AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
My blood ran cold on Saturday when I saw Jacqueline Maley's report in The Herald quoting huge chunks from my recent article about the impact of the trial on SRE.
Like anyone else I have my personal views on this issue, but I certainly don't speak on behalf of the Synod of the Anglican Church.
One aspect of the debate that Maley did not properly explain is why Anglican bishops are complaining about 'competition' from ethics.
The way it was stated in the SMH article led correspondents to focus anger on breaking up a so-called Christian 'monopoly'.
But is SRE really a monopoly and is the Anglican Church against competition? After all SRE is already a competition between a plethora of belief systems.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the SRE debate is that both sides appear to believe that the other is the 'Telecom' (or monopoly) in the equation.
What the Anglican Church fears is that the Labor Government will stack the rules of 'competition' against them (and all other SRE providers), using the monopoly powers of the Department of Education as a way of marginalising - even eradicating - SRE over the long term. Like Telstra in competition with other telcos, the Department of Education (DET) controls the infrastructure, so if the DET becomes the ‘SRE’ provider for the secularists, then they would have an unfair advantage.
In contrast, many atheists/secularists see SRE - enshrined in protective legislation - as a Telecom-style monopoly. As one of my sparring partners put it: ethics is the 'Optus' - the new kid on the block fighting a powerful monopoly. It therefore needs, he said, a leg up from the Government to get it on its feet.
But the new ethics option is not 'Optus' in any meaningful sense. SRE is already a competitive playing field. We do not need the Government to create a market. It already exists.
The false assumption from the pro-ethics camp is that SRE is one entity. Perhaps this is because secularists see all religions as the same thing?
The current SRE system is not merely Anglican or even Christian. It is designed in such a way that it can potentially represent every belief system in the community.
In my view the current SRE system could be easily tweaked to allow a secularist or 'non-religious' option into this market. It does not need the ground-zero complete overhaul that appears to be on the Minister of Education's agenda.
Lesson from Burkha ban
The SRE debate also comes at a time when the very notion of 'secularism' is up for grabs.
Facing the collapse of a multicultural consensus in the wake of September 11, secular Governments across the globe are struggling to work out how much freedom to afford devout religious minorities: especially Christian and Muslim groups.
The recent debate over the Burkha is one part of the debate.
Some conservatives in Australia, such as Cory Benardi completely misjudge what is at stake.
Bernardi writes:
Perhaps some of you will consider that burqa wearing should be a matter of personal choice, consistent with the freedoms our forefathers fought for. I disagree. The burqa isolates some Australians from others. Its symbolic barrier is far greater than the measure of cloth it is created from.
This line of argument sounds remarkably French: a plea for secular, non-religious homogeneity.
Australian political theorist Tim Soutphommasane wrote an insightful article in The Australian about Belgium's decision to ban the burkha, and the reasons France in seriously considering doing likewise.
Those familiar with France will be aware its civic culture isn’t one of vive la difference. The French republic has, since its birth through revolution, stood for an unambiguous and unitary creed: liberte, egalite, fraternite..it is contended the veil places a formidable barrier to solidarity (which is where fraternite enters the equation). Bernard Accoyer, president of the French national assembly, has said that the burka involves “a rejection of coexistence side by side, without which our republic is nothing”.
However the English-speaking world has offered a different vision of secularism to France, based on the idea of State 'tolerance'.
For example, in America the idea of the separation of church and state grew out of Protestant (and especially Puritan) experience of religious persecution in Europe. The idea was to protect the conscience of minorities against the totalising power of the State.
In Australia, the Constitution prevents the Government from establishing any religion. In this sense we have a secular Government but not a secular society, which is multi-cultural and multi-faith. In this context 'secular' means that the Government does not preference one religion over another.
It has been heartening to hear that 'tolerance' of religion is still the default position for most Australian secular-humanists. Even avowed atheists such as Mike Carleton took this approach when discussing the Burkha issue on ABC 702.
It also seems that most Australians do not want State-endorsed secular-humanism of the French-kind rise up as the replacement for our 110-year old non-denominational constitution.
Let's keep Australia as a land of freedom and the fair go.
But I strongly support the Australian electoral system over the British. (You call first past the post 'democratic?.. more like a gerrymander)
Question: Are British citizens forced to do jury duty? Most Australians would see compulsory voting in the same category as jury duty: ie a civic responsibility. Anyway you are not forced to actually cast a vote. You can tick your name off the registry anytime in the lead up to the election (ie proxy or postal vote) and not actually send in the vote.
Jeremy, thank you for this analogy. I think you are onto something.
The competition or options available will vary from place to place. I have taught SRE in three parishes over 15 years.
1. South West Sydney (where there were more Buddhists than Anglicans on the census more than a decade ago. From memory, there was SRE from Anglicans (and sometimes joint Protestants), Roman Catholics, Buddhists and in some schools, Muslim. Sadly some primary schools also had none because there were so many schools and relatively few churches.
2. Semi-rural north west of Sydney. Just Anglican and RC.
3. Wollongong. Over the road here, for SRE there is Bahai, Muslim, Buddhist, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and joint Protestant (an agreement between Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Salvos, Congregational and sometimes Lutheran).
Recently the leaders of the 6 options just listed were also invited to address all of year 3-4 together for GRE at a separate time on the topic of our major festivals and beliefs. We each had a few minutes. It was done very fairly. Everyone agreed on the importance of tolerance, and that we shared much in common. It also gave a chance to see that there were important differences. For example, the Muslim leader stated quite clearly that God had no Son (contradicting what the Christians had just said about Jesus) and that Jesus did not die on the cross.
Conclusions?
(i) There has long been room for competition in SRE. It's like the telco situation now, not 20 or 3 years ago. There are genuine options. But the demography of different areas will determine how much it happens on the ground.
(ii) There is also good opportunity to teach GRE to all (mandated as part of HSIE). But schools often omit it, partly because the whole curriculum is overstuffed these days, and sometimes because some teachers are too PC or just don't know much about it.
Implications for Ethics?
In my view, it would be fine to allow it as another competitor in the SRE slot, but on a level playing field, just like all other SRE providers. I.e. with philosophical foundation labelled, with voluntary teachers, without any school or DET funding, and without being given an advantage in promotion.
For example, I have been refused the chance to hand out a brief descriptive brochure of SRE to new parents at a school, or the chance to briefly outline what SRE offers at a new parents info session. So maybe you can understand my concern when I hear Ethics Classes were promoted to all parents, and not just presented on the enrolment form alongside all the other options. Competitors should all have equal chances (or none) to outline and promote their classes.
It seems to me that one of the best ways to argue for the place of SRE in a way that secular people ought to find convincing is to point to the remarkable - and almost unique - model of religious tolerance and even co-operation that it presents.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. For a start the Catholics and Anglicans don't collude :)
I can't see how the tax issue is relevant in this case. Don't all education providers get tax benefits? I am assuming the SJEC would be tax-exempt for being an educational supplier. If not. They should.
You just ignore the examples given of a diversity of options in many places.
You love to tell other people they are ignorant. Well perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that Christians of different denominations often cannot agree among themselves. That's why in some schools there are 2 or 3 or even 4 different Christian SREs. Even the Protestants can't always agree!
I am sure there are differences between religions and charities and not-for-profits, but a simple check showed that St James Ethics Centre can offer tax deductibility, and presumably enjoys all advantages not-for-profits enjoy.
The reason for high regulatory barrier of entry is the protection of children. Volunteers should be screened and accredited. And you cannot just enter as a DIY start-up religion. You need to demonstrate to DET that you meet their criteria. However independent religious bodies prove it can be done.
I just want a level playing field.
Replacing SRE with GRE / ethics is akin to replacing one access regime with another (ie allowing different groups to use it, based on different criteria and using, perhaps, different resources).
There is a recent High Court decision (Telstra v The Commonweath) from early 2008, which upheld the Commonwealth's right to impose whatever type of access regime it saw fit at the time Telstra (and therefore its network) was privatised. This seems somewhat akin to the origins of SRE - namely, it was a condition that the churches insisted upon in return for handing control over schools to the Government. The lesson from the Telstra case is that history matters, and needs to be respected.
I wonder whether the Ethics classes should debate the situation where one supplier is allowed to advertise but none of their commpetitors are. How ethical is that?
At now defunct Gardiner Central School (Gds 7-8) I vividly recall Major Jacobs of the Salvation Army—I am looking back to 1948-9 so think about his impact.
At Melbourne High School we had one session each week, with around a thousand boys gathered in the school hall. Over the years we were addressed by a variety of Protestant ministers from prominent Melbourne churches most of whom I can't recall these days. We sang an opening and closing hymn, heard a talk, and closed. Our Principal always attended, as perhaps befits one of the famous Anglican Langley family.
Several teachers took an active part in running the assembly and had no hesitation in making their values clear. One had a great tenor voice and to listen to him during the hymn singing was a real joy. I am sure that my long Christian commitment owes much to those years, especially the concepts of social justice that somehow was embedded in the 'preaching' if that is the right word.
But most of all, I owe my greatest debt to the Inter School Christian Fellowship (Scripture Union) that maintained a small but solid presence in the school over many years. It was held in lunch-hour and was entirely voluntary and outside the standard religious education provisions.
That's a facetious and irrelevant comment.
Oh the irony.
So some observations. 1. Most parents interested in their chidren doing the ethics course probably don't realise that teaching children to reason about ethical dilemmas doesn't make them more ethical. 2. Ethical behaviour is taught over years through example, positive reinforcement and caring discipline from close significant adults. 3. Children don't really start to reason abstractly until they are well into high school.
We really need to go back several steps on most of the issues engaging us around this trial and its legislative, historical, educational and political context.
Thanks to all contributing serious thought to them.
Dont be daft Marc.
This is like saying the Qantas-British Airways partnership is collusion.
The dictionary definition of collusion says:
Wikipedia says:
Collusion is secretive and illegal. A partnership is not collusion.
I trust you will withdraw your allegation of collusion.
You should really think twice in your use of language. These sorts of comments just inflame the debate.
Dear Marc,
Federal funding of school chaplains was applied for by a school first and foremost. Under NSCP rules State school funding recipients work through an employer body which is a religious institution, Christian or otherwise. Any bona fide religious institution is at liberty to set up as a chaplaincy provider as long as they fulfill NSCP requirements.
The benefit of the NSCP is for the school community, and feedback from schools has been largely positive. When DEEWR issues their NSCP review paper for public submissions next month I expect feedback on the success of the program will be in it, along with issues different stakeholders have with aspects of it.
GenR8 Ministries sponsors 42 chaplaincies in NSW out of 213 in state schools. While it is the largest sponsor in NSW, most sponsor only one each.
GenR8 is a coalition of Scripture Union NSW, Presbyterian Youth, Baptist Union and Youthworks, under its own board. It pays for space and services from Youthworks.
The NSCA receives no money per se from the government because it is an unincorporated association of the largest state and ACT chaplaincy employers. These each receive funds on behalf of the schools who applied for the grants and deliver chaplaincy services accordingly. The NSCA members have most chaplancies because they've been in the business the longest in all other states - up to 55 years in Victoria. The NSCP was designed to extend the social benefit to more schools.
I still think your point about 'collusion' is semantics given the vernacular meaning. The Protestant denominations don't co-operate in every school. Not all 25 or so Protestant denominations co-operate. And there are about 17 non-Protestant SRE providers. Hardly an oligarchy.
Ironically we had other atheists here arguing there are too many SRE providers... "Where is the quality control/regulation from government?" they ask.
Given that I'm not opposed to competition from atheists/secularists I'm not sure why you are pushing these points so aggressively on my blog.
Perhaps you should take up your concerns with Youthworks directly. (As I have done.)
You are doing your own cause no good by throwing around unsubstantiated allegations.
We could equally ask where the St James Ethics Centre is getting its funding? I have enough circumstantial evidence to make the sort of silly allegations you have made above. But its beside the point anyway. Not-for-profits (Christians or otherwise) will get their funding from a range of sources.
Sorry. I think we are talking across purposes a little. The quote you used from wikipedia uses the phrase "market structure of oligopoly". (My mistake for using the wrong term.)
1. Its still debatable whether SRE is an oligopoly given the number of providers. But granted the Anglicans and Roman Catholics dominate this so-called market.... Coles and Woolworths anyone? (I'm joking) ;)
2. I never said that that there were not barriers (currently) that would need to be changed/lowered to allow competition from secularists. Obviously the DET's guidelines would need to be tweaked.
Nevertheless I'm not really interested in pushing this argument any further. For goodness's sake it was only a metaphor! You are taking this illustration far too seriously Marc. :)
Granted they are the Anglican Church's SRE provider so they are rightly the primary voice. But they are not the only voice.
Ultimately the Anglican position will be set by our Synod in October. Our Synod (or parliament) is the ultimate voice in the Anglican Church's structure.
This is how I read your comments: Federal Government money to Genr8 for school chaplains is being used by Anglican Youthworks to run a political campaign to protect the status quo on SRE. Happy to be corrected if that's not what you meant.
I should clarify the reason this is a joke is that at this point the analogy to the market breaks down.
The relative size of Anglican and RC v other SRE providers is a reflection of demographic factors in the community.
The error here is that religious markers are not always merely a matter of 'choice' but also 'identity'.
Where is your evidence that federal govt money is being used to by the Diocese of Sydney to campaign against the ethics classes?
Sydneyanglicans.net reserves the right to remove material in the following circumstances:
and
Unless you can prove this allegation, I would ask you to withdraw it.
Otherwise I will ask the site administrator to take the appropriate action under the guidelines.
Therefore your claim: "Youthworks received federal funding via NSCA/GenR8 to run their SRE related activities" is totally false.
Therefore your repeated comments breach two sections of our posting policy.
Thanks for the back-down.