Accidentally Encouraging Moral Authoritarianism? (Email sent 13/7/10)

David Hill
c/- Parents4Ethics

Re: Churches don't have monopoly on good life , 13/7/10

As I interpreted it, your article described efforts that are being made through ethics classes in schools to establish claims about moral authority that are not based on Christian scriptures.

I should like to suggest the need for a 'big picture' view of this issue, because Parents4Ethics is (presumably inadvertently) encouraging moral authoritarianism.

In the first place there is nothing new about human claims to being the source of moral authority. For example Genesis 3:1-6 described the temptation of ancient humans to 'eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil' - so as to be god-like. The rest of the Jewish Bible described the coming of the Mosaic Law, its elaboration by religious authorities and the chaos that periodically emerged as those principles were disregarded. And the Christian Bible dealt with Jesus' influence on the nature and significance of God's law at a time when political authorities traditionally claimed to be gods in order to encourage others' obedience.

There are practical advantages that accrue to a society where social and political elites are not able to claim to be the source of moral authority (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strengths). The latter refers (for example) to the way this enhances the ability of individuals to make rational decisions (because they do not have to try to second guess the reactions of their societies 'moral authorities'), and to the scope also created for legal and governance systems that are based on the presumption of individual liberty. It is also worth considering the pressure that Australia's political leaders are increasingly under to claim to be moral authorities as adherence to Christian principles has declined - and the resulting erosion of scope for individual liberty and of the political and economic advantages that liberty confers (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty).

It is not possible to shift any authority from where it has traditionally resided without someone else claiming it for their own benefit. Idealists seem to believe that elected Presidents in Australia would continue to carry out the purely 'ceremonial' functions of Governors and the Governor General. Realists recognised that such people would be much more likely to claim that their electoral mandates give them political authority which over-rides that of Parliaments, and that this would result in political instability (see Republican 'Realism': A Purely Ceremonial Head of State?)

Likewise human claims to determine the nature of ethical behaviour must inevitably to result in moral authoritarianism by social and political elites. This certainly seems to be the case in all non-Christian societies. There are very good reasons for ensuring a separation of church and state. However trying to separate moral authority from the churches' teachings (and thus enabling that authority to be claimed by politicians for their own benefit) is quite the reverse of what is required to achieve this outcome (eg see Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics).

Might I respectfully suggest that Parents4Ethics and associated entities need to give this matter deeper consideration.

John Craig

Further thoughts added later:

In addition to political claimants to moral authority (if the freedom from these that the Judeo-Christian tradition allowed were widely rejected) alternative human claimants probably also include:

• Islam which presents a package of universalist moral values derived directly from the Judeo-Christian Bible, though enforced by communal or state pressure rather than by individual consciences responsible to God (see Thoughts on Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Australia);
• non-theistic East Asian religions such as Confucianism which presents a package of particularist (rather than universal) moral values based on ancient Chinese traditions that social elites enforce amongst their subordinates (see A Simplistic View of Confucianism), and which China's Communist Party now seems to be promoting internationally to boost respect for China's culture as well as its economic power.

The liberating impact of the first two of the Ten Commandments (which refer to not having other gods or making idols) should not be neglected. Those who reject the (moral) Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed are likely to find themselves ruled by human moral authoritarians.

 

Humanism classes in government schools (email sent 12/11/10)

Professor Des Cahill,
RMIT

Re: Humanism classes have some merit, 10/11/10

I should like to try to add value to some of the issues raised in your constructive article. Your efforts to clarify the nature of ‘religion’ and ‘secularism’ are most useful, yet I must suggest that the issue is even more complex than you indicated and has even more important consequences for society as a whole.

My interpretation of your article: Defining religion is difficult, but most people believe that religion is important (and 50% of these are either Christian or Muslim). Australia’s Constitution takes a minimalist approach to relationship between state and religion (ie rejects established church, but allows religious groups to work along-side the state for spiritual / social wellbeing). States can take different approaches to teaching religion in government schools. Relationship between religion and state has been increased by decline of welfare state, and government funding of private schools. The word ‘secular’ is understood in different ways, and it is better to talk of ‘civil’ society. Civil society is founded on separation of religion and state. But there are different approaches to this (eg in French / US models of complete separation; UK’s model with established church; Australian / Canadian model of church cooperation with state in delivering services. Authentic religion contributes to social and cultural capital (through human services and teaching values). Humanism does this also. Victorian schools are required to be secular – which means that they don’t favour any religion over others (not that they be anti-religious). Victoria’s Humanist Society proposes teaching Humanism (just as other traditions / worldviews are taught). However this may be rejected on the grounds that it is not a religion. But the latter is undefined. Humanism would go beyond political philosophy and deal with issues beyond the physical (eg God’s existence, afterlife, evil, suffering, relationship between religion and science, morality). There are several forms of humanism (eg Secular / Enlightenment / Liberal Humanism and Confucian Humanism – which is becoming more important). Should Enlightenment / Liberal Humanism be taught in Victorian Government schools? There is a need to think in terms of spiritualties as a way of dealing with the metaphysical – rather than focus on organised religion. Neither theism nor atheism is provable or disprovable. Respect should be paid to all worldviews in Australia’s culturally rich and multi-faith society.

The question of what worldviews are taught in schools can not simply come down to respecting all such views simply because some people hold them. Culture (of which worldviews, including religions, are a major component) has practical consequences, because it affects the way people behave and how they solve problems and thus the way a society works (or doesn’t work). This point was considered very broadly in Competing Civilizations (from 2001).

It is thus not desirable to encourage the teaching of diverse world-views without also advocating understanding and consideration of the consequences of those world-views. For example:

• Western societies have gained considerable advantages from their Judeo-Christian heritage because that worldview required social elites to relinquish claims to moral authority, and this permitted the emergence of the individual liberty which was essential for ‘rational’ methods of problem solving derived from the West’s classical Greek heritage to be effective (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strengths, from 2001). Rationality often fails in dealing with complex problems (eg those related to social and economic systems as a whole, or those confronting individuals who are not freed to make decisions without fear of the reactions of social elites). This point is explored further in Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions. It can also be noted that social elites in Australia (eg political leaders, ethicists) are increasingly claiming to be the source of moral authority as the traditional expectation that individual consciences responsible to God will ensure moral interpersonal relationships has declined (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty, from 2003). This trend must put at risk the liberty assumed by Australia’s legal and governance systems (and the practical advantages of that liberty). The separation of religion and state has many advantages (eg see Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics, 2009). But this is only possible when a worldview which does not depend on human moral authoritarianism is widely embedded in the community generally;
• It is naïve to teach Islamic idealism (as the Australian Curriculum Studies Association has advocated) without considering the practical consequences of Islamic worldviews (see Bringing Balanced Understandings about Islam into Australian Schools). Islamic worldviews appear to place responsibility for individuals’ behaviour in communal coercion (rather than in individual consciences) and thus impede the scope for change which is vital for economic prosperity. It is no coincidence that Muslim dominated societies have experienced centuries of economic backwardness. While Islam teaches similar values to Christianity, its approach to enforcement of moral behaviour (arguably reflecting pre-Islamic Arabic social traditions) makes a big difference to the outcomes;
• While it makes sense to identify Confucianism as a variety of Humanism which is different to the Enlightenment version, it needs to be recognised that all East Asian worldviews emerged in the absence of the classical Greek thought that profoundly influenced Western philosophies (see East Asia, from 2001). And the systems of socio-political-economy that have emerged under neo-Confucian traditions in Asia seem quite incompatible with Australia’s individualistic, democratic capitalism – and community leaders have no way to assess what is going on because the consequences of differences in worldviews are not understood or considered (see Proposed ASX Takeover: Lifting the Level of Debate; and Resist Protectionism: A Call That is Decades Too Late ). Similarly the ‘yin yang’ symbol of Daoism was incorporated as a central element in Sydney’s 2010 New Year’s Eve Awaken the Spirit celebrations without the officials responsible apparently having any idea of the significance of that particular worldview (Sydney's 2010 New Year's Eve Celebrations: Awakening Which 'Spirit'? );

A number of other points related to the matters raised in your article are that:

• Atheism presumably falls within the range of worldviews that should be able to be taught in government schools under the broader concept of ‘religion’ that your article advocates. However Atheists seem not to want to get this recognition, nor to have thought through their relationship with non-theistic religions in Asia such as Confucianism (see Celebrating a New Evangelical 'Religion': Atheism);
• The postmodern assumption that it is desirable to accept all ideas simply because some people hold them (ie to assume that ‘truth’ is merely a social construct, and thus arbitrary) is leading to practical failures in many areas (see Eroding the West’s Cultural Foundations, from 2001); and
• Suggestions about the consequent need to be discriminating in what children in state schools are encouraged to be ‘tolerant’ of were presented in The Importance of Values Taught in State Schools (2004).

I would be interested in your response to the above speculations.

John Craig

Separating Church and State will Need More than a High Court Decision (email sent 5/2/11)

Richard Ackland,
Sydney Morning Herald

Re: Religiously follow the rules, or catch church in bed with state, 4/2/11

Your articles’ sardonic observations on the debate about government funding of chaplains in state schools (and a forthcoming High Court challenge) don’t convey a strong enough argument about the importance or difficulty of keeping church and state separate.

My reasons for suggesting this are outlined below (together with an outline of your article). In brief my comments relate to:

• The reality of the breakdown in the separation of church and state to which your article referred, and the serious potential consequences of that breakdown for the way Australia’s government and society functions;
• The dependence of that separation on widespread community adherence to Christianity; the social stresses that are emerging as many have drifted away from their ethical mooring; and the potential to undermine the individual liberty that has been vital to the effectiveness of Australia’s legal and government systems, as political leaders and others now attempt to impose their ‘values’;
• The futility of efforts (eg by High Court challenges to government support for chaplains in schools), because the High Court can do nothing to reduce the social symptoms and stresses that now motivate human authorities to attempt to promulgate ‘values’;
• The need to remind churches of the importance of success in their (evangelical) mission not only to individuals, but also to the continued viability of Australia’s liberal legal and governance institutions.

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

---

Outline of Article and Detailed Argument

My interpretation of your article: Government funding of church schools was considered by the High Court 30 years ago. Governments had sought to curry favour with parents who sent children to church schools – and this started a costly program at the expense of state schools. Constitutionally the Commonwealth can’t make a law to establish a religion, or require a religious test for holding any public office. In 1981 the majority of the High Court (with Justice Lionel Murphy dissenting) endorsed government funding of state schools – and argued that the main constraint was on government ‘establishing’ a church (as the Churches of England and Scotland are ‘established’ in UK).. In the Howard era there were determined efforts to impose Australian community ‘values’ (ie endorsing values thought to appeal to government supporters). Thus in 2004, the government tied school funding to flying an Australian flag. By 2006 there were requirements for migrants to know of Australian traditions, and many political leaders also supported a national schools chaplaincy program. Though this was not linked to any particular religion, protestant chaplains gained most funding. The program has been continued and expanded. The PM, despite her atheism, was seen to have values shaped by religion. Much of chaplains’ program is vague. They are not supposed to proselytise, but no one stops them doing so. A parent in Queensland has gained support from a Sydney solicitor and barrister to challenge the program on constitutional grounds (ie that such a program should have legislative backing, but none exists). Any chaplain engaged under this scheme holds an office under the Commonwealth – so a religious test as a qualification seems unconstitutional. There is now a new high court, and it will be interesting to see how this affects government-endorsed ‘values’.

As your article noted, the fact that government-endorsed values are being promulgated (eg by funding for a school-based chaplaincy program) demonstrates a breakdown in the separation of church and state. And there are other examples such as: public funding for church run social services; and political leaders proclaiming themselves moral authorities (or seeking to involve churches directly in politics, as noted in Restoring 'Faith in Politics') . This situation is highly undesirable, and is one indication of a crisis that Australia’s system of government is encountering (see Australia's Governance Crisis and the Need for Nation Building).

The separation of church and state has been an important component of the legal and government institutions that presume individual liberty that Australia inherited, and which provided very significant political and economic advantages to Western societies generally (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strength). For example:

• The fact that political rulers have been unable to claim moral authority is one of the factors that has facilitated more-or-less rational decision making by individuals, and thus dramatically increased their effectiveness in all walks of life. Individuals have a sound foundation for making their own moral judgments appropriate to their circumstances, when they do not have to try to second-guess the reactions of the politically powerful in that respect; and
• Churches can’t validly claim to possess special wisdom in relation to the issues governments address. Religious principles that are relevant to individuals are unlikely to be an adequate basis for determining public policies – because governments deal with much more complex systems than individuals are exposed to (eg see Continuing the Separation of Church and State (2006) and Churches' Mission).

The separation of church and state has also been vital to the effectiveness of churches. The involvement of government in funding social welfare services run by churches has arguably compromised the ability of churches to perform their core mission, because it distorts the goals and perceptions of those affected – a point that is explored in Is the Smart State a Just State: A Commentary (2003). The latter noted that studies of serious social problems in Queensland by a church group focused only on advocating new government programs to provide support to the disadvantaged, whereas a more effective and permanent solution would have involved re-emphasis on the church’s evangelical mission so as to motivate and empower disadvantaged individuals and groups to better support one another.

While close linkages between church and state are counterproductive, keeping them separate has been dependent on widespread adherence to Christianity in the community. This has been needed because the Judeo-Christian tradition locates responsibility for the morality of individual behaviour in individual consciences responsible to God, rather than in communal or state pressure on individuals, as is usual under other traditions (see Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions). However in recent decades many individuals have drifted away from their ethical mooring (apparently because of churches’ inadequate responses to the intellectual challenges to the credibility of their teachings). Severe social symptoms have been emerging as a result of thus leaving many with little basis for moral interpersonal dealings, and political leaders have been under pressure to ‘do something about it’ (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty and 'The Times They are a-Changing' - but not always for the better). But the more the state (or others) try to promulgate their views of appropriate values, the more the advantages of legal and government systems build on liberty must be lost.

An aside: In practice, efforts by governments to define values that should be promulgated (eg through schools) have been unsatisfactory (see The Importance of Values Taught in State Schools ). As one observer noted, it is impossible to define meaningful values separately from a comprehensive world-view, ie a religion. Similarly efforts by non-state institutions to take moral authority away from God must also erode scope for individual liberty (see Accidentally encouraging moral authoritarianism). And the even more radical proposals that Islamic Sharia Law could be needed to overcome the social dysfunctions that increasingly plague Australia would not be constructive (see Sharia 4 Australia?).

The problem cannot be resolved by High Court judgements about what governments can or cannot do. No matter what is decided in relation to (say) government funding of chaplains in state schools, the social dysfunctions that have caused political leaders to try to ‘do something’ are not going to go away. Likewise political activism to promote separation of the church and the state (as several groups are attempting) can’t provide a solution – as this merely increases the role of religion in politics by requiring political leaders to arbitrate on questions of religion (see Can Political Activism Separate Church and State?).

The key to restoring the separation of church and state must be to remind churches of the importance of their evangelical mission not only to individuals but to the effectiveness of Australia’s system of law and government (see Eliminating the Need for Chaplains in Australia's State Schools), and to support (ie encourage) them in undertaking that mission. Such a suggestion is outlined in A Nation Building Agenda - together with speculations about how to overcome intellectual obstacles to creating strong churches that do not depend on the state (eg to overcome intellectual obstacles that arise because Australians have had undue confidence in their ability to understand creation on the basis of science and reason).

Political Commentary Based on Religious Criteria can be Misleading (email sent 4/4/11)

Matt Condon
Courier Mail

Re: Heatless pair use misery to showboat, Courier Mail, 18/2/11

Your article criticised two political leaders on the basis of religious criteria (ie it suggested that two Opposition MPs were not doing what God expects).

Key points: Your article started by quoting the Opposition’s immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, as referring to a passage from Jeremiah to illustrate the life values he derived from his religious faith: "I am the Lord who exercises loving-kindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things, declares the Lord." [Jeremiah 9:24]. It then: (a) referred to Mr Morrison’s reservations about the federal government flying children to Sydney to attend the funerals of deceased relatives; (b) noted that Australians generally had demonstrated the ‘Aussie spirit’ by helping out their mates in dealing with flooding – a disaster of biblical proportions; but that (c) the Opposition leader, Tony Abbott a devout Catholic, had objected to the federal government imposing a levy that would enable expeditious rebuilding of much of Queensland. You questioned their motives for: (a) opposing government funding of flights for asylum seekers as such people are not in a position to provide for themselves; and (b) opposing help and assistance to Queensland – and suggested that such actions were the antithesis of the Australian spirit, reflected selfishness for which they should be ashamed. Your article concluded by suggesting that both men should consider what is said in Matthew: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." [Matthew 23:37].

Unfortunately I must belatedly submit that your article mainly illustrated the desirability of keeping religion out of politics. My reason for suggesting this are outlined below. The moralities of the political actions you criticised and of the community you praised are not as clear cut as your article suggested, and there are good reasons to doubt the adequacy of religious criteria in assessing public policies (a point that that was argued earlier in Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics, 2009).

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

---

Detailed Reasons

Firstly, the moralities of the policy issues you mentioned are not as clear cut as your article implied. For example:

• the misery facing the world’s 20+m refugees can only really be solved by eliminating the political and economic dysfunctions in various countries (mainly in the Middle East) that cause people to become refugees (see Complexities in the Refugee Problem, from 2001). People smuggling is not a satisfactory solution (because of the hazards involved, and the small numbers who can be accommodated). In the past Australia’s political leaders have not sought to address the problem at its source – presumably seeing this as too hard. Rather they have either: (a) tried to discourage people smuggling; or (b) unintentionally encouraged people smuggling (ie by giving potential refugees, and also would-be economic migrants, reasons to expose themselves to smugglers and the hazards of travelling in dangerous waters in poor quality boats). Your article criticised those who questioned funding children to attend the funeral of relatives who died when a people smuggler’s boat was wrecked. However it would have been fair to also criticise those who unintentionally encourage people smuggling, and were thus partly to blame for the wreck in which the relatives died;
• the question about the flood disaster seemed to be not whether support would be provided, but rather about whether such support should be funded by a special new tax or by savings from other expenditures. It can be noted that: (a) there are good reasons to suspect that Australia faces a structural budget deficit (see references in The Long Term Impact of the Global Financial Crisis, 2009); and (b) the Federal Government’s 2011 budget seems likely to be focused on the pressing need to find savings (see Walking in Whitlam’s shadow, The Australian, 1/4/11).

Secondly ascribing widespread moral virtue to Australia’s community generally (because many were good neighbours immediately after a natural disaster) is not the full story. The admonition to Jerusalem that your article quoted has local relevance. Serious social symptoms seem to be emerging as the consequence of the erosion of individual morality within the community – and this could have painful consequences (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty, from 2001).

Finally, as the latter document suggested Western societies gained huge advantages from general adherence to Christianity within the community, eg the ability to create liberal social environments in which rationality could be an effective means for problem solving (see also Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions, 2010). None-the-less separating public policy from religion has also been beneficial (eg see Why separation of church and state allowed government to be effective).

Illustration: The systems that governments deal with are more complex than those facing individuals. Thus, for example, giving support to the poor is an individual virtue, but a potential source of welfare dependency if applied by governments. Also giving by individuals involves sacrificing one’s own money – but giving by governments involves spending other people’s money and can be subject to conflicts of interest (eg spending others’ money with no real community benefit might be simply a means for buying political support).

And, though Christianity sets high moral standards for Christian leaders as individuals, it does not provide a comprehensive basis for assessing public policies. In very simple terms, Jesus of Nazareth (Christianity’s founder) requires his followers (whether or not they are political leaders) to accept the Holy Spirit and live in accordance with his teachings (my interpretation of which is outlined briefly on my web-site). However, it is inappropriate to see those teachings as a sufficient basis for public policies (eg because: Jesus: (a) did things for the poor and sick, rather than lobbying others to do so; (b) emphasised the importance of a kingdom that is not of this world; and (c) said nothing about his followers gaining the God-like wisdom needed to make superior judgments about complex problems - see Church’s Mission, 2009).

Get God out of the Classroom: Good Luck with That! (email sent 12/4/11)

Jewel Topsfield,
Education Editor
The Age

Re: Let’s get God out of the classroom, Brisbane Times, 4/4/11

Based on its title your article (which is outlined below) seems to be an argument for getting God out of Victorian classrooms. From a Christian viewpoint, that goal (if taken literally) seems ambitious. If the Creator of the universe wants to be in classrooms, then that is presumably where He will be.

Closer examination suggested, however, that your goal was not to exclude God, but rather to exclude religious instruction – especially about Christianity.

Various observers with experience of religious instruction in schools have suggested to me in relation to your article (in brief) that:

• Your experiences at school were unfortunate, and many people have had positive experiences and thus hold opposing views;
• Your article is based on personal experience and emotion – and is not factual or well researched (eg opting out is actually quite easy). Also it is inappropriate to force Atheistic beliefs on children whose parents want them to learn about the Bible at school; and
• Your article seems to contain errors, eg about (a) the difficulty of getting children out of religious instruction; and (b) the quality of curriculum material, as that available from the Victorian-based Council for Religious Education in Schools is excellent.

Moreover even from a pragmatic (secular if you like) viewpoint, your ambition seems problematical. For example, in more detailed (‘secular’) comments below this email, it is suggested that:

• A ‘secular’ approach to government involves arrangements that are always in addition and complementary to religion (rather than an alternative);
• It is impossible to satisfactorily teach children values except in the context of a broad world view (ie a religion). NSW’s ethics programs don’t provide this. And broad world-views that exclude God (eg Western-style Atheism, and various Asian traditions) are none-the-less ‘religions’, just as much as Christianity;
• In deciding what broad world view (ie religion) should be taught to state school children, it is important to recognise that: (a) a community’s culture (including its religion) has significant practical consequences; (b) while there are sound reasons for keeping religion out of politics, there are practical advantages in widespread Christian adherence in the community (eg an ability to sustain liberal legal and governance institutions, which have political and economic benefits including a secular state); and (c) while learning about religions generally is desirable, this is not enough to provide those advantages.

Finally I wonder if you might consider another ‘flirtation’ with Christianity. A reading of the gospels with an open mind and an open heart might be a good place to start – as these present eye-witnesses accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, rather than the interpretations of modern believers. Perhaps next time a marriage might result.

John Craig

---

OUTLINE OF ARTICLE and DETAILED COMMENTS FROM A SECULAR VIEWPOINT

Outline of Let’s get God out of the classroom: Religious instruction has no place in our secular schools. Christian education classes were of no use in my experience, though I flirted with Christianity. My parents, atheists who had deliberately sought a secular education for their children, would have been furious at the claptrap that was taught. Victoria’s education department still forces primary schools to hold ‘special religious instruction’ taught by volunteers – of which 96% are taught by Christian educator Access Ministries. This is required by law, though less than 10% of the population attends church weekly. Proselytising is not supposed to be allowed, but happens. Volunteers are not educators, but are motivated by a desire to convert students to Christianity, rather than teach religion impartially. Website Religions in Schools attracts comments – eg that learning about religion is important, but indoctrination is not appreciated. Professor Gary Bouma (St Johns Anglican church in East Malvern and UNESCO chairman on interreligious and intercultural relations says Access Ministries’ curriculum is appalling. Government funds private schools so that parents can choose education in line with their own religious beliefs. Many choose government schools because they are not religious. But instead of expected secular education students in Victorian government schools must attend weekly religion classes – unless parents opt out (which is not easily done – a fact that has led to complaints to Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission). NSW offers ethics classes for students who opt out of scripture classes. Victoria was one of the first places to offer free, secular and compulsory education – but rather than upholding that tradition has allowed schools to be infiltrated by evangelising volunteers.

Some thoughts (in a fairly random order) are:

• The original meaning of ‘secular’ in Western culture apparently did not imply rejection of religion, but referred to those aspects of human affairs that were outside (and complementary to) the sphere of religion;
• Attempts to define ‘secular’ as something that is completely separate from religion encounters problems. For example:
  • There is a recognised need to teach values in state schools – and many attempts have been made to define values that should be taught, which seem to have been a struggle and unsuccessful (see The Importance of Values Taught in State Schools, 2004). It has also been realistically pointed out that ‘values’ can’t be taught except in the context of a broad world view – ie of a ‘religion’;
  • The ethics education programs that have been proposed in NSW as an alternative to the Christian scriptures were developed by the St James Ethics Centre and are limited to trying to define how individuals can make ‘good’ decisions in the social and institutional context that currently exists in NSW (see Code of Ethics). In other words, this does not present a broad world view, and is thus not a religion. Rather the St James’ ethics education program is derivative of, and dependent on, the world views that have underpinned the social and institutional context that exists in NSW. Given the growing need to adjust the social and institutional context that exists in Australia (see Australia's Governance Crisis and the Need for Nation Building), the ethical principles proposed by the St James Ethics Centre are not broad enough to guide social and institutional change (because they are constrained by taking the existing social and institutional framework as a given). Another significant issues is that St James’s ethical principles depend on human claims to moral authority – and the need for human authorities to then enforce those principles in the face of individual rebellion must ultimately break the separation between church and state and eliminate the advantages that this provides (see Accidentally Encouraging Moral Authoritarianism?);
  • Atheists apparently claim that they are proposing a broad world-view based on science and reason which has no need for religion – yet a good case can be made that Atheism is merely yet another non-theistic religion - of which there are a number of ancient examples in Asia (see Celebrating a New Evangelical 'Religion': Atheism). The president of the Atheists Foundation of Australia argued that Atheism is not a religion, because it has no dogma / claims that can’t be established by reason – yet it was not hard to find examples of such dogma. It is also not hard to find serious problems in a world view based solely on science and reason (see How solid are 'science, reason and critical thinking'?);
  • Political efforts to separate religion from a purely secular state (including your article) unintentionally have the reverse effect, because they make religion into a political issue (see Can political activism separate church and state?);
• In considering what values and world views should be taught to children (as some values and world views must be taught), it is highly desirable to recognise that different world views have different practical consequences, and are not equally constructive (see Humanism classes in government schools, 2010);
• There is considerable value in separation of church and state (see Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics). None-the-less the liberal institutions of state that have provided significant advantages to Western societies have been and remain dependent on widespread Christian adherence in the community (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strengths and Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions). As the former noted, the uniquely Judeo-Christian expectation that the morality of individual behaviour should be promoted by individual consciences responsible to God allowed the separation of church and state, and this in turn created simplified social spaces in which rationality could be a reasonably effective means for problem solving, Both citizens and a ‘secular state (ie one relieved of the responsibility for defining the nature of, and enforcing, individual moral behaviour) face simpler situations in which constraints on rationality are greatly reduced. The fact that Christian adherence has declined (as illustrated by the fact that less than 10% of the population attend church weekly) puts Australia’s institutions at risk (see Erosion of the Moral Foundations of Liberal Institutions);
• Your article referred to comments on the FIRIS website (Fairness in Religions in Schools). In essence FIRIS argues that students should be taught about religion generally, rather than being ‘indoctrinated’ with any particular religion. However it is adherence to religion (ie how people behave as a consequence of accepting it, rather than merely hearing about it) that is critically important. For example, as noted above the advantages that arise from liberal institutions under Judeo-Christian traditions depend on trusting that individual morality will be primarily ensured by individual consciences responsible to God. This is not a feature of other religions (see Constraints due to cultural traditions in Competing Civilizations). For example, a ‘guardianship’ principle seems to be part of Islam (perhaps a reflection of pre-Islamic Arabic social practices). Individuals are expected to take responsibility for the morality of others’ behaviour (see A Response to Hizb-ut-Tahrir Britain's Manifesto). Even when this does not go to the extremes that Islamists propose, communal coercion on individuals seems to be a major constraint on their ability to apply rationality in decision making and initiate change (ie to innovate), and thus to be a major obstacle to progress and economic prosperity in affected communities (see Thoughts on Hizb-ut-Tahris in Australia);
• The fact that Australia’s proposed National History Curriculum seems determined to avoid clearly teaching children about the ideas that have been critical to the emergence of Australia’s social and institutional framework (because of a desire not to discriminate against alternative world-views) seems to leave students ill-prepared for responding to pressures from the world Proposed National History Curriculum: Information without Understanding? Its failure to highlight the importance of Christianity to Australia’s heritage would make the educational process into a farce (see Australia's National History Curriculum: Making Education Futile and Highlighting the Importance of Christianity?);
• The most effective way to separate religion and state in Victoria would be to remind Christian churches of the importance of success in their (evangelical) mission not only to individuals but to the viability of Australia’s liberal legal and governance institutions (see Separating Church and State will Need More than a High Court Decision). Thus, if current religious instruction practices developed by Access Ministries are inadequate, the real challenge for those wishing to ensure separation of religion from a secular state is presumably to find better ways to present Christianity to students.

Are Politicians Idiots? (email sent 13/5/11)

Jewel Topsfield,
The Age

Re: School religion classes probed, The Age, 13/5/11

Your article suggested that the federal and Victorian education ministers (Peter Garrett and Martin Dixon) would investigate whether teaching religion in schools might involve trying to make converts (‘proselytizing’) after Access Ministries CEO (Dr Evonne Paddison) had implied that this should be the goal in a 2008 speech to the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion national conference.

Surely politicians are not idiotic enough to believe that teaching Christianity through school religious programs will not tend to ‘make disciples’? This is the logical outcome of the process, and for reasons suggested in Get God out of the Classroom: Good Luck with That! this is not only of benefit to students (as Dr Paddison reportedly suggested) but also to the maintenance of Australia’s liberal legal / governance institutions (and thus to the notion of a secular state).

Regards

John Craig

A Confident Secularist Society? (Email sent 6/8/11)

Brendan O’Neill,
Spiked

Re: A confident secularist society would tolerate school religion, The Age, 28/7/11

Your article concluded that secularists, who stridently call on governments to prevent church volunteers from providing religious education in public schools, are in effect admitting defeat in the battle of ideas. I should like to suggest for your consideration why such an admission of defeat may be necessary to defend the notion of a secular state (and the advantages that the separation of church and state has brought to Western societies).

My interpretation of your article: Can a half hour chat about God really warp children’s minds? Irate secularists have depicted special religious education in public schools as the modern day equivalent of a Christian crusade to convert young people to a lifetime of Bible bashing. Special religious education does not take place in all schools, and only takes a half an hour – and even the most fervent nun / pastor would struggle to convert children in this time. Secularists see this as indoctrination (not education). The Commonwealth Ombudsman insists that government clarify when chaplains cross the line from telling children about Christianity to trying to convert them. Proselytising is banned, but it is not clear when this occurs. Secularists’ panic reflects their lack of faith in their own creed, and their ability to win over the next generation to a grounded, rational, Enlightenment outlook. Children do not believe everything they are told. I was given religious education at school, but not converted. Those subjected to most religious education at school tend to become atheists or agnostics – because it increases their BS detection capabilities. A confident secularist society, which trusted in its rationalist public institutions, would have no problem with church run classes, because it was secure in the knowledge of a better secular alternative. But in the present world when people are seen as problems rather than as rational, humanists find it easier to attack faith-based institutions than to get their own house in order. Secularists who call on states to expel church volunteers from public schools are admitting defeat in the battle of ideas.

In the first place, as I understand it, the original meaning of ‘secular’ in Western culture did not imply rejection of religion, but referred to those aspects of human affairs that were outside (and complementary to) the sphere of religion. Thus strictly ‘secularists’ would presumably be indifferent to church teaching in schools, not because they favour an alternative, but because religion is outside their sphere of knowledge and interest,.

None-the-less your article suggested that ‘secularists’ have a creed (ie a religion) of their own – ie one featuring a ‘grounded, rational, Enlightenment outlook’ and confidence in ‘rationalist public institutions’. However, while there can be benefits in a rational Enlightenment view, such a view also has significant limitations (see How solid are 'science, reason and critical thinking'?). The latter refers, amongst other things, to limits to rationality (both to those that are well known, and to some that are now emerging). It thus implies that winning over the next generation to the simplistic alternative ‘creed’ you have suggested would be a real struggle..

It is also constructive to consider the way in which the development of a ‘rational Enlightenment’ view (and many other features that contributed to the strength of of Western societies such as the separation of church and state) depended on widespread adherence to Christianity within the community (see Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions) and the challenges to liberal institutions and ‘rationalism’ that are emerging as Christian adherence in the community declines, and human claims to moral authority re-emerge to potentially break down the notion of a secular state (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty).

Your article may very well be correct in asserting that religious education in schools is not a very effective way of convincing children about Christianity. The challenge, therefore, for those who value a secular state is arguably to find more effective ways to present Christianity to students (a point that was explored also in Get God out of the classroom: Good luck with that!).

I would be interested in your response to the above speculations.

John Craig

Could 'Regular Teachers' Reliably Teach Religion in State Schools? (email sent 5/3/12)

Professor Stan van Hooft,
School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Deakin University

Re: Religious classes in state schools must be about teaching, not preaching , Brisbane Times, 2/3/12

Your article (which also appeared in The Age) made a case for ‘general religious education’ in state schools (ie for regular teachers imparting knowledge and understanding of all of the world’s major faiths), rather than the ‘special religious education’ that has been provided by faith-based groups and emphasized Christianity. In particular it was suggested that:

“Australia is a society that guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and state. It is a liberal society in which everyone is entitled to the religious beliefs they hold and to follow their religious practices as long as they cause no harm. This means religion is a private matter. Public issues are those the government is charged to regulate and control because they touch on benefits or harms that affect members of society. Private matters are those that touch on the consciences or lifestyles of individuals which those individuals are entitled to pursue because they have no public impact.

A liberal society should protect children in public schools from indoctrination by well-meaning religious adherents while also protecting the private right of religious groups to set up their own schools. Schools set up by a liberal state and pursuing public good should not be intruded upon by the private convictions of any groups within society.

There are basically two conceptions of religious instruction at play in this debate. The first is called "special religious instruction" and the second "general religious education". Both are provided for in state government policy, but only the first is widely practised. “

There are advantages in the separation of religion and state that your article endorsed (eg see Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics, 2009+). However, as the latter indicated, this is anything but straightforward because even seeking state support for separation can lead to political decisions that disadvantage some religions (and this can produce outcomes that are the reverse of the desired separation).  

Moreover I suspect that teaching about religion is more complex than your article indicated, and that the issues involved go well beyond the likely expertise of ‘regular teachers’.

To gain ‘a genuine choice as to what they themselves will believe’, children would not only need general information about all major traditional religions, but also about: (a) the practical consequences for societies whose cultures are built around traditional religions; and (b) emerging non-traditional belief systems that also compete for adherents. This would require resource material that would be very difficult and time consuming to produce.

My reasons for suggesting this are outlined in more detail on my web-site, and I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

---

Details

What individual’s put their faith in is not only a ‘private matter’ that has consequences for themselves alone.

There is also an effect on the community as a whole because a society’s culture (which includes, or is heavily influenced by, the world view embodied in the dominant religion) appears to be a major determinant of a society’s ability to be materially successful and to live in relative peace and harmony. Culture affects: people's goals and aspirations; the way they understand reality (and thus how they go about solving problems, and whether they can develop technologies); their ability to learn, to cope with risk and to change; and the institutions their society maintains (see Competing Civilizations). For example:

• the Australian Curriculum Studies Association developed material in relation to Islam that teachers might use, yet the product was inadequate for genuinely educating students (see Bringing Balanced Understandings about Islam into Australian Schools, 2010). Its ‘idealistic’ view failed to address the practical consequences for Muslim dominated societies, whose slow progress and modernisation in recent centuries arguably reflect:
  • the suppression of initiative where moral behaviour is enforced by communal coercion of individuals to conform to what is perceived to be God’s will (see Discouraging Pointless Extremism – which comments on the adverse effects of Islamist’s goals, ie state enforcement of religious laws, that would seem likely to increase such obstacles because the problem is not apparently understood); and
  • the goal of ‘Islamic science’ that seems to inhibit genuine scientific advance (see About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science, 2005). Nature is apparently expected to be studied mainly as a way of understanding God, because it is assumed that nature also is coerced / micro-managed to conform to God’s will;
• Australia’s liberal institutions (which, as your article noted, seek to guarantee freedom of religion and church / state separation) are largely a bye-product of widespread Christian adherence within the community (see Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions). Suppressing human claims to moral authority (because Judeo-Christian teaching uniquely places primary responsibility for moral behaviour on individual consciences responsible to God) allowed legal and governance institutions that presume individual liberty. This created simplified social spaces based on individuals that then enabled rationality (derived from Western societies’ classical Greek heritage) to become reasonably effective as a means for problem solving (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strengths).

Unfortunately the practical consequences of cultural differences have not received much attention in recent decades apparently because of disinterest by students of the humanities and social sciences, who would traditionally have studied such questions (see Competing Civilizations, 2001). The emergence and ultimate dominance of post-modern theory (ie that social knowledge tends to be just a ‘construct’ to benefit elites, and that such ideas are just a matter of opinion and likely to be equally valid and useful) appears to be the main reason that such study has been discouraged.

The difficulty facing ‘regular teachers’ in trying to impart understanding of diverse faiths is not only complicated by the fact that many traditional faiths encourage social, political and economic institutions that are incompatible with Australia‘s liberal inheritance, but also by the emergence of new competing faiths in Western societies. In particular:

• Atheism seems to be becoming an increasingly evangelical religion, and one that claims it should be the default adopted by secular states. In Western societies, Atheists seem to place their faith in ‘rationality, science and critical thinking’ as the way to gain positive knowledge. There is no apparent recognition of: (a) the limitations of those tools; or (b) the existence of traditional religions (eg Confucianism) that are also non-theistic but do not rely on the ‘rational’ tools that a classical Greek heritage gave Western societies (see Celebrating a New Evangelical 'Religion': Atheism, 2010);
• ‘post-modern’ assumptions (in effect that seeking positive knowledge is futile) are an alternative to both Atheists’ faith in ‘modern’ tools for gaining such knowledge and to Christianity’s faith in divine revelation. The ‘post-modern’ belief system, it may be noted, also seems to have contributed to: (a) practical problems in countries such as Australia (see Eroding the West's Cultural Foundations); and (b) much of the disadvantage and conflict experienced around the world (see Ignorance as a Source of Conflict).

For ‘general teachers’ to enable anyone to make an informed choice amongst major traditional faiths and their emerging competitors would require that they have access to resource material that provides a balanced account of issues such as those outlined above. Such resource material: (a) does not yet exist; (b) would take many years (perhaps decades) to assemble to the point that a consensus exists amongst experts; and (c) would involve complexities that are unlikely to be properly appreciated even by undergraduate students (and certainly not by young children).

By contrast it is possible to teach about Christianity simply as a belief that might be accepted by children on faith, or rejected. The New Testament not only provides evidence for faith in Jesus’ Gospel but also suggests that acceptance of that 'good news' should be voluntary and based on faith alone. And success by Christians in imparting such faith seems likely to be essential to countering threats to the foundations Australia’s liberal legal and governance institutions that: (a) have been emerging for decades (see Erosion of the Moral Foundations of Liberal Institutions); and (b) would be exacerbated by the widespread acceptance of faiths that do not endorse "freedom of religion and separation of church and state”.

Teaching about religion in schools - email sent 26/3/12

Roger Chao
Steppe by Steppe

Re: Why we should teach religion in schools, Online Opinion, 26/3/12

Your article suggested the need to teach about religion in schools because, even though religion is not rationally valid, it has consequences for societies.

While endorsing your view about the importance of understanding the consequences of religion, I would like to suggest that teaching about religion in terms of its consequences would be an incredibly difficult task – because the fundamental work on this has not yet really been done. My reasons for suggesting this are outlined in Could 'Regular Teachers' Reliably Teach Religion in State Schools?

Moreover I also submit that there is a need in debating such issues to recognise that there are very real limits to human rationality as a means for decision making (eg see How solid are 'science, reason and critical thinking'?). Those limits seem to be the basis of the radically different epistemologies and methods of problem solving that prevail in East Asian societies with an ancient Chinese cultural heritage (see East Asia in Competing Civilizations), while the creation of simplified social spaces (eg through a rule of law) seems to have been essential to the effectiveness that rationality has had in Western societies (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strength).

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

Regards

John Craig

A Wise or a Foolish Nation? - email sent 21/4/12

John Turner,
President,
Hunter Skeptics

Re: A Clever Country? Online Opinion, 20/4/12

I should like to suggest that your article somewhat oversimplifies quite complex issues.

My interpretation of your article: Modern science (based on mathematics) has now become more competent and complete in covering both subatomic and universe scale matters. Despite this many parents still submit their children to teachers who do not accept scientific evidence. Australia can’t be a clever country when un-evidenced views / dogma are taught. Students from state schools have 5% better results at university than those from religious schools. Schools need to teach students to think – but this is not assured in schools influenced by dogma. Introducing a weekly philosophical discussion for year 12 students could solve this quickly – and could then be extended to other grades. In primary school, the NSW ethics classes (which are Philosophy for Children in disguise) could be expanded Australia wide. This would improve students’ ability to think. In NSW however this is only available to students whose parents have released their children from the stranglehold of Special Religious Education in public education (the heart of secular Australia). Ethics / philosophy classes with no dogma would improve student’s intellectual capacity. The problem is that politicians and church leaders prefer a controllable, unthinking, easily misled population. We will live in peril so long as religious delusion persists.

There is little doubt (as your article suggests) that Australia currently has an excessively ‘controllable, unthinking and easily misled’ population. However this has causes, and potential solutions, which do not simply relate to the absence of ‘Philosophy for Children’ classes that would teach individuals to think. Some speculations about the nature of the problem and possible solutions are in Australia's Governance Crisis and the Need for Nation Building. The latter refers, for example, to: (a) the increased complexity of public policy issues which now often have no readily identifiable rational explanation or solution and thus encourage political leaders to advocate ‘populist’ initiatives (ie those that sound good, but would not work in practice); and to (b) new institutional support to the political system that is needed to overcome this problem.

More generally it is noted that there is a great deal of current attention to what has been described as the ‘Asian century’, and if this eventuates, its primary implication would that the thinking ability of individuals would have been shown to be an inadequate foundation for civilizational success. My reasons for suggesting this are outlined in Asian Millennium or Asian Decade?

It is also noted that:

• Your article implies that those who do not accept that everything has to be explainable in terms of science are wrong, and thus unsuitable to be teachers. However;
• While science (which seeks mathematical laws through observation / experiment) is very useful in discovering how the universe works, it has limits. And those limits are most obvious to those who study relatively rapidly changing social systems rather than those concerned with the more stable systems studied by the physical sciences. This point is explored in How solid are 'science, reason and critical thinking'? Amongst other things the latter suggests that gains in information about a system through the emergence of new order, which occur relatively frequently within (say) social, biological and ecological systems but perhaps very slowly in physical systems, are incompatible with the scientific view that outcomes are simply determined by the initial state of a system and (usually mathematical) scientific laws which do not permit any increase or decrease in information. In particular, it seems that economists fail to develop adequate understanding of economic growth because economics tries to be a ‘real science’ like physics and to discover ‘laws’ governing the behaviour of economic systems, rather than recognising that the better goal is to change the way such systems operate – ie to change, rather than discover, what amounts to ‘scientific laws’;
• Thus your article’s claim that science is the ultimate arbiter of what should be taught to students needs to be recognised to be a dogma. [In a 2010 exchange with the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, he claimed that Atheism had no a priori claims / dogma. However that exchange revealed mainly that he was not aware of the dogma on which his arguments were based - see Atheism's Claims];
• Ethics / philosophy classes, as an alternative to Special Religious Education which provides a Christian perspective, would not simply teach children to think. Such ethics / philosophy classes would encourage children to see themselves (or their ethics / philosophy teachers) as moral authorities. And blocking human claims to moral authority (because Judeo-Christian teachings recognise that individuals are ultimately responsible to God for the morality of their actions) is critical to the individual liberty that has been built into Australia’s legal and government institutions and provided immense political and economic advantages for reasons suggested in Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions (and Accidentally Encouraging Moral Authoritarianism?).

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

Problems with Freedom of Religion - email sent 10/5/12

Dan Hessler

Re: When freedom of religion becomes bullying, Online Opinion, 3/5/12

I noted your concern with the current rights that Christian schools have to discriminate in favour of staff whose lifestyles are compatible with what those schools argue is Christian values. You suggested that: (a) discrimination leads to adverse consequences for gay and lesbian individuals; and (b) people should be able to worship as they like providing this does not adversely affect others.

An extract on adverse consequences: “In what is reportedly the first systematic review and analysis of suicidality and depressive symptoms in sexual minority youth, Dr Michael Marshal PhD from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania conducted an analysis of nineteen studies that included a total of 122,995 participants. He says, "gay and lesbian individuals experience much more violence, discrimination, and victimization than heterosexual teenagers, which in turn leads to increased stress and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that can develop into depression and [suicide]." He also argues that gay teens are socially marginalized and ostracized from mainstream social groups and, as a result, they gravitate to "fringe" social groups, where there tends to be more risky behaviour, including drug and alcohol use.”

I should like to suggest that the issue is more complex than your article indicated. There is not only a need to study to the stresses that sexual minority youth face (eg ‘suicidality and depressive symptoms’), but also to study the source of those stresses, because it seems likely that both the stresses they face and their homosexual behaviour itself may often have a common cause (ie abuse / neglect as children) – see Public Acceptance of Homosexual Behaviour. The latter also suggests that, because of this and another link with child abuse, the public acceptance of homosexual behaviour seems morally indefensible.

Moreover, in relation to exercising freedom (eg in matters of religion) where this does not adversely affect others, it is noted that:

• Very little attention seems to be paid to the adverse effects that cultural / religious assumptions can have on some communities - see Moving Australia Beyond Traditional Multiculturalism. The latter suggests various ways in which this failure currently limits the quality of education that is being offered. For example communal coercion to enforce compliance with moral prescriptions seems to be traditional under Islam, and this has severe adverse economic consequences for affected societies because of its constraining effect on initiative / innovation, yet proposals for programs to inform children in Australian schools about Islam do not seem to consider the practical consequences – see Bringing Balanced Understandings about Islam into Australian Schools. Likewise adverse effects on scientific progress of Islamic religious assumptions (see About Arabic Thought and Islamic Science) also seem to be ignored;
• The erosion of ethical standards in the Australian community is leading to many serious social symptoms (including child abuse and bullying), and this is putting at risk the legal and governmental institutions based on individual liberty that have provided huge economic and political advantages to Australians in the past (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty). .

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

Eclipsing Liberty? - email sent 12/5/12

Rodney Croome,

Re: ‘Eclipsing the religious right’, Online Opinion, 4/5/12

I should like to offer a couple of comments on your suggestions that the parliamentary inquiries into marriage equality are likely to permanently eclipse the religious right’s influence on Australian politics.

First it is unwise to try to make long term projections about Australia’s political system when that system is has clearly been struggling in trying to cope with its challenges (eg see Recognising the Need for Nation Building – in Australia's Governance Crisis and the Need for Nation Building). The latter presents suggestions about the nature of the problem and what might be required to repair Australia’s system of government. It includes, for example, reference to: (a) dubious responses to strategic issues because of superficial assessment they received; and (b) the trend towards political populism (ie the adoption of policies that sound trendy but don’t actually have good results in practice) because issues are extremely complex. And there seems to be little doubt that the issues involved in same-sex marriage have also received only superficial assessment (eg see Same-sex Civil Unions: Endorsing Child Abuse?).

It can also be noted that other observers are pointing to potential weaknesses in the democratic process related to a lack of collective fiscal discipline (eg see Monk P., How we can save democracy, The Age, 11/5/12).

Second it is highly desirable to keep religion out of politics (whether that of the ‘religious right’ or any other) for reasons suggested in Keeping Religion out of Australian Politics. Moreover religion has largely been able to be kept out of politics in the past because: (a) there was very widespread Christian adherence within the community; and (b) the Judeo-Christian tradition is apparently unique in enabling a high level of separation between religion and the state, because of the expectation that individuals are responsible to God for the morality of their actions (eg see Cultural Foundations of Western Strength). However the erosion of Christian adherence within the community now seems to be giving rise to serious social dysfunctions, and to claims to moral wisdom and authority by various social and political elites as they seek to find ways to reduce those dysfunctions (see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty).

And, as the latter notes, those human claims to God’s moral wisdom and authority must undermine the Christian foundations of legal and governance institutions that presume individual liberty, and which have provided massive economic and political advantages in recent centuries (see also Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions). There is a large range of alternative traditional and emerging religions that are seeking dominance (eg see Could 'Regular Teachers' Reliably Teach Religion in State Schools?). Each of these has claims and consequences, but none seem to provide a foundation for separating claims to moral wisdom and authority from the state, and thus to creating an environment in which individual liberty can be tolerated.

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

What does secular education mean? - email sent 21/6/12

Catherine Byrne
Macquarie University

Re: School chaplaincy case: a missed opportunity for secular education, The Conversation, 21/6/12

Your article suggested that:

“Williams’ courageous act highlights the potential for change when a brave parent asks “what does secular education mean?” “

But just what does ‘secular education’ mean? As I interpreted it, your article implied that this might mean compulsory study of religions and ethics

However there are some problems with such a proposal, because (as I understand it) ‘secular’ deals with all aspects of society apart from ‘religion’ – so a compulsory study of ‘religions and ethics’ can’t be considered to be ‘secular’ because it includes study of religions. Moreover, it has been realistically pointed out ethics / values can’t be realistically taught except in the context of some sort of broad world-view. So there is a need to determine what ‘broad world view’ should be presented, as the foundation for presenting particular views of ethics.

This is anything easy to do because, for example:

• Though Atheists claim that their world view is secular, it clearly is not because it is based on assumptions that can’t be objectively established (see Celebrating a New Evangelical Religion: Atheism);
• If one backs away from strict ‘secular’ education by allowing a general study of religions, it is anything but easy to do this reliably (see Could 'Regular Teachers' Reliably Teach Religion in State Schools?’). The latter points to the fact that religions have practical consequences (which are sometimes very negative) for affected societies and these would need to be presented if students were to be reliably informed. And there are many complex world views emerging that would also need to be taken into account. Furthermore:
  • the ways of thinking that are the basis of different traditional religions are radically different, and not easily comprehended (eg consider the implications of the difference in epistemology between Western and East Asian societies which makes the realistic explanation of (say) Daoism, Confucianism and Shinto essentially impossible within rational / analytical Western styles of thinking);
  • there are consequent differences amongst traditional religions which (if they were presented in terms of the way their adherents think) make it impossible to support just one set of ethics. For example, some imply that there is a difference between good and evil, while others (eg Daoism) see good and evil as equivalent / complementary;
• The ethics courses that have been developed (eg in NSW) raise difficult questions about the authority base for those teachings (see Encouraging Moral Authoritarianism?). Australia’s liberal legal and governance institution are founded on the absence of human claims to moral authority that is a unique feature of the Judeo-Christian tradition (see Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions). And emerging human claims to moral authority (from the authors of ethics courses and many others who seek to ‘eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so as to be godlike’ – with apologies to Genesis 3) have been undermining the foundations of those institutions (see Erosion of the Moral Foundations of Liberal Institutions).

In light of these complexities, I would be interested in your view of what secular education should involve.

John Craig

Religion Should be Taught Better - email sent 19/2/13

David Zyngier,
University of Melbourne

Re: Religion should be taught in the home, not at school, The Conversation, 18/2/13

Your article suggested that there are fundamental problems with the fact that religion (especially Christianity) is taught in Australian state schools.

My interpretation of your article: Australia’s religious education system is outmoded and damaging to students / families / teachers. Special Religious Education (SRI) is a flawed / segregated / unprofessional model that caters to interests of religious organizations. Irrespective of how many students participate, state schools must allow in non-teacher volunteers – which disrupts classes and excludes students who don’t participate. Students are segregated according to religious beliefs and this contributes to: stereotyping / suspicion / religious exclusivity. It also breaks separation of church and state (which is central to Australia’s democracy). NSW offers ‘Primary Ethics’ to some students who opt out – but this: (a) is not available elsewhere; and (b) legitimizes proselytizing young children by religious groups. The exclusive nature of these programs: (a) discriminates against those who sit out; (b) does not meet the needs of a multicultural society where students should learn about diverse religious / ethical traditions; and (c) exacerbates social problems such as prejudice / racism / religious vilification. Scholars and community members are concerned that religious groups can proselytize children in what should be a secular education system. This is prohibited in US schools, and UK shifted to world religious education in 1970s. Australia’s laws on this are open to challenge. 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians committed to nurturing appreciation for religious diversity. Families are better placed to provide specific religious education (eg after school or through churches, synagogues, mosques, temples). Doing otherwise forfeits the secular nature of public education. Public schools now present children with outdated religious education – often a singular / exclusive faith presented in pedagogically unsound ways. Access Ministries who provides 90% of religious education openly acknowledges ‘fishing for souls’. They are not about educating children, but about making others believe what they do. This is at odds with governments’ commitment to promoting a socially-inclusive society.

I should like to suggest that the issues involved are more complex than your article indicated, because:

• A communities’ culture (including religion) has practical consequences, and widespread Christian adherence is foundational to the liberal legal and government institutions that have benefited Australians;
• It is highly desirable to promote inclusiveness in Australian society, but not to promote uncritical acceptance of diverse cultures without evaluating, and promoting awareness of, their practical consequences;
• There are many advantages in maintaining a separation of church and state (as your article suggested). However this is not something that governments can promote unilaterally, but depends on churches’ success in promoting widespread Christian adherence in the community;
• Declining Christian adherence is putting Australia’s liberal institutions and secular state (and the political and economic advantages these provide) at serious risk;
• While there may be inadequacies in the way religion is currently taught in schools, the fundamental challenge is to do better.

The above points are developed further on my web-site.

I would be interested in your response to my speculations.

John Craig

---

Detailed Comments

A key factor to consider is that culture (including religion) has practical consequences. And one of the consequences of widespread Christian adherence in a community is that it is possible to have ‘liberal’ legal and governmental institutions – for reasons suggested Christian Foundations of Liberal Western Institutions (2010). And those institutions (which presume individual liberty and separate the church from a secular state) have been vital to the progress that Western societies have achieved in recent centuries, because they have enabled rationality, ie the manipulation of abstract concepts as a means for problem solving, to be: (a) a reasonably reliable basis for individual initiative; and (b) reasonably successful also in dealing with the simplified roles of a secular state (see Cultural Foundations of Western Strength in Competing Civilizations).

Liberal institutions (ie those built on a presumption of responsible individual behaviour without state / communal coercion) are not possible other than under Judeo-Christian traditions - as human authority always otherwise seems to be claimed for defining the nature of and / or enforcing ‘moral’ behaviour by individuals (eg by tribal elders, social elites, divine kings, communities).

There is, as your article suggested great value in promoting inclusiveness in Australian society. However this should focus on individuals and should not involve endorsing diverse cultures without considering (and ensuring that there is wide understanding of) the practical consequences of general adherence to particular cultures. Australia’s approach to multiculturalism needs reconsideration, because the consequences of an uncritical approach can be very serious – eg to perpetuate disadvantage and / or promote violence (see Moving Australia Beyond Traditional Multiculturalism). While I am not familiar with the UK practice that you mentioned, ie trying to teach ‘world religions’ in schools, I would suspect that doing so adequately would be almost super-humanly difficult because of the complexities involved (see Could 'Regular Teachers' Reliably Teach Religion in State Schools?).

There is, as your article also suggested, a great deal to be gained by separating church and state, but this outcome depends on churches ensuring widespread Christian adherence in the community. It is not valid to suggest that governments can ensure the separation of church and state by discouraging Christian proselytizing in schools or elsewhere. It may well be that Access Ministries (and similar groups) are not doing an effective job through religious education in schools, and / or that other methods would be more effective. However, if so, the challenge (for those who wish to promote a separation of church and state and maintain the advantages that flow from liberal institutions and a secular state) is to find more effective ways to promote widespread and genuine Christian adherence in the community (see also Get God out of the Classroom: Good Luck with That!).

Australia’s liberal institutions are currently at risk because declining Christian adherence has led to diverse and serious social pathologies for which a ‘solution’ is seen to require that others (eg political leaders, philosophers) claim that they, rather than God, are the source of moral authority (eg see Erosion of the Moral Foundations of Liberal Institutions). For example, suggestions were recently made that the prime minister should present herself as Australia’s moral authority without considering the implications of thereby breaking the separation of ‘church’ and state (see a Godless Morality Would Raise Devilish Difficulties). Likewise efforts to teach what some believe to be ‘primary ethics’ stripped of the broader Christian world-view from which they emerged are not providing a credible framework for acceptance, and also risk accidentally encouraging moral authoritarianism.