NSW Shadow Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli, has written to ACL’s NSW Director, David Hutt and confirmed a future Coalition government would support the ongoing teaching of Special Religious Education (SRE) in public schools.
The guarantee comes amid growing concern that the NSW Government’s trial ethics classes represent the beginning of a broader push to get religion education out of public schools.
“Adrian Piccoli’s guarantee that the coalition will not amend the Education Act’s religious education provisions is a welcome first step,” Mr Hutt said. “ACL will continue to work with the Church to negotiate with the Government and Opposition on this very important issue.” The NSW Opposition is yet to announce whether it will support the state-wide roll out of the ethics classes.
Mr Hutt said it was still important for people to continue writing to local MPs as negotiations on this issue continue.
Please click here for assistance in firing off an email.
A staggering 50,000 people have called on the NSW Government to protect special religious education and reschedule the proposed ethics classes to another time slot. ACL’s NSW Director David Hutt today delivered the Save Our Scripture petition to the NSW Parliament and said the response had been overwhelming.
“We have seen people from every denomination, all over NSW making a stand to support SRE,” Mr Hutt said. “By working with denominational leaders we have been able to present a coordinated and united front to the NSW politicians as people across the state declare their support for SRE.”
Mr Hutt said petitioning parliament was an important way for people to speak directly into the political process and be heard.
“While we don’t necessarily oppose an ethics class, we do feel very strongly that if one is to be offered, it should be
available to all students, not just those who opt out of SRE.
“We are also concerned that this could be part of a broader push to get religion out of schools.
“This is why we are so heartened to have received a guarantee from the Coalition that, should they win government, regardless of whether there is an ethics course, Special Religious Education will still be provided in NSW.”
Posted in 
Why is SRE simply not made compulsory for all school children?
Surely it is even more important to those who have no faith than it is for those of strong faith in Christ.
If we cannot get to children when they are open to such new ideas, their minds may remain forever closed to us.
Please ACL, I looked for your assistance, as I wanted to say that I had heeded your call, but my computer says that I am the 404th person not to find this page. There are people waiting to help. Please don’t let us down.
Yours in Christ
B Whidn
Children who take the SRE option should not need to go to the ethics classes, because their religious education should teach them all the ethical principles they need.
In fact, if you accept the argument that all morality and ethical standards are ultimately grounded in God, then you would think that the SRE offers better ethical education than the ethics classes. There is no need to reschedule them, your children are better off without them. If you don’t believe that, then you urgently need to re-examine how your religious education is imparting ethics & morals into your children.
We live in a pluralist society. Atheists & agnostics have a place in this society and deserve this option as much as you have the right to the SRE classes. If SRE has a place in schools, then so does non-religious ethical education.
Bob,
“Why is SRE simply not made compulsory for all school children?”
Simply because it would be quite offensive to parents holding other religious beliefs (or no religious beliefs) to have the State (yes, the State) push Christianity onto their children. Try to imagine yourself in their position.
I have no issue with SRE for those that wish their children to participate, but compulsory participation is, frankly, intolerance.
K.
We must have Religious Education in schools – it is vital that at least if non-religious children have this education, they can come to our church later in their time of need as they will know the church is open to them and Jesus will always forgive them.
Please fix the link to the email instructions as I wish to email our politicians about this dreadful situation.
Paul and Karl, you are missing the point. Where can children get ethics from if not from The Bible?
Is your position the ludicrous one that people gain ethics from within, that it is some sort of innate conscience we all have?
If you countenance secular ethics classes then you are actively undermining the word of God.
It is the word of God that started civilisation as we know it.
Yours in Christ
Bob
Bob: I was not talking about ethics per se, more the right of parents to choose what SRE (or not) their child receives.
I don’t believe ethical knowledge comes from within. It is something that is learned, or as the case may be, not learned.
But it doesn’t have to come from God either, even if that’s where it originated. If God made it the case that it is wrong to commit murder, then teaching kids that it’s wrong to murder is teaching them good values, even if God is not mentioned.
I think the separation of ethics from religious narrative would be a good thing. In loosing children from SRE, you are not depriving children of ethical education, you are losing an opportunity to teach then the religious narrative.
As for “undermining the word of God” answer this Bob: Is murder (for example) wrong because God made it so, or is murder inherently wrong, and God let us know the truth of this matter?
Bob,
I am sad if you do not realise that much of secular ethics is based a vast amount of deeply-considered ethical dilemmas. I am not disputing that the Bible provides a set of ethical principles, but to ignore the contribution that millennia of philosophical evaluation have added is, frankly, a little naive.
I suggest that providing children with additional ethical guidance can only make for a better society. If, as adults, they choose to act within acceptable societal boundaries, does it matter (to others in society) whether it was because of SRE or additional ethical discussions?
K.
Yours in Christ
Bob
Bob,
With respect, you are missing the point entirely. That the Bible has moral lessons is not in any doubt. That it provides ethical guidance that has enriched society is without question. However, there are other sources of ethical thought which complement that foundation. To ignore them is, at best, teaching ignorance. For example, the progress made from the Old Testament view of slavery, forced marriage and womens’ value and place in society, are for a large part, the products of the furtherance of ethical philosophy on valuing individuals – the Golden Rule, if you like, developed. But it wouldn’t have happened if ethics were frozen in a literalist interpretation of the Bible.
And, pardon me, for someone who is presumably familiar with the teachings of Jesus about loving others, as he loved us, the suggestion that homosexuals “aren’t human” is morally repugnant.
So I am a supporter of both SRE for those that wish to participate, and for additional contemplation of ethical dilemmas in our schools. Teaching young minds to think from multiple perspectives on the nature and consequences of their decisions and actions is good preparation for the world outside of school.
I truly do not wish to get into an argument with you, and so this will be my final note on the subject.
K.
Karl, it is very late. After dinner I discussed this very issue with my wife. The discussion and our search for insight in The Bible went on far longer that either of us had expected.
After reading my posts, my wife insisted that I revisit some of them.
My wife insists that people who do not share our religious perspective on the world nevertheless often have similar basic morals to us. I still cannot explain how this is.
It is ironic that I have had my eyes opened to this after visiting the web sight of an organisation where I thought I would find like minded people. I have always found it difficult to seek out and accept points of view different to my own. Perhaps there is some Christian insight to be gained in even those things we may be offended by.
However, I cannot accept your view that the difference between the Old and the New Testament are due to the advancing morality of man. Surely they are God’s words and are a literal translation, not an interpretation. It seems to me that if you take this view then a more “modern” morality could supersede the teachings of The Bible.
My wife has also informed me that our own Church has a number of homosexual members, all of whom are (according to her) very loving and valuable members. I am utterly dismayed and I will have to pray some more tomorrow (or should I say later today) for guidance.
I do not know how I could have been blind to my wife’s change of heart. I thought we were one on the subject of the basic immorality of homosexual behaviour. She tells me that she changed her mind after a great kindness was shown to her by someone who she later learned was not only homosexual, but aware of our position on them and their lifestyle. She felt she could not share this with me, but did so tonight.
I find that I have to search my faith deeply as I value my wife’s insight, but I still maintain that homosexuality is very very wrong.
Yours in Christ
Bob