Abbott thinks reading the Bible should be compulsory in schools (1 Viewer)

[0bs3n3]

Sure, but does it need to be compulsory? The very idea insults me tbh.

Troll alert:

Ok, I'm going to be a dick here, but it insults you to be Australian?

As mentioned by jetblack, a lot of our history is intertwined with Christianity, as are our legal institutions, government, public holidays, etc. which - taking a leap here - somewhat define us as a nation. A good grasp of ones history is necessary for identity.

Apologies if you are an immigrant and/or Asian.

But I feel there are thousand of books (both fiction and non-fiction) that are more worthwhile examining

How do you judge a books worth? That is totally subjective. How about we take that to the extreme and read nothing at all?

 

[wendybird]

Troll alert:

Ok, I'm going to be a dick here, but it insults you to be Australian?

As mentioned by jetblack, a lot of our history is intertwined with Christianity, as are our legal institutions, government, public holidays, etc. which - taking a leap here - somewhat define us as a nation.

Apologies if you are an immigrant and/or Asian.



How do you judge a books worth? That is totally subjective. How about we take that to the extreme and read nothing at all?

Lol. Immigrant AND Asian.

I'm insulted because I am in fact widely read, and HAVE studied the bible. Therefore I feel insulted that someone feels that I SHOULD be told to read something. If I am interested, I will read it and assess it on my own terms, not on Mr Abbot's.

In fact, nowhere have I said that we SHOULDNT read or understand the bible. Many of my friends are very dedicated Christians, I attend some of their ceremonies and youth group gatherings, and like I said previously, I went to a religion affiliated school. I think the Bible and Christianity IS important. But I also think that it shouldn't be imposed nor packaged in the form that Mr Abbot suggests. I object to his method and tbh, I'm suspicious of his motives. I do not object to religion as such. Nor religious education for that matter.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

The bible isnt needed to instill decent morals on someone, they should be common sense.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Lol. Immigrant AND Asian.

I'm insulted because I am in fact widely read, and HAVE studied the bible. Therefore I feel insulted that someone feels that I SHOULD be told to read something. If I am interested, I will read it and assess it on my own terms, not on Mr Abbot's.

In fact, nowhere have I said that we SHOULDNT read or understand the bible. Many of my friends are very dedicated Christians, I attend some of their ceremonies and youth group gatherings, and like I said previously, I went to a religion affiliated school. I think the Bible and Christianity IS important. But I also think that it shouldn't be imposed nor packaged in the form that Mr Abbot suggests. I object to his method and tbh, I'm suspicious of his motives. I do not object to religion as such. Nor religious education for that matter.

Yes! The choice to read the bible already exists. If people wish to pursue it, then its up to them, not Abbott.

 

[Ethanescence]

Mmm, we can't go the other way on this though and try and "circumcise " history by avoiding mention or discussion of the bible from syllabi.

From a literary point of view, sure, the bible isn't so great, but its influence is undeniable. It was a bad influence, but this will be clear with a proper study of the bible. I also think people would find studying the roots of the writings in the bible worthwhile. Genesis actually has an interesting history, though pretty much the polar opposite of the "revealed text" view that the church would have you believe.

That's very true. I wouldn't have any issues if the Bible was taught/read in this fashion.

But I'm willing to bet that if the Bible was to be compulsorily taught in high schools, this sort of reading of the Bible would not occur in the majority of cases.

I'm pretty sure that Abbott has more of a "read it and believe it" attitude towards teaching the Bible, rather than an objective study of the Bible that you've outlined.

And while some teachers may teach the Bible in an appropriate way, you can count on teachers involving their biases into their teaching methods.

It's better for all involved if Bible reading was not compulsory in schools, as it is such a controversial and often personal issue that it will cause more problems than it is worth.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

It's better for all involved if Bible reading was not compulsory in schools, as it is such a controversial and often personal issue that it will cause more problems than it is worth.

Agreed. If I was still in school, I would openly object and REVOLT!

edit: too dramatic?

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Lol. Immigrant AND Asian.

I'm insulted because I am in fact widely read, and HAVE studied the bible. Therefore I feel insulted that someone feels that I SHOULD be told to read something. If I am interested, I will read it and assess it on my own terms, not on Mr Abbot's.

In fact, nowhere have I said that we SHOULDNT read or understand the bible. Many of my friends are very dedicated Christians, I attend some of their ceremonies and youth group gatherings, and like I said previously, I went to a religion affiliated school. I think the Bible and Christianity IS important. But I also think that it shouldn't be imposed nor packaged in the form that Mr Abbot suggests. I object to his method and tbh, I'm suspicious of his motives. I do not object to religion as such. Nor religious education for that matter.

Firstly, + an infinite amount to everything Wendy has said.

Secondly, I think this (bold) is the way to go, it shouldn't be inflicted on students who don't elect to do SOR or any other religious course, it should be done in the students own time, to remove the bias in which it may be taught, which would come from the teachers beliefs.

Yes! The choice to read the bible already exists. If people wish to pursue it, then its up to them, not Abbott.

Ya

Agreed. If I was still in school, I would openly object and REVOLT!



edit: too dramatic?

Not at all, I would also.

 

[Cazic]

Well, Mr Abbot is being unhelpful in that he doesn't say a whole lot. I'm cynical enough to think that he's probably sh*t-stirring.

Well, maybe you're right, but I still think studying the bible is worthwhile, and I'm not willing to dismiss the idea because a religious nutter suggested it.

As far as choosing the bible over other religious texts, well, I don't think that's so hard to justify actually. In studying the bible you're indirectly studying all of the Abrahamic religions, and tangents going off and discussing Islam, Judaism, etc, could easily be covered in a decent course without having the get into too many gritty details. The same could almost be said of the Koran, but this seems too distant from Judaism then.

It might not necessarily be an entirely bad influence. What about those Christians who gain moral principles which can be viewed as correct even in a secular world (e.g. do not kill)? Is it a bad influence then?

People who gain moral principles from the bible need to remove themeselves from society. You don't kill people because killing people is a dick move.

 

[moll.]

It might not necessarily be an entirely bad influence. What about those Christians who gain moral principles which can be viewed as correct even in a secular world (e.g. do not kill)? Is it a bad influence then?

Yes. It perverts Darwinism and the course of the Greater Good.
It would appear that without their dogma to guide their morality, Christians would either simply be normal (read: moral) people, or they would degrade into mass murderers and serial rapists.
If the former, great. If the latter, then they need to be identified and liquefied asap, lest they spread their psychology impure seed.
I know it seems harsh my comrades, but you will thank me later, when we live in a Utopian society, free from crime, drugs, and fickle emotions.
Submit to my grand plan and you will finally have peace in your lives, never to fear again!

 

[0bs3n3]

Agreed. If I was still in school, I would openly object and REVOLT!

edit: too dramatic?

lol I don't understand this. Are you scared you will be converted?

I'm just saying, if it was introduced, it's just another part of the syllabus.

 

[wendybird]

That's very true. I wouldn't have any issues if the Bible was taught/read in this fashion.

But I'm willing to bet that if the Bible was to be compulsorily taught in high schools, this sort of reading of the Bible would not occur in the majority of cases.

I'm pretty sure that Abbott has more of a "read it and believe it" attitude towards teaching the Bible, rather than an objective study of the Bible that you've outlined.

And while some teachers may teach the Bible in an appropriate way, you can count on teachers involving their biases into their teaching methods.

It's better for all involved if Bible reading was not compulsory in schools, as it is such a controversial and often personal issue that it will cause more problems than it is worth.

Exactly. Based on my understand of Mr Abbot's position on a number of other issues- homosexuality, abortion etc, etc, I DON'T think he is going to be pushing for a secular, critical approach to the Bible.

And all those things- biases, wrongful ways of teaching, especially to kids who may be unduly influenced at a particular moment in time - mean that realistically, religion and the compulsory teaching of one particular religion should be kept out of the curriculum.

It should be optional and I think the BOS already deals quite adequately with it in the form of Reese's ethics classes in primary school and the old scripture system, what I presume is a similar system in high school (I wouldn't know, I went to a private school), AND the SOR courses (which I reckon are quite good actually).

Very rarely have I met a politician who can take a clear minded, non agenda-filled approach to educational policy tbh. I'll tell you about it when I do more work in that area next year.

 

[Ethanescence]

It might not necessarily be an entirely bad influence. What about those Christians who gain moral principles which can be viewed as correct even in a secular world (e.g. do not kill)? Is it a bad influence then?

The majority of people who think for themselves don't need a book to tell them not to kill people.

If they do, they are most probably unable to comprehend simplistic morality and ethics without it being spelled out for them.

And if that is the case, they shouldn't be reading the Bible anyway as they'd probably think stoning adulterers and homosexuals is somehow justified.

 

[0bs3n3]

The bible isnt needed to instill decent morals on someone, they should be common sense.

So we are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong? And if we aren't, then it's obviously society that lays them upon us. Where has the majority (if not all) of societies morals come from? Oh, right, Australia is a majority Christian country >.>

 

[moll.]

What the fuck is with all the 09ers or below on this forum?

NCAP IS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO OLD TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN JADED, CYNICAL AND EMOTIONAL STUNTED. IF YOU DO NOT FULFILL ALL THESE CRITERIA, PLEASE VACATE THE PREMISES.

 

[0bs3n3]

What the fuck is with all the 09ers or below on this forum?

You're below 09.

 

[Cazic]

You're below 09.

Hahaha.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

So we are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong? And if we aren't, then it's obviously society that lays them upon us. Where has the majority (if not all) of societies morals come from? Oh, right, Australia is a majority Christian country >.>

Are you saying if you didnt have that lil book to instruct you how to live your life, you wouldnt see a problem with being violent and attacking someone or being blantantly rude or disrespectful?

 

[moll.]

"Below" chronologically, not numerically, retard.

 

[Ethanescence]

So we are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong? And if we aren't, then it's obviously society that lays them upon us. Where has the majority (if not all) of societies morals come from? Oh, right, Australia is a majority Christian country >.>

Have you ever thought that some morals and ethics might be intrinsic in all cultures for a reason other than society/religion?

Morals and ethics have a clear evolutionary advantage. If a species is able to co-exist peacefully, this will ensure that more of said species will survive to procreate. In many cases, universal morals/ethics ensure the propagation of species, and thus are an evolutionary advantage.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

lol I don't understand this. Are you scared you will be converted?

I'm just saying, if it was introduced, it's just another part of the syllabus.

No, but I feel that it infringes upon my right of religion and belief. I have no problems whatsoever with religion. Some of my friends are christian/catholic and dammit, my favourite band, skillet, is a christian rock band as well (a rather brilliant one I might add ), who the singer openly declares that he sings about jesus! All I'm saying is that the idea of having the bible thrusted under my nose is completely out of the question!

I also really doubt that alot of the non-christian parents would be too happy about this.