Thou shall not teach humanism in Australia
Thou shall not teach humanism in Australia
EDUCATION Minister Bronwyn Pike has ducked a potential backlash from the powerful Christian lobby by rejecting a proposal to allow humanism to be taught in primary schools during time allocated for religious education.
The Humanist Society of Victoria, which wants to teach an ethics-based curriculum, is planning a legal challenge, saying that the current system indirectly discriminates against non-religious children, causing ”hurt, humiliation and pain and suffering” to them when they opt out of religious education classes.
Children in two-thirds of Victorian state primary schools are taught Christian scripture by volunteers, even though the Education Act says state schools must be secular and ”not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect”.
Advertisement: Story continues belowParents must sign forms if they want their children to be excluded from ”special religious instruction” classes, 96 per cent of which teach Christianity, with the remaining 4 per cent covered by the Jewish, Buddhist and Baha’i faiths.
Children who do not attend these sessions are not allowed to be taught anything their classmates might miss out on during this time, so they are often put in another room where they read or play on computers.
The Education Act has a special exemption from its secular roots to allow religious education.
But Ms Pike skewered an attempt last year by the Humanist Society of Victoria to have its ”humanist applied ethics” curriculum approved for teaching during the religion period. The course, designed to be taught from prep to year 6, covered subjects such as the art of living, the environment, philosophy, science and world citizenship.
Ms Pike declared that humanism’s ”world-view philosophy [sic] cannot be defined as a religion”, and that the Humanist Society was ”not registered as a religious organisation” and therefore could not ”provide instruction in government schools”. There is, however, no official registration of religions in Australia.
The man responsible for accrediting non-Christian religious teachers, RMIT professor Desmond Cahill, head of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, said, ”We’d consider humanism as a religion since it has an ethical standpoint.”
Ms Pike refused to answer The Sunday Age’s questions about whether she had been targeted by the Christian lobby.
The Greens candidate in Ms Pike’s threatened seat of Melbourne, Brian Walters, told The Sunday Age governments should not use their power to ”privilege or promote any one religion or non-religion in our schools” and said children should not be segregated on the basis of faith.
The Humanist Society of Victoria has obtained legal advice that children who are excluded from scripture classes are being indirectly discriminated against.
Religious education arguably breaches equal opportunity law, the advice says, and causes ”hurt, humiliation and pain and suffering” to children who opt out as they are ”isolated from the rest of the class … with little to do”.
It suggests aggrieved parents take action in the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and possibly VCAT.
Humanist Society of Victoria president Stephen Stuart said the society was collecting testimony from parents in an attempt to mount a ”convincing class action with hundreds of names”.
Melbourne mother Dina Cragie, who is Jewish, lobbied for Judaism to be offered at her children’s Hawthorn East school, but they were plucked from maths classes to attend. ”I’m not happy with it; it’s a secular school, and the fact that so much time is spent on religious education is baffling to me – and to have to choose between maths and religion offends me,” Ms Cragie said.
”Ultimately you should teach all religions or none.”
Nov 08, 2010 @ 22:05:52
Why does Dina not ally with those parents who want only a secular education for their children: pressure for an inclusive secular ethics class to be taught, where all students can attend equally?
Exactly. The utter infeasibility of having a publicly-funded school teach every religion leaves the latter option: publicly-funded schools should have no religious instruction at all.
Shouldn’t Dina be agitating for this along with all the other parents of children excluded by the current religious agenda?
Public funds should be used to teach religions as history and sociology, not ethics.
Nov 09, 2010 @ 16:47:46
The problem may simply lay in the fact that they would be teaching a system of ethics that is not rely on an authority for the source of morality. In effect, religion has claimed a monopoly on ethics for a while even though their claim is garbage. The reason they wouldn’t want such a system of ethics to be taught to children is simple: corrupt individuals within an organization gain nothing by teaching others to recognize their corruption. In fact, they benefit most from teaching people that those in authority are right and are working for their best interest even when they’re not. The government teaches people to be sheep. They have no good reason to teach people to be rational and critical of unethical behavior.
That being said, even if a government chose to teach ethics, I would not trust that instruction for the same reasons I’ve stated above. The study of ethics is one that can only be learned through personal exploration. This doesn’t mean we can’t learn from others, but rather that we have to study and think for ourselves, not just memorize of list of rights and wrongs as they are related to us by others.