Ethics v Religion

Once again controversy has surfaced over the teaching of religion in schools, this time in Victoria as the chaplaincy providers to the public school system there were accused of proselytising, trying to convert children to Christianity.

At the moment there is no real evidence that it is actually happening. Access Ministries who receives government funding to provide chaplaincy services in schools was accused of breaching government guidelines preventing them from pushing their religious ideology, when the ABC found a 2008 speech in which the head of Access Ministries said chaplains "have a God-given open door to children" and "need to go and make disciples".

Access Ministries denies the claims and has called for its supporters to take "urgent action" to defend the program, which it says for some children is the "only introduction to the values that underpin a biblical understanding of God, the world, themselves and others".

Others argue that there are those in these groups that are trying to reverse the decline in membership of the churches by converting children to Christianity and encouraging them to become active churchgoers. That if we are going to have pastoral care in schools and that is going to be funded by taxpayers, those providers should have no connection to any religion.

Last year in New South Wales controversy raged when a long established agreement which allowed for religious education to be taught in public schools for one hour each week was challenged.

It was first established in the early days of public education where ministers, ostensibly Christian and usually Protestants as Catholics often had their own schools, provided religious and bible instruction. It was believed that families had a right to see their children learn something of their religious heritage, even in non-religious public schools, and as the population of the day was primarily Christian, still as much as 94% in 1947, there didn’t seem to be a problem.

Today our society is made up of many faiths and although Christianity is still the dominant faith it doesn’t have the hold on power that it used to have. Today this one hour of religious instruction can involve a number of other religions, with some New South Wales schools having as many as 12 different traditions or denominations but still around 90% is Christian which does not reflect society.

Although the policy allows equal access, there is suggestion of discrimination, either intentionally or unintentionally by some school administrators and as this service is provided by volunteers many smaller religions have not been able to be represented due to lack of resources.

If a parent did not want their child to receive religious instruction they had to opt-out by ticking a box on a form. If they failed to tick that box Christian religious instruction was often the default option.

When parents did actively opt-out for their children, their child would attend a non-scripture option which can mean ‘hanging about’ in the library, being given administrative tasks, left to watch videos in large mixed age groups with limited supervision but ultimately it would be an administrative nightmare and idle children with nothing but time to waste. For this reason some schools have been accused of discouraging opting out and parents are concerned about poorly supervised children getting into trouble.

So last year in some New South Wales schools the subject of ethics was trialled as an alternative to religious education. This was despite protests from some religious groups.

Over time the provision for clergy to access and instruct government school children without competition from secular instruction began to be viewed as a right. This perception became a source of conflict when parents began demanding the study of ethics as an alternative to religion in NSW.

In the trial providers acted as facilitators to allow the children to actively discuss such subjects as bullying, discrimination, personal responsibility and honesty. Children were given the opportunity to freely express their opinions and to some degree dictate the direction of discussion making the sessions more relevant to them and their current circumstances.

Religious providers protest that they too cover such issues and those discussions without the religious element is without a valid foundation. But religious belief has little to do with ethics and ethics existed long before many of the major religions and sometimes in spite of them. I am not suggesting that the religions that exist today are not promoting ethical principles and not run ethically but a religion is a belief system; most with a deity, distinct folklore, rules or commandments and always consider their belief system the only true path with dire consequences for nonbelievers.

Despite their attempt to keep their stranglehold on their one hour a week, many parents and children opted for the trialled ethics class, abandoning the religious studies at larger numbers than anyone expected. The trial is now over and ethics is now a permanent option for parents and children in New South Wales but could this be the thin edge of the wedge for religious education in public schools?

Many ethicists are making a case to remove religious education from public schools altogether. Firstly there is the lack of equal access that more closely reflects society’s religious observance making it discriminatory in its execution. Some providers are poorly trained in anything but their specific religious dogma so when children come to them with ‘real’ issues they are ill-equipped to advise them appropriately. Lastly there is the belief that the separation of church and state means that in the public school system religion has no place. Religion is something that parents should be teaching their children in their own homes, churches, temples and synagogues, not in a publicly funded public school.

In many states in Australia the debate persists with each side jostling for the higher ground and I have no doubt it will continues for many years to come.