Question: Tony Abbott wants the Bible to be taught compulsorily in Our Schools, IS THIS THE RESULT ?

( Back )

Answer #1:

They could be taught "all property is theft" if they studied Proudhon. But that wouldn't be covered in Xavier College.

Don't worry. Education is a state responsibility so Abbott can't influence the curriculum without approval from the states.

Edit: I understand, but a national curriculum still requires consent from the states (education is not a Federal function in our constitution). Abbott's comments were made to appeal to his conservative Christian supporters.

However the example that you gave of students from Xavier College committing theft does not relate to Abbott's comments on the Bible being taught in schools. Many students in public schools commit the same offenses. Without a proper study comparing crime rates between different schools, balanced for any socio-economic variables, it is not correct to say that "this is the result."

What is more important is whether students should be subjected to ideological education. They should not, and non-Christians would certainly be complaining loudly if this was to happen.

Answer #2:

Nah, mandatory bible study lowers the IQ of your average student by about 20 points. If you go the "all faiths" route, it'll take up so much time you won't have time left to teach the kids how to read.

The only viable option is to make religion a personal family choice and just keep it TOTALLY out of the schools.

I'm not familiar with your government, but, this Abbot fellow sounds like somebody you should vote out at the first available opportunity. I'm totally convinced that we should no longer tolerate or bestow governing power to religious people. They've already demonstrated a willingness to embrace the irrational, so how can we trust them to make intelligent decisions?

Answer #3:

Religion results in believers looking down on those who don't believe exactly the same thing. Just look at those attacking Gillard because she is honest about her beliefs.

Scrap scripture/religion in all state run schools and implement the ethics course being developed in NSW.

Edit - Aloyisious we are not a christian Democracy - christianity has nothing to do with Democracy. The Enlightenment is the basis of our Democracy, as it forced the separation of state and church and gave us among other things the abolition of slavery, women become more than just chattels and human rights established, 3 little things the established church was happy to keep.

Answer #4:

No.

That is such a ridiculous example it is not worth commenting further on the subject.

Answer #5:

No. And silly to even suggest it.

We live in a Christian democracy & Tony Abbott is right in his views. Just because Gillard is a communist atheist does not mean the rest of the country needs to slide down to her level.

Answer #6:

i would not have a problem with religion being taught at school but it shouldn't be compulsory they should make it as an elective subject so that students that do not follow the christian faith dont have to learn about it

Answer #7:

The kindest thing anyone can say about THIS question is that it is ignorant , ill thought out & biased .....

Kids who go to Church run schools are not necessarily Christian , nor are their parents....that is a fact that seems to escape those who constantly whine & moan about the whole private versus state schools funding debate as well !

To attempt to base your argument about religious education on an example of kids out of control at one Catholic college is simplistic to say the least & really Jenny , not worthy of debate...

In my opinion , if one young person's life is touched & maybe turned around for the better because someone gave up their time to teach them the basis of the Christian faith then it's all worthwhile..at the very least it isn't something that can cause anyone harm ...

Answer #8:

I'm sorry, but how on earth does this even relate? The people who encourage teaching the bibles in school can just say ''and look at the other thousand kids who did not steal''.

This is possibly the stupidest generalisation I've ever seen.

Answer #9:

** Powered by Yahoo Answers