"Die for your faith if necessary" - mainstream Christian RI teaching materials in NSW

[Chief]

Provider of RI teachers in NSW has some ideas about the world we probably thought were the sole domain of Islamic nutters.

When you actually read the bible, it's a pretty weird bit of work.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...e-school-classes/story-fn59nlz9-1227572155005

The accompanying teachers’ manual, titled You: An Introduction, says students should be taught to “submit our bodies to God’s will … even by dying for our faith if necessary’’.

In another lesson plan, students “address how and why the world and their lives are in deep trouble’’. The aim is to “leave students with the knowledge that our world and humanity are stuck in sin’’.

A NSW Education Department spokesman yesterday said it had not endorsed the material.

“The Anglican Church is currently revising its curriculum and is working with the department to ensure any materials used for the purposes of special religious education in NSW public schools are consistent with departmental policies and delivered in an age-appropriate manner,’’ he said.
​

In other words this is what they actually believe, but the NSW education department will ask them to take out the bits that are explicit about what they really want to teach the kids.


(When I find the other RI thread I'll append this.)

 

[CM86]

That's insane! Why is that part of the curriculum in a year 9 class, in a public school???

​

And;

"Religious teachers, who are usually volunteers, are instructed to read a passage from the Bible that states “wives should submit to their husbands in everything’’.

The teaching manual elaborates that “wives are to submit to their husbands’ loving leadership’’, while husbands must “care for her needs and die for her if necessary’’."​

Why does the wife have to submit to the husband at all?

The NSW Education Department does not require school teachers to supervise religious classes and has banned schools disseminating lesson details.
​

So... volunteers can take a class, without supervision (hopefully they have at least got a crim history check, or a working with children card), and schools are banned from telling anyone about the rot being taught...

Religion shouldn't be in public schools at all. (Including the religion of Islam).

 

[Maggie5]

That's insane! Why is that part of the curriculum in a year 9 class, in a public school???
Religion shouldn't be in public schools at all. (Including the religion of Islam).

This!!!

 

[Gough]

Charismatic Christians are taking over Liberal Party branches, and stacking them with their own. Not only does it lead to this sort of bullshit, but their voting bloc could be one of the bigger challenges to face the PM.

 

[rodney hoo]

This!!!

X 100, religion not required in any public school.

 

[Power Raid]

Religion not required in this country or planet

 

[Lester Burnham]

The story looks like a beat up. The inclusion in the course material of a letter by a woman trying to reconcile her terminal cancer with her faith does not mean students are being taught that they should thank God for the gift of cancer. It would be the basis for a discussion. In this case, the letter might actually turn kids away from belief in God. They would be asking - if there is a God why does he give Christians cancer? Or - why do Christians fight cancer if they believe that they will be going to heaven? Would need to see the original material rather than the Newscorp journo's clickbait interpretation of it before casting judgement on it.

And as the article points out parents can have their children opt out of religious education lessons.

 

[Maggie5]

The story looks like a beat up. The inclusion in the course material of a letter by a woman trying to reconcile her terminal cancer with her faith does not mean students are being taught that they should thank God for the gift of cancer. It would be the basis for a discussion. In this case, the letter might actually turn kids away from belief in God. They would be asking - if there is a God why does he give Christians cancer? Or - why do Christians fight cancer if they believe that they will be going to heaven? Would need to see the original material rather than the Newscorp journo's clickbait interpretation of it before casting judgement on it.

And as the article points out parents can have their children opt out of religious education lessons.

Not sure that is the point. Teaching religion in Public Schools shouldn't be part of the curriculum.
If children do opt out, where do they go? Do they they get the opportunity to attend another class?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Not sure that is the point. Teaching religion in Public Schools shouldn't be part of the curriculum.
If children do opt out, where do they go? Do they they get the opportunity to attend another class?

Religion has been a powerful force in human affairs and continues to plays a major role in world events. The subject should be included in the curriculum, in order to better understand world history and culture, in particular Christianity, which has had an important role in Western civilisation.

But yeah, if parents want their kids to be immersed in a particular faith maybe it's better for parents to have to opt-in by sending them to a religious school. Bear in mind that some parents will send their kids to a religious school because the education standards are better than the local public school or the costs are lower than other private schools.

 

[Rob]

Back at high school, I remember being told a story about a bunch of Christians that were banished by the Romans to the middle of a frozen lake, destined to freeze to death. Shortly after, one of the Roman soldiers decided he wanted to be Christian too, so he took off all his gear and joined them out there to die with them.

I can't entirely remember the point of the story.

 

[Dry Rot]

And as the article points out parents can have their children opt out of religious education lessons.

NSW govt just made that harder IIRC.

 

[Dry Rot]

They would be asking - if there is a God why does he give Christians cancer?

Because he is embarrassed by them.

And he's probably down in the lab working on a deadly version of bird flu.

"Those humans, what a shocking mistake I made" he mutters as he pimps up bird flu.

 

[Maggie5]

Religion has been a powerful force in human affairs and continues to plays a major role in world events. The subject should be included in the curriculum, in order to better understand world history and culture, in particular Christianity, which has had an important role in Western civilisation.

But yeah, if parents want their kids to be immersed in a particular faith maybe it's better for parents to have to opt-in by sending them to a religious school. Bear in mind that some parents will send their kids to a religious school because the education standards are better than the local public school or the costs are lower than other private schools.

Still disagree, religion can be taught at home or as you say send them to a religious school.

History and culture/Christianity can still be taught and is without teaching about God, Christ etc.

 

[The Punter]

This Catholic believes there should be no RI in public schools.

 

[Gough]

I think that there needs to be a certain level of RI in any school because the story of religion is interlinked with history, you need to have an understanding of all religions, in order to understand history. Bearing this in mind a historic, rather than dogmatic approach to it's instruction would be better.

 

[The Punter]

The history of religions is the history of civilisation. So unless you want a "this is what this religions believes, this is what this one does" type of thing, which will be controversial anyway, then leave it to parents. Certainly leave it until secondary education at the least.

 

[Gough]

The history of religions is the history of civilisation. So unless you want a "this is what this religions believes, this is what this one does" type of thing, which will be controversial anyway, then leave it to parents. Certainly leave it until secondary education at the least.

I think that's exactly how you explain it, then you give the kids enough credit for intelligence, and let them decide if they want to pursue a particular branch of religion a little bit further, or if they decide it's not for them at all. It can be opt out, but I can't see why anyone would.

 

[madmug]

The history of religions is the history of civilisation. So unless you want a "this is what this religions believes, this is what this one does" type of thing, which will be controversial anyway, then leave it to parents. Certainly leave it until secondary education at the least.

Religion is A story of civilisation. Its easy to think the European history is everyone's history. China's history is one of territorial gain & warlords, then of the effects of Imperialism until 1949. Even now its more about politics & economics, with a little bit of Imperialism of their own

Children learn by mimicking their parents behaviors, actions & from the world they see around them. So I'm afraid, just like a good virus, religion is here to stay. Even the communists couldnt polish it off!

The biggest problem with religion is when the followers wish to inflict their own truth on others. Thats the dangerous side of it. Turf wars are about power. If they leave the power & domination out of it, then we'll all be fine & dandy.

 

[Chief]

It's hard to see much wrong with comparative studies of religion as part of a history course. You'd generally have to include lots of ethical and belief systems, discuss what makes them tick, where in history they got a leg-up from fringe cults to mainstream religions.

Religious indoctrination, however, is entirely at odds with a state school education.

It is the legacy of the introduction of universal education, with the churches being bribed with RI in return for not putting up a fuss about their monopoly on pliable minds being reduced.

There is no real argument against churches hiring school halls and holding classes before or after school. In fact if they held it before school they'd probably get a big influx of kids, with parents happy at the opportunity to save money on before-school care.

 

[medusala]

Back at high school, I remember being told a story about a bunch of Christians that were banished by the Romans to the middle of a frozen lake, destined to freeze to death. Shortly after, one of the Roman soldiers decided he wanted to be Christian too, so he took off all his gear and joined them out there to die with them.

I can't entirely remember the point of the story.

God wont save you from freezing on a frozen lake no matter how hard you pray. I think the point is valid.

 

[The Punter]

Religion is A story of civilisation. Its easy to think the European history is everyone's history. China's history is one of territorial gain & warlords, then of the effects of Imperialism until 1949. Even now its more about politics & economics, with a little bit of Imperialism of their own

Children learn by mimicking their parents behaviors, actions & from the world they see around them. So I'm afraid, just like a good virus, religion is here to stay. Even the communists couldnt polish it off!

The biggest problem with religion is when the followers wish to inflict their own truth on others. Thats the dangerous side of it. Turf wars are about power. If they leave the power & domination out of it, then we'll all be fine & dandy.

In Australia we are pretty much free from this sort of thing, and I get your point. But I can't help but think that if you believe your way is the way to the Kingdom of God, then you'd want as many people as possible to know about it and believe in it too. There are, of course, religions that do not proselytise.

It's hard to see much wrong with comparative studies of religion as part of a history course. You'd generally have to include lots of ethical and belief systems, discuss what makes them tick, where in history they got a leg-up from fringe cults to mainstream religions.

Religious indoctrination, however, is entirely at odds with a state school education.

It is the legacy of the introduction of universal education, with the churches being bribed with RI in return for not putting up a fuss about their monopoly on pliable minds being reduced.

There is no real argument against churches hiring school halls and holding classes before or after school. In fact if they held it before school they'd probably get a big influx of kids, with parents happy at the opportunity to save money on before-school care.

This is, of course, the problem with the teaching of history. It's all well and dandy to get kids to remember that before Pope Francis there was Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul and so on and so on, but when discussing reasons and motivations for events and actions is where is becomes problematic as many of these theories are contested. It's why I'd be filling history curriculums with other history before I'd get to the history of religions, an area which can be dealt with in the home.

 

[Gough]

Why are you so anti teaching about religion in schools? You worried kids might learn to think for themselves? How can you explain the Middle East without touching on Islam, and Judaism?

 

[The Punter]

Well, comparison leads to judgments, and the comparisons will be made by non-objective teachers, who are probably underpaid and underqualified. I suggest that history curricula should be mainly about dates and events and people's names until sometime in secondary school.

I'm very much supportive of anyone thinking for themselves, but I many of my beliefs were formed in spite of my educational environment, which help create a whole bunch of people who thought mainly the same way my teachers did.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Kids should learn about religion from their teachers. You have to sit through the s**t that the churchies suject kids to believe how bad it is. (studied to be a teacher for a while)

 

[Chief]

Well, comparison leads to judgments, and the comparisons will be made by non-objective teachers, who are probably underpaid and underqualified. I suggest that history curricula should be mainly about dates and events and people's names until sometime in secondary school.

I'm very much supportive of anyone thinking for themselves, but I many of my beliefs were formed in spite of my educational environment, which help create a whole bunch of people who thought mainly the same way my teachers did.

Teachers aren't qualified to teach history?