Surprise. More Ethics.

I've been meaning to update this blog for a couple of days. Unfortunately, life has gotten in the way a bit. I'm going to rectify that now. With bonus pictures, because someone pointed out that there were no pictures on my blog and nobody reads blogs that do not have pictures.

Pictured: A Picture.

Carol Duncan and the NSW Ethics Trial

So, there's a lot to tell. It's an interesting story and it's supported by audio, so prithee, come along for the ride.

It all began on Tuesday when I sent Carol Duncan a tweet with a link to an article by Robert Haddad - Director of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine for the Archdiocese of Sydney (why do religious folk tend to have the most outrageously long titles?). I asked her the following:

@carolduncan can you get someone on the radio to explain this? High takeup = a case for SCRAPPING ethics classes? http://bit.ly/abRhrM 4:01 PM Apr 19th via Tweetie

Carol, being a fantastic sport and always willing to give me a chance, wrote back shortly thereafter with thrilling news:

carolduncan

  

@MitchSully Catholic spokesperson on 1.30pm (the guy in the story, feel free to call in & help!) 5:45 PM Apr 19th via HootSuite in reply to MitchSully

So, let me take a moment to thank Carol for her wonderful efforts on this - she has done her best to satisfy my whims and I'm nothing more than a regular old listener. She really does deserve to be thanked for her willingness to engage this topic, so if you get a chance send her a tweet at @carolduncan to let her know you appreciate it.



Robert Haddad Came On-Air at 1:30pm as promised and began to elaborate on his position. You can hear his entire interview here. I recommend listening - I have to say that, as I listened down the phone, Mr. Haddad appeared to become quite belligerent as the interview progressed. Listening back it probably wasn't as bad as all that, but it seemed clear to me that he was not interested in a clear and honest discussion about his objections to the trial. I may be wrong - you get to decide for yourselves. But what follows is a breakdown of my reaction to his arguments. (unfortunately my phone dropped out and I was unable to return the call to the station to continue my on-air comments. I would murder someone at Optus for this if it weren't so damn unethical).


Haddad Claimed That The Proponents of the ethics trial (the St. James Ethics Centre) made a promise that the ethics classes would only be offered to the parents of children that had already opted out of SRE. One of the primary objections he had was that the trial was operating dishonestly because, at one school, parents of all children were given a choice between an Ethics trial and SRE, with a 47% takeup of ethics in this particular school. Mr Haddad called this an 'abuse' of the trial. Carol, and I, disagreed with him.

For one thing - how can a trial of an ethics course for children be fairly and honestly assessed if only a fraction of parents are aware of its existence? I imagine that takeup rates are going to be discussed when the evaluation of this trial is eventually conducted. If we are not going to allow the parents of everyone to make a choice between SRE and ethics (or nothing at all), how are we to get an accurate picture of how many parents and families want this course to continue beyond the trial?

Robert Haddad - the Catholic Clark Kent.

Mr. Haddad chose to enter bizarre territory when he ventured here and two concerns immediately sprang to mind. The first is that it strikes me as incredibly hard to determine whether or not a parent has opted out of SRE because there is an ethics trial on offer - in other words, the ethics trial had a direct, causational impact on the decision to opt out of SRE - or whether a parent has opted out of SRE because they would have anyway and then enrolled in the ethics trial. How does Mr. Haddad propose we measure the difference between these two sides of one infinitesimally split hair? No matter how the parents found out about the ethics trial, whether by general media discussion or a letter from the school itself, their decision to enroll their child into the ethics class is not a matter for Mr. Haddad to police.

The second concern is that it seems that Mr. Haddad appeared to be advocating the withholding of information from parents on the matter of their options for their child's schooling. Are we seriously expected to believe that all parents who have not opted out of SRE (and please note the big difference between 'not opting out' and 'actively enrolling in') should be kept in the dark about the existence of this trial for the greater good of the trial itself? It seems to me that it serves only one stakeholder to this trial - the proponents of SRE.

In any case, Mr. Haddad did not ingratiate himself to the listenership. A flood of positive-NSWethics correspondence flooded in and only one negative text message was received in the immediate aftermath.



Sticking True To The ABC's Policy of fair and balanced reporting, Carol went on to interview Phil Cam - the man who authored the ethics trial - and get his response. I have to say, this interview was like a warm bath and a cup of tea after the Haddad wrestling match. You can hear it all here.

Phil Cam. Looking ethical.

There really isn't much to say about this interview bar the fact that it points out very effectively just how hysterical the media coverage and backlash from the Christian lobby really is. Point by point he details why the ethics trial is a fantastic step forward for children. He also insists - and this is the one thing I would love the Christian lobby to pay most attention to  - that the ethics trial is not a grab for student numbers.

Repeat, for those that missed it: The ethics trial is not a grab for student numbers.

I really want to thank Carol again for organising these two interviews and keeping me in the loop. She is wonderful. That's @carolduncan, readers. ;-)




A valid objection?

Stemming from all of this discussion, I have come across what I believe to be the single, almost valid argument against the introduction of an ethics alternative to SRE. That is, that children who do still attend SRE will not be able to also attend ethics classes. Unfortunately, the religious lobby groups seemed to have picked up on this argument and, to their detriment, are now pounding it into the ground.

Here is an editorial from the Sydney Anglicans website that really takes this ball and runs with it. They write thusly:

Imagine if the only time your child could learn water safety and surf life-saving skills was during the hour given for Special Religious Education?

Most parents would be tempted to send their kids along.

In effect, that’s the dilemma many parents will confront when they weigh up whether to sign their kids up to the new ethics classes.

The Australian Christian Lobby has similarly swooped down on this point, perhaps sniffing a winner in the 'discrimination' angle:

Parents will now have to choose between sending their children to school scripture or to ethics classes.  It will not be possible for a child to attend both.

We are calling on the Government to reschedule the new ethics syllabus and make it available to all students, regardless of their faith. 

Children shouldn’t be forced to miss out on such an important part of their education because of their religion.

I confess myself utterly confused here. It shouldn't surprise me that religious campaigners are being contradictory - they take their lessons from the bible, after all - but this one seems to be especially obvious. A quick, contextual off-site read would be this article here. It is written by the man who directs the ACL (the people who released the statement above this one).

It will be interesting to see how values such as loving one's neighbour, self-sacrifice, helping the poor etcetera are dealt with when the Bible stories that have shaped our understanding of these concepts for hundreds of years are excluded from the discussion.
It seems the ethics of the Bible and of the person of Jesus are now deemed so inconsequential that the Government must fund its own ethics curriculum and use its resources to draw students away from Scripture classes, which have been taught by dedicated volunteers for decades.

Rob Haddad, as you heard, refers to these ethics classes constantly as an 'unneccessary duplication'.

If this is my fault then I apologise profusely, but I have been operating for quite some time now under the impression that the faithful believe that religion provides them with a perfectly sound ethical and moral compass. It has been pointed out to me many times, for example, that you cannot have ethics and morality without god. Why now, so very suddenly, is this idea being abandoned? Is this finally an admission that secular philosophy has something to offer that religious studies does not?

The ACL would vehemently deny it, but then again what other impetus could be driving them to decry the fact that their children may not attend the ethics classes? Apart from, you know, the fact that they're terrified of their numbers plummeting and will use any argument to stop it.



Behind The Obvious, Snivelling Political Grab that the ACL is going for with this point of argument, I do find myself marginally sympathetic to it. I know plenty of parents who do not want their children to abandon SRE in school and yet would still like them to attend the ethics classes. They don't hold a special affection for scripture when it comes to imparting morals and values but, for whatever reason, find themselves unable to part with it. For these people I find room for some sympathy.

I know all of the counter-arguments to this already. The reason they may not feel able to part with scripture, for example, may well be that the alternative was always an ostracism of sorts to the school library with the 'others' - the scary denominations, the scary atheists, there might even be wiccans. A bona-fide alternative may go some way to mitigating this concern and allow them to let go of scripture with an easy conscience.

Wiccans. Satan's Mormons.

The other counter-argument is, of course, that if the ACL et al are so convinced their children are missing out on ethical instruction, perhaps it is time to finally admit that SRE really contains no such special instruction. That it really is just 'Christianity' (more specifically, your local church's take on Christianity), and that it would perhaps be best saved for learning on Sunday mornings. A public school is supposed to be a secular institution, and if SRE really doesn't provide the moral and ethical grounding that its instructors claim then it might be time to institute a special 'opt-in' method of instruction, perhaps after school hours. For years the claim has been made that ethics come directly from religion - why should they want for anything more?

The problem I have with this second objection is that it is undeniably petty in a way that I'd expect more from the religious lobby than the secular. In a sense, it's like saying 'you made your choice - live with it'. In a sense, this is fair enough. But that petty bit of 'you can't have your cake and eat it to'ism will have a real knockon effect to real kids, and I can't help but feel a little saddened that their parents may have to make a very politically charged choice between ethics and SRE. Yes, it is a rod that they made for their own back. Yes, it's delightful to see pious religious leaders turning themselves inside out and throwing tantrums at the first sign of a little healthy competition. But, I hate to go all Mrs. Lovejoy on you once again - won't someone think of the children?




Don't For A Second Think That I'm letting this argument stand against the ethics trial. In the scheme of things, it is a small issue when compared to the massive benefit that an alternative to SRE would bring into the lives of a lot of children around NSW. And above all - I do not believe the concern is genuine on behalf of the ACL. I do not believe they think secular ethics will even marginally provide something their religion cannot. I think they have raised the issue because it sounds moderate, and even people like me can find the uncomfortable hint of validity to it. It's a facade, in my opinion, for their real concerns, and to brandish it like a jousting stick as their leading argument is dishonest. It's about as far from ethical as you can get.

I tried to find a picture of irony. I couldn't.

My hope is that the trial is conducted to completion, is done in a fair way, is unhindered by political grandstanding from religious-leaning politicians, and evaluated on the results that it achieves. I am more than confident that, if this happens, the trial will be a resounding success.

It takes a special kind of person to object to kids being taught ethics.

Able to make tall leaps of logic in a single bound.

And I won't be one of them. The Ethics trial should be allowed to stand on its own. It doesn't need the ACL's programmable minions trying to rip the carpet out from under its feet.





Forward from here.

There is a lot to be said about the duress admission by the ACL that secular philosophy has something to offer that religion does not (despite what Jim Wallace had previously said about secularism being insignificant next to the great juaeo-christian tradition). I'm looking forward to this issue being explored by the blogosphere.

To go back to what the Sydney Anglicans said - it may well be a hobbes' choice to provide SRE and Surf Lifesaving at the same time. But then again, nobody ever claimed that to be a good surf lifesaver, you also have to be a good christian. They never further claimed that simply by being a good christian, you will be divinely appointed with the skills to be surf lifesavers. Like it or not - as petty as even I may think it is to say - this is the claim that the religious have always made, are making now, and will continue to make unto forever. For as long as the debate over the origins of our species continues, there will be a large community that make the claim that morals and ethics come exclusively from their particular deity.

It in fact seems that they are only willing to abandon this claim when it suits their political agenda. And I think that's pretty sad - for the children, if nobody else.

More Ethics

A quick update post.

It seems that our beloved Premier, Kristina Keneally, is going to allow the Anglican Church some 'input' into the ethics trial that is about to begin in NSW. It shouldn't be left up to me to point out that this seems to be a completely useless gesture - no amount of input from the Anglican Church is going to force scripture into the ethics trial, just as no amount of pressure from any atheist lobby group would ever influence the content of a scripture lesson. This is why the two are being kept separate in the first place. Allowing the Anglicans to have 'input' into the lesson structure seems in the mildest case like appeasement, for which the Anglicans ought to feel insulted, and in the worst case like handing over the reigns to the religious lobby so that children might have a choice between 'scripture' and 'scripture 2'.

According to the article I linked above, the lobby seems concerned that by giving parents a choice between religious classes and non-religious classes, there would be a drop in their attendance numbers. Never mind concern that children are being excluded already. Never mind that there are scores of children in their own classes who are there under obligation and who - anyone who has ever met an ex-catholic will tell you - may very suddenly and turbulently rebel against their faith when they come to a different decision later in life. (It seems to be the ex-religious who make the most firebrand atheists). All these people seem to be worried about is that their popularity will plummet when an alternative is presented.

I hate to be a Mrs. Lovejoy here, but why is their first concern not the children?

If the classes they offer were so valuable and worthwhile as they claim, then they would have nothing to worry about. Children of religious parents will remain in them while children of non-demoninational and other-demoninational parents will attend a secular class. I am at SUCH a loss to explain how this could be considered a problem in the mind of any sane individual.

It's lucky that, when Penny Sharpe recieved a tidal wave of negative emails, the reasonable community of NSW was able to respond in kind:

#NSWEthics classes in schools. Overnight tally: In favour: 142 emails, 50 FB messages, 74 tweets. 19 emails against. Thanks for the support. 4:03 PM Apr 15th via web

And this one, just because it's cool:

@MitchSully I've passed on your blog to the Minister - thanks

Verity reads my blog now. Just sayin'.







Comment Problems

I've had a bit of feedback to say that the comment field isn't working for some people - I've checked it out and it seems to work okay for me. If you have any problems, tweet or email me so I can get it sorted. Thanks!

WHOA

Okay guys. What to talk about?

The plans to have the Pope brought before the courts for covering up child sexual abuse?

(Which, by the way, is a stronger possibility than you might think)

The plethora of anti-atheist media coverage going at the moment, especially about how we are responsible for the decline of western civilisation? Including from Gary Ablett, who seems to have discovered morality after that little underage drug dealing incident some years back. Good for him.

No. No, no, no.

I'm going to concentrate on the hot button issue of today. That is:


Ethics Classes for Children.


I require you to do some quick off-site reading first. I apologise profusely for this, but it is essential background information.

Here is the original announcement from the now-ex-premier Nathan Rees way back in November 2009. He talks about the importance of allowing non-religious ethics classes as an alternative for parents who do not want their children sitting idle for one hour a week while their classmates learn about a single religion (it is important that we acknowledge that fact: a single religion).

Fast forward to today, and we suddenly have some very vehement opposition to these classes - likely spurred by the current climate of anti-atheism that exists in the media. I present to you the very defensive-sounding editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald from Jim Wallace, the managing director of the Australia Christian Lobby. Read this one all the way through and try to keep in mind that nobody is threatening his scripture classes with anything except an alternative for children who were not going to attend anyway.

I also request you read the very well organised ten point list written by Archbishop Dr. Peter Jensen, which even goes so far as to threaten all of his constituents in the final point with the ludicrous claim that if you allow children and parents to have choice in their ethical education, then schools will become divisive. Because not everyone is forced to learn Anglican values. That is really, seriously what he said. I promise - go and read it.

Alright, now that we've gotten up to speed, here is the big problem that can be easily solved. Though not without a great deal of resistance from the religious lobby.


No religion? No learning.

The NSW curriculum for the implementation of SRE (Special Religious Education) Section 3.11 reads thusly:

Schools are to provide appropriate care and supervision at school for students not attending SRE. This may involve students in other activities such as completing homework, reading and private study. These activities should neither compete with SRE nor be alternative lessons in the subjects within the curriculum or other areas, such as, ethics, values, civics or general religious education. When insufficient teachers or accommodation are available, the school’s policy on minimal supervision will operate.

 I'll explain what this means by way of anecdote.

Recently, on the radio with Carol Duncan, I told the city about how I was a non-scripture student. That means whenever scripture was being taught to the other kids, I was sent to the library to sit and read books on my own. At the time, I thought nothing of this - I had no idea why I was sent to the library while everyone else got to stay in the class room. I do now, and I will never stop thanking my parents for the gift that they gave me back then. A right to choose without any influence from vested interests? Priceless. Absolutely priceless. (So quickly, as an aside: Thankyou, Mum and Dad - you two are the reason I turned out the way I did and I'll repay you every day for it).

Pardon my digression - the point is, it is lucky that I was a studious and interested child. I read books during that time and learned a lot about just any topic you can name. For a while I was big on Killer Whales, so I read the library up on Orcas. Then I was into tornados. That was how, in kindergarten, I discovered what 'Meteorology' meant. I say it was lucky, because if I hadn't been this studious, I would have learned absolutely nothing at all. According to the NSW curriculum, I was barred from having any kind of structured lesson during that time or from attending any class that might possibly compete with Special Religious Education.

I spent 40-odd hours a year over the course of 7 years learning nothing at my school. Take it as 40 hours a year. Over the course of 7 years? That's 11 and a half days. Eleven and a half days of doing absolutely nothing. For the most part, I was the only non scripture child at that school. So that is 11 & a half days of doing nothing on my own.

If anyone is of a mind to say that, perhaps, this is what you get for being so uppity about secularism for your children, I cordially invite you to examine yourself closely in the mirror. I attended a government school - one of those ones supposedly protected by that invincible barrier between church and state. Why religious education is taking precedent over anything is lost on me entirely.

Ah, you say - but there was only one child in non-scripture! How can you expect the school to provide a structured learning program for one child! To that my answer is simple: I'm not asking for a fully equipped classroom and teacher for an hour. How about a lesson plan that can be completed independently, under supervision from the librarian or anyone else who happens to get stuck with the non scripture kids, and evaluated by the regular classroom teacher? Much smarter minds than I could figure it out. It's not asking a lot. Just the right to not have a non-religious (or forget non-religious, it is just as possible that the children belong to a different religion to that of the school's officially adopted local church) student's education grind to a halt for eleven and a half days over seven years.

At this juncture I'd like to say thank god for Leslie Cannold. This article, as I read it, is possibly the most accurate and level-headed take on the situation that I have seen. If you doubt the validity of what she is saying, please email me. I'll detail my experience more thoroughly for you. I can vouch for the fact that everything said in that article is true - I went through it personally.


Where's the respect?

Where is the respect for parents like that in Leslie's article, or mine? What sort of respect is accorded their children when, for an hour a week, they are sent to sit in the metaphorical dunce's corner while everyone else learns the doctrine of the anglican church and no others?

It is utterly absent. And the lobby groups ought to be ashamed.

What is being asked for with the introduction of ethics classes is in no way an attack on Christian values or the right for parents to have their children put through special religious education. It will still be an opt-out process. Offering an alternative simply means that children like me - and parents like mine - won't have to put up with being shunned and ignored for an hour every single week. They'll have a legitimate place to go, and legitimate lessons to learn.

The only objection the religious lobby groups can possibly have is that they feel threatened by the mere existence of these classes. Ask yourself honestly - if they truly believed that the lessons they had to offer were unique, morally absolute and pure and just and all the things that they claim for them, then an alternative would be absolutely no threat to them, wouldn't it? So why, then, is Dr. Peter Jensen warning parents that allowing children to not identify as Anglican is going to be divisive? Why is the Australian Christian Lobby, ever a bastion of conservatism and fear-mongering, taking itself off in a huff and writing scathing editorials over the introduction of these classes? Why can the classes not be allowed to stand on their merits or fail on their faults?

It's disrespectful. It's wrong. It is generally everything that the religious claim that they are not.

Would it be too exactingly in-context of me to casually bring up the phrase 'Ye shall know them by their fruits'?

If defensiveness, nay-saying and political pressure campaigns that literally promote the retardation of children's education are what we have to go on, then I posit that the entire lobby is saturated in the stench of rotting fruit.