SBS Television Tuesday, 25 May 10

Transcript

For many decades, children in our State primary schools have been given the option of attending a religion class – in most States, for up to an hour a week. The classes are taught by volunteers from the various religious groups. Children, whose parents don’t want them to attend, are able to opt out though there is often nothing specific offered to those children as an alternative. But now, NSW is trialling something different – a select number of State primary schools is offering an ethics class as an alternative in the time set aside for religion. And some church groups are not at all happy about it. Tonight, teaching ethics and religion in public schools.

JENNY BROCKIE: Good it to have you all here. Shizuka, I would like to start with you and some of your friends from school, what’s ethics? Tell us what you’re learning at the moment?

SHIZUKA STACK-TAGO: In ethics, we mainly learn about situations and what to do and we discuss in a group what we should do about that matter, or how we would do it. Yeah.

JENNY BROCKIE: Chloe, what do you think ethics is about?

CHLOE D ¢â‚¬â„¢ARCY-KING: Basically, the same. It’s just, you discuss something and then you can always just change what you decide. So, if someone says that, yes, this is the right thing to do, you can always say, “No, that isn’t the right thing to do or you shouldn’t lie.” or any term that you’re talking about.

JENNY BROCKIE: Is that what it’s like Dimitri?

DIMITRI LO PRESTI: Yeah. It is. It’s just kind of like a big discussion, really, where we have groups and we all get a situation and we have to figure out what the right thing is to do. But, really, there’s no right or wrong answer. It’s just our decision and we make it up.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ok, let ¢â‚¬â„¢s have a look at what goes on in your class.

THE ETHICS CLASS STORY:

ANGELA ROBERTSON: This week the session is called lying and telling the truth. It’s about making judgments about things  ¢â‚¬“ last week you remember we talked about fair and unfair and the different types of judgments we can make and the absolute judgment or the relative judgment. We’ll just go round the circle. I’ll get you to read your scenario out and then just place it somewhere along this spectrum. Remember, it doesn’t have to be totally acceptable or totally unacceptable. It might be somewhere along the way and if there’s a group that just couldn’t decide, just put it off to one side and we might talk about those.

DIMITRI LO PRESTI: Your grandma ¢â‚¬â„¢s knitted you a sweater and you tell her how much you like it when in fact you don ¢â‚¬â„¢t like it at all and we think that is more acceptable.

ANGELA ROBERTSON: Ok. Why is that one more acceptable? What reasons did you come up with?

BOY: If you say you don ¢â‚¬â„¢t like it, she might get a heart attack.

ANGELA ROBERTSON: So it could cause her physical injury?

DIMITRI LO PRESTI: There are some lies, where it’s OK to lie like that one but then there are some others where you shouldn’t really lie.

ANGELA ROBERTSON: A white lie we sometimes call those, don’t we?

MAN: With your grandmother, why is it OK?

DIMITRI LO PRESTI: Because you don’t want to hurt her feelings so much. If you do, you don’t want to see your grandma upset and she spent time on that scarf.

MAN: Is it OK to lie in that situation?

DIMITRI LO PRESTI: Sometimes you have to lie to get yourself out of trouble or get other people out of trouble.

ANGELA ROBERTSON: The bullies again, a group of bullies threaten to beat you up if you don’t tell them what they want to know, so you lie to them in order to save yourself? Shizuka?

SHIZUKA STACK-TAGO: Lying is wrong but then getting beaten up is wrong as well, so there are two sides to it and you don ¢â‚¬â„¢t really know which one to choose.

ANGELA ROBERTSON: So it is a tricky situation. That’s probably why it did end up in the middle. Is there a way this person could deal with this without telling a lie?

GIRL: I still think that you should lie because if you tell them the truth, they might actually still beat you up.

GIRL 2: You should tell someone about the bullies. If you’re getting beaten up, then why don’t you tell someone about it?

ANGELA ROBERTSON: Where do we put this one? More acceptable. In the middle. So it depends on the circumstances. We need more information.

JENNY BROCKIE: I’m going to come back to you kids in that class in a moment but before I do, Bishop Glenn Davies, your church is strongly opposed to this being offered at the same time as religious classes. Why, what’s your objection?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF NORTH SYDNEY: The ethics trial is really about a philosophy of ethics. It’s not really teaching morals. Notice from the clip we’ve just seen and the conversations from the students in the classroom, that it’s not providing a moral basis for children. I would imagine most parents would like to have some moral decisions, some framework with regard to that. This is a philosophy of ethics, a system and its philosophy for children rather than moral education.

JENNY BROCKIE: So is that at the core of your objection, that lying is contestable, for example, there? Do you object to that as something that children are exposed to, that it’s contestable whether you should lie?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: It is very contestable in that situation. How do you work out – one student said that it’s wrong to lie but then there was a situation where that might change? What’s the basis upon which that changes? That’s the concern. And I wonder whether there’s less assurance about what is the right thing to do in the end of the discussion.

JENNY BROCKIE: Simon Longstaff, you’re running this ethics trial. Can you understand those concerns?

SIMON LONGSTAFF, ST. JAMES ETHICS CENTRE: I can understand but I don’t agree with the nature of the objection. There’s a long tradition within philosophy of inviting people to reflect, as these young people have been invited, on the basis of which they make choices and decisions. In fact in many cases, I think the truth about the human condition is when ethical dilemmas arise, it’s because in principle it’s extremely difficult to make a choice. As you heard from the clip there, the facilitator is inviting the children to give what turned out to be quite sophisticated answers about what they’re thinking about. They’re challenging them with implications and considering alternatives. All of that is the solid basis on which people come to form judgments about what is right and wrong, good and bad

JENNY BROCKIE: Ann-Maree, you chair an inter Christian church group that opposes this trial and you’re also here representing the Catholic Church tonight. The Catholic Arch Bishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell has accused Simon’s organisation of being actively hostile to religion. Is that the way you see what’s happening with the ethics trial?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN, CATHOLIC CHURCH: No, I don’t because I’ve had meetings with Simon and his team and there has been no hostility in those meetings. We’ve tried to find common ground and we’ve talked about what it is that is trying to be achieved by having ethics in SRE time.

JENNY BROCKIE: SRE meaning?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN: Special Religious Education. That’s what it’s called in NSW. In terms of the dilemma of the number of children in some schools whose parents elect for them not to go to an SRE or scripture class, so therefore those children, we believe need to be gainfully occupied but we don’t necessarily believe another course is the answer to it. But we’ve been in conversation.

JENNY BROCKIE: Why not another course, why not another set of ideas other than religion for people who don ¢â‚¬â„¢t want religion?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN: We agree there should be an alternative but we probably don ¢â‚¬â„¢t agree that it should be an ethics class.

JENNY BROCKIE: Why?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN: Because we don’t think that offering ethics is, at that time, is fair and just to the other children who choose to do SRE. They’re offering something in competition with SRE and we don’t think that’s a fair and just for the children who are going to scripture classes and whose parents might think they’re missing out on something that is, in fact, really not what they’re missing out on. And I believe we need, the Christian churches, need to do a bit better PR on our programs and what we’re teaching

JENNY BROCKIE: Angela, you’re a parent who is involved in the ethics trial – your response to that?

ANGELA ROBERTSON: In terms of what’s fair and just – people have said to me why did you volunteer to do the ethics trial? I felt it was unfair and unjust that my children and the other children of our local school are being denied something meaningful during that time.

JENNY BROCKIE: Claudia, mums teaching the ethics class at your school but you can’t go to that because it is not being offered to your year at school. What do you do when it’s scripture time at the moment?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: Well, we go to non-scripture in the library.

JENNY BROCKIE: What do you do there?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: You just, we just put on a movie.

JENNY BROCKIE: Claudia, have you ever been to a scripture class?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: Uh-huh.

JENNY BROCKIE: What was it like and why did you go?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: Mum thought it would be nice to try something different.

JENNY BROCKIE: And what was it like?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: I didn’t really believe in any of it.

JENNY BROCKIE: You didn’t really believe in it? OK. Do you believe in God or a God, any kind of God?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: No?

JENNY BROCKIE: Why not? I’m just interested in why not?

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: I don’t really know.

JENNY BROCKIE: You don’t really know? What about you Greagan?

GREGAN MCMAHON: I believe, I believe in, I believe in two gods.

JENNY BROCKIE: You believe in two gods and you’re Claudia’s little brother, yeah? So what two gods do you believe in?

GREGAN MCMAHON: I believe in Vishnu. Can I not tell? I don’t want to tell.

JENNY BROCKIE: So what happens then with you two? You’ve got very different ideas. Do you ever have arguments about this? Do you ever talk about it? No.

CLAUDIA MCMAHON: We don’t usually discuss it.

JENNY BROCKIE: You don’t usually discuss it – OK? Francis, you’re an Anglican minister and have been teaching a scripture class for the last 9years at Claudia and Gregan ¢â‚¬â„¢s school  ¢â‚¬“ the same school where Angela is teaching ethics. Let’s have a look at you teaching a group of Year 5 and 6s, the story of The Prodigal Son.

THE SCRIPTURE CLASS STORY:

REV. FRANCIS CHALWELL: This son, this brother of yours, was once dead and now he’s alive. He was once lost and now he’s found. And that is, that’s the story that Jesus tells to illustrate how God comes to find us. That’s, again, how does the cross fit in with that? How does the cross fit in with how God comes to try and find us?

GIRL: He forgives us for our sins?

REV. FRANCIS CHALWELL: Exactly. Brings us back to him through the cross.

BOY: We learn how to communicate with God and how we can forgive other people’s sins.

REV. FRANCIS CHALWELL: What I want to do now, though, with your props, I want to get what could have happened in the story, what you might have done. If I could – here is Pappa Bear, here is the Dad. He says, “Hello, I’m your father.” Here is the baby, where is the big brother bear? Big brother bear, bring him over here. Little bear, little brother bear calls for a meeting. We know what little brother bear wants. Little brother bear wants half the money. What’s a good thing that little son bear could say to Dad that would be a nice thing to say, not like a horrible thing to say?

CINDY: I’ll wait for you when you die and I won’t be greedy and I’ll share with my brother. And I’ll help poor people and I’ll give them some money to buy some food and bread.

REV. FRANCIS CHALWELL: That’s beautiful.

VISION LEWIS: Today, we learnt not to be greedy and not to spend your money without thinking about it.

JENNY BROCKIE: I’m interested in what you get out of that class in general when you go to your religion class? What do you get from that?

VISION LEWIS: Firstly – usually say a prayer or read a book or something in the Bible. And then maybe we’ll play a game that’s related to what we learnt today.

JENNY BROCKIE: And how do you feel about the ethics classes going on at school at the same time?

VISION LEWIS: It’s good for the people that aren’t religious, but the people who are still religious can go to their scriptures.

JENNY BROCKIE: How do you see what you do in relation to what Angela does, is doing at the school?

REV. FRANCIS CHALWELL: I think that what we do provides a grounding in Jesus and in the Bible. And a platform for which we can then ask the children about what they might do in certain situations.

JENNY BROCKIE: Barbara, you’ve been a scripture teacher in a primary school for eight years. How do you feel when you see the ethics trial going on? Do you think it’s a good idea?

BARBARA GLEESON: No and the reason is, and I’m pretty basic in what I’ve got to say, is that the scripture classes offer something which is, you cannot separate the word of God from values and ethics. They are married – They go hand in hand. You can not separate them. And you take the values out and say, “I just want to teach values and ethics to children and take God out of it.”

JENNY BROCKIE: But there’s still the option for children to go to the religious classes and they can go to them?

BARBARA GLEESON: That’s true. I can only speak from my own experience. In my experience, there’s only been, at the most, one child of a class to be removed from my classroom -at the most, if ever. I’m saying that if the competition, at the same time, of offering classes at the same time, it’s not that we’re saying that is not a good thing to have, we’re saying that if you’re going to offer values and say let’s put it in against, or at the same time, then that’s where, that’s why we have this forum

JENNY BROCKIE: Simon, what about that point, that it’s being offered at the same time, that that’s Barbara’s issue, they’re being offered at the same time.

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Our approach has been to say that all of the material that will be developed for the ethics classes will be made freely available to every faith group that’s offering SRE. They can take that material, adapt it and bring a Biblical or Buddhist and scriptural basis to it and offer it. So no child is being drawn away from SRE because there is something that they are missing out on. That, we think, is one of the steps we’ve taken to try and mitigate the loss to SRE. And we’ve made it very clear if there was an ongoing program, this is an option for those who have already opted out of SRE. Make that choice and then you get a chance to do an ethics class if you want to.

JENNY BROCKIE: Glenn?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: The problem with Simon’s view is that may have been the Ethic Centre’s concern but the Department of Education invited all children, those in SRE and those who aren’t in SRE to come to the ethics classes. So they deliberately involved and wrote letters to all the parents saying, “Come along.” Making it look more exciting.

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Glenn, that is the decision of the department but I think, the department can speak for itself, but as I understand it, whenever anything new is offered in that time slot in SRE, it may be a new religious group coming in, all parents are informed so they can make an informed decision about what’s there. In reality, if it was approved, it would be a much more settled thing along the lines we’ve approached.

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: The Premier said this would be a trial for those not in scripture and that’s the problem. In this trial, a number of children have not gone to ethics or SRE. The problem hasn’t been resolved.

JENNY BROCKIE: You’re worried about the numbers that have gone away from your Anglican classes? You all a 47% drop?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: Something like that, across the trial. It’s hard to know the exact figures because the department hasn’t released those figures to us but it’s something like that. It changes in different schools.

JENNY BROCKIE: So is that your main concern?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: My main concern is we live in a multi-faith society. In the ethics class, if you take out all those with a religious perspective and platform, you’ve truncated the sample. It would be better to have an ethics class for the whole classroom and those who have a faith base can give a contribution to the ethical questions about the grandmother knitting a jumper in the way you’ve only got those who haven’t got any faith and you can be a much better, more rounded understanding of these issues if you had the whole class.

JENNY BROCKIE: You mentioned we live in a multi faith society and we certainly do and Mazen, I’d like to involve you in the discussion here because you coordinate Islamic scripture in 300 schools in NSW. How do you feel about the idea of teaching ethics at the same time as those religious classes are offered?

MAZEN FAHME, ISLAMIC COUNCIL OF NSW: We don’t have a problem with ethics in general. Our concern is the process in which it was implemented. The other issue we have with ethics as well is that it does lack the substance in that with religion, it gives it extra dimension. As a religious person, when I was asked to serve someone or assist someone, I’m doing it for no gratitude in this world, I’m doing it for the pleasure of my creator and for reward in the afterlife. When you put that purely with no religion and just ethics then I don’t have to serve this person, I want the reward in this world and so forth. And the other issue that we have is that who is to, I suppose, say what ethics are common right now? Ethics can evolve over time.

JENNY BROCKIE: Perfect segue to you, Phil, because you designed the ethics course. What is it designed on?

DR PHIL CAM, UNSW: It is based on the history of philosophy  ¢â‚¬“ I should say western philosophy, the one I know best. And philosophy and religion have a long history together, I was just reminded a moment ago of how Islamic scholars for example right through hundreds of years preserved the works of Aristotle and added to them. There’s a difference between moral instruction and ethical inquiry and that’s where I’m picking up here. Some people think that what the kids are getting or should get are moral instruction but they’re not getting moral instruction. They’re getting an inquiry in to ethical principles and ideas.

JENNY BROCKIE: Is that the fundamental issue here – that that’s really what you’re objecting to?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: Thank you. Because I think that’s part of the problem. The word ethics is a very slippery word in the commonplace. Ethics is a system of ethical instruction but this is not ethical instruction  ¢â‚¬“ the ethics class – it’s an inquiry.

JENNY BROCKIE: It’s not doctrine. Religion is doctrine.

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: It’s not moral values or teaching people how to decide what to do. I would imagine most people who enrolled their children in the ethics class thought, “Ethics, I’ll get my children to understand right and wrong.” That’s not the understanding of right and wrong.

JENNY BROCKIE: Shizuka do you want to say something?

SHIZUKA STACK-TAGO: I think you do learn the moral because we all discuss it and we always come up with a few ideas what we could do. And then whatever some people think should do, they do it. Like, if it ever occurs in another time or place.

JENNY BROCKIE: Sunil, I’d like to talk to you because you’re in Grade 7 and studied scripture all through primary school. Tell me what you learnt from it?

SUNIL TANEJA: I learnt more about God and Jesus and all of the, and everything that God has given to us through life. And I was going through Catholic scripture as well. So I learn the Old and New Testament and I learnt through what they’ve given to us. And now that I’m in Year 7, I’ve just been learning more so about the stages. As in, Year 6, I also learnt more than any other year and I learnt about all of the stages through the Bible.

JENNY BROCKIE: And you found that interesting?

SUNIL TANEJA: Yeah. It’s very interesting – about what sources they had as well during the time. And what was against all the religions and how the Christians had to use different sign languages to say when to go to church and to protect themselves.

JENNY BROCKIE: Did you learn about other religions?

SUNIL TANEJA: Well, I more so learnt about what they believe in, so the Jewish religion, they would only learn about the Old Testament, that was the only information that we really learnt about the other religions.

JENNY BROCKIE: Simon, I just wanted to ask you whether it’s a bit disingenuous not to acknowledge that religion and philosophy are completely different and you are offering an alternative to religion in these classes?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Part of what we’re offering is different to what happens in a religious class scripture. Clearly, there are many things which are done in scripture classes which are to do with theology and about the relationship between human beings and God and scripture in particular. Those who teach SRE have made it clear that they’re dealing with ethical questions and talked about how they draw on things like – the Sermon on the Mount and I can’t for life of me see why any church or religious group would want to deny one group of children the opportunity to engage in meaningful activity? To suggest all of the work that people did like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did has no value is just a very unfortunate reading of intellectual history. Christianity itself has drawn exceptionally upon the work of the Greeks and the Romans and brought it in to its own thinking and I think that it’s quite possible to introduce children to ways of thinking and the way Phil was talking about are centuries old and provide a solid basis for them to begin to think for themselves about how they respond to the ethical issues that arise in their lives and that compliments what is happening in the other class.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ok Gregan, what do you want to say?

GREGAN MCMAHON: I love ethics. I’m not in it. It’s too bad.

JENNY BROCKIE: It’s too bad that you can’t be in it. Ok Peta Goldburg, you’re head of religious studies at the Australian Catholic University. How did religion come to be taught in public schools in the first place?

PROFESSOR PETA GOLDBURG, AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Historically, it was related to settlement in Australia and initially, the Government, the British Government decided that there should be an Anglican-based religious education in the early colonies. The Irish Catholics were a little perturbed by that idea and wanted Irish Catholicism and eventually we ended up with two separate systems – a Government system and a church-based system that has continued through to this day.

JENNY BROCKIE: How would you describe the quality of that religious teaching in public schools at the moment?

PROFESSOR PETA GOLDBURG: I think, as with all teaching, there’s a wide spectrum of quality. I think we’re dealing with volunteers. Volunteers are good people who believe in their religious traditions but we also have to put in to place training programs which many of the faith groups have. Some don’t and some do. And a curriculum that is available and one that teachers have, or the volunteers have been taught how to use appropriately within those conditions. And that happens. So it’s not that there’s no training, but there is a spectrum, as there is a spectrum in any education classroom.

JENNY BROCKIE: Lindy, what do you think? Your husband, Mike, is a Baptist pastor and your children Elissa and Gemma attend scripture at a public primary school, what do you think the quality of those lessons is like, as a Christian person yourself?

LINDY JONES: Well, these guys came from a private school where it was incorporated pretty much through everything. So I’ve noticed a huge difference since they’ve been, they’ve come from that school to the public school

JENNY BROCKIE: Gemma, what are they like, what are the classes like?

GEMMA JONES: Sometimes we do different work sheets about different things and the teachers ask questions about all different things. Different Bible verses we’re supposed to study. Sometimes we do songs. Sometimes we watch a movie. Different things like that.

JENNY BROCKIE: What do you think of the classes  ¢â‚¬“ what do you think they are like?

GEMMA JONES: I think sometimes it’s just, it gets a bit boring because we do an entire work sheet the entire time but sometimes it’s actually fun because we can do some other fun stuff in to the lesson.

JENNY BROCKIE: Does scripture teaching need a bit of a shake-up, Glenn?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: We can always do better in what we’re doing. Yes. We are working hard at improving our training and our accreditation procedures. But in a sense, we want the children to enjoy learning about scripture and about how God made the world and all in it and the narrative that the Bible gives to us.

JENNY BROCKIE: What did you want to say Dimitri?

DIMITRI LO PRESTI: Well I have a book on religion and it has a lot of ethical terms in it and it makes me think that ethics and religion, to me, isn’t really much different. I mean, in scripture, I used to do it – we didn’t really learn anything or colour in or would sing a song or do a play. We would rarely ever talk about actually God or, yeah, religious things. But in ethics, it’s completely different. We talk about what we feel like and express ourselves and stuff.

JENNY BROCKIE: Kuranda, I know that you come from a Muslim background and have a 6-year-old son in Grade 1. What does he do at scripture time? Does he go to a Muslim class?

KURANDA SEYIT: No, he just goes to the library.

JENNY BROCKIE: Why?

KURANDA SEYIT: Because they don’t have the available Islamic scripture for him. Unfortunately, yeah, he has nothing to do, really, but to be in the library.

JENNY BROCKIE: Kuranda, what would you like your son to be doing in that time?

KURANDA SEYIT: Well, I think that it’s important, I think the majority of Muslims in Australia don’t go to private Islamic schools  ¢â‚¬“ there are only a handful of those. The majority go to public schools and for many families, the only opportunity for their children to have some type of religious instruction comes from that scripture opportunity, that one-hour a week or so and I think it’s important that they have that opportunity and I’d like to see my son be given that chance to be in scripture, learning values. I think one of the problems is that the term ‘ethics’ itself is problematic. By calling it ethics, it implies a lot of things. If we maybe gave children that did not go to scripture an alternative and didn’t call it ethics, it could simplify the problem and look at more Australian values and society per say rather than studying ethics because I realy don ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe that young children under the age of 10 or 12 are ready to study, to be able to critically analyse ethics. It’s a very hard issue.

JENNY BROCKIE: A lot of hands going up there. Would you send your son to an ethics class if there was one available at the school?

KURANDA SEYIT: No. I study philosophy myself and I believe teaching them Western philosophy and ethics or ethics based on Western philosophy is very problematic for that age group and I would prefer them not to be exposed to that at that age level.

JENNY BROCKIE: A lot of hands went up when you said you didn’t think kids of that age could deal with philosophical concepts and ethical concepts? Shizuka, you put your hand straight up.

SHIZUKA STACK-TAGO: Firstly, the ages are 10 to 12. And I just think, I’ve been to a lot of religious groups, basically all of them. And I must say ethics was the best because we get to say what we think about something. Not just have to follow what someone else thinks. And like, God. And we just think how we could, like, do stuff, not just how we have to do.

JENNY BROCKIE: Zac, you’ve had your hand up for ages. What do you want to say?

ZAC MACKAY: When I was in prep, well, they got to do activities on God. Because, at first, I would be at the back of the classroom reading books and, second, I was in another classroom at the back of their classroom, reading books all by myself.

JENNY BROCKIE: Because you weren’t going to the scripture class? OK, David, you are Zac ¢â‚¬â„¢s dad, what do you think listening to this?

DAVID MACKAY: I’m in shock for the last 14 months. Yeah. It’s just, it’s a shock for me that it exists.

JENNY BROCKIE: That what exists?

DAVID MACKAY: Religious instruction, education, they call it. I was in shock it existed – I thought it had died out.

JENNY BROCKIE: You don’t want him to go to religion class. What do you want him to do?

DAVID MACKAY: I want him to do philosophy.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ok, Angela?

ANGELA ROBERTSON: Ethics is this word that people aren’t quite sure what it means. We’re talking about philosophy and this and that. I think the important thing to note and the curriculum content is available on the website to look at, that this scenarios, the content that the children are dealing with are very much tailor-made for children. These are not high-brow difficult problems for them to nut out.

JENNY BROCKIE: Phil?

DR PHIL CAM: In fact, I think not only are these scenarios fit the life world of children, and they do face these ethical problems and dilemmas in their lives, there’s a great deal of evidence in fact that they are very capable of critical thinking if only they’re given the tools. When you engage them together collaboratively in this kind of discussion about questions of value, they actually learn ethical practices of listening to one another, exploring their disagreements on the basis of being reasonable with each other, rather than, for example, pushing and shoving or bullying and so forth. There’s a great deal of evidence that has that effect.

MAZEN FAHME: For so long, the department always said that their curriculum or schooling programs already incorporate great values and ethics based system. Why is it now that we need to sort of introduce ethics for

JENNY BROCKIE: Simon, can you answer that question? Because that’s true, isn’t it? It is incorporated in the curriculum?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Absolutely. And I think it’s a great credit to the teachers within the NSW schools and throughout Australia that they deal so well with these issues. But there’s also an opportunity to extend what’s done and there’s an extension process taking place within scripture classes and for those children who are not attending scripture, we think it’s also important they be given an opportunity to extend their understanding within school. And I think the point about whether it’s Western philosophy or not, when children come to these classes, they bring their world view with them, whatever it is in the home. It’s not as if these classes are being run, say for example, an Islamic child was to be saying that they’re thinking it’s shut down, that becomes part of the rich mix of the discussion which takes place during the course of their studies.

JENNY BROCKIE: Glenn?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: In as much as it should be across the whole classroom, not divided up within the scripture and the non-scripture. To have the rich mix as you indicated, we have a multi-faith society, as I said – no teaching of ethics is value-free. You can’t teach it from a neutral standpoint. Even the teacher has their framework. A level playing field would be much better. If there was an atheistic ethics system teaching, we would be happy with that, at the same time as reader’s education.

JENNY BROCKIE: You see that as apples and apples?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: Have apples and apples not apples and oranges. If you want a humanist ethnic means of teaching ethics, do that in the SRE time slot but don’t do the catch all  ¢â‚¬“ as it were and trying to say it’s non-religious and value-free, it ¢â‚¬â„¢s inquiring and when exploring these ideas with people, that kind of thing can take place at a much richer level with all children.

JENNY BROCKIE: Quick response Simon?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Glenn, I done think we’ve ever said it’s values-free. It does have quite a substantive position about the importance of an examined life. It gives children a way to engage in meaningful activity.

JENNY BROCKIE: What about Glenn ¢â‚¬â„¢s point about apples and apples, that teaching ethics and philosophy alongside religion is not teaching the same kind of thing, that it should be atheism that should be on offer? What do you say to that argument?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: Well I think if atheists wanted to offer something on that basis that would be appropriate but we can’t pretend that what we would offer is the same as scripture. I mean, you’ve heard time and time again that people offering SRE, which we support, do so from a profoundly religious perspective. It’s that element in a sense that people are choosing not to attend. Sometimes, because they have a different religion and there’s not an SRE teacher there for them and sometimes it is because they don ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe. But we think there needs to be a meaningful alternative for those children that don’t attend. I’m not sure we would be allowed to do it as an option alongside those issues, because we don’t want to compete with them, we want to compliment what is being done.

BISHOP GLENN DAVIS: The trial has not done that. Your main point hasn’t been solved with regard to the trial.

SIMON LONGSTAFF: But to the extent that they’re offered a meaningful alternative, then the injustice has been resolved. That’s their choice.

JENNY BROCKIE: We’re talking about teaching religion and ethics in our public schools. Lheana, I’d like to talk to you a little bit about this because when your children were going to primary school in NSW, there were a lot of children opting out of scripture, so you decided to offer something different?

LHEANA GAVAGNA: We did, we called it world religions and beliefs. We dealt only with the non-scripture kids and we had two levels for the younger age groups – we focused more on awareness. For the primary school kids, we focused a little bit deeper on understanding. We went from ancient religions, right through all the most popular and most common religions that are in place now. Native religions, native belief systems, some of the even more modern and unusual ones

JENNY BROCKIE: What was it like, Grace? You did the course?

GRACE GAVAGNA: Well, it was really good because they interacted with you. And you got to learn about all these different people’s cultures. And you got a really good understanding of how they lived.

JENNY BROCKIE: What happened to that course Lheana?

LHEANA GAVAGNA: We were shut down after 2.5 years by the Department of Education

JENNY BROCKIE: Why?

LHEANA GAVAGNA: We were told it didn’t fit with the act and didn’t fit with those  ¢â‚¬“ that Simon was talking about- the amendments to the act and the adjustments or the notes that he was referring to.

JENNY BROCKIE: How do parents feel about that idea? What do you think about that?

LINDY JONES: I’m actually all for my kids being exposed to different religions. I mean, ultimately, Mike and I try and raise our kids – I have two of them here and two at home – in a Christian way. But the reality is, we live in a big wide world and there are lots of different types of people with lots of different types of beliefs. And I need my kids to be exposed to that and understand the different walks of life people take – because that is life.

JENNY BROCKIE: You’re happy with that even though you’re quite a religious family?

LINDY JONES: Ultimately, my first priority is for them to get that Christian influence in the schools

JENNY BROCKIE: So you want that in the school?

LINDY JONES: Yeah. But in addition they need to learn that there are different people in the world with different beliefs.

GREGAN MCMAHON: Firstly can I say to Lheana, what a terrific idea and what a wonderful program you’ve put together for 2.5 years and I’m sorry to hear it’s been shut down. As a family who don’t necessarily belong to any faith, we do understand that we live in a society where faiths of all types have a huge impact on everything we do, everything that our children do. And we have said from the very get go, from before we had children that we want them to understand all the faiths that surround them. We’ve made a conscious effort to sit down and buy books about comparative religions and go through that with the kids.

JENNY BROCKIE: Where does that leave you in terms of these decisions about going in to the system as an alternative? Would that be a preferable alternative to an ethics course, to be available to children at religious instruction time?

GREGAN MCMAHON: I think they’re both important and I’d love to see them both in the curriculum permanently.

JENNY BROCKIE: David?

DAVID MACKAY: Religion comes in to the issue of philosophy, where students bring in their different opinions and it can be discussed in an open way. That’s where children can be exposed to different ideas. The focus on philosophy is thinking – it’s the fundamentals of education. Philosophy is the mother of education.

JENNY BROCKIE: I’m asking you about this specific idea about teaching comparatives? You don’t want religion in the school at all but would you be happier having that kind of course?

DAVID MACKAY: It ¢â‚¬â„¢s not enough, I need thinking first and the ideas introduced.

JENNY BROCKIE: Linda, how would you react to that? As something that was on offer as an alternative?

LINDA TANEJA: Um, well, I just think of my class last year. We had, actually, a few different religions. Children from different religious backgrounds.

JENNY BROCKIE: It’s a different concept, isn’t it? It’s not saying that this is the one faith we’re teaching you. It’s saying, “Here are a whole range of different faiths that are out there in the community and this is what they believe.” I want a quick answer from you – yes or no?

LINDA TANEJA: I think that is a great idea and I think it’s sad to hear it’s being shut down as well. And there are still going to be some children who are going to be left because their parents don’t want them to go to scripture

JENNY BROCKIE: Glenn, would you not oppose something like that as much as you’re opposing the ethics class?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: We’re missing something here. In the 1990 education act, there is a course called general religious education, GRE. I think that’s observed in the breach rather than teaching it. This is the place where the multi-faiths can be seen or where ethics ought to be. Across the whole class, they all get an insight in to not only the faiths that exist in our society, the last public statistics – 74% of people have a faith – a religious faith.

JENNY BROCKIE: I guess what I’m asking you, would you rather have the children who aren’t going to a religion class, a specific religion class, sit in the library during that time or watch a movie as one of the other children said that they did, than go to a class that taught them not one faith, but a whole range of different faiths, beliefs, so that they could look at that world community if they weren’t going to actually be taught one specific faith because their parent weren’t religious?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: That would be a preferable situation. Because it’s not happening in GRE, that would be preferable to a course which has no religious foundation at all, namely the ethics course, which is an inquiry in mind and a philosophy and that would be a better situation.

JENNY BROCKIE: You don’t like the inquiring mind?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: Of course, I like that.

JENNY BROCKIE: They were your words.

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: The inquiry, which gives you no resolution at the end. There’s no framework – how do you make that decision? Will it be the consequence of decision or your experience – are you looking at a categorical imperative? What ought I to do? Maybe there is no ought at all  ¢â‚¬“ those are the questions.

KURANDA SEYIT: I think this is a perfect alternative for the non-scripture kids to go to. I would send my child there. I think it’s a perfect opportunity to explore Australian values and indigenous ideology as well because that often gets neglected. We assert our western ideologies so dominantly in this society and we always put the little ones aside and I think it is a great opportunity to look more in to the indigenous issues.

JENNY BROCKIE: Sunil, what did you wanted to say?

SUNIL TANEJA: I believe it’s a great idea for people who are in non-scripture and especially younger children that don’t really know about other faiths and religions. And I believe that’s a great idea so they can learn more about their culture and what they do and respect that.

JENNY BROCKIE: I’m interested in your story too, because Mum’s a Catholic and you’re being raised a Catholic but dad is a Buddhist? Is that right – Hindu. Sorry. How much do you understand of his religion?

SUNIL TANEJA: I don’t really know that much about my dad’s religion because he’s not as religious in Hindu. I was raised Catholic, so of course I know a lot about it.

JENNY BROCKIE: Sophie, you’re joining us from Melbourne too with your son, Howard. And you’ve been involved in developing a non-faith-based alternative to scripture. What did your course cover?

SOPHIE AITKEN: Well, I was involved with the Humanist Society of Victoria. They were putting together an applied ethics course alongside humanistic principles. So we were looking at issues similar to the course that’s being piloted in NSW, where we were discussing with children issues of right and wrong, good and bad. There were no prescribed values that were taught, it was a matter of discussion with the children.

JENNY BROCKIE: Have you been able to get that program off the ground in Victoria?

SOPHIE AITKEN: No. We were trying to run it as an alternative to religion instruction along the same lines as religious instruction is taught and we had to appear before a panel, make a submission to a panel, which unfortunately we were knocked back because we were not a religion. We had to be actually specified as a religion in the marriage celebrant’s act, which the Humanist Society are not so we haven’t been able to progress it any further.

JENNY BROCKIE: What do you do at scripture time then?

HOWARD AITKIN: I’ve done different things over the past years. This year, I read a book quietly in my class, because religious instruction is in another classroom. And the people that don’t do it do the same things as me. And, last year, I went to the classroom next door and played on the computer and in prep I went to the back of the room and have to read quietly.

JENNY BROCKIE: Glenn, if a parent wants to send their child to say a humanist course as an alternative to religion, would that be more preferable? Do you think it’s better to have Howard reading a book at the back of the class?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: If Howard’s mother is a humanist  ¢â‚¬“ an atheistic background  ¢â‚¬“ as I understand her correctly, and then I think it’s a proper place in the SRE time slot in the week that that as it were, atheistic religion of some sort, provides an opportunity for her child to be taught the values and teachings of secular

JENNY BROCKIE: Sophie, reaction to that?

SOPHIE AITKEN: I think it’s important to remember this is being driven by the parents. There’s a large group of parents in the State schools who are looking for an alternative. In the humanist society, we are not wanting to teach it as a religion. We want to teach applied ethics and to enable children to find their own moral compass within those lessons – we are not wanting to provide religious instruction.

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: You’re providing a world view where you believe there is no God? Am I understanding that correctly?

SOPHIE AITKEN: The issue, in terms of the lessons we developed, the issue of whether or not there was a God was not part of the lessons. They were lessons of applied ethics

BISHOP GLENN DAVIeS: The question is what’s the values, what’s the platform upon which you give that applied ethics?

JENNY BROCKIE: There are values people have that don’t involve God, aren’t there?

BISHOP GLENN DAVIES: But they need to be identified. Although we’ve been told there’s not ethical instruction in the ethics course – that’s according to the website – and in our conversation this evening, there has been this movement between ethics and ethical instruction, or moral education. And I think the idea is you want – if I understand it correctly – although they say it’s an inquiry in to the philosophy, understanding the schemes and different ways of looking at ethics, but it’s not ethical instruction per se, so you’re not teaching right and wrong for the children, I would have thought many parent would want their children to understand right and wrong.

DR PHIL CAM: The question between right and wrong and better and worse are things about which people need to make judgments. About which people need to make judgments. First of all, they want to understand or need to understand the basis on which people do make judgments. I mean, mention was made of absolute rules a moment ago and also looking at the consequences. Many dilemmas that arise, for example, have a tension between the consequences of your actions and the rules by which you want to live. Learning to negotiate those things involves understanding of them.

JENNY BROCKIE: We’re going to have to wrap this up and there are fundamental interesting differences going on there and I’m sure the conversations will continue online tonight. Simon, what do you want?

SIMON LONGSTAFF: I want to see the maintenance of special religious education and see the children who opt not to attend, catered for in a meaningful way. And I think in all good conscience, the best way to do that is to offer them the meaningful alternative based on ethics. I invite all the church groups and faith groups, if they have the same concern for the children not attending, to join us and make that period set aside meaningful for all, because in the end I think, we are all well served as a society as those children as future citizens if they improve their capacity to deal with the ethical dimension of life.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ann-Maree, how hard will you fight to not have this introduced as a main part of the school system?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN: I think that I don’t know I’d like to use the word ‘fight’.

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, you have been fighting?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN: In a sense we have been opposing this particular pilot for a number of different reasons. Many of which the Government has expressed to us that they apologise for particular ways it’s been implemented. But I think that what we need to do – and I agree with Simon on this and on a number of things – that we really need to look at these children who are in non-SRE or non-scripture. And really think about what they’re doing in that time. And make it a worthwhile half an hour a week in NSW, as it mostly is, to make sure it’s a worthwhile time for them. So we hope it’s a worthwhile time for the children.

JENNY BROCKIE: As long as it doesn’t involve what they’re doing now? In the trial, I mean?

ANN MAREE WHENMAN: I think the trial is exactly that. And with proper evaluation, as Glenn said, then when we have to look at all

JENNY BROCKIE: You want to say something last Shizuka?

SHIZUKA STACK-TAGO: I just think that ethics is a great program because for

JENNY BROCKIE: And Vision?

VISION LEWIS: It’s good for people who aren’t religious but for people who still want to talk about ethical things, it should be a different time or place, instead of being in scripture, when they’re learning about God. So maybe there should be just a class where you can talk about all the different gods and not just have to pick which one

JENNY BROCKIE: OK, we’re going to keep going with this online and you can keep talking to our guests. You can also get more detail on what is taught in the ethics classes as well and what some religious groups are teaching in class as well.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/232#transcript

*****

Some interesting comments from Facebook friends:

* “Seems to me we (across the board) have created a rod for our backs in setting up a range of false dichotomies. Religion and philosphy have always been at their best when in dialogue, each learning from the other and thereby sharpening their own respective insights. Doesn’t answer the practical issues of the NSW experiment, but such a basic understanding alters the premise on which a comprehensive education can be built.”

* “I taught CRE for 2 yrs in our local primary – and always felt sorry for those kids who were not involved in the class: not because they still had to listen to me carrying on, (they had to stay in the room) but for the fact that they were put into an awkward position. Their parents have said they are not to attend, but the teachers couldn’t (or wouldn’t) offer an alternative out of the room, so they ended up attending anyway. Very hard for one non-Christian religious child in one class to cope with, although it could have led to some very interesting discussions outside the classroom had I been allowed to continue them (we weren’t allowed to discuss our religious affiliations or anything else outside the defined syallabus). Offering anything that makes kids think about their behaviour is better than nothing.”

* “What we saw on SBS last night was very peculiar to NSW. It really is about the maladministration of the Education Act by the NSW DET.

School Principals have a duty to ensure that those children who are withdrawn from SRE are engaged in meaningful educational activities, albeit informal activities (no teaching is involved).

The offering of the Ethics Program, even as a pilot program, concurrently with SRE classes in a school is blatently contrary to the the provisions of the Act which specificly proscribes the teaching of ethics or civics at the time SRE is offered.

There is a further sub-texted agenda – the P&C Association of NSW is determined to make public schools “religion-free zones”, an objective that is supported by the leadership of the NSW School Teachers Union.

My observation is that Conservative Christian views have been stridently expressed in NSW for many years – Anglican and Catholic Archbishops have frequent forays into public policy debates, and Fred Nile heads up his Christian Democratic party there in the NSW parliament.

We need to remember that wherever a force is exerted, it will be met with an equal and opposite force. We do not have this problem in Western Australia.”

* “I used to be a consultant for the Anglican church Sydney diocese for SRE. SRE is fantastic I teach every week and most of the classes that I used to see in my travels were fun and engaging. I am all for ethics but not in competition with SRE, ethics should be a apart of the normal curiculum, most kids in NSW have SRE ………… and yes they should have meaningful activity if their parents do not want them to learn about Jesus. The teachers in the schools were I organise scripture are very co-operative and enjoy us workig with the children. We teach around 1,300 children every week in our parish.”

* I love Ron Buchlands quote ……….
“The leaders of our world in the year 2050 are alive and well and they are children today. The preachers, the poets, the philosophers, the parents, the planners, all are there. Potentially, so too are the pornographers, the petty criminals, the polluters, and the drug pushers. What we do now in our ministry with children has the potential to change our world.”

* “The problem right now might be in NSW but it will spread, even to WA. Similarly with our anti-free speech laws in Victoria. I taught SRE for a few years in NSW before moving to Victoria and it was very well received by most principals, students, teachers and parents. The biggest problem everywhere, I think, is getting capable people to teach it. It may die by default if Christians don’t volunteer”

* “I agree with your view that the biggest problem is maintaining the volunteer workforce. I am confident, however, that the legislative and social environment in which SRE is provided in WA makes it less likely to be challenged in the way that it is being challenged in NSW at the moment.”

* “In the discussion in the ethics class, it seemed to be assumed that people lie for entirely altruistic reasons.

I have to admit that I lie to save face, to get out of trouble and to avoid feeling uncomfortable.

I’d be lying to grandma because of how I would feel if I were honest and told her what I thought of that scarf.

I thought the point that the ethics class needed the religious kids in there, too was a good one.”