown up a website to combat the trial of secular ethics in NSW classroom. They make a number of interesting and, in my opinion false, claims regarding the trial. Let’s have a look.

“…yet permission was specially granted for the teaching of Ethics – regardless of it being a non-religious subject.”

I agree. I do not think ethics and religion have anything to do with each other. I still fail to see why you would rather children learn NOTHING instead of sitting in an SRE class.

“At its core, the curriculum is founded on the works of secular humanist philosophers. While not overtly expressed as ‘secular humanism’, it is the basis of what is taught: a teaching built on the specific philosophy that is anti-God and therefore anti-Jesus Christ.”

Firstly, secular means “no comment”. A secular society is one in which the Government maintains a non-committal position with regards to religion. They do not promote any religious view nor suppress any, and they certainly do not promote one particular religious view over all others. Equality for ALL is exactly why the Government of a first world modern society must remain impartial to such matters of personal belief and opinion. To state that “secularism is specifically anti-god” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the position.

secular |ˈsekyələr|adjective1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred.

Moreover, you then overlay a massive logical leap from a god concept, to “anti-Jesus” as if the two are synonymous. While you may hold the belief that Jesus is Lord many others do not, and this shows your bias in presenting “Special Religious Education” to public school students. One might deduct that SRE is not multi-denominational or ecumenical at all, but a thinly veiled Christian indoctrination class.

“Yet the debate over religious education is also broader than just personal beliefs. It’s recognising that the true point of origin for Ethics in Australian society is founded on Judeo-Christian values. Values that have informed our Australian constitution and the legal, cultural and political development of this country. Ethics that have established our nation’s unique culture and that which Australians have long embraced and affirmed:”

Within the space of one paragraph you are contracting yourself – first you say ethics are not a religious subject, now you are saying the origin of Australian ethics are rooted in Judeo-Christian values (however you define them). In any case, it does not matter. What the founders of Australia enshrined in the Constitution was a secular society in which people of all religious persuasions or none at all could live in peace. Section 116 of our Constitution explicitly prohibits the Government from establishing a State religion, or suppressing any. That is what they left us with regardless of their motivations for doing so.

‘….Care for others like you would yourself; looking after the poor and underprivileged; going the extra mile for someone in need; not stealing; not murdering; it’s not right to take someone else’s wife or husband…’

A more interesting question might be to ask if such value systems can be built without referring to the supernatural in any way. This is the aim of secular ethics classes. If your hypothesis holds true, then no secular ethics class should be able to build a coherent ethical system without a deity. So what exactly are you afraid of? Is it possible that your religious teachings might be universally human in origin? Given almost every society in history as upheld teachings such as “looking after the poor and not stealing” it seems unlikely that Jesus is the prime cause.

Moreover, what about all the other ethical teachings in the Bible? Why has society moved on from burning witches, stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and those who work on the Sabbath, lifted the prohibitions on shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, and allowing women to speak in churches? Are we still required to sacrifice turtles when women menstruate? Should a rapist be forced to marry his victim? Should we punish non-virgins by stoning them to death on their wedding night? These are all teachings that come directly from “the good book”.

“Many of our Australian values, morals and ethics… have originated from the Bible and whether a person is Christian or not….”

And many have not. What’s your point?

“It’s more than SRE that’s on trial. If we lose Religious education, we risk losing true, fundamental ‘ethics’ that have underpinned Australia’s moral framework for hundreds of years.”

Sorry, I thought ethics was a “non-religious subject”?

“While we may not stop the official establishment of Ethics classes, as a non-religious subject, we can legally oppose it being taught during the same period as SRE”

Yes. It’s much better to teach kids nothing at all rather than subject them to the evils of religious indoctrination.

“ Should Ethics be ultimately approved as an SRE option, its objective is to not only remove Jesus Christ from the State school system, but from the consciousness and hearts of the next generation.”

I have an idea, in this multicultural tapestry in which we live, why not teach the religions of other Australians? If you absolutely insist on religion being taught during SRE sessions, then let’s expose children to Islam, Buddhism, Ayyavazhi, Scientology, Confucianism, Jainism, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism Ralienism, Bahá’í, Taoism, and others?

OR we can leave the entire matter to the individual and let them decide on their own. Just as our founders intended.

References

http://www.sreontrial.com.au/