Jacqui Tomlins

Writer | Trainer | Consultant

Without Jesus, our students are lost

by ·

A couple of weeks ago my kids came home from school (a local state primary) with a letter asking whether I would like them to undertake Special Religious Instruction (SRI). No, I wouldn’t, I told the school – three times in heavily circled biro.  It’s not the first time I’ve been asked this question and every time it really, really annoys me.

So this year I thought I would undertake a little research of my own about SRI; about what goes on in other schools and about how other parents have dealt with this issue. To start with I looked at the legislation that governs this area, the Education and Training Reform Act (2006); section 2.2.10 Education in Government schools to be secular states that:

(1) Except as provided in section 2.2.11, education in Government schools must be secular and not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect.

(2) Sub-section (1) does not prevent the inclusion of general religious education in the curriculum of a Government school.

(3) A Government school teacher must not provide religious instruction other than the provision of general religious education in any Government school building.

(4) In this section “general religious education” means education about the major forms of religious thought and expression characteristic of Australian society and other societies in the world.

So, interestingly, the government draws a distinction between general and special religious education. It strikes me – and many people I’ve spoken to in recent weeks – that an understanding and awareness of the world’s major religions might be a very useful thing for our kids to learn, especially given the multi-faith society in which we live and the extent to which many of the world’s conflicts have their basis in religion. That, sadly, is not offered at my kids’ school – nor at many others – because we are required to have Special religious education. Section 2.2.11 of the act states:

(1) Special religious instruction may be given in a Government school in accordance with this section.

(2) If special religious instruction is given in a Government school during the hours set apart for the instruction of the students—

(a) the persons providing the special religious instruction must be persons who are accredited representatives of churches or other religious groups and who are approved by the Minister for the purpose;

(b) the special religious instruction must be given on the basis of the normal class organisation of the school…

(c) attendance for the special religious instruction is not to be compulsory for any student whose parents desire that he or she be excused from attending.

In practice, what all this means is that if an accredited provider – and in almost all cases this is Access Ministries – approaches your school and asks to deliver SRI, the school is legally obliged to comply with that request. Classes are normally half an hour long and must be provided within the normal timetable; they cannot be held before or after school.

Your child doesn’t have to attend those classes.  Prior to 2011 the default position regarding SRI was that students undertook the classes unless they opted out. In 2011 DEECD changed its policy so that parents now have to ‘opt in’; specifically they have to complete a form at the beginning of the year and return it to the school stating their preference.

If your child doesn’t attend SRI however, they can only undertake activities that are ‘outside the core curriculum’; they aren’t allowed to do anything substantive because the students taking SRI will miss out. This means that, effectively, the curriculum – which we are regularly told is crammed full already – is suspended for half an hour a week so that some kids can go off and have religious instruction with a volunteer from Access Ministries.

So what do we know about these volunteers?  Under the heading Become a Christian Religious Education ‘Teacher’ (my quotations) on the Access Ministries website it states: We regularly hold two day (my emphasis) sessions for Accreditation and Training of new and potential volunteer CRE teachers.

In order to become an accredited ‘teacher’ you have to have your application endorsed by a minister, complete a working with children check, observe a lesson, complete an assignment and familiarise yourself with the Access Ministries curriculum. And when you’ve done that – and attended the two day course – you can provide religious instruction to students in a state school. Hmm…it took me four years to become a qualified teacher.

Now, an entirely random survey of rainbow families in my email address book identified about 30 schools that don’t have SRI, and an article in The Age last week suggested that about a third of Victoria’s 1200 state primary schools don’t offer SRI. So this got me thinking – given that schools are legally obliged to offer it if Access Ministries come calling, why have some schools managed to avoid it, and why am I stuck with it?

I don’t really have any definitive answers to this question; I can only speculate.  I presume that Access Ministries doesn’t call on schools where it perceives there will be very little take-up of SRI, either because the school is very multi-faith, or because historically the school has never offered SRI and is unlikely to start now, or because Access Ministries considers that the school community will be very resistant to the idea.

I know those schools that don’t offer it are keen to fly under the radar and it makes sense for them not to draw attention to themselves. And while the parents in those schools don’t have to worry about their own kids, they might well be concerned about what’s going on in the school up the road; it’s a pretty safe bet that SRI teaching doesn’t encompass diversity, openness or respect for difference. Somehow I don’t think rainbow families are getting a good rap.

So given that this system is well-entrenched and supported at both Federal and State level – and that a recent legal challenge was unsuccessful – it looks like we’re stuck with it, for a while at least. Plus, a big public campaign would inevitably draw attention to those schools that are quietly flying under the radar.

And then a few days ago I had an interesting conversation in the playground with one of the other mums that got me thinking. Jenny was brought up Catholic, she explained, and had no interest in passing that on to her kids, but she thought it was important that they have some broad knowledge of Christianity, which is why she’d enrolled them in SRI.

Now, I didn’t go about this intentionally (honestly!) but it was all in my head and it just came out – your kids might get a broad overview of Christianity from SRI, I suggested, but it’s hard to know, isn’t it? because no one’s really got a clue what goes on in those classes, and they’re not actually teachers are they?  They’re volunteers who’ve had two days’ training.

I haven’t sat in on a class myself, but I’ve certainly spoken to teachers and aides who have. One told me about a lesson she’d attended where the volunteer described in detail and with sound effects (bang! bang! bang!) how nails were hammered through Jesus’ wrists and ankles as he hung from the cross. It was Easter and it was a Prep class – and the volunteer gave out chocolate eggs at the end of the lesson.

Another told me that the volunteer asked her group of ten year olds whether it was okay to murder unborn babies. And I’ve had half a dozen people tell me that SRI volunteers regularly espouse that ‘evolution is just a theory’.

The idea that SRI is benign, that it’s gentle and harmless, and there’s nothing wrong with a few Bible stories aimed at teaching kids some good basic values is extremely prevalent. I’ve heard it many times. And it’s quite possible that, in some cases, that is what you get – a few songs and some worksheets to colour in, but I’m sceptical and this is why.

The CEO of Access Ministries, Evonne Paddison told a conference in 2011 that both Special Religious Instruction (SRI) and chaplaincy provide an: extraordinary opportunity to reach kids with the good news about Jesus… What really matters is seizing the God-given opportunity we have to reach kids in schools. Without Jesus, our students are lost…What a commandment. Make disciples. What a responsibility. What a privilege we have been given. Let’s go for it.

Access Ministries want to make disciples of our children and they make no secret of that.

At the end of our playground conversation Jenny was quiet and thoughtful. Hmm… she said, I might just head over to the office and check whether my guys are enrolled or not. I’ll think I’ll take them out.

Then it suddenly occurred to me: I spend hours in this playground and I talk to a lot of parents, and there’s more than one way to run a campaign. So it’s a long shot – especially at my school – but I will count it as time well spent if I can get a few parents to question what they’re actually doing when they enrol their kids in SRI.

If you want your kids to learn some basic Christian principles, why not do it yourself at home where you control exactly what your kids are being told? Why would you expose them to unqualified volunteers teaching a curriculum you know very little about? And do you really believe they’re teaching acceptance, tolerance and open-mindedness – or something else entirely?

If a few other parents, at a few other schools, have the same conversation, we might start to make a dent in the number of kids who are potential disciples for Access Ministries.

Share this blog for me please. Thanks.

Jacqui Tomlins

Further information is available at:

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. I have posted a link to this blog post on the Secular Party of Australia Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/SecularPartyAustralia) as this is one of the things that the Secular Party of Australia is definitely interested in. Look for a Secular Party of Australia candidate to vote for at the next election if you want to help bring this religious indoctrination in our public schools to an end.

  2. I hate that not only is valuable time being wasted but what about the money?
    My research (or lack of it) may be faulty but I believe that the Access Ministries are actually paid to go into the schools. I also heard that a few years ago more money was spent on SRI than was on reading recovery. If this is the case I am horrified… and I immediately withdrew my children. I would think that in times when everyone is worried about dropping literacy and numeracy levels this money could be spent more wisely. Not to mention on IT which at our school we are requested to pay a levy for each child.
    By the way I was raised a Catholic, and I would love my children to get a wide range of religious or ‘belief’ education. It could help to break down stereotypes due to ignorance.
    Emma

    • I think your confusing your tax-payer funding of Access Ministries via Howard’s (now Gillard’s) NSCP. Access Min also just happens to be your government’s preferred service provider for Chaplains. Another church-state boundary violation that’s benefiting christian leaders –Access CEO, Evonne Paddison– far more than it’s benefiting your kids.

  3. Thanks for a great post, Jacqui. As someone with a child entering the Victorian school system in a couple of years it’s very helpful to hear more about this. I have absolutely no intention of letting my daughter participate, despite very much believing that an understanding of religion is essential to understanding the geo-political conflicts that continue to plague us today. She can learn that at home, or in history or geography, or somewhere where she isn’t being turned into the type of “disciple” that actually incites that type of conflict.

  5. Reblogged this on Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear and commented:
    Jacqui Tomlins has done some great research into Special Religious Education in Victorian public schools. As a teacher, and a ‘rainbow family’ parent, Jacqui adds a very important perspective to the issue of religion in public schools. I highly recommend her blog post.

    Chrys Stevenson

  6. Excellent post, Jacqui! I don’t have kids in school but if I did I’d be going down to the office too. Thank you.

    • If parents continue to “just” do that, then aussie state schools will continue surrendering that 30min timeslot to Access Ministries. To its CEO’s mission to put her biblical view of history into kids minds.

      Hassle your principle. Hassle your education minister. State and federal.

      Apathy & inaction is exactly how these bible-bashing lobbiests are poking legislative holes in your leaky “wall” of church-state separation. Brick up that wall.

    • Easy to say, Iain. What do your children do while SRI is in progress? Are they in another classroom? Are they at the back of SRI class? Are they in a hallway within earshot of the SRI class? Are they given anything useful or engaging to do? Are they alone or with other children? The responses to these questions clearly vary greatly from school to school and that is part of the problem. Opting out is not so simple for some!

  8. What To Do about SRI?

    Here are my tips on how to deal with SRI in your school. I have used them all in my dealings with my son’s primary school.

    1. It is Special Religious Instruction, or SRI for short. That is it. That is what the Victorian legislation states it is. Do not allow you school to refer to it as “Special Religious EDUCATION” or “Christian Religious EDUCATION”. It is not education it is “instruction”. Or if we are being honest about it, it is really indoctrination. Demand that your school refer only to it as SRI in all literature and language used. It is insulting to the trained and qualified educators at the school, the real teachers, to have SRI referred to as “education”. Remind your principal that they must adhere to the language of the legislation.

    2. Write to your school and instruct them that under no circumstances is you child to have any contact or communication with the SRI volunteer. There must be no conversation, discussion, transfer of printed material from the “volunteer” to your child. Insist that the school guarantee that your child is not placed in the back of a class of SRI or within hearing or visual contact with the SRI class. The school has a duty to ensure that this does not happen and do not accept excuses such as “well we dont have enough staff” etc. Again, remind them of their responibilities under the legislation.

    3. Talk to other parents and let them know your view and actions. Sure, some will see nothing wrong with SRI being taught. But you need to let them know that you do have a problem with it.

    4. Talk to your school council about it. Tell them your views and ensure that they are being proactive in adhering to the legislative requirements.

    5. Ensure that the permission forms sent out are fair and accurate. I noticed that ours was worded in such a way that parents would inadvertently find themselves signing their children up for SRI. Make sure the forms have TWO option. A “Will Allow” and “Will Not Allow” option.

    6. Contact your local state member and candidates and find out their views. Let them know that if they support SRI in the classroom of secular schools, then they do not have your vote. This is what the fundies do. You must do it as well. Don’t expect everyone else to do something. It is your child. If you believe SRI is wrong in a secular education system – stand up for your belief. Whinging about SRI but not being prepared to take a stand about it simply makes you complicit in its continuation.

    7. Be vigilant. When you have parent/teacher meetings bring up the issue of SRI and let your child’s teacher know your feelings and make sure they are very clear on the points above. Make sure you also have a 1 on 1 meeting with your principal to discuss this issue.

    8. You should also ensure that your school signs up to the Safe Schools Coalition Victoria (SSCV). Whilst not directly related to SRI – it will help counter the bigotry and hatred the ACHESS SRI volunteers bring into the secular school system.

    Rodney Chiang-Cruise

    • Excellent post. Thank you.
      I will be doing all these things when my child starts school next year, and am already raising it as an issue with Principals as we decide which school we enroll him in.

    • Yes excellent advice.

      On point 1. though, be careful because when SRI is dilievered by Access Ministries (ie, 96% of the time in Victoria) then that “SRI administration body” has named their own SRI program… as distinct from that pesky 4% that they’ve authorized but don’t run themselves… (surprise) “Christian Religious EDUCATION” http://www.accessministries.org.au/creteachers

      Maybe parents need to insist the school puts TM every time they refer to Access Min propoganda… they have teachersTM that will deliver educationTM.

      Remember it’s against The Law for them to be indoctrinating.

      The issue is that it’s well within The Law (their Law, that they have made your Law) for Access volunteers to mislead kids into thinking their bible stories are accurate history lessons, ya know, like something your government might teaching you in, say, a 21st century public school building.

      Cheers,

  10. You raise a good point: who knows what they actually teach in SRI. I’m sharing this around, because it should be a concern also for the christian parents, and quite a few friends are quite religious, but I wonder if they’d agree with the teaching style.
    And my mind boggled at the fact that schools are obliged to make room in the curriculum if and when an external SRI instructor asks for it. Don’t we already have too much material and not enough time to teach it? I’m a humanist, maybe I need to get accredited and go knocking on my local school. Or how about we extend it to any ideology: let’s say I think communism is great (certainly would require a great deal of faith) – can I force schools to set aside an hour for me? Of course not, THAT would be ridiculous.

    • You get it. It doesn’t matter if Access Ministries is or isn’t teaching christianity “properly”. We can hope what they teach is 100% inoffensive to all denominations…

      Christian parents should still be VERY concerned; that –because of 1950s legislation– australia has Sunday School being taught within school hours, at government schools, primary age, by Evonne & her flock …and this is an utterly inapproriate for a State government in 2013.

      We want our religions separate from our public co-ed schools. TYVM.

  11. Thankyou for this great post and also to Rodney for his tips on dealing with this situation. I have just done similar (limited) research in my neighbourhood and had a meeting with the Vice Principal to ascertain why no ‘opt in’ forms were sent home to families. Seems they are relying on years old enrolment forms, completed before the change of legislation in 2011 re opt in/opt out-that is not, in my opinion, informed consent for the child to undertake SRI. We are asking for alternatives to be explained-as in what do children do in that half hour when not doing SRI? I have also asked if I could sit in on a class-that is to be advised. Also, the DEECD form does imply that a parent needs to ask for non-attendance rather than the actuality which is that a parent needs to opt-in. My letters to DEECD officials, Minister for Education and the Premier have received no worthwhile-or any-response.

    • It is important the you press the school on RESENDING out correct OPT-IN to SRI/OPT-OUT forms to every student again. Point out that their actions are in breach of the legislation, the Departments policy and Ministerial directives. Point out that the forms are essential in-valid and may in fact open them up to legal consequence. Be firm. It is not acceptable for them to say “oh we will fix it next year”. The have a duty and responsibility to follow the law and department policy. If they can not do that then they have no business being adminstrators of schools.

      Do not let lazy school adminstrators off the hook. If they refuse to do so, lodge a complaint for professional misconduct with the department.

      Now whether it will get you anywhere and whether you would get a response this side of 2020, I don’t know. But unless educators and adminstrators are reminded (politely at first) of their duties, then nothing will change.

      Cheers
      Rodney

    • “My letters to DEECD officials, Minister for Education and the Premier have received no worthwhile-or any-response.”

      No response, someone should get fired.

      No worthwhile reponse, it’s up to you to bounce that back in their court. Whatever (e)mail template they sent to you as a reply hasn’t addressed your specific concern. Ask for a more detailed response. Ask for a face-to-face meeting.

      They are trying to deflect you. Keep bouncing the ball back until they tell you flat out that they disagree that action needs to be taken. Then call a newspaper.

  12. My little one starts school next year, but there is no SRI until Grade 1. I understand that children opted out of SRI sit at the back of the room while the SRI is in progress. But the legislation says that:
    “(c) attendance for the special religious instruction is not to be compulsory for any student whose parents desire that he or she be excused from attending.”
    How do they define “attending”? Even if the opted out students are not participating, if they are in the room during SRI this is still attendance isn’t it?
    I think I may have to schedule a music lesson or pay for some other formal activity during the timeslot – it seems to be the only way I can guarantee my child’s non-attendance.

    • This is concerning. Your view of “attendance” should be adhered to by the school.

      Look up at point 2. of “Rodney Chiang-Cruise on March 6, 2013 at 10:30 am”. According to Rodney the (new 2011) legislation requires that the student be given a secular alternative. I would protest if your school currently only offers a paid secular alternative.

      Victoria setup public schooling, from memory the 1st state in the world to do so, specifically intended to be 3 things: “Compulsary. Secular. And Free.”

  13. If people want their child to have “Sunday school” classes or the equivalent in their faith. Can I make a suggesting get out of your bed on the “sabbath” of your faith and attend the meeting place of your faith of your choice…. or open you wallet and send the faith school of your choice. Keep it out of secular schools.

    • I cant agree more.

      I cant believe how many parents give absolutely no thought to the issue of SRI.

      • Believe it.

        Once a parent opts their kid/s in (or out) then why expect their mind turn to this crazy idea that they personally need to take action to fix this broken system… ??

        This issue of 1950s christendom currently infiltrating Aussie schools isn’t yet in our public consciousness. Let’s put it there. #FIRIS

  14. From my point of view, one of the scariest and most insidious side-effects of SRI is the appalling scientific ignorance of these ‘teachers’. They are assuring young children, at the most impressionable and enquiring stage of life, that the world was created in a flash 6000/12000 years ago (depends on the denomination) by God and that any relevant science such as evolution and how it works, astronomy, biochemistry, geology, and fascinating things like how dinosaurs came to be here (Noah’s flood, of course!) – all have been answered in the bible, a succession of books written several thousand years ago before modern science could possibly have been applied.
    No wonder Australia is struggling to produce world class scientists. The struggle begins in our primary schools where the questing mind is being suppressed by Christian volunteers.

    • I hear you Sue. The best thing you can do is opt out your kids from these ridiculous classes and ensure they develop a healthy respect for Science.

      Australia is not struggling to produce world class scientists, we are struggling to produce decent politicians. That said, there is a very unhealthy disrespect for science from one particular federal political party, likely to be elected shortly.

    • Kinda misses the point that Access Ministries aren’t Young Earth Creationists.

      This issue isn’t about teaching kids bible stories before they get educated in history, science, etc.

      This issue is that our State Law allows this “Ministry with a Mission” to interfere with secular public schooling & the government’s school curriculum.

      • Blamer you are missing the point when you say Access aren’t new earth creationists. They are. They are teaching grade preps that the earth was created in six 24-hour days by a very clever god who rested on the seventh 24-hour day, 6000 years ago. etc. End of story.
        There is more than one way to skin a cat. We’ve tried getting rid of SRI on grounds of equality, of what it says in the education act, of discrimination.
        It didn’t work.
        You want SRI out of schools?
        We have a new premier who has a vet science degree. He is probably almost the first pollie in Australia to have heard of evolution and the big bang. (There are three pollies in the US senate who are scientists and not lawyers or businessmen/women).
        Let’s tell him what they’re teaching our primary kids. Let’s throw the syllabus at him and suggest that if he really wants to know why Australian kids are losing their formerly high standing against the world’s educational measure (there are quite a few) he only has to look at what the old dears are teaching them in school now with government’s blessing.
        You could suggest that a condition of Access Ministries being allowed to teach in our schools should be that they all have a primary science teaching qualification – in modern, twenty-first century science. Then they can all sit back for a few years while they do a short course with CSIRO. (Doesn’t always work: my former GP is a born-again Christian who has seen his light. No doubt he could volunteer).
        That’s why we should come at this thing another way. Get off our high philosophical horses and come in where it means most to educators – at mid-education which is what’s going on here, after all.

  15. Apart from anything (everything!) else I find offensive about SRI in government schools, I fought through the union (VSTA) for ALL teachers to have full teaching qualifications 40 years ago. We won that battle, but now have to put up with these unqualified people promulgating their religious doctrines to our young people. I object passionately.

  16. I’ve been banging my head against this for 6 years now, I am on a school Council and there is really no influence here other than enforcing the policy and in my case nagging that it not be called CRE or ‘Teaching’. I have assisted FIRS but I am not as absolutist that I would not have an ethics program such as in NSW and keep SRI, if it at least meant an alternative. The irony in NSW is that it was the actions of a committed Catholic Premier, Christina Keneally, that enshrined ethics in the legislation to save it from being squashed by a proposed deal between Fred Nile and a the new Offarrell government.
    The Departmentin Victoria advises schools that the form for enrolment in SRI is not annual – you sign on in prep for 7 years. You need to ask for the form to opt out if you are enrolled. They have in writing, I’ve seen it, told principals that the school is not to send out the new opt-in forms to all students, only to new enrolments. If enrolment was annual then the numbers would drop and I do not know one other aspect of school that you only fill in one form, its to protect the current levels of enrolment.
    Go have a look at what you get in NSW http://www.primaryethics.com.au, it was started by volunteers, runs on corporate and personal philanthropy and we need it here!

    • Are you saying the Educatn Dept in VIC “have in writing, I’ve seen it, told principals that the school is not to send out the new opt-in forms to all students, only to new enrolments” ?

      That’s just a policy of the Minister? Parents should hassle the Education Minister of VIC to change this policy, as defending the status quo is NOT a fair policy.

      The opt-in rule was changed for that exact reason. This current “opt-in form” policy is flying in the face of the decision to over-turn that unfair “opt-out” rule.

      Demand current school families be empowered to choose what’s best for their kids.

      Not merely the fresh batch, the new blood, those lucky post-2011 school families.

  17. I was raised as a Catholic, but by my early teens had decided to leave the club. My children attended some SRI sessions early on, before I realised that I had to opt them out. I found this to be a very unscrupulous and underhanded way to boost the numbers for their insidious indoctrination sessions. It’s appalling and very disturbing that schools have very little say if Access Ministries come knocking.
    I’m not overly worried about the lost time for proper curricular activities, or the costs. I just want Access Ministries, and the dark ages poison they peddle, out of our schools. This is the 21st century, not the 9th. Let’s make it one to remember. Go Rodney!

    James Kenny

    • Religio-politics 101:

      Unless you’ve managed to get yourself excommunicated from the rcc, then local lobbiests are artificially inflating the headcount of which aussies they represent by continuing to count you as a baptised catholic, and thus at least on the “proverbial” paper, you’re still very much an adult member of that club that your teenage self up and left.

      Maybe the next pope will fix these well-meaning habits of lobbiests lying for jesus…

  18. Great article. We opt out both our kids. My son went for a brief period at the start of prep, but he begged to not go again. He thought the whole idea of God in the sky to be a bit silly. He’s been in a plane and there’s nothing up there but air and clouds. That is what he told the SRI teacher. She was not amused apparently.

    That aside, SRI seems to be the easiest way for governments to buy the ACL vote. Access Ministries has to try and get to kids – it’s basically impossible to convert adults. Kids believe most of what they are told which is perfect for an easy conversion, even if you cannot get them to church, you can at least plant the seeds of fear and doubt. I might add that Access is made up of non-Catholic denominations, which are disappearing fast. If they cannot get in new kids, they are lost.

    So basically we have a very desperate, very organised and very vocal interest group who promise the government that they will preach who to vote for if they are allowed access to children. If the government says no, the church will cease to exist. Governments never say no to votes and I am pretty sure they believe that no one cares enough about this to vote against them, especially when there is bilateral agreement between the 2 major parties. And if you don’t think this is true I give you…. an 8 month election campaign held entirely in Western Sydney…

    • No conspiracy theory needed. Christian leaders don’t need to brainwash kids to buy votes.

      They need only convince parents that a little bible salt with your kids schooling chips ain’t a bad way to defend monotheism’s David against that imagined Goliath anti-christ.

      But unlike that epic parable, this religio-political struggle between conservative clergymen and liberal academics (I expect) will never end.

      10,000 descendants of David struggle. Goliath hasn’t even woken up …yet.

  19. Can you clarify where the school is legally obliged to agree to the request should it be approached by this ministry organisation? The wording of the legislation as transcribed above is “may be given” and “if”. I would have thought that if schools were required by law to comply with this it would be phrased as “must” and “when”. Or does this legal requirement fall under another section of the legislation? If there is nothing in the legislation that says “must” could it not be argued it is at the discretion of the school to offer SRI and if enough parents object then the school can refuse it? I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with this legislation but would suggest carefully considering the actual phrasing of the legislation.

  21. wow interesting to read these opinions, some of them over-reactive. On the contrary, I favour SRI, they have been in our schools for a long time (and really has SRI done any harm in the long run?) Although most SRI volunteers are not qualified teachers but follow a national program, I’ve often thought about being one myself. I am not a resident of VIC and nor do I know anything about Access Ministries, but with all good intent I would rather support their program than have any other type of religious instructor (eg a Sunni Muslim Cleric) who promotes other religious ideals that are not on par with our Australian way of life. If you take the cream out of the milk you can’t make butter – I think life without butter would be very tasteless.

    • NO specific religion should be ‘taught’ in government schools. Your response is full of breathtakingly blind subjectivity.

    • You might find that Access Ministries would kick you out with a flea in your ear. You have to come from a short list of evangelical churches and believe fervently in a very narrow world view which even you might not be happy with teaching. Some of their lessons show huge ignorance – sorry, make that many of – and only a blind follower could swallow passing them on to a classroom full of children.

    • .. And really has SRI done any harm in the long run … Unfortunately the answer is yes, it can. I also felt it wouldn’t do my children any harm to have some exposure to what is for them, at the least, culturally relevant. I’m an agnostic but wanted some exposure to non denominational religious education for my kids.

      My eldest, a bright, robust, emotionally and psychologically stable person still suffers extreme uneasiness when the subject is raised. This is nearly 20 (yes twenty) years later!

      Her religious instructor was known to me and was, still is, a lovely person. She was a trained teacher’s aide and, aside from this subject, I had/have no hesitation in praising her

      Unfortunately, the ‘curriculum’ for RI includes advising young children that they and their family would “burn in hell” and similar fire and brimstone images. Equally, questioning the ‘teachings’ was actively discouraged and not in a harmless manner, but by using some rather manipulative strategies

      And for those believing this was a unique experience, a few years later when we’d moved and our children were in a new school and considering not opting out for my younger two I sat through two lessons myself. It was eight years later but nothing had changed.

      I have some concerns that being Christian has become an open invitation for abuse and derision. I’m uncomfortable with that but I very much recommend that if you wish for your children, and not just young children, to experience religion that they do so in your presence.

    • Eliz Evans, surely you’re not serious!
      1. The idea that children should be divided up according to the religious views of their parents is not a message I’d like to give to my child. They’re little children! And there are so many examples from parents regarding the distress that little children feel when they perceive they are on the outer. For this reason many parents do send their children to SRI not because they are believers but because they feel their children will suffer from being apart from their peers and missing out on all the colourful goodies the others get.
      2. The view you express that one religion is more Australian than another is exactly the kind of divisiveness I’m referring to. All this ‘us and them’ and history shows religions have caused ill-feeling, estrangement wars and death through the centuries while paying lip-service only to genuine peace, tolerance and understanding.
      3. Your attitude that without religion there is no cream in our cultural milk (odd metaphor really) demonstrates that you others of your beliefs have obviously decided what is best for the rest of us. Poor, poor us and our bland lives eh? The point of this whole issue is something generic is being thrust upon many of us without allowing us to make a real choice. This is a the opposite of cultural diversity, this makes our culture poorer. You probably have a preference for homogenisation, but for many of us life and the universe and reality are actually much more interesting and challenging than nonsensical bronze ages myths.

    • “they have been in our schools for a long time”

      Since 1951. As a reaction against the threat of communism.

      Those centrist christian leaders thoroughly duped the aussie electorate with fear.

      And today’s aussie christian lobby are defending that ’50s mentality to retard liberal secularism. Almost all ACL press releases are about homosexuality ffs.

  23. Lisa, a lot of harm results from indoctrinating kids: it’s been reported some learn to discriminate, are told that non-believers and sinners (maybe even their parents or friends) will go to hell, that the earth was created in one go a few thousand years ago (i.e. science is wrong). Some learn that they are guilty (by just being born), and to to be ever fearful of eternal damnation. But that’s not the point here. The point is that our society is secular, and government-sponsored education should be secular. There should be no religious instruction in public schools. People should be free to their own personal views on religion, but that is their business, not the business of government schools. Also, it is sad to see the compromise of ethics classes as an option. Ethics (good citizenship and critical thinking) should be an important part of the curriculum. To some degree some of what we call ethics may filter through in other subjects, such as history and social science, but development of these skills should be consciously encouraged. Teachers should be specifically trained to include these skills in education generally. We can spend education time producing school musicals, fostering sport, art and other activities for kids’ development, surely good citizenship and critical thinking should be near the top of the list of priorities.

    • Fully agree Meg. One really good thing that’s come from all this is that people are really are thinking about and articulating what constitutes effective parenting and educating. As a society we’ve generally moved away from many lazy parenting techniques (such as the use of physical punishment). SRI is a backward step because of all the reasons you mention – the use of fear, threat and guilt in an attempt to train children behave themselves. Surely we are better than that these days, smarter. I was raised Catholic myself and though you can cherry-pick ‘blessed are the meek’ any day of the week, so many aspects of it baffled, confused and saddened me. It was very important to my Mum and one day my daughter may choose a religion for herself, but little children can’t possibly subscribe to a religion any more than they could know what political party they would vote for or which economic theories they’d subscribe to. It’s cruel to fill their heads with all this when their personalities and identities are forming in my opinion.

  24. Great post. Last year in Grade 1, my son was late back from lunch and accidently sat in with the SRI class. Apparently he was only there for about five minutes before his class teacher realised he was missing from the ‘other’ group. There were profuse apologies as they know how I feel about SRI. Anyway, on the way home from school I asked him what they did/said. He said ‘oh, we just prayed to Jesus’. I said ‘How did you do that? What did you pray for?’. He said ‘Well, I just closed my eyes and put my hands like this (prayer action), and I asked for him to leave some money in my pocket for when I open my eyes’. I asked ‘So was there money in your pocket?’. He said indignantly with a scowl, ‘No!’. Needless to say, he’s still a non-believer! Lol.

  25. I haven’t read the entire comment thread so this may have been covered already (sorry), but it’s interesting to not that your children can’t do anything substantial curriculum-wise on the basis the SRI kids will be behind, but 1/3rd of schools are exempt from SRI and I presume they don’t all stop for 30 minutes to let the other schools catch up…

    • hehe Nice one. Thankfully in VIC that state education ministerial policy was overturned in 2011. A government school can now legitimately offer a secular class during its school hours, instead of that exceptional nonsense policy that was clearly forced upton schools by these aussie anti-secularists lead by Access “Secular instruction may not be timetabled while students from the class are attending special religious instruction“.

  26. Our Founding Fathers proposed the secular state because they knew the evils of sectarianism. Indeed, if I recall it accurately, the Colonial Victorian school system in the mid-19th Century was designated “Free, secular and compulsory”. The measure that survived the Constitutional Conventions is weak in the hands of conservative judges in the High Court. The anecdotal evidence suggests that religious instruction [note the word – it doesn’t mean education] is designed as a proselytising agent principally for the more extreme views of the evangelicals. It’s probably time to give up on “secular” Government schools and join the mainstream by setting private secular schools. I wrote this on my facebook page:

    I think it is probably time to start setting up independent secular schools to provide children with real education based on knowledge rather than belief: “Scientia ante Fidem”. There might be six pillars for the curriculum – ethics, science and mathematics, literature, social science, the creative arts, and exercise. The school mission would be to graduate children who are tolerant, articulate, enquiring, confident and engaged individuals committed to basic human rights and equity and who are prepared for a lifetime of learning. Parents would be assured that the school encourages freedom of religion but that religious instruction will not be included in any school activities. On the sporting field, goal-scoring will be unaccompanied by religious ritual; rather the talent and skill of the player acknowledged. Staff will be carefully selected on the basis of their qualifications, training, skills and commitment to the secular ideals of the institution and the achievement of its highest academic standards.

    • I expect this suffer the same problem as NSW Ethics classes… zero coffers.

      Originally catholic churches ran the schools. They have coffers.

      Then forward-thinking governments ran victorian state schools, “Free, secular and compulsory”. They had taxes. Now it isn’t so much “free”…

      Private schools need investors. Perhaps not a market segment in which the 99% can compete.

      You could ran a Not for profit. But I suppose teachers mightn’t be lining up around the block to take that pay cut for the privilege of working there… ?

      Please don’t abandon public education quite yet. Let’s fix the bloody thing.

  27. Please tell ACCESS Ministries what you think about the way they’re pressuring our Principals to increase enrolment. The address is ACCESS ministries, GPO Box 5124, MELBOURNE VIC 3001.

    The representative for the eastern Melbourne suburbs is Andrew Price. Address him directly and you, too, might get a defensive reply that barely addresses your points!

    • Not sure what the point would be of writing to ACCESS Ministries to complain. Are we to imagine they are going to see the light and remove themselves and their funding? Better to complain to the Education Department and local MPs.

  28. Great post Jacqui!

    We’ve opted out of SRI for our children. As I have said to people (and the school) in the past, that if there was true ‘religious education’ offered, that covered a variety of faiths and belief systems, I would be more than happy for my children to attend.

    My son summed it up (when he was in Grade 1) – “Some kids have to go to another room and learn about God and stuff and some kids get to play Lego.”

  29. Great post Jacqui!

    We’ve opted out of SRI for our children. As I have said to people (and the school) in the past, that if there was true ‘religious education’ offered, that covered a variety of faiths and belief systems, I would be more than happy for my children to attend.

    My son summed it up (when he was in Grade 1) – “Some kids have to go to another room and learn about God and stuff and some kids get to play Lego.”

  30. I chose not to have my children attend religious instruction as it was called at the time. I was educated in catholic school at primary and went through all the rituals of the church. Their teachings didn’t stick, however. I do think children should learn the stories and discuss the merits and the dangers of religion. Beside Aesop’s Fables, Anderson, and later the Iliad, I also read the parables and the stories from Hindu, Buddhism, Judaism and anything else I could find at the time, and we discussed them, but with a broad context not as instruction and absolutism. None of my children were christened and neither are my grandchildren. Considering two of my children are married to Asians, neither of whom are christian, it’s just as well religion is not a factor in their relationships. Personally, I am strongly opposed to religious instruction in a public school. If, however, the ‘instruction’ was the study of religions, it would be a different matter and I’d more than likely support it – the ‘more than likely’ aspect being if I was 100% confident there was no element of proselyting involved.

  32. So if i was ordained in the Flying spaghetti monster church, and wanted to get paid to tell kids about the great noodlely appendages, the school can’t say no?

    • Access Ministries administers the SRI program. (As well as delivering a SRI class called “CRE” via their volunteers, they’re VERY busy bees)

      I don’t think they’d approve your “faith group”. FSM seems explicitly counterproductive to their overt Mission (which their website has toned down significantly since last I looked) “to transform the lives of young people and their communities“. Transform kids is code for something.

      Their website brags “Last year ACCESS ministries’ delivered Christian instruction to 117,933 students in over 800 primary schools across Victoria.”

      “Other faith groups, including Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Baha’i also provide SRI to Victorian children.” <– I don't see Scientology making this list although the aussie tax office was the 1st in the world to recognise that church as a legitimate religion, at least for tax purposes.

  33. Memories came back as I read this. My term in the early education system likely fell before SRI instructions and opportunities came about. It was probably more something that just happened. I’m fairly certain that if given the choice my own mother may have scrawled circles around “No way”. Back then, in the few ‘classes’ I went to – I was in year 2-3 so they were really trying hard to conscript early – there was either one or two nuns acting as teachers. They’d turn up, hand out white plastic crosses with a plastic Jesus nailed on them and tell us we should hold them and pray. There were a few explanations as to who this Jesus guy was, of which I’d already learnt from the Catholic side of my family and some eternally boring Sunday school classes I went to that were just a waste of a good day. Funnily enough, it was at these classes that a major blow for any faith I had in any form of god was dealt. And it was all because of an expression. The nun doing the talking at the time asked us to pray in whatever way we thought we should so everyone in the class did as they’d seen others do. So early in our lives we all just mimed, with greater or lesser knowledge to fall back on. I ended up miming an action I’d seen some people in church do which was kiss the cross. None of the others did. I must have acted oddly enough that the nun’s face morphed into an expression that was part shock, part analysis and part disgust. Her reaction said it all to me. While saying there was an allowance for choice she actually didn’t mean to give any. Even at that age I was a rebel and a stubborn one at that. I can tell you, that expression summed up everything I’d experienced concerning religion up to that point and I didn’t like either the feel or the implications of it (in case you were wondering I was smart enough at that age to be successfully and repeatedly forging signatures to get out of homework – watch those young kiddies because they’re sneaky). In terms of religious instructions, the classes, which were held in a cramped room by a strange woman in odd getup, were useless. I’d had better classes at Sunday school (I did think them amusing fantasy tales but couldn’t stand the idea of them being real – too much murder, bossing about, mayhem and sacrifice for my early tastes and I was into horror stories). At Sunday school there were coloured forms in yellow, green and blue along with colouring in and drawing projects – yes, just as you described – that were held in airy rooms at times when you were all post-church dressed up. Now, while I was convinced by both that religion was a bad way to go in life as the so-called good examples were extreme horror stories mitigated only by coloured paper I have to say that if a child is to ever be exposed to religious schooling it should be through a properly organised and extended Sunday school programme directly connected to a church. While the kids might end up staring out the window and cursing their parents’ names for making them miss so many bright sunny days of play they will at least have a better experience, make friends, learn the ways of the Church in a controlled environment and be taught by those with more experience. I do have a personal distaste – it would enrage me for my child to be placed in such a class – for religious studies aimed at conscripting children to a warped worldview being part any public schooling but even when that reaction is taken out of the equation Sunday school and the like is the better option for all. By far. Religion studied as one would politics, discussed from all sides and not focused on any single doctrine is the only form of religious studies that should ever be allowed in public schools. The rest is personal choice, of the parent and the child, and should be conducted elsewhere.

    • Anecdotally, this sentiment is largely commonplace “Funnily enough, it was at these classes that a major blow for any faith I had in any form of god was dealt“.

      Although whether bible stories are compelling or otherwise, isn’t the issue here.

      If taught by government employees in school, they certainly “present” as true stories or at least based on a true story… which academia knows to be without historicity.

      And thus, not educational.

      What ethicists would term “impermissible” for a liberal democracy –for our aussie government of the day– to be teaching the next generation of voters literally doctrinal propoganda, fictions presented “as if” true historical facts about our shared world & its living inhabitants.

  34. Looking at the old and new forms (opt-out vs. opt-in), I notice that the new form is highly ambiguous. It reads like an opt-out form even though the following is removed: “Unless or until parents request that their children do not receive such instruction…students will receive special religious instruction in accordance with ACCESS Ministries’ Christian syllabus” along with the vaguely threatening-sounding note at the end: “If a response is not received within 14 days, your child will receive special religious instruction in accordance with ACCESS Ministries’ agreed Christian syllabus.”

    The new form still has this phrase: “Attendance at special religious instruction classes is not compulsory for students whose parents request that they do not attend.” Note the last phrase – this implies children will take the class if parents don’t opt-out. It contradicts the spirit of an opt-in system

    • Agreed. Almost as if Access themselves wrote the form. Get that wording fixed.

      Schools ought to know how to teach them about reading, writing, and irreligion.

  36. I would just like to add an anecdote in support of the theory that SRI can cause harm in the long run.

    When I was in primary school, we had a similar program though it was not called SRI (an early incarnation though perhaps) – I think it was called “Voluntary Scripture” or something. My mother enrolled me in the Anglican class (we were Presbyterian, though I think she thought it close enough). One day the instructor was informing our class that horoscopes and astrology were not to be trusted as they were the work of the devil (I agree horoscopes are not to be trusted, though simply more to do with the fact that they’re just complete rubbish). My Nanna had recently given me, as a gift, a pair of earrings her mother had once owned which depicted the Pisces fish – it was a family heirloom. As an impressionable child of 7, I was immensely worried and asked the instructor what I should do about them. He told me that when I got home that day, I should burn them or bury them immediately.

    With the knowledge that my mother had wanted me to take this class, I was terrified when I learned that I might be unwillingly engaging in something so sinful. I still remember so clearly the sense of panic as the knowledge dawned on me that I had unwittingly committed a sin, and the desperation I felt throughout the rest of the day, waiting impatiently for school to finish so that I could race home and dispose of the “evil” earrings – I could not bear the thought that any time spent NOT destroying the earrings, was time God spent being angry with me.

    When I arrived home that afternoon, I proceeded to try to bury them in my garden. When my mother came across this and asked me what on earth I was doing, I informed her of everything the instructor had said about horoscopes and his advice on how I should get rid of them.

    She was absolutely horrified and withdrew me from the class immediately. She told me that though you should not live you life by them, horoscopes are OK for fun and she was especially concerned at how terrified her 7 year old had been by the thought of God planning to send her to hell over a pair of earrings.

    The relief I felt to know that my mother did not agree with this teaching was almost overwhelming. As a young child I trusted her opinion above all else which was why I was so ready to listen and comply with the teachings of the other people she told me to trust. My poor mother must have learned to be more careful about who she entrusted her impressionable young children’s education with.

    The point I am trying to make, although my specific experience regarding horoscopes may not be the best example, is that children at this stage in development are influenced by figures of authority within their own lives, easy to scare if they think they are doing the wrong thing, and eager to comply with any instruction they think might absolve them of this.

    This was a fairly painless lesson to learn however, compared to the other dangerous ideas children in religious education are exposed to. Try to consider it from an innocent 7 year old’s (or even younger – I dread to think) perspective; being told by people they know their parents have willingly put them under the care of, that the world is only 6000 years old, dinosaur fossils were planted by God to test our faith, same-sex relationships are a sin, the theory of evolution is wrong (which they will later be taught by other teachers is a fact – very confusing for a child) and to let their life be governed by the teachings of a book which was written thousands of years ago by culturally primitive people before the discovery of science, social equality, religious tolerance and the concept of human rights.

    I think this blog article was great and though I understand it is concerned more about the politics of school’s involvement with SRI, the comment earlier about SRI causing no harm in the long run really worried me and I wanted to add my 2 cents in addressing it.

    • Repent (verb) Feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin. View or think of (an action or omission) with deep regret or remorse.

      That’s some heavy stuff. For a kid.

      ACCESS ministries affirms …through mission and evangelism—a calling of people to repentance and a declaration of God’s love.”

      So their christianity means christ. Their christ means a saviour. To save means from sin. From a hell, to a heaven. To his love. To be declared. To convince others: That to be christian means christ. That christ means a saviour. To save means from sins… like astrology. Or other nonbiblical -ologies & -isms. And blasphemous misinterpretions. And theologically inferior fashions. Or perhaps…

      …just feels subjectively icky. To one of god’s spokesmen. And/or his fan clubs.

      That are politically organised to lobby governments to change aussie legislation.

      To spread that testimony. That good news story. That’s neither news. Nor good.

  37. I loved every word of this until I reached this: “If you want your kids to learn some basic Christian principles, ……”. Please, please please, everyone, stop using the word “Christian” to describe moral values, or anything else good. I cringe even more whenever I read words like “that wasn’t very Christian, was it?” – when whatever awful act is being talked about was almost certainly very Christian. Our morality does NOT come from Christianity! And many many things about Christianity are immoral. Most of us are good without any god, and those wo need a god to be good are therefore not good.

    • I don’t think the OP is equating a parent’s “principles” with a globally agreed set of “values”.

      The point is that the OP urges parents to teach their kids either Access Ministries’ core values, or (hopefully) some better alternative to them:

      * Commitment to teach, live and commend the Christian faith through the ministry of Christian religious education and pastoral care.

      * Caring for the educational and personal wellbeing of all people.

      * Excellence in education, communications, administration and pastoral care.

      * Service In partnership with churches to school communities—students, teachers, principals, families and friends.

      The above principles/values are evangelical. Parents might or mightn’t want to install that in their kids. It ought be their choice. Not the choice of their government, school, nor Access Ministries itself.

  38. Thank you for a great article.

    I have been trying to get my children out of this travesty of a class for three years now, but the school sides with my ex wife every time.

    My eldest at least questions the teachers on some of the points she has been ‘instructed’
    with during her scripture classes. However, my youngest has fallen for it hook line and sinker during her first couple of lessons.
    Despite making my view point very clear to the school, they are still attending these brainwashing sessions with these un-qualified ‘teachers’.

    Religious instruction should not be part of the normal school hours curriculum at all. Should a child’s parents want them to be instructed in religion at school, then it should be an extra curriculum lesson such as band practice, conducted after core school hours and by an opt in process only.

  39. Hi. Great piece, indeed. I wish you success in your ‘campaign.’ Forgive me if I repeat another comment or if I’m mistaken but, based on the language of the law you quoted, there is nothing that says a school *has* to participate in SRI; even if they are asked for permission by Access Ministries, the law seems to say they can refuse to grant that permission. Food for thought, I hope. Good luck!

    • You’re mistaken. Schools cannot say no. Asked and answered above.

      In 2006, VIC education minister got legal advice that that particular “may” in 2.2.11(1) of the Act would be legally interpreted as “must” (if ever tested via a court case).

      This was written about in The Age. See point #5, http://www.scribd.com/doc/53170873/Issues-with-RE-in-state-schools

      That is the crux of this issue. Access are calling the shots. Not the local school community.

  40. My son that’s in year 7 has SRI, but our family views are “open minded” and he’s told to really think about their message, and be subjective. When I was in school we had RE and the only kids that didn’t do it were JW’s and were locked away in the “withdrawal” room. Was a laugh when I did it school, basically all I did was deface the pictures in the comic-like activity book.

    All was going well until ok until he went and into the other room with the “non-SRI” kids , by his own accord. The teacher asked him why we didn’t want to be in the SRI class, and he told them “because it’s bullshit”. It’s hard to get up him when I think he’s right… He also told me he hated sitting there looking around at people closing their eyes praying, because he felt uncomfortable.

    • That seems to me a key behind SRI. Get kids comfortable with such practices and stories.

      Without them getting equally comfortable with what goes on inside say a mosque.

  41. I went to school in Queensland and was raised Jehovah’s Witness from grade 2 to grade 9. When our religious education teachers didn’t come (and they were told quite often by the school that RE was cancelled for the week) we were forced to sit with the other students in the normal Religious Ed classes. There were multiple times that I expressed my discomfort at being there and the RE teachers would say things like ‘there’s no harm in colouring is there?’ ‘What’s wrong with just listening to what I have to say?’ I constantly felt uncomfortable and like I was doing something wrong by being there and they continued to pressure me to participate in the classes. We didn’t have any option to not be there if our RE teachers didn’t come.
    I’m no longer JW and now identify strongest with Hinduism but I will always remember how uncomfortable and pressured I felt being there. I think that it’s good they bought in the choice to opt in that I didn’t have when I was a kid but I honestly think that unless the school is faith based then religion should be left at home or they should have theology experts teaching facets of all the worlds religions.
    As an adult I find different religions fascinating but I will always resent having that particular brand of Christianity forced on me and still resent when anyone tries to force their beliefs on me. If I have children in Australia I’m damn well going to make sure that my children are not a part of RE classes.

    • Thank-you, nsjs. That says it all.

      Mere asymmetry introduces those feelings of persecution into each minority group.

      It takes guts for parents to join FIRIS just to meekly declare “no, it’s not my religion”.

  42. Hundreds of Millions are going on this rot.
    If you want to help kids, employ trained counsellors, not brainwashers!!
    Lying that biblical myths are facts is very serious child abuse!

    • Ian it’s no use just writing important comments like this on this blog. You’re preaching to the converted (sorry). Can you get a hold of their syllabus summary and take it in person to the head of an education department in a university? Show them how The Bible (my caps) proves that dinosaurs came from Noah’s flood in grade 5. That science admits to being theory while The Bible is fact. My experience with telling education professors about this syllabus is that they simply do not believe it. Straight denial that it is happening in their classrooms. Hope you have better luck.

    • Ian, if the bible is full of myths please explain why it is used in Courts when one has to testify to telling the truth?

      • Eliz you may find that swearing on the bible in court mainly only happens on tv shows these days. A legally binding oath requires the raising of the hand and a declaration or swearing that subsequent statements will be the truth. No bible necessary, times have moved on.

  43. My parents, like most English people were raised, roughly, as church of England ‘folk’, yet seeing the poverty in El Salvador and the riches of the Catholic Church, they both decided that there was no God. I was therefore, in the 1970’s, raised as an atheist. Atheism is quite popular now, but back then it was considered anti-social. My father did jury service and there were gasps in the court when he said he didn’t believe in the Bible and so couldn’t swear to tell the truth holding it. My father and mother insisted that I was to be given no religious instruction at school. So myself and a boy called Ross Cohen did not attend the overtly Christian assemblies at school and we didn’t do RE either. Now because of my father’s having told me that as I hadn’t been ‘indoctrinated’ by religious ideas I should seek out my own answers I did just that, through reading and through studying philosophy and theology at university. I’ve studied all religions, read all the holy texts and after many years I now have my own theological doctrine, Reasonism, a post enlightenment 21st century science based Gnosticism. It’s a neat little theology and there’s only me that believes in it, but it’s my answer and I like it. All of which strange history shows that freedom of thought is a good foundation for an informed position on many subjects, but especially religion. Now I recall very well the teacher assigned to mind Ross and I during assemblies saying ‘You know that you’re going to hell don’t you Wiseman.’ Not saying a word to Ross of course. I was singled out for jokes and bullying as a result of my atheism, by I might add peers who really only paid lip service to Church of England beliefs, because at that time that’s what people did. I don’t think any of my contemporaries or religious ‘persecutors’ had the faith back then that I have now. My wife is a Catholic and technically so am I, still, though if anyone from the Catholic Church read my book ‘The Temple & The Sacrifice’ I’d be excommunicated for heresy. (I no longer believe the limited and unhelpful doctrine of Catholicism – mostly because I have concluded that there is a supreme God, but that it isn’t Jehovah/ Yahweh). Our children have been raised as Catholics and therefore go to religious faith schools. I have no problem with this as I think that intelligent people eventually find their own answers regardless of their religious upbringing. From my experience I can only conclude that ultimately what must be respected is the parents’ right to choose what they think is best for their child. In the UK religious instruction is a compulsory part of the curriculum, but covers all faiths. Assemblies are only vaguely religious now, in most state secondaries and non faith primaries. I think it commendable that the UK is a country of religious tolerance, on the whole, and that we have moved away from persecuting atheists and ‘ramming religion down people’s throats. In the end I believe people must be given the choice and in the case of parents the right to choose for their children is paramount. On a postscript note I’d add interestingly that I was also erroneously persecuted for being Jewish, by less intelligent contemporaries who thought that the reason I was excluded from religious instruction and assemblies was because, like Ross, that I was Jewish. I always wonder that if they had been intelligent enough to know that the spelling of my surname, Wiseman, is an old Catholic name and not the Jewish Weissman, whether as Church of England ‘followers’ they would have mistakenly persecuted me for being Catholic, the which denomination was strongly associated with the IRA back in the 1970’s. All of which leaves me in no doubt that without the freedom to express dissent and difference society becomes less tolerant. Therefore your concern at the methodology being applied by the SRI instigators is wholly justified and you are quite right to raise concerns about it. The ideas, techniques and methodology being employed for SRI would not be tolerated here in the UK.

Trackbacks