I have two problems with providing special ethics education as alternative to special religious education.
Firstly, why should religious children be deprived of an ethics education so that they can be educated about their faith? Ethics should be in the curriculum and taught to all students, not only those who will not be involved in special religious education. Grandad’s comment (21 July, 9:10:36 am) informs us that this is the position of the Churches in NSW.
Second, there seems to be two different forms of secularism. One of those forms derives from a Christian tradition, namely Baptists. Baptist preacher Roger Williams help found Rhode Island, the first administrative area without any religious test. This secularism is now accepted by most Christians. It basis comes from Queen Elizabeth I’s desire not to see into a person’s heart. It is their behaviour and actions a state should judge.
The other form of secularism could be called sectarian secularism. This form of secularism wants religious thought excluded from the public debate. It promotes an anti-religious view of life. Any contact with religion is seen as brainwashing. Or a regression to some more primitive form of thought. This is the use of secularism to promote some form of atheism or agnosticism. It wants to dictate what is in a person’s heart.
Simon Longstaff’s article takes the form of many of the more recent contributions of the sectarian secularist. He takes a bovver boy of Christian thought, like Fred Nile, and pretends that he represents the entire religion. Many seem not to understand that the majority of Church going Christians do not and have never voted for the Christian Democrats. Nile’s objection that special ethics education should not be scheduled at the same time as special religious education does not go as far as the NSW Churches objection, but fits into that criticism.
Unfortunately, I have not seen the curriculum of the NSW special ethics classes. Does it pretend that common sense is the basis of ethics? Does it address issue of where our understanding of ethics comes from? Many thoughtful academics argue that ethics has a religious origin while other equally thoughtful ones disagree. Are the students being exposed to that debate and allowed to make up their own minds?
Finally, it is not for the state to organise alternatives to religious education. If someone wants to organise special atheism or agnosticism classes, that is fine. However, ethics is a subject that should be compulsory to all students, not only in New South Wales but also my own state of Western Australia. If parents do not want their student subject to special religious education then they will suffer the consequences.
