Churches against the teaching of ethics - is this unethical?

[Frank D]

A science teacher's politics have no bearing on the science curriculum he is teaching. Be sensible!!

Don’t be so naïve to think a teachers politics don’t come into play
regardless whether it’s science or not.

They will skew the subject if the subject has anything to do with a
political view:- ie climate change.

I would like to think that all teachers would have a balanced view of a
subject but I know that’s not possible, because it not possible in society.


"More than a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe
that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science
lessons, according to a national UK poll of primary and secondary teachers.

The Ipsos/Mori poll of 923 primary and secondary teachers found that 29%
of science specialists agreed with the statement: "Alongside the theory
of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be TAUGHT
in science lessons"

When asked if creationism should be "discussed" alongside evolution and the Big Bang 73% of science specialists agreed.

Therefore teaching creationism has 25% of science teachers in state schools supporting it. Discussing it has 75% support.

Now I would like to believe that the discussion wouldn't be skewed, but
i'm not that naive.

 

[Calliope]

I think from memory me and the other 3 or 4 atheists/Buddhists/Hindus used to sit in the library...prob where my love of books and information stems from.

What were you reading?...Karl Marx? You are certainly a mine of mis-information.

 

[Ruby]

Don’t be so naïve to think a teachers politics don’t come into play
regardless whether it’s science or not.

They will skew the subject if the subject has anything to do with a
political view:- ie climate change.

I would like to think that all teachers would have a balanced view of a
subject but I know that’s not possible, because it not possible in society.


"More than a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe
that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science
lessons, according to a national UK poll of primary and secondary teachers.

The Ipsos/Mori poll of 923 primary and secondary teachers found that 29%
of science specialists agreed with the statement: "Alongside the theory
of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be TAUGHT
in science lessons"

When asked if creationism should be "discussed" alongside evolution and the Big Bang 73% of science specialists agreed.

Therefore teaching creationism has 25% of science teachers in state schools supporting it. Discussing it has 75% support.

Now I would like to believe that the discussion wouldn't be skewed, but
i'm not that naive.

Frank, you have moved away from the subject. This thread is not about teachers' politics or their views on science, religion, or anything else. By all means start a discussion thread on that subject if you wish. If you want to contribute anything meaningful to this thread, please keep to the subject.

 

[Frank D]

If you want to contribute anything meaningful to this thread, please keep to the subject.

A very weak response, Ruby.

I am happy to have a battle of wits with anyone, but I refuse to attack a person who is clearly unarmed.

All the best. Frank

 

[dutchie]

teacher's eldest daughter was a stunner too.

that always helps

 

[Ruby]

A very weak response, Ruby.

I am happy to have a battle of wits with anyone, but I refuse to attack a person who is clearly unarmed.

All the best. Frank

I am well armed Frank, but the first rule of debating is that you stick to the subject!

 

[explod]

Frank, you have moved away from the subject. This thread is not about teachers' politics or their views on science, religion, or anything else. By all means start a discussion thread on that subject if you wish. If you want to contribute anything meaningful to this thread, please keep to the subject.

Agree with Frank. You say the thread is not about teachers, "teachers" is in the heading.

You cannot have "Churches" in such a heading without religion being considered.

And the word and meaning of "Ethics" is very broad depending on your background, education and social group; and occupational from, Legal, Medical, Science and of course Religion, to name but only some of them.

If we are in this thread primarily questioning religion's opposition to the teaching of ethics then you will need to tolerate a wide array of philosophical questions and discussion, IMHO

 

[Knobby22]

Agree with Frank. You say the thread is not about teachers, "teachers" is in the heading.

You cannot have "Churches" in such a heading without religion being considered.

And the word and meaning of "Ethics" is very broad depending on your background, education and social group; and occupational from, Legal, Medical, Science and of course Religion, to name but only some of them.

If we are in this thread primarily questioning religion's opposition to the teaching of ethics then you will need to tolerate a wide array of philosophical questions and discussion, IMHO

If you wonder why the Anglican Church is upset, it relates to history.
Originally when state schools were set up, they were designed to hold Anglicans and Presbytyrians, the two dominant religions of the time. Catholics had their own system that didn't receive government money and were staffed by people such as Nuns who didn't need much pay.

As times have changed, Anglicans have lost their influence over state schools and this is another step on the way to oblivion for them.

Secondly, why are the schools puting "morals" as a subject? There was a poll a few years ago which I have been trying to discover that showed that one of the reasons people preferred sending their kids to private schools is that they school would teach them morals. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. The supporters of government schools wanted this corrected and so morals was being added to the course.

 

[Julia]

Thanks for the interesting background, Knobby. It seems one of the dominant concerns of most religions is the fight against obscurity and oblivion as more and more people move away from what they see as corrupt organisations in many instances.

So it's hardly surprising that they're objecting to any alternative to their own scripture classes.

I went to a private Presbyterian girls' school. There was a prayer in assembly every morning, and we all trooped along once a month to a service at the Presbyterian Church that was closely allied with the school.
I don't think any of this ritual actually meant anything to any of us. It was more or less the same as having to line up on the basketball court - just part of the school routine.

Then there was a weekly lesson in "Scripture", studying religions of the world and probably bits of the Bible. Again, we suffered this.

But throughout that school career there was much indoctrination into ethical, decent behaviour, behaving with honour towards others, appreciating what sacrifices may have been made to allow us the comfortable and privileged lives we enjoyed.

e.g. when everyone else was off school on Anzac Day, we went to school and spent the day knitting socks, scarves etc for the returned soldiers.
I've never forgotten that and it's just one example of the sense of maybe appreciation/gratitude we were constantly reminded about.

So if there is to be some discussion about what constitutes good human behaviour in our schools, as an alternative to either Scripture or just sitting around filling in time, I can't see it as a bad thing.

But like any other topic, if it's presented by teachers with a political agenda (and it's a subject very vulnerable to this imo), it will have less than the desired effect.

As an odd coincidence, I was in a classroom of 8 year olds today where they were discussing the concept of behaving honourably. The teacher got the kids to do some role plays depicting honourable and dishonourable behaviour.
These were amazingly insightful.
At the conclusion she asked the kids to write down what honourable things they would do tomorrow. One boy said, very seriously, "I just can't be honourable about anything. I try but then the bad stuff just comes over me"!

 

[pixel]

That's the problem with living in a democratic society: There are so many different Ethics to choose from. And the more "multi-cultural" we become, the more divergent the ethics grow apart.
I share some of your experience, Julia: My High School was closely affiliated to a Lutheran congregation of St John's (the Apostle, not the Baptist.) In our case, the "indoctrination" went a little deeper. But in related subjects: Classical History, Humanistics, Greek and Latin language classes - different ideas were freely discussed, including critical studies of alternative epistles and legends that failed to make it into the "Official" version of the New Testament post Nicaea.

The problem with today's curricula is, there's a multiplication of philosophies, some of them mutually exclusive, some only supported by a tiny but vocal minority. As it's however no longer politically correct to tell minorities to "get over it" and "adjust to the culture of your new home", the choices become too confusing even for teachers.

My Number One choice would be a return to one "Do as You want to be Done by" Ethics principle to be taught in every Australian school; I would hope the majority of religious leaders could agree on that approach (although I have my doubts even there.)
Parents that want their kids to have a mono-directional religious education, let them send them after school not to Netball etc, but for some hours a week also to special Bible classes, or Q'ran Lessons, or have them spend part of their holidays in a Monastery of their favourite persuasion. But for Australia's sake, give them all a common grounding in basic principles of tolerance, self respect, and honourable behaviour. Such grounding will have to start in Pre-School.

I'm afraid though, none of the "Official Churches" will agree to that approach, as they'll fear an increasing number of self-respecting young adults will drop most of the ancient, nowadays meaningless, rituals and live happily without myths about "intelligent design" or "creatrionism".

 

[Tink]

If you wonder why the Anglican Church is upset, it relates to history.
Originally when state schools were set up, they were designed to hold Anglicans and Presbytyrians, the two dominant religions of the time. Catholics had their own system that didn't receive government money and were staffed by people such as Nuns who didn't need much pay.

As times have changed, Anglicans have lost their influence over state schools and this is another step on the way to oblivion for them.

Secondly, why are the schools puting "morals" as a subject? There was a poll a few years ago which I have been trying to discover that showed that one of the reasons people preferred sending their kids to private schools is that they school would teach them morals. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. The supporters of government schools wanted this corrected and so morals was being added to the course.

Good post Knobby

We all went Catholic so didnt have anything to do with the State School System, but I think they should have left well enough alone through the years when it came to education.

Religion is a part of History and thats the way it should have stayed.