Oct
7

A Lack of Interest in the Truth

A couple of blogs ago, I wrote about the untruths peddled by opponents of the ethics program, in particular by the Anglican organization Youthworks on its web sites and in its advertisements on Christian radio stations. It would be nice to think that Youthworks was just a bad apple in an otherwise unblemished fruit bowl, but that illusion is blown by statements made on another Christian web site. The Teachers Christian Fellowship of NSW (TCFNSW) is an organization that is open to teachers and educators and aims to promote Christianity in education. An article on its site, SRE and the Ethics Trial, includes several untrue statements (http://www.tcfofnsw.org.au/htmarticles/sre-ethics-trial.html).

The article states that, “The main protagonists [of the ethics program] are secularists who have a hidden agenda that if they can get ethics to run against SRE in schools then everything else, other school subjects and activities, can also run during SRE time. In other words, the real agenda is to eliminate the teaching of religion in Government schools by making SRE unworkable [their emphasis].” When I read the first part of this, Simon Longstaff sprang to mind. He is the Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre and has been a major force in support of the many NSW parents calling for the ethics program. He also happens to be a Christian who supports the teaching of SRE. He has stated this publicly many times, but the article did not mention this. In another article on the site, the same author refers to “Stuart Longstaff”, which suggests that he has not looked into this in much depth (http://www.tcfofnsw.org.au/htmarticles/teaching_ethics_to_non_sre.html). Anyone making such damaging statements in opposition to the ethics trial has a responsibility to know their stuff.

The second point, that supporters of the ethics program really want to allow a range of school lessons to enter into the SRE time slot, is completely made up. There has never been any such suggestion. Another statement in the article was that “there is no proposal to train volunteer teachers”. This too is absolute nonsense. Volunteer teachers for the trial ethics course were trained by an expert in philosophy for children and it has been indicated that suitable training will again be provided for volunteers before an extended ethics program is introduced.

Background information on the ethics program is easy to find and the author of the article could have checked this very easily. He either did not look and was ignorant of the facts, or was well aware of the facts, but disregarded them. Either way, these statements are misleading. When I read the article, I sent an email to TCFNSW pointing out the errors in the article, asking about the evidence supporting the statements they made, and suggesting that the right thing to do if there is no such evidence would be to remove or correct them. The email was very polite (see below) and I (quite reasonably but perhaps optimistically) hoped for a response. I have received none, and as I write this (three days after sending the email) the wording on the web site is unchanged. Not surprising, I know, and sadly this seems to demonstrate a lack of interest in unwelcome facts.

There seems to be a pattern emerging here. Christians speaking out against the ethics course are distorting the truth to make the course seem somehow dangerous and to generate opposition. Do they think this is reasonable behaviour? Do they think it is OK to just make things up to suit their argument? What about the Ten Commandments? They have been explicitly told not to lie. “Thou shalt not lie” is not an equivocal statement. Have they not understood this, or do they think it is alright to completely disregard it? Most people with or without religion would see that fabricating information simply to support one side of an argument is not acceptable and is not ethical behaviour. Why is it that the Christians who make these untrue statements just do not get it?

The TCFNSW web site states that comments made in articles on its site are the responsibility of the authors. However, the Fellowship must take responsibility for comments made by its President on their facebook site (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=126165657429402&v=wall&ref=search): “What’s wrong with the ethics trial being conducted in NSW state schools?
It’s being run in opposition to scripture classes. According to the education Act organised lessons can not be run in opposition to religious scripture classes! So why is a trial being conducted of anything at those times?”

Again, it seems incredible that someone following this issue would be so unaware of the facts. To state that the ethics trial was run in opposition to SRE classes is wrong and misleading at best. As is well known, the trial took place to test whether ethics classes could provide an appropriate option for children opting out of SRE classes. It was a trial to determine whether the current discriminatory DET policy (not the Act) should be changed to allow those classes to be offered. The Act (the 1990 NSW Education Act) provides time in the curriculum for SRE but is silent on other lessons during that time; it is policy that prevents concurrent lessons for children not attending SRE. These comments and statements seem designed to generate opposition to the ethics course, by distorting the truth.

Christian opponents of the ethics program have expressed concern about ethics being taught outside of a religious context (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/you-cant-teach-ethics-without-referring-to-christianity-20100409-rxai.html). I wonder if they can see the irony when Christian organisations are purposefully distorting the truth in order to generate community opposition for ethics classes. They seem to have no regard for the fact that their untruths will create misunderstanding and concern for many people. They are also quite happy, it seems, to trash the hopes of tens of thousands of NSW parents who support and welcome the ethics program, and of course the 100,000 children who each week are affected by the current discriminatory and out-dated policy.

Of course, not all church organisations behave in this way. The Uniting Church, which supports the ethics program, states that “support gives priority to the interests of all children, not just those with whom we share faith convictions.” (http://news.nsw.uca.org.au/2010/ethics-trial-submission_16-08-2010.htm). This attitude demonstrates consideration and respect for fellow humans with diverse views and opinions and clearly stands in stark contrast to that of other Christian groups, whose words and actions on this issue are not at all consistent with the Christian values they claim to hold. They would do well to consider the fact that their bad side is on show for all to see, and from where I’m standing it’s not pretty.

***********************************************************************

Email from me to TCFNSW:

Dear TCF
On reading an article on your web site (http://www.tcfofnsw.org.au/htmarticles/sre-ethics-trial.html) I noticed an error. The article states that “The main protagonists are secularists who have a hidden agenda that if they can get ethics to run against SRE in schools then everything else, other school subjects and activities, can also run during SRE time. In other words, the real agenda is to eliminate the teaching of religion in Government schools by making SRE unworkable.”

To the best of my knowledge, this is not correct. For example, I believe that the Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre (which coordinated the trial course) has stated publicly that he is a Christian. Also, I cannot recall any indication that “other school subjects and activities” would run during SRE time. The first time I heard this suggestion was on your web site. I do not believe it has any basis in fact. As an interested parent who welcomes the ethics classes, I have been following the proposed introduction of these classes quite closely, and have never been aware of a push towards “making SRE unworkable”. I also noticed that you indicate “there is no proposal to train volunteer teachers”, but my understanding is that volunteer teachers would be trained in the same way as they were trained for the ethics trial (a two-day course run by an expert in philosophy for children).

If you have evidence to support your statements, I would be very interested in this, and would be grateful if you would let me know the source. If there is no evidence, I am concerned that the statements may be misleading to visitors of your web site, such as teachers and parents with an interest in SRE and ethics classes. In view of this, will you consider modifying this wording, or removing the statements from your web site?

I look forward to hearing from you.

October 7, 2010   //   Blog   //   3 Comments   //  

3 Comments to “A Lack of Interest in the Truth”

  • October 26, 2010 at 5:28 am
    Ken Maynard says:

    SIN… challenging the paradigm of reason based ethics.

    I wish to address Original Sin, as this is what distinguishes Christian ethics from all other ethical systems. Refer to ~Original Sin – SIMPLY~ one of two documents on Original Sin posted on my Webb-site, Christianity tab.

    Man does not lust after evil, but hungers after that which is good. Original Sin is man hungering after more good than we can have.

    The Bible attests ~the wages of sin is death~ but no-where does it attest Sin as evil, intentionally harmful, or a crime. Crime is breach of moral contract or moral law in pursuit of intentional wrong. Simple, just lock it up or shoot it. Sin is breach of moral contract in pursuit of more good than one can have. Not so simple, on what reasonable grounds do you curtail the pursuit of good.

    Have one woman, life is simple & honest. Have two or more, angst, betrayal, suffering & crises not just for one, but for all affected parties.

    A few drinks are good, yet alcoholics destroy themselves, their families, & harm their societies.

    Human rights democracies accord every good their people request… more cars… more babies… more rights… all good!… yet bankrupt themselves & finish up unable to provide any good for anyone.

    If man decides this planet exists only to provide good things for man, we will very quickly exhaust the biosphere, effectively extinguishing all future hope.

    The Bible does not say ~the wages of crime are death~ (while it does not regard crime & the pursuit of wrong as worthwhile, it does not regard them as a mortal threat) The Bible says, specifically, ~the wages of sin are death~ Sin is not the pursuit of evil, but the cumulative consequence of pursuing more good than we can have.

    All are sinners, even me. Most people aspire to some form off good, even me. When people say man will destroy himself in the pursuit of evil, I respond… ~I don’t think so, man has not got enough evil in him to do the job~

    Where the Bible says, sin (cumulative over-reach in the pursuit of good) will destroy humanity, I can only respond… ~Dead right, man has got enough good in him to be able to do that~

    ….practical mechanics of man being both uniquely privileged & uniquely challenged.

    When I sent my position on Original Sin to a traditional Christian with good qualifications in theology, they replied to soundly berate me; ~how could original sin be a good~ What’s good? You are alive to be moaning aren’t you.

    Intrinsically good is a positive for man; the only platform on which self determination can be based. Just think if we were both self determining & intrinsically evil; worse, consider a self determining species who can form no intent for either good or evil but only indifference. In this last there is inherent contradiction between self determining & incapable of forming an intent. Where ability to form intent is a precondition for self determination, intentionally good or intentionally evil are the only options available. Be grateful we got the better one of the two. Original Sin in the form of hungering for good; is the best of all options for a self determining species. The problem, as the Psalms so often attest ~we are overwhelmed by thy gifts to us~ Overwhelmed is the root problem, of mans self management in hungering for more good than we can have.

    For a species to self-determine it must first have cut the umbilical cord which connects it to the presumed master intelligence that controls the creation. Second, it must have the capacity to form intent, backed up by the ability to follow through & actualize said intent. In man this takes the form of our ability to co-ordinate our capacity for abstract thought, with the hands of a toolmaker.

    More important, if a self-determining species is to have any merit, is the purpose this mechanical process seeks to serve. Man is in some way predisposed to seek that which is good. The heart predisposes the mind to conceptualize that which is good, the mind then instructs the toolmaker to build towards good; thus the heart controls the game.

    Some Christians speak of the purpose driven life, others of Gods will or Gods plan. For myself I attest… Christianity seeks to mobilize the combined might of the whole population; by getting everyone together on the same page, to work in common enterprise to optimize the returns of Gods goodness, in a purposeful well managed way.

    This is distinct from false Gods, who waste Gods love by spending it indiscriminately on any random cause of immediacy.

    ……………………………………………..

    I look forward to an open debate on ethics because it will challenge the shallow nature of secular values. The secular is based on reason. The mind is an excellent tool to explore practical matters. The growth of knowledge in agriculture, chemistry, physics, engineering, science, medicines & technology all attest a triumph of human reason. The mind is supreme in enquiry into all material or mechanical things which can be proven. Yet you cannot prove a value, right & wrong have no existence in nature, & no purpose in nature. Science & materialism is based on things which can be proven; values are based on assumptions which cannot be proven

    Finding the mind of little help in the matter of values, man turns to the heart for guidance. He has turned to the right place, for while reason works of the practical frequency of ~the how~ the heart works on the transcendent frequency of ~the why~ Science ~how are we what we are~ Bible ~why are we what we are~ Only the heart communes with God; it is the only thing that operates on the ~why~ frequency. In this communion with the highest the heart discovers values are merely a line in the sand, & where they are to be drawn cannot be considered separate from the greater why… ~What is the meaning & purpose of man & his society~ Thus, secular values are shallow, facile & lead to no clear ends; Christian values transcendent, strong & directed toward right ends.

    At this time the world is experiencing a ~mother~ of an identity crises. This crises of identity has arisen as the recent material era draws to a close. Not the ending of ~the~ world, but certainly the ending of ~a~ world. The resultant worldwide confusion & turmoil is uncertainty about the elements off which the ~next~ world should be comprised. Civil confusions can only be resolved by ~what God the people cherish in their hearts~ which makes it a truly religious question indeed.

    During an identity crises man & society revisits the ~why~ of our existence. From Abraham to the Apostles it was agreed… ~the purpose of man is to seek to know God in the highest & strive to serve him (& him alone) with all our might~ While science has greatly increased our knowledge of the ~how~ over the recent era, it has added nothing to our knowledge of the ~why~ Given a paucity of new information’s, if we revisit the ~why~ I see no grounds on which we can reach different conclusions than those reached in the time of Abraham 4,000 years ago.
    …………………………………….

    To me, the issue that stands out is parents4ethics are advocating teaching children how to work out issues of right & wrong for themselves. (Independent reasoning) Yet where sin is defined as breach of moral contract in pursuit of more good than we can have, sin is hardly a subject of linear reasoning. If we approach sin through the instruments of reason, we can only conclude it unreasonable & as such sin should not exist.

    We are pre-programmed to pursue good, but if we pursue more good than we can have it is certain death for man. If we pursue intentional wrong we will harm ourselves but still live. Only pursuit of more good than we can have can destroy us. SIN has no appeal to reasonable men.

    This is why the Bible attests, it is not for man to determine right & wrong, but to know & serve the will of God in the highest.

    God; is not on the same planet as the case advanced by parents4ethics.

    As a Christian I am not afraid of this debate. Both churches & concerned secular citizens have contributions to make to an open & full debate. I can fear modern Christians lack talent up to the task, but if thy servants are sloth so be it, that’s our fault. Yet I am happy to embrace the ethics debate itself. I do not believe we can let groups like parents4ethics set the terms of the debate. He who sets the terms gains the victory. I urge Christians to be more proactive in constructive engagement with this.

    I have no doubt reasonable people from all faiths & cultures can apply independent reasoning & largely agree on a collective body of public ethics (sometimes called civil religion) based on distinction between right & wrong. Yet SIN, defined as the pursuit of more good or right than we can have, not only destroys the assumptions on which reasoned ethics are based, but is obscene in the eyes of all reason. This is the complexity of man, who is both uniquely privileged & uniquely challenged as a species.

    . Ken Maynard…. e-mail… communnichristi@gmail.com
    . Link to home-page… http://www.communichristi.org.nz
    Use a Firefox or Safari Webb-browser for full use of this site.

  • November 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    Hear Mum Roar says:

    Ken, after all that lengthy text, you didn’t address the question that was asked: is it acceptable that churches are lying and spreading misinformation about what is actually happening? The answer is, of course, NO. Isn’t that a ‘sin’, as you would call it?

  • December 2, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    michael j says:

    Church”s don’t lie,they speak thier ‘Truth’, it varies at times,an example recently some people from a CHURCH were teaching RI they stated that adam and eve had lived with the dinosaurs and didn’t get eaten because they were under a spell ?
    Noah’s boat was very big and he had dinosaurs with him? this happended about 8 weeks ago in se Queensland and was widely reported on ,,i don’t know what the outcome is/was but maybe a few ecthic’s wouldn’t go astray?
    Orginal sin i belive,gave us Knowlage and a Conseince to guide us as we unravel mystery’s of all thing’s around us,this must be used with a high degree of ecthic’s,
    We may be masters of our destiney ,,but we will never be master’s of God
    And best of luck to ya,all esp to ken good read mate,,,,,,,

Who are we?

parents4ethics is a group of parents who share a common view that children not attending Special Religious Education (SRE) classes should be provided with an alternative. parents4ethics demand an end to discrimination in the public education system, where children who opt out of SRE classes are not allowed education or instruction on ethics, morals, values, or religions.