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.

People are very worried...

...About my upcoming appearance on the local ABC radio station to talk about Easter.

1233 presenter Carol Duncan put out the call on twitter - she was looking for an atheist/secular humanist to join her on air to talk about Easter, what it means to an atheist, and how belief (or lack of belief) colours one's worldview and gives meaning to life. I eagerly put myself forward and was accepted - after what I am sure was a less than frenetic response - to appear on a kind of panel discussion with, among others, the Anglican Dean of Newcastle Dr. James Rigney. A fascinating discussion it is sure to be.


However, the reaction to my (somewhat excited) announcement that I'd be gracing the airwaves of Newcastle in the next few days has been universal: A grimace, strained through a polite smile, and a dreaded question, voiced carefully. 'You're not going to cause trouble, are you?'

My reaction, typical of me (as anyone that knows me will attest), was to very politely take each of these admonitions in light-hearted spirits, assure them that not everything has to be an arm wrestle and, when the occasion calls for it (namely all the time), I am quite capable of holding a civilised,  reasonable and buoyant discussion. Even with people who do not strictly adhere to the exact same beliefs that I hold.

It is one of the greater ironies of the public perception of atheism. A movement (I think it is safe to call it a movement now) built on free thought and critical thinking is considered to be strident, beligerent, arrogant, argumentative and, it seems, incompatible with everyday, amicable discussion. As I detailed in the previous post, there are naturally going to be differences of opinion between, say, a catholic and an atheist. This doesn't mean it has to come to blows, or that anyone has to feel antagonised. Civilised people will, when left to their devices, conduct civilised discussions. Atheists, the last time I checked, are civilised people.

I plan to discuss my opinions on the Easter holiday (I'll post a wrap-up here when I'm done), what it means to me and my family, how my lack of belief in god is just as valid and fulfilling a worldview as any religious one, and to engage anyone on any topic they would care to talk about with a smile and, hopefully, a laugh.

Like I said, I'll post a wrap up on here when I'm done with it on thursday, and hopefully will be reporting on what a great time was had by all.

In the meantime, I cannot wait to get into the studio and show just about everyone in Newcastle (including members of my family and some very close friends) that an atheist is nothing to be scared of.

Quite the opposite. We are imponderably lovely.

#AtheistCon - The Aftermath

So, a decent few days back from AtheistCon and the ripples we caused in the media are beginning to subside. It's been incredibly interesting to look at the fallout from a humble two-and-a-half days' discussion on what we don't believe in. I'd like to make a couple of (brief as possible) points.

•  Questions of Faith - I'm genuinely torn over the coverage of AtheistCon by the Radio National blog 'Questions of Faith'. My previous posts will reveal a short exchange I had with the owners of the blog about the role ridicule has to play with religion - it was mostly go-nowhere, but then again, most blog comments are. The best way to summarise my thoughts is to probably go from negative to positive, because it will leave a better taste in the mouth of any impartial reader.
  
  Negative - Much was made initially about the militant tone that atheists take with the religious and, while I acknowledge that this tone exists amoung some of them, I found the hypocrisy to be a bit annoying. In the first few posts before the convention even began, we had Margaret Coffey and Gary Bryson making clicking noises with their tongues. Two accusations of discourteousness within two posts, followed by a cynical accusation against Richard Dawkins that he was likely going to be spruiking his latest book (anyone in attendance will tell you that this was certainly not the case). I was ready to give the Questions of Faith team the benefit of the doubt, but they made their stance on the convention known early. Something along the lines of "It might surprise us, but we expect it to be a bunch of muck-slinging and back patting" (NOT a quote). It was not in the spirit of the mutual cooperation they sought. Briefly on the negative side also: It bears mentioning that by allowing the Questions of Faith team cover the convention, the ABC let the whole point of atheism skip over their heads. Would they let the Grandstand team cover the This Is Not Art festival?
  
  Positive - As the posts went on and, particularly, when guest bloggers were invited to make contributions, I found the general quality of the blog went up. Some of the information provided could best be described as 'selective' (for example, mention of the terrifically moving speech by Taslima Nasrin was limited to a single post, in which the terrifically banal rationale 'there is no more that needs to be said' was employed. There is plenty that needs to be said on the issues Taslima Nasrin is facing), but overall there were plenty of points of view on offer. Like the general media coverage I found it to concentrate disconcertingly on the negative at times, but this is part of fair and balanced reporting and I take no issue with it here.

•  General Media Coverage - There was a myriad of coverage about the conference that was, as I mentioned above, intially quite negative. In fact, for the first few days, it was left to convention speakers to defend the merit of the convention. If you have no time to follow the links, I'll summarise them for you: Dawkins gave a talk called 'The Pope is a Nazi and Steve Fielding is an Earthworm', then did the dead parrot sketch live on stage but replaced all the names with 'Mary McKillop. I was very disappointed to see this as the chosen line of reportage.
  
  Dawkins' talk contained extremely few references to god or religion. When directly asked by an audience member what he thought of canonisation, he indeed responded that it was pure Monty Python - but he did not refer to the current Pope as a Nazi. Rather, he was referring to Pope Pius XII, himself up for canonisation around the same time as Mary McKillop. Pius XII was the Pope during the second world war. Dawkins forgot his name and referred to him as Pope Nazi, due to his time as Pope during the regime of Hitler. It is worth noting also that Dawkins' supposed reference to Senator Fielding as having an IQ lower than an earthworm was entirely hearsay, attributed to him by a secondary source. Decide for yourself whether this, out of three days worth of lectures and discussion, was worth the headlines it got.
  
  Recently some more positive coverage has come out - interestingly, alot of them from British and online sources - that took a less sensationalist view of proceedings. I was happy to read these articles and to accept the messages embedded in them. The last thing we want is to be inaccessible to anyone but ourselves.

• 'Atheism - Another Religion' - You'll see it in the articles I've already linked to and generally in discussion about the place. Atheism, it seems, is taking on all the hallmarks of a religion. I mean, look at those atheists - they've had one conference at which they categorically denied the existence of the supernatural! That's incredibly reli...oh...well, I suppose it isn't.
  
  
  There is nothing religious about atheism. This might take longer than I have to explain, but the differences are important. It's too easy to say that religions require faith where atheism requires nothing like that. It is more deep than that. Atheism is about critical thinking, arriving at conclusions that are independent of institutional doctrine, and inquiring freely on any given topic be it a secular or religious one. This is why, for example, one can appreciate Christopher Hitchens' views on religion yet disagree with him on his support of the Bush Administration during the invasion of Iraq. There is no dogma in atheism because there is no scripture, no structure, and most of all, no enforcement. As it was put by NonStampCollector (I suggest you look at some of his videos), 'If atheism is a religion, then not stamp collecting is a hobby, bald is a hair colour, and off is a TV channel'.
  
  I guess I don't have the time to go into it in full detail. Anaolgies between atheism and religion are cheap to make - I suggest a bit of careful thought before diving in headfirst.

Aaaand that's it for tonight. More coming, everyone - for now...sleep. 

Update - The Young Australian Skeptics, as usual, have said this way better than I could have.

Questions of Faith revisited

Got my response - from Gary Bryson, no less. I think it's bordering on deliciously wonderful, but I want to check with you bloggers first. Here is the exchange. I do not expect to get any further replies. Did Gary win this one, or did I? I really can't tell.




Mitch wrote on March 10, 2010 at 8:08 pm “In particular, I’m hoping to find an atheism which can transcend militancy and ridicule in its dealings with those who choose to take a path of faith.”
I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this lately, Margaret, and I have a serious question on the subject of ridicule that I hope you might be able to help me with. As one of these atheists that, I am sure, you would consider to be militant, I am at times baffled by the sensitivity of the faithful to ‘ridicule’ of their faith.
I have included the quotation marks because sometimes the definition of ‘ridicule’ in matters like atheism versus religion is stretched beyond all recognition. Take, for example, the panel on Q&A with Richard Dawkins on monday night. Prof. Dawkins highlighted the story of Jesus’ crucifiction and loudly declared ‘if you think that is moral, you can keep it’. That is all – he summarised the story and expressed his opinion that it was not one of moral substance. A very common point of view amoung atheists. He was then taken to task for ‘ridiculing’ the new testament.
Now, now. If we have come to define the term ‘ridicule’ as the mere suggestion that the bible is not a sound base for morality, then you will find precious little in the way of candidates for your program, I’m afraid. Respect should be observed on a person-to-person basis, of course – you will not find an atheist who disagrees with this. But I fear that it might be impossible to be an atheist without ridiculing the religious if the criteria for ridicule is ‘disagreement with scripture’.
I have more to say (obviously, I am an atheist on the internet, after all), but I’ll yield to what you said about keeping comments shortish. In the spirit of not wanting to appear militant or hostile in any way, I’ll add that I am not trying to rile anyone with this comment. I am genuinely interested to know what constitutes ridicule in the eyes of the faithful. I am sure a common ground can be found. We are all reasonable people.


Margaret Coffey wrote on March 11, 2010 at 10:24 am
David (I am sure Margaret meant 'Mitch'), I’m afraid that I didn’t see that Q&A. I’m familiar though with Richard Dawkins’ views on Jesus’ crucifixion. They are not unusual: Muslims, millions of them, ever since Mohammad, find the notion of the crucifixion and the role that event plays in Christianity incomprehensible and alienating. Most of them don’t express this view in those rather puerile terms that you quote. (I was going to write ‘juvenile’, but then I thought that would be to slur all juveniles). Instead, many fruitful interfaith exchanges are based on being able to discuss what Christians would reasonably find a challenging idea, but nevertheless should surely want to discuss. I think what people are often objecting to is a matter of tone.


Mitch wrote on March 14, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Margaret,
I’m afraid I’m going to have to take something of a hard line. My original question to you was one about the boundaries of ridicule. Your response was addressed to ‘David’, but I believe I’m right to assume it was meant for me.
You finished your post with this: “I think what people are often objecting to is a matter of tone.”
And the gist of yours and Gar’s comments tends to be that there is a general insensitivity, regardless of validity of position, when it comes to the way that atheists – particularly strong and vocal atheists – put their position forward. Please pull me up if I am misrepresenting the situation in the comments here.
I can scroll to the top of this page and find a more threatening and insensitive example of language use than anything said by Dawkins today or on that Q&A panel. These are strong words, final words, and they leave no room for interpretation. I’m talking about the title of this post.
“Without God We Are Nothing.”
I am sorry, but if the faithful reserve the right to become offended by ‘tone’, then they must be prepared for the counter. If tone of voice is the only criterion we need for offense, then I level the accusation directly back at you, vis-à-vis a phrase used by you to argue that atheists employ an insensitive tone in the first place. The Cardinal’s phrase is offensive in tone and belittling to all atheists, agnostics, skeptics and, while we are at it, polytheists, who do not believe in a god and are therefore slurrishly reduced to ‘nothing’. You then go on to
Now, I will point out here – it is lucky, then, that I do NOT accept the notion that we should be getting stroppy and offended by ‘matters of tone’. I do not like being petty and arguing on the manner that the words were spoken rather than the words themselves. To me, it is rather like picking through a thoughtful reply for spelling and grammar mistakes and therefore discounting the entire reply for it – universally recognised to be poor form. My suggestion is that we move past the issue of tone lest this degenerate into a ‘which side is more at fault’ argument.
Nobody wants that. We all have much more important things to talk about. And we will not be able to get to them unless we are able to let go of our personal feelings regarding matters of tone.




Gary Bryson wrote on March 15, 2010 at 6:35 pm
On the matter of “Without God We Are Nothing”, Mitch, you’ve obviously left your sense of irony at home. “Threatening and insensitive”? Read the post.



Mitch

Comment Pending Approval. wrote on March 16, 2010 at 1:25 am
Hi Gary,

Not really – the point of my comment was that I don’t consider the phrase threatening and insensitive and do not think anyone else should either.

Regards,
Mitch