Oct
16

What’s that Noise?

You must have noticed that opposition to the ethics program is very loud and very angry. But where is it coming from? The most ardent opponents of course are Anglican Church leaders. Before the trial course began, Archbishop Peter Jensen refused to consult with the St James Ethics Centre but instead put his energies into lobbying the Premier against the course. Subsequently, in an unsurprising but very sad and disappointing display of the hold the major churches have over our governments, he was assured that he could have “input” into the trial (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/keneally-allows-anglican-church-to-vet-content-of-ethics-lessons-20100412-s43m.html). Why? Don’t ask me. When the trial began in April, Jensen intensified efforts to turn community opinion against the ethics program by publishing a helpful list of “10 reasons the ethics trial is not a good idea”, stopping just short of distributing these to all NSW households as a handy set of fridge magnets (http://www.youthworks.net/index.php?session01=%3E&c=24&d=&e=&a=1225&w=7003&pf=Y). Just after the ethics trial was given the go-ahead, Bishop Glenn Davies asked his ministers to urgently contact public school Principals in their parishes to find out how many children were attending SRE and how many were opting out, hoping to find evidence against suggestions that many children do opt out, and showing little regard for the fact that Principals have plenty of other things to do with their time (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/bishop-enters-battle-against-secular-ethics-classes-20100413-s7pp.html). In May, they were complaining that about 47% of children in SRE classes were being “lost” to the trial ethics course. In June, they were caught encouraging their followers to join P&Cs, not to make a contribution to the community, but with the express purpose of outweighing supporters of the ethics program (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/anglicans-take-ethics-course-battle-to-pampcs-20100608-xtra.html). About that time, they seem to have realized this behaviour was not good for PR, and they have been somewhat quieter. They have continued raging a campaign on their web sites dedicated to destroying all traces of ethics classes, but in terms of national press, they have been almost as quiet as the proverbial church mouse.

Early in the piece, the Catholic Church waded into this tide of anger with suggestions about the ethics class being run in the wrong time slot, because it is at the same time as SRE. Of course they must know that it was introduced with the purpose of taking place alongside SRE, so it seems they were just desperately clutching at straws. In June, they announced that 35000 of their followers had signed a petition against the ethics classes being offered alongside SRE (http://www.smh.com.au/national/catholics-try-new-tack-in-ethics-row-20100607-xqu8.html). It is impossible to know what this means, of course, because only the signatories and the organizers have seen the petition, so we do not really know what was being supported. However, there were reports that church-goers were asked from the pulpit to sign a petition in support of Catholic catechists in public schools on the basis that their roles were threatened by the ethics course. There are 1.8 million Catholics in NSW, so the signatories are only about 3% of this group – hardly convincing evidence of strong opposition. Again reflecting the influence the big church organizations have over government policy, the Catholic Church was apparently offered “a seat at the table” in decisions on the ethics program (http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/news/latest_news/2010/2010318_1919.shtml).

At the NSW public school my children attend, SRE classes include Anglican and Catholic as well as Buddhist and Greek Orthodox. I know that some schools also offer Baptist, Muslim and Baha’i SRE classes, to name a few. What of these other religious organizations? Are the Anglicans and Catholics making so much noise that other voices in opposition to ethics classes are drowned out? To try to address this question, I first looked at the various web sites for some of these organizations. I am familiar with the very clear opposition to ethics classes on Anglican web sites, and to a lesser but still significant extent on Catholic sites. I was not at all familiar though with those of the other groups. The following is what I found at the time of writing.

I searched through the web sites of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia (http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/), the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT (http://baptistnsw.asn.au/), the Buddhist Council of NSW (http://www.buddhistcouncil.org/), the Australian Baha’i Community (http://www.bahai.org.au/scripts/WebObjects.exe/BNO.woa/wa/default) and the Islamic Council of NSW (http://www.icnsw.org.au/) and on none of these did I find any reference at all to ethics classes. I emailed each organization to try to find out whether they do have any opposition to ethics classes. While I received no reply from two of these, the three that I heard from all expressed their support. The SRE coordinator at the Buddhist Council said that the Buddhist Council has not made any stand with regards to the Ethics class for or against, and that it is open to programs which ultimately benefit children whether they are ethics classes or religious classes. Similarly, the Baha’i public information officer said that the Baha’i Community makes no objection to the introduction of ethics classes during the scripture class time and that parents have the right to choose the religious or spiritual education their children receive. Baptist Churches NSW told me that while they do not think parents should have to choose between SRE and ethics classes, children doing Christian scripture are already discussing life-related issues in the context of the teachings of Jesus, so they feel that children who don’t have that teaching should be able to discuss such issues in a context that is relevant for them.

So, none of these religious groups feel the need to bare their teeth, try to influence public policy and generate community opposition to the ethics program, and the ones I heard from were eminently reasonable. I did not need to contact the Uniting Church of Australia which has expressed very clearly its support for the program (http://insights.uca.org.au/2010/06june/ethics-in-schools-pilot.html). This support for ethics classes by several religious groups is echoed by the widespread support expressed by individuals (with or without religion) in the community. Perhaps in an attempt to suggest that lay Anglicans do not support the ethics classes, the Sydney Anglicans web site reports that some of their lay members were vociferous in support of a motion against ethics classes (http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/ethics/). But this of course does not suggest significant lay opposition, only the normal and reasonable distribution of views in the community. Most groups and individuals accept and respect this range of views, but Anglican and Catholic Church leaders continue to fight and shout in an attempt to ensure that their common view on this issue prevails. How does it go again? “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth”. Or did I get that wrong?

October 16, 2010 // Blog // 5 Comments //

5 Comments to “What’s that Noise?”

October 16, 2010 at 10:53 pm
ethicsrocks says:

So, contrary to what Peter Jensen claimed at the Anglican Synod this week, there are faith groups that support (or at least don’t oppose) the teaching of ethics to kids who don’t go to scripture! Not only that, the Baptists have now joined with the Uniting Church in support of the classes. Not even all the Christian churches are united in opposition!!! Splitters! It gives me hope that reason, not ignorance, will triumph in this matter
October 16, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Catherine says:

Yes. In my community the Anglicans are very vocal against the ethics course. Members of the church have joined the P&C even though they don’t have children at the school. I wonder if they know the C doesn’t stand for church? Do they see this as a branding opportunity? I wonder if they really do see that it is bad PR and bullying tactics. Public schools should not be battlegrounds for children’s souls. We all know where the church is thanks. It is the fact that children are being discriminated against by Dep’t Ed policy that they should be fighting. If the content of other scriptures is none of their business, then so too the ethics course.
When they next turn up at a P&C meeting to argue, I’m hoping we can turn it into a fete planning meeting
October 17, 2010 at 7:43 am
Catherine says:

The other thing I’ve been thinking, is that when this matter is resolved there will be winners and losers. Some members of the school community will be happy, others not. And those places could change after each state election. We will all still be at public schools together. I hope the winners are losers are gracious.
October 22, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Ken Maynard says:

To parents for ethics, Australia, http://parents4ethics.org/c 22nd October 2010.

Sent as an open letter, which either of us may distribute as we each see fit.

I have had a brief browse through your Webb-site, & read an article & comments in The Punch yesterday, basically pleading for freedom ~from~ religion. I wish to advise there is no freedom ~from~ government, law, taxes or religion. There is a certain freedom ~off~ government, law, taxes & religion in that we can choose from the various models on offer, but no freedom ~from~

On reading comments in The Punch yesterday, I came to the same conclusion as I did on a previous debate on Afghanistan. I have many concerns about our current policies in the Middle East, yet the small minded shower who are against it could never unify behind an alternate policy which was both coherent & addressed the problems.

Likewise the Atheists have got some good points on the faults of Christianity, yet are incapable of producing a coherent w/holistic paradigm as an alternative.

For myself, I do not believe Prime Cause, whoever or whatever he might be, has any direct day to day interest in us. I certainly do not believe he speaks to any of us directly. The Prophets heard voices representative of a higher calling, not literal & actual. (Only Muhammad is accredited with hearing literal & actual voices, but he seems a case of repetitive delusional psychosis) I openly agree religions are man-made, but so too are government, law, taxes & the motor car. I don’t see anyone dispensing with them just because they are man made, or not specifically authorized by Prime Cause.

For myself, I continue to admit Christianity is always part flawed, & I continue to develop, build off & improve it… Building on best human effort made in good faith, is the only thing we have. Man must have a w/holistic paradigm in which he can live & ~best manage~ his affairs. It is not as if the Atheists can offer a replacement.

To me, the muddled shower called Atheists are no threat to Christianity, but they do seem to be a real threat to themselves.

……………………………………………………

Much debate centers on the need to teach children right from wrong. Yet this discussion founders on the reality there is no such thing as right, wrong or ethics in physics, universe, evolution or nature, thus ethics can only be man-made. The only natural law being law of the jungle or rule of the strongest is even more unhelpful.

Most assert confidently, that ethics is just a universal code on how we should coexist with each other. This simple assertion quickly fails on the complexity of man.

As a self-determining species man must set an end-purpose to his existence; an end goal to aim for ~other than or external to~ mere day to day existence, & this is where the trouble & division begins.

All religions build from a intentional question or an inherited assumption…~what is the meaning & purpose of man & his society~ The problem is every religion comes up with a different answer.

Indigenous religions believe the purpose of man is empathy with nature, & man is effectively ~owned~ by nature. All the pre-Genesis Gods are variants off made in the image of nature.

Developed man believes we have dominion over nature & have to self manage. All the post-Genesis Gods (axial age Gods) are variants of made in the image of man.

Yet man has many images. Confucius believes man exist to serve family & state. Hindu’s seem to believe every man for himself & his own. (You to your karma, me to mine) Buddhism believes in a sophisticated escapism. Islam holds, seeing as how the sane have stuffed it up, better to follow a lunatic. Where the sane are tentative in their claims, at least the mad are certain they are right. Judaism & Christianity believe serve God in the highest. (The highest man can aspire to at any current level of development. Address only in honorifics & generalities; do not define him is specifics as that would bind him to the limited understandings of any given period.)

Where ethics serve ends, more or less, there is no common body of ethics to a multi-culture where all of its members are serving different ends. Any debate on ethics cannot start from the question of ethics, debate it can only commence from the question of ends. i.e.. What is the meaning & purpose of man & his society? The problem with Atheism & with secularism generally, is it wants to debate ethics separate from first agreeing on ends & you can’t.

Below is an extract from my home-page item… ~It is in God that we have our being~

Richard Dawkins asserts religion is not necessary to morality, to which I can give only a qualified acceptance. Micro-morality occurs more or less naturally in all humans. The Ten Commandments are regarded as a set of universal principles. Within the faiths of Abraham they differ only in that Christianity regards them as ten guiding principles x interpretation by contemporaneous judicial process = rule of law; while Islam administers them as ten fixed absolutisms called Sharia edicts. Yet regardless of variations in administration, the Ten Commandments are pretty much the universal micro-morality of all men everywhere. What we might well call ~natural morality~

The problem is man is not just a micro moral order of day to day living, but incorporated into the bigger picture of the purpose of the society. Religion asks what is the meaning & purpose of humanity itself, as understood by any given society? Then asks what macro-ethical framework is necessary for the society to pursue those aspirations.
Religions look to define the purpose of man & society. To define the macro-ethical structure necessary for society to pursue those objectives. For purposeful administration to work, suitable offices must be designed where power & responsibility is equal & co-ordinate & vested in one place; & vested proportionate to the role any office discharges in society. The societies micro-morality must then be adjusted to support & work in partnership with said offices toward the agreed end purposes. While the last six of the Ten Commandments comprise the universal common morality attested by Richard Dawkins, the first four bind them to the service of that greater paradigm which stands above them. Christianity thus seeks to integrate end purposes, micro-morality & macro-ethics into a cohesive working whole. Religions will always be necessary because their approach is that off a w/holistic vision, while other efforts are merely partial & piecemeal.

Only religions take all things great & small, & integrate them into a coherent purposeful whole.

I agree there is a problem as some religious visions are dated by their era of origin. Yet once updated there is no viable replacement for the w/holistic & all encompassing worldview of religions.
………………………………………

Before Atheists rush in to defend their ~everybody just needs to get along & respect each other~ may I posit this. If man has no purpose higher than day to day coexistence, why is it we are both uniquely privileged & uniquely endowed as a self determining species? If respectful coexistence was our highest destiny, we would have been made as a cow.

Conclusion, as all ethics are an artificial construct, they can have no existence separate from the end purpose they are intended to serve. The Bible first gives a defined purpose, then gives an ethical structure which serves that purpose, & serves Biblical ends alone. (To serve any other purpose would require variation off the ethics) The Bible is a coherent w/holistic system, while ethics for there own sake is a mindless muddle with no coherent destination. Ethics for there own sake, is beneath the dignity of man.

Ken Maynard…. email… 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.
October 25, 2010 at 5:15 pm
The Word is Out « parents4ethics says:

[...] Perhaps surprisingly, in view of the very loud campaigns they have been running against the ethics classes, the Anglican and Catholic Churches have not yet issued official responses to the evaluation. The Uniting Church, on the other hand, has always stated very clearly its support for the introduction of ethics classes for children not attending SRE, and has welcomed the report and its recommendations (http://www.insights.uca.org.au/news/2010/ethics-trial-report_20-10-2010.htm). Other Church groups have also indicated support for the trial (see blog on this site “What’s that Noise?”). [...]

Latest Media Articles

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.