Judeo-christian values and quality of life

So Ethics classes are a hot topic in the media again. On Saturday it was all about a New South Wales government inquiry, and Fred Nile still wanting to put a stop to the classes.  I actually get excited every-time Fred Nile jumps up in parliament and rips on the secular ethics classes. It always starts this whirlwind of debate about religious education and the benefits of philosophical ethics for children. I think Fred Nile is creating a bit of the Streisand effect, and unwittingly promoting the questioning of the current laws surrounding religion in schools across the country. And so, for a nice change of pace, it was Queensland in the paper today.

Personally I hope that more states follow New South Wales' lead and introduce a secular alternative to scripture (RE, SRE, RI or whatever else you want to call it). But, I digress. The title of this blog, "Judeo-christian values and quality of life" pretty much sums up what I wanted to blog about. There is a common argument that Western countries, like Australia, are some of the best places in the world to live because of their Judeo-christian values. I have read this time and time again. I have a couple of observations about this. If it is indeed Christianity which has helped us out so much, I'm at a loss explain the enormous divide in the quality of life between my country and those in Latin and South America. And check out the Gaza strip. Plenty of Jews around there, and surely they at least have the "Judeo" part of the values.

I'm not saying that  "Don't steal, Don't kill, Don't lie" aren't pretty good guidelines and that Jesus didn't have some pretty neat proverbs to help with understanding morals and ethics. What I am saying is that this can't be the only thread of morality holding our society together, and probably isn't the reason for their success. I'm going support this argument with another personal observation:

Civil Rights. Free Market. The Enlightenment

Bugging my MP about Primary ethics classes.. again

Rev. Fred Nile thinks he has the upper hand an declared war on Primary Ethics classes, again. And again, I have written to my State Member. I urge you to do the same if you are appalled that Rev Nile would use our children as a "trump card" to manipulate the government to get his own way.

The following is an adapted version of my letter:

The issue of Primary ethics is one close to my heart. I've been following it since April last year. I watched the success of the pilot. And now I teach the ethics class at my local school.

I understand that politics often involves power plays and manipulation, it come with the territory. Rev Nile has always made his opinions regarding the Ethics classes well known and this stunt really wasn't surprising. But please allow me to give you some quick facts about the Primary Ethics program and my experiences in the classroom. As of June 2011, Primary Ethics had started 180 Ethics classes in 128 schools across the state, teaching about 2700 students in Years 5&6 each week. Primary Ethics managers claim that there are about 100,000 children whose parents opt their kids out of SRE classes, and we are offering an alternative (it is not compulsory) to that section of each school. 

These classes promote higher order thinking. They are philosophy classes. Ethics is the study of the concepts involved in practical reasoning: good, bad, freedom, virtues, rationality... etc (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy). In these classes children learn to investigate how they behave in a moral context, and why they choose to do it. The curriculum puts a strong emphasis on reasoning. Without realizing it (or being able to define it in the same way as a university philosophy text book might), the students in my class have learned to recognise "circular reasoning". Rather than state "Your premise assumes the conclusion", they'll say "you've just said the same thing twice". But in its most simplistic form, the class is learning to see logical flaws in others arguments. While this may have created an issue 6 months ago, being a potential chance to "put someone down" they have also learned to respect each other. Fallacious arguments are pointed out with care and consideration. Students will often then reflect upon the comments of their classmates. Furthermore, the children love the classes. They are held right before lunch recess, and yet there is a communal groan when I tell them it's over.

Now, for my personal opinion. Keeping in mind the critical analysis skills these students are learning, the fact the ethics teachers require formal training and ongoing monitoring and that the curriculum has been approved by the DEC (formerly known as the DET) I can see possible validity in the argument, from those who oppose the classes, that the SRE children are disadvantaged by not attending the ethics course. I disagree that cancelling ethics is the answer. Surely the solution would be to fight for inquiry based learning, and higher order thinking to become more widely spread throughout the entire general curriculum, rather than scrapping the only subject based on philosophy.

I then finished be asking my PM to fight to keep the Liberal Party's promise not to cancel the program.
I ask that you write to your member if this issue is important to you too.

Over, and Out

It's a national treasure:

Just a random doodle I drew while on "hold" to a government department.

(It's a parsnip. If you don't get it, that would be because you don't hang with the cool kids enough. But it's ok, dweebs, today is your lucky day. I'm going to let you in on the joke. During June a current affairs program 60 minutes run this great report on vaccination in Australia. It's worth watching the entire film, but pay particular attention around 2:15. Listen out of the mention of a "National teasure" and see if you can spot the parsnip box. I hope you find it as entertaining as we did )

Let's admit it, it's not like you'll use it again

It's come up a couple of times on twitter now. The topic of body donation to a university for Medical teaching. Death really isn't something that people like to talk about much. But in my relatively short time in the skeptical and atheist (and admittedly nerd-tastic) community I've found that these reasonable people seem to be the most comfortable with their imminent demise.

These skeptics are overwhelming pro-science and medicine. Many of them have chosen careers in these fields. They understand the importance of medical research and high quality training for student doctors. They are also amazingly generous. With their time and skills devoted to the education and promotion of science, or the public debunking of misinformation and pseudo-science. They are also generous with their blood and tissues (ewww icky bodily stuff) with many proudly proclaiming that they donate plasma, platelets and blood regularly and are on the organ donor register.

However, few are aware that you can make advance preparations to send your body off to the local Uni. Furthermore, the Unis will collect the tab for the transport your life-less form, embalming and cremation. That's right, it's on the house. They only keep you around for about four years. Then they pack up your ashes and send them to your loved ones (I've asked mine to then plant a tree with burnt-up little me at the bottom of the hole for fertilizer. I wonder what your relatives will do with you?)

If you are interested, here are some links for body donation information at a University near you. And why not? By the time those slimy med students get their hands on your body, you won't be around to care.
Brisbane ; Newcastle ; Sydney ; Wollongong ; Melbourne ; Adelaide ; Tasmania   ; Perth

Edit: James Cook University in North Queensland wants you too.
And if you plant a tree on someone's ashes you need to know how acid/alkaline that plant likes its soil, or you could kill the poor thing.