Leslie Cannold

At ABC Religion Online, Leslie Cannold has another polemic against 'scripture' in schools, and once again she is clearly angry and confused.  She is angry about two things: first that there is a system of religious instruction by religious people in schools, and second that Christians unfairly dominate it. She is also angry about the funding, presence and role of school chaplains.

First, does secular government schooling necessarily exclude religious belief?  It depends on the model of secularism. As per my previous blog post, I believe that secularism is maintained as a compromise between people of all kinds. But I think education that doesn't include answers to life's big questions is inadequate.  So I think for the sake of all our children, it is worthwhile having as fair a system as we can construct to introduce children to many of the alternative universes their community inhabits.  This is, I am told, the English enlightenment view of secularism. Secularity is a concession we all make so as not to try each others tolerance too much.  The French enlightenment view is that maintaining king and god-free space is the job of the state, once you chop their heads off - hence the bans on the burqa in schools, which seems to most Australians to be too much state power over the individual. I don't think children are immune from life's big questions. I think education can and should open to the whole human experience to the educatee.  Obviously there are different priorities, but there is no fundamental reason that religion should not be taught.

You may be saying 'Of course not, comparative religion, teach that.' This will not serve.  The authentic voice of belief must be heard, and viable (if available) modern believers should present themselves. Third-person presentation of a system includes as the frame a rejection of it.  Religion is a worldview, a complete(-ish) idea of being - a whole human believing it is the phenomena you want to present.  Leslie is terribly anxious about evangelism (explaining the gospel in its own terms) and proselytising (converting people), but I think that's the point.  People in our society find systematised answers to life's big questions (whether thought-through atheism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc) helpful.  Christianity is not for everyone; but neither is atheism.

On the second point, that Christians unfairly dominate it, I have no strong objection, except to point out that it's the government that shells out the money.  Christians are very magical (not really) and sinister (sometimes a bit), but this (funding religious education coordinating bodies and chaplains for each school) is the action of ministers and public servants.  It is a real shame that the Christians involved took advantage.  They shouldn't have - it would have put them on firmer footing now. But it can be corrected in years to come.