Hi Gordo,

I had not thought of suggesting Christians teach ethics. And I can see the merit of helping out in local schools in more than just SRE. But I agree that we should try and fully staff SRE classes with suitable, godly and trained volunteers first.

A couple of other footnotes…

1. The NSW Government has changed since I wrote this post. The new Liberal/National government initially promised in opposition not to permit Ethics classes to compete with SRE. However when the previous government successfully legislated to permit Ethics in the SRE time slot law, the previous opposition said they would not promise to repeal the law because they were unlikely to be able to get a majority for repeal in the upper house. Now it is quite possible they could get the numbers from cross benches in the upper house to repeal the legislation, but I suspect that horse has bolted, and perhaps fair enough.

2. Regarding my point 4 above, I think the number of schools providing Ethics classes has probably increased since I first wrote this post, but not massively.

3. I have a series of probing questions about the provision of Ethics classes I’d like parents to be ready to ask of Principals (and any local Ethics Coordinator) at local P&Cs;. My questions raise issues of proper accountability that thoughtful members of the community may well want answers too.

Depending how the thread goes, I might post those questions here.

Hello David, and in answer to your question, certainly not.

If a law requires us to do something God forbids, or bans us from doing something God commands, then I think we should campaign against such a law, especially given we have democratic opportunity to do so in our society. And this might even apply in calling for justice in other forms of government too. But even more importantly in this case, we must obey God and not man, and that may mean taking the consequences that the earthly authorities dish out, like Peter did in Acts 4.

We also see Paul, I believe, often using his full rights as a Roman citizen, at several points in Acts, in his efforts to show that Christianity is a ‘licit’ religion, rather than one that is ‘illicit’.

As I said at the end of my point 1, we may continue to campaign, in almost all circumstances by lawful means, for a change in law or policy, especially given we are in a democracy.

What do you think, David?

Some worrying reasons not to be worried:

I quote from a Sydney Morning Herald Article discussing one of the trial classes,

“Ms Barker said the first classes gave students a dilemma and asked how they would deal with it.
For example, what would a child do when already invited to one birthday party but then invited to their best friend’s birthday party on the same day.
‘‘It’s about getting them to work through ideas, to listen to each other and realise it’s OK to have a different idea and there’s no right or wrong answers,’’ she said.

This is our ground breaking ethics classes in action.

It does not seem to me (from the information I have read and my knowledge of our SRE requirements) that Ethics has training, quality control and curriculum anywhere near the standard set by SRE teachers.

I think it likely that it will become apparent that there is neither the quantity of volunteers nor the infrastructure to support them in real practical terms to threaten SRE.

Could be wrong, but I’ll be very surprised.

Either way, your first reason is still the reason we should not despair but keep serving faithfully.

Michael Hutton,
Tamworth

Michael, thanks for your comments. I do think those of you involved in local public school P&Cs;, should have some sensible questions ready to ask your Principal and at the P&C, if the possibility of providing Ethics is being discussed.

Of course, make sure you are friendly. Look at Proverbs 15:1 and note the importance of gentleness there, rather than getting stirred up in anger.

In asking questions, it is important (if you can do so honestly) to say that – even though you may have had concerns about the Ethics trial, and would have preferred Ethics not to be in competition with SRE – you accept the Government’s decision. Now you would very much like to work co-operatively alongside any current or future providers of Ethics courses, in your school community.

However in the same way that SRE has been subject to scrutiny and even criticism, you have some questions you would like to ask about any proposed Ethics course in the interests of accountability.

Here are my suggested questions…

1. Local churches (or mosques or temples etc) of authorised denominations provide local liaison and accountability points for SRE teachers. Although a local Ethics Coordinator must be found and appointed for a school before Ethics can go ahead, my question is what sort of local supervision and accountability structure is in place for the Ethics Coordinator and teachers (as opposed to accountability only to a head office in distant Sydney)?

(I have heard reports of one Ethics Coordinator being appointed through online application, with only an over-the-phone interview!)

2. What standards of child protection training are being provided? Is the ‘online’ child protection training proposed by Primary Ethics really sufficient? Again, what local body will really know the potential teachers personally to give accountability? Do members of the P&C feel this is satisfactory?

3. Has the Ethics curriculum been revised in light of concerns expressed by Government-appointed academic, Dr Sue Knight’s independent evaluation of the Ethics trial, to take account of the tendency towards moral relativism she detected in it?

(Michael, this is what you noted!)

4. Will providers of SRE at our school be given equal opportunity to inform parents about the content of their classes, or to otherwise promote SRE, as might be given to any Ethics course?

5. One reason given for promoting Ethics was to provide another option for students in non-SRE, who were allegedly sitting around doing nothing productive. However this will not solve the problem entirely, since some parents will still choose neither SRE nor Ethics. So will the school executive ensure that the alternatives provided in non-SRE, such as quiet reading and personal homework are not viewed as a waste of time, but as the valuable exercises we would otherwise view them as?

Once again, questions like these should be asked in a polite way, although I would suggest you do not let the questions be referred to head office, but ask for local answers. Please stress your desire to work cooperatively with the school community.

Hi Cyril, and I like your sense of humour, pointed though it is. Perhaps you think your conundrums should also be offered in SRE classes as well?!

I am not quite as subtle or erudite as you. So I will set you a couple of ethical assignments…

1. What does it mean to ‘straw man’ an opponent, and is this a just tactic in debate?

2. Though it be expedient, is it wise to over-simplify a complex philosophical or historical issue for the sake of scoring a good point?

3. What steps should one take in ethical discussion to most fairly represent your opposition and not to pit the worst of one side against best of your own?

Sandy, we agree again.

I think we TOTALLY mishandled this issue.

Hi Cyril

1.  I think your first point rather cruelly points to the ‘Lord giveth the Lord taketh away’ conundrum.  I think having the benefit of living justifies calling the provider of life (if you believe in one) ‘loving’.  Not warm and fluffy, but loving all the same.  Punishment?  It hardly seems appropriate to attribute to a ‘God’ (if you believed in one) who was capable of creating anything let alone what we know of life and the universe our own understanding of morality.  I don’t really feel capable of it, so give ‘God’ the benefit of the doubt.
2.  Well true the organized church has oh so often taken the wrong road.  But still, the principle of the belief system remains intact, even if the people let it down as we all know to our sorrow.
3.  That is a very unflattering caricature of a religious belief system.  I’m not sure it is fair.  But I must declare an interest.  My father was a Presbyterian minister, and a scrupulously honest and decent man (but not without many faults).  I may well have been indoctrinated by his views, no, I definitely was.
4.  I have often pondered an existence where everything was what I would regard at any particular time as ‘good’.  I always conclude that after about a week, what I thought was ‘good’ would become ‘bad’.  I have tried ‘scientific’ experiments using chocolate and I am convinced that I am right (for once) on this point.  So I have decided that if there was nothing you could describe as ‘bad’ there would be nothing good either.  So punishment, or unfortunate outcomes, is a necessary part of existence it seems.  The grass is always greener demonstrates the principle.  And where would ‘consciences’ come from if not from people like my good old dad?
5.  Look I would definitely would have picked girls, because I went to an all boys school and would have loved a bit of a tussle down on the main oval with something softer than what was normally on offer.  But I think you are considering one of the lovely (but stern) Islander girls from western sydney, who all would agree could whip a man or two with one hand tied behind their backs. Seriously, I agree the church does not sell its position on women that well.  Equal but different.  Hmmm.  But don’t throw the baby out with the bath water on that one. 
6.  I struggle with the focus on same sex attracted (I think that is the current phrase I recently heard on triple j).  To me sinners are sinners.  Same sex attracted, or pornography attracted.  I personally hope that if there is a God, they all end up being treated as they really deserve, not what some man thinks they deserve.  After all, there but for the grace of God go I?  Funny how that phrase seems to go out of fashion when church people discuss same sex attracted.
7.  That is so cruel.  Can ethics and science really have a common boundary?  Anyway, I don’t think true scientists believe religious belief systems come into their arena do they?  Can’t really observe the almighty so not much point.  I am much in favour of cause and effect, which I can understand quite readily without having to accept what some overly learned fellow tells me.  This particularly effects me when I regard what seems to me to be the overly perfect fashioning of my children and their amusing if bizaare habits.
8.  Defaming King Henry the Eighth.  Tut tut.  He was a top fellow, and his shenigans could well be blamed (or praised) for resulting in Elizabeth getting onto the throne and doing so much that was excellent and good.  I am not sure he would have agreed with your views.  You know, I think you and he may have seen eye to eye on some points.  He liked sport, women, and a good war in another country.  Not so entranced with church men either.
9.  Again, the church has not come across so well on this one.  Why not allow everyone else to come in and spruik their products as well? Fair point.  After all, as soon as the kiddies leave the school it will happen anyway.  I’m not sure ‘does not tolerate’ is quite right.  More just had a bit of a whinge, dreaming of the good old days when everyone went along with it.
Cheers Cyril.