“Save our Scripture”…from what?

The “Save our Scripture” campaign (www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.stw?campaign_id=32) was launched by the Australian Christian Lobby in response to the proposed introduction of ethics classes for children not attending special religious education (SRE) classes. The name “Save our Scripture” implies that the introduction of ethics classes is an attempt to take SRE classes away. This is clearly not true, but the Australian Christian Lobby seems happy to make the implication as the basis for their call to ditch ethics classes and maintain the status quo, with no choice for children and their parents.

Their objections are that the classes are to be offered “in competition” with SRE classes, that they are offered to all parents (not only those whose children already opt out of SRE) and that if introduced they should be offered at a time other than the SRE time slot.

Now, I am well aware that ethics classes have been proposed and trialed in response to massive parent demand for a choice for children. I have discussed these classes with many parents and others who support their introduction, and I have never once heard anyone say or imply that they are being introduced to compete with SRE classes. Put simply, ethics classes are to be offered alongside SRE classes, so that children and their parents can choose whether to sign up for a class based on a specific religion or a secular class. I suppose the two types of classes would be in competition in the same way that Kellogg’s and Sanitarium breakfast cereals are in competition. They sit there on the shelf and we, the consumers, come along and choose between them.

I and many others would say that the choice offered by ethics classes is a good thing, because if that choice is not available a large proportion of children in the publicly funded (yes, that’s our tax dollars folks) school system are prevented by Department of Education policy, no less, from doing anything educational or thought-provoking in the SRE time slot.

Odd, isn’t it, that a religion not currently offering SRE classes at your school could turn up, introduce themselves and quietly slot in to the SRE system with no fuss at all, but a class that is not religion-based has to go through several years of formulating and presenting arguments to politicians before the issue is picked up, then dropped again, etc, in a farcical on-again off-again series of political moves aimed at self-promotion and damage to opponents. Pathetic and ridiculous but, more importantly, in complete disregard for children who have to do nothing at SRE time.

Now to consider the second Save our Scripture objection, that ethics classes are “pitched” to all parents, not only to those currently opting out of SRE. I was confused when I first heard this argument. I thought perhaps I had got the wrong end of the stick. But no, I had understood, and the point was indeed that the ethics classes should not be offered to all children. Several parents I know send their children to SRE simply because there is no alternative. Those parents and their children would very happily sign up for ethics classes, but this absolutely does not mean that SRE is not wanted. It means that some children/parents prefer the alternative. Again, this is simply choice, and it seems that offering the classes to all children is a necessary part of making that choice available, not only to some parents and children but to all. It is also worth making the point that the trial ethics classes were not “pitched” to anyone. They were offered in the same way as SRE classes have been offered for some time. A high proportion of year 5/6 children and parents (to whom the classes were offered) did sign up, and this is likely to reflect the high level of community interest and demand for these classes as an option for children. People were voting with their feet, and church organizations should respect their wishes, and stop trying to block their path.

The third objection is that, if introduced, ethics classes should be available at a time other than the SRE time slot so that children who are enrolled in SRE can attend. This is all well and good, but of course it defeats the object. The point of the ethics classes is…well, I think you know. And I think they know too. This objection begs the obvious question, what would be offered instead of ethics classes, for children who do not attend SRE? Perhaps a mix of quiet reading, watching TV, picking up litter and sitting at the back of the SRE class feeling like an outsider? I think there has already been a trial of those classes, and they didn’t work.

The Anglican Church League (ACL) web site (acl.asn.au/save-our-scripture) says that the Save our Scripture campaign aims to “answer the threat” from the ethics classes. What threat? Last month, the Federation of P&C Associations and we (parents4ethics) were each asked to provide the Director of Education for the Uniting Church (a church organization that supports the ethics classes) with a letter clarifying our positions and confirming that we were not advocating for the removal of SRE from the school system. Both letters were provided. Other church organizations including the ACL would know this, and would be in no doubt that there is no threat, yet the Save our Scripture campaign rages on.