some of the replies can be read here:

http://religionsinschool.com/2012/03/23/1572/

I’m going to ask Bess, who some of you may know from her cameo in this FIRIS video, to read the responses and award a prize to the “best” one and get back to us on the winner, we may even do another video … where we give the best FIRIS answer to the predictable complaints we keep hearing.

In thinking about this question a bit more however, it occurred to me that part the premise of the question it is a bit like Dr. Pangloss, in Candide who went around saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

I think it is really significant to accept that things are not, nor have they ever been “perfect”.   Australia almost from the day “Christians” got here, has been hard at the work of getting things right.  In industry this is called “continuous improvement” and most people in business accept this as something they have to do to stay “in business”.  No one at Holden sits around and wishes for the carburetor to come back and restore the industry to its glory days when a motor was something you could fix with a few farm tools.

The point isn’t whether things were bad or not, it is that clearly, at least for some people, they did suck, and therefore needed to improve.  In fact, any half attempt to think about the past, immediately shows that a great many people have had to struggle to get a fair go.  There is more though.  Entire “new” ideas about laws and rules and rights “emerged” from these struggles.

One of these ideas was reflected in the education act of 1872 – which was in many ways a radical document.  The idea that there would be compulsory education was pretty radical, what was the alternative to requiring children to attend school?  It wasn’t watch TV all day, it was child labor!

Before Compulsory Schooling Kids did not watch TV all day!

Today everyone thinks of course you can’t put your kid to work behind the plow, or down the mine – if you do that we toss you in jail.

Equally radical however was this idea that there could be “secular” instruction, but unlike child labor, it seems like people have not got the memo.

At the heart of this controversy really is the fact that not everyone really agrees that it is a good thing for this country to be secular, or what the boundaries of that idea really are.  This issue is compounded by the fact that factions in religion have decided that secular principles, are no longer things that protect them, but rather their enemy.

This is a sad thing to say, since as justice Kirby once remarked, secularism has been responsible for the greatest expansion of human rights in history, and lies at the heart of the English Constitutional principle, so it is sad to see secularism become a boogey man to “faith” rather than its champion and patron. Never the less, the argument we hear over and over again,  is the idea that “this is a Christian Nation” – and that our “values come from our Christian Heritage”.

The problem we really have is that politicians have lost the means to speak against this idea – when faced with the proposal that “our laws are based on the bible” they dive under the table and act like history never happened.  Women, who have only recently been allowed to do things like study engineering, and own property and vote, should be especially disgusted that there is some “foundation” upon which our civilization “sits”.

The real problem is that civilization is not like a building, it was not drawn according to a plan, it does not do one thing, it was not designed and engineered by an architect, it is an emergent property of the sum total of human endeavor, and understanding, and it should not be a radical idea to suggest that as our knowledge grows and our understanding growns so too is it proper that our civilization grows and matures.  Civilization is not like a building, standing on a base of stone, it is not even like an organism, growing from youth to old age and death, it is more like a coral reef or a forest.

Regardless of anyone’s religious commitments, the idea that a set of blue prints were handed down to some group of people that contains the secret sauce of “civilization” is really problematic.

http://religionsinschool.com/2012/03/23/1572/

lets see who can write the best reply, lord knows we hear this repeated enough, have a go:

The last time I looked (2006 census), Christianity was, and is , the major religion of Australia. I see no reason then, why Christianity would not be taught in schools as part of the SRI program. If your child went to school in India, wouldn’t you expect them to be educated in some form, about Hinduism? If you disagree with the content of the SRI program, then withdraw your child, rather than trying to manipulate the system to suit the minority.

Read PDF of article here Courts to decide on religion classes – Education Review

Link to Education Review where your voice counts … please let this publication know your opinion!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/6850541/Religion-or-nothing

Parents are questioning the legality of religious classes in public primary schools.

Torbay School has this term begun Christian religious education for years 3 to 6.

Principal Wendy Sandifer says the school is closed from 2.25pm to 2.55pm for year 3 to 6 religious instruction, while year 1 and 2 classes carry on as usual.

Facebook group Keep Religion Out of Schools founder Peter Harrison says this means the school is breaking the law by remaining open.

“If the school is closed, it’s closed. If there are other classes going on, regardless of what year level then the school is not actually closed,” Mr Harrison says.

Parent Bruce Hubbard says his stepchild will not participate in the religious classes, but is concerned she is now being left unsupervised.

“Originally she was told to pick up rubbish instead of religious class. We said `absolutely not’ and that we wanted an alternative class,” Mr Hubbard says.

“They told us no classes were available because they were closed, so we fought for them to go into the library instead.”

Mr Hubbard says he then discovered his stepchild sitting unsupervised in the playground one afternoon while her classmates were in religious class.

“She was just sitting out there on a bench, kicking her heels and looking really down. That’s not her – she’s normally a really happy and gregarious child.

We are really worried about the emotional impact it’s having on her,” he says.

Ms Sandifer says no alternative to religious class is provided but denies students are left

unsupervised if they  opt out.

“They go to the library, read books and talk.

“But in the spirit of offering Christian religious education we don’t offer anything that is in conflict with that,” she says.

“We didn’t want to offer anything children might perceive to be better than Christian religious education.”

Mr Hubbard says, “that shows a real agenda to me”.

“You want children to compare and to make these decisions,” he says.

“Torbay is a good school. I really want my child to go there, but not when they are missing out on a full and normal education,” he says.

Mr Hubbard says he is “not anti-religion but pro-education” and would like to see religious classes moved to outside of school hours.

Torbay School parents must provide a signed note each week and an email to the principal if they wish to keep their child out of religious education.

The school will review the inclusion of religious classes at the end of this year.

Ms Sandifer says if 15 to 20 per cent of parents oppose it then it will cease.

- © Fairfax NZ News

The letter that FIRIS sent out recently is beginning to be discussed by School Councils across Victoria.

See previous post for details http://religionsinschool.com/2012/04/17/school-councils-to-be-informed-of-deecd-policy-change-on-sri/

Here is a follow up email that one FIRIS supporter sent to her School Council President. Feel free to copy and paste and send something to your own School Council to make sure the letter actually got to them, and to request that the motions discussed in the letter be passed.

Hi ####,

Congratulations on your re-election to President of the school council. I’m wondering if you have received a letter from a parent organisation called Fairness in Religion in Schools (FIRIS). It was sent out to all schools in Victoria a couple of weeks ago, addressed to the school council.

The letter discusses the new DEECD policy surrounding Special Religious Instruction (one result of the new policy is the new ‘opt-in’ form that you would have seen sent home with the kids).

As a member of the ### community I would like to request that the council considers passing the motions discussed in the letter from FIRIS. As the letter discusses, passing a motion that our school community does not believe in segregating young children on the basis of religion would send a strong message to the public, DEECD and the government.

I am a member of FIRIS and would be happy to discuss the letter or SRI in general, with you or with the school council as a whole. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. My mobile number is ###.

Regards,
####

ADDENDUM: A copy of the letter that has been sent out can be found here: FIRIS letter to School Councils April 2012

Today she summarized the same kind of thing that is going on here in Australia for the Guardian in London, the article talks about the basic “blurring” of church and state in Australian Law.

Here is a link to the article that deals mainly with the “School Chaplaincy” … which is the main source of ParaChurch funding in OZ and the main way that Government can pay for the Parachurch infrastructure:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/australia-blurred-separation-church-state

Historically, Australia has gotten on just fine with this “blurred” concept, but this depended on basic decency and honesty by its churches.

This kind of honesty does not figure into the current political or parachurch landscape … and Australia has gotten into the business of funding church run ministry in its schools.

Worth a read if you are following this issue.

More on Kath Stewart here:

http://www.thegoodnewsclub.com/book

Unfortunately many schools seem to think that students who do not participate in SRI classes can do little more than sit outside the classroom doing quiet reading.

This is not true.

This misunderstanding is because the Department of Education’s OLD policy for SRI used to say, “Secular instruction may not be timetabled while students from the class are attending special religious instruction”.

This policy was updated in August 2011 to make it clearer that schools CAN offer alternative activities to students.

The CURRENT policy says that principals must, “ensure that students who do not attend SRI are appropriately supervised by teachers, and engaged in positive, independent learning such as self study, including revision or other activities, for example, community service, peer mentoring, participation in clubs or instruction in areas outside the core curriculum”. Clearly this includes a lot more than quiet reading!

In the past, we have asked you to tell us about problems you are facing with SRI. THIS time, we want to know what GOOD alternatives schools out there are offering to students.

Our plan is circulate advice to school principals about what alternatives can be offered, citing examples from other schools. We hope that by letting them know what other schools are doing, they will realize that they can offer genuine alternatives to SRI. Obviously we would prefer that SRI wasn’t offered in the first place, but while it is still happening in schools, we can at least make sure that good alternatives are available.

So… what GOOD alternatives are students not participating in SRI experiencing in Victoria?

If you don’t want to post on our website or Facebook page, email us at religionsinschool@gmail.com

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/barclay-crawford-the-bible-can-teach-our-children-the-essential-lessons-of-life/story-e6frezz0-1226335172686

http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/04/26/ethics-class-an-option-to-religion-cathy-byrne/

The article positions Cathy as a full throated champion of the policy paved by Simon Longstaff in NSW to offer “Ethics” as an alternative to “Scripture” … what Cathy actually said in her testimony of the Nile Ethics probe was reported by FIRIS in full here, and it a little less clearly supportive.

http://religionsinschool.com/2012/02/29/the-nile-byrne-smack-down-in-nsw-cathy-bryne-tells-it-like-it-is-bonus-points-for-defending-the-meaning-of-the-word-secular/

To be fair, it is often hard to know exactly how to summarize Byrne’s position, as you can see from this snippet of her dialog with the ethics inquiry.

The whole thing is worth reading … if only because she really goes in loaded for bear, at one point calling for the committee to disband itself and start over with the correct terms of reference.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: You said also on page 5 that some parents are confused because

they are not quite sure what is involved in either SRE or SEE, and other witnesses have raised the possibility of

having the curriculum or the syllabus for both classes released on a more public level so that parents can make a

more informed decision based on what is happening currently. Do you support that?

Ms BYRNE: As I mentioned, this is such an important area for children’s education that I do not think

volunteers should be running it and that the curriculum should be developed in an unprofessional manner by

interested third parties. I think any curriculum should be incorporated into a professionally developed and

delivered curriculum that covers both ethics and religion and, in deference to Professor Cam, philosophy as

well. This entire voluntary curriculum development, some of which in religious instruction comes directly out of

the evangelical churches in the United States of America into New South Wales public primary schools I think

is a sham.

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: In a sense you are not happy with the current curriculum provided in

ethics classes? Is that what you are saying?

Ms BYRNE: I did not say that. I would not support the current curriculum that is provided in some

SRE classes. As far as I am aware the current ethics course is a suitable thing, given the very limited nature of

the process for delivering an alternative.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: I see that you have a forthcoming article entitled “Compulsory free and

not secular: the failed idea in Australian education.” Keeping in mind our time limits, would you tell the

Committee what you believe is the failed idea in Australian education?

Ms BYRNE: The term “secular” describes a kind of governance in which the State and the church is

separate and in which the State controls the delivery mechanism. That has never really occurred in New South

Wales public schools in the area of religion. A general religious and ethics education is what is required by a

secular approach but that approach has never been taken and it is high time that it was. That is a short and sweet

summary of my article.

CHAIR: Do you have any recommendations that you wish to put to this inquiry?

Ms BYRNE: This inquiry should be immediately abolished and a new inquiry that explores the entire

access privilege should be begun immediately. In addition, a general religious and ethics education should be a

high priority for public schools and should be taken as probably the most important aspect of public education in

this area.

CHAIR: Do you think many educationalists share your viewpoint or are you a lone rider?

Ms BYRNE: I would say I have many allies. I think many of them are frightened. Some school

principals feel that they cannot change the system. Some schools feel that they are being manipulated into

continuing their support for RI. I know there are a lot of issues related to the provision of RI that make it

difficult for change but other countries, the most developed nations in the world, are delivering a combined nonsegregated

general religious and ethics—some call it belief and some call it philosophies—program from

kindergarten through to senior high school and they have been doing this for decades. I do not know why

Australia has its head in the sand and continues to support Christian privileging and segregated instruction on

ethics or religion.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: You said some people are frightened. Does that include academic

authorities who you believe are frightened and who do not wish to speak up in support of the general thesis that

you are putting?

Ms BYRNE: I am not aware of any academic who is frightened. I know that there are many minority

faith groups that feel they would like to support a general approach to religions and education but who feel that

their voice will be lost and that they have to play the game that is currently provided. I know definitely there are

many, parents, some teachers and some school principals who are fearful to let the information out that they

have.