Most of it biased from one viewpoint or another. I think this is one people must decide upon for themselves. Unfortunately indoctrination of one sort or another begins young.

Why do you think that is isanbirder?

Why the indoctrination of the young? Because every parent thinks they know what is best for their child, and if it's a matter of eternal life or damnation, they want to make quite sure their child doesn't miss out.

Speaking of indoctrination of the youth, I'm for it. Well, to a point anyway. I don't have kids. But I ask a lot of my friends with kids, friends who aren't religious, how they plan to teach their kids about religion? In my opinion, they need exposure while under the parent's care so they don't get sucked in later. If a child isn't exposed to any religion at an early age, I wonder if when they grow up (late teens, early 20's) they are more likely to come home after joining a cult, thinking they discovered something great. If a person is exposed to religion at a younger age, they can make more informed decisions about it later as adults. Well, that is if they have any analytical thinking to speak of.

You better hope your kids don't fall under the spell while they are in their rebellious phase then koheesti!

It's kind of like when a child falls or hurts themselves. I freak but my parental friends say something like "that's how they learn". Exposing a child to religion while the child is under your control let's you monitor it to a point that you are unable to when they are older and living on their own. You're right, it is a risk that they go all-in, but raising a kid isn't easy, isn't it?

I believe Australia, for one, has experimented with teaching kids a sort of generalised religious knowledge. If any reader knows more about this, perhaps they could post.

My initial reaction is that it is asking a lot of the teacher! How do they make it interesting if they're not themselves interested?

The Golden rule eh? Well i can live with that. Something here we can at least agree upon.

I prefer Rabbi Hillel’s negative version:

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)

Hillel the Elder died in 10CE and is a good candidate for the words put in Jesus’ mouth by two of the gospel writers, especially Matthew, who was a Judaizing Christian. Luke, writing for a Gentile audience, did not include the tag about the law and prophets (i.e. Torah). Matthew, in his struggle with the Pharisees for contested Jewish ground, obviously found the tag helpful.

I prefer the negative version, as it avoids the implication that one should go out and “do good”, i.e. do for others what you think would be good for them. There are too many do-gooders in the world who want to “make a difference” and reshape the world into an ideal form. The world has suffered greatly from their presumably good intentions.

I believe Australia, for one, has experimented with teaching kids a sort of generalised religious knowledge. If any reader knows more about this, perhaps they could post.

My initial reaction is that it is asking a lot of the teacher! How do they make it interesting if they're not themselves interested?

Religious instruction in government schools in Queensland and Victoria is being challenged in the courts.

In New South Wales in December 2010, after an 8-year court battle, parents of students in government schools can place their children in Ethics classes as an alternative to religious instruction.

Both the Queensland and Victorian plaintiffs, however, are challenging the constitutional right of religious organizations to teach RI/Scripture classes in government schools at all.

In South Australia there is no religious instruction in public schools.

I don't know about other states.

Where religious instruction takes place it is, to my knowledge, delivered by volunteers accredited for the purpose by the churches.

At senior secondary level in Queensland, where I'm from, an academic subject called "Study of Religion" is available to students studying for a Senior Certificate. It is a serious, moderated and non-confessional subject and is voluntarily taken by students at Year 11 and 12 levels in government, Catholic and independent schools. The syllabus for this subject can be viewed at http://www.qsa.qld.e...ion_syll_08.pdf

Thanks, Xangsamhua, for the information about Australia.

I disagree with you about Rabbi Hillel's negative version of the Golden Rule. While I agree that do-gooders can often do a lot of harm, the negative version suggests that we should always take a passive stance irrespective of the circumstances. The positive version allows for inaction as well as action.

Incidentally, it's nice to be able to have a civilised discussion of a religious topic without everybody jumping at each other's throats! Maybe we've absorbed a little of the Golden Rule.

The part in bold is known as The Golden Rule. In St Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says of it, This is the law and the prophets. It also occurs in a slightly different form in Confucius and Aristotle.

That's probably why it's known as the "Golden Rule", it's a common sense "rule" across the world, one everyone can understand without being told that they should do it because some supreme being said so. One that kids should easily be able to grasp. Unfortunately, the adults teaching the kids need to follow and believe in it before you can expect the kids to learn from them.

Common sense and a golden rule by whose cultural standards?

Yours? I don't think so.

It's extremely dangerous to attach a forced upon homogeny where it doesn't belong.

only fabricated falsely....

It's kind of like when a child falls or hurts themselves. I freak but my parental friends say something like "that's how they learn". Exposing a child to religion while the child is under your control let's you monitor it to a point that you are unable to when they are older and living on their own. You're right, it is a risk that they go all-in, but raising a kid isn't easy, isn't it?

No its not and glad to see you picked up on the point of my post.

I am in favour of broad spectrum religious teaching for all kids. I think whether or not you are a believer in any branch of religion the values laid down by them are sound basis for living a good life.

Strong chance I would steer any of mine well away from any particular congregation though. I guess if you have never been a part of it its less likely your children will either.

Speaking from experience...I had a semi Catholic upbringing but was not exposed to a Catholic school until 12-13. I am glad of that and of the teaching I was given. Some of my school mates were fairly indoctrinated and less willing to challenge any view put across by the teachers. That was an eye opener coming from a non denominational background where openness was more the norm.

Anyway enough about me....for the moment.

The part in bold is known as The Golden Rule. In St Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says of it, This is the law and the prophets. It also occurs in a slightly different form in Confucius and Aristotle.

That's probably why it's known as the "Golden Rule", it's a common sense "rule" across the world, one everyone can understand without being told that they should do it because some supreme being said so. One that kids should easily be able to grasp. Unfortunately, the adults teaching the kids need to follow and believe in it before you can expect the kids to learn from them.

Common sense and a golden rule by whose cultural standards?

Yours? I don't think so.

It's extremely dangerous to attach a forced upon homogeny where it doesn't belong.

only fabricated falsely....

The Golden Rule is common sense. Just because some people don't believe so only shows they don't have any.

I disagree with the below statement. The negative version is something like "turn the other cheek" which just causes more problems. Plus, doing good is the right thing to do. Except apparently in some cultures where white man Ziggy Pop is the only approved western cultural influence.

I prefer the negative version, as it avoids the implication that one should go out and “do good”, i.e. do for others what you think would be good for them.

This part below I agree with. There is a line between living your own life by the Golden Rule and trying to make others live by it.

There are too many do-gooders in the world who want to “make a difference” and reshape the world into an ideal form. The world has suffered greatly from their presumably good intentions.

Agreed, Koheesti, both parts.

As a Catholic, I would obviously prefer kids to have a Catholic education, but failing that, a broad overview of our spiritual heritage, with input from a variety of sources.

Somewhat off topic, I feel that most kids nowadays do not get enough heritage background... our own heritage, whichever it happens to be. I am proud of my English heritage (all right, British, Smokie), and so should Chinese and Thais be proud of theirs. Most Thais seem to have little or no idea of what it means to be a Thai; Hong Kong Chinese (my experience) are a little better, but not much. This is one reason why they are so susceptible to Western influences; they have nothing to set against them.

I disagree with the below statement. The negative version is something like "turn the other cheek" which just causes more problems. Plus, doing good is the right thing to do. Except apparently in some cultures where white man Ziggy Pop is the only approved western cultural influence.

I prefer the negative version, as it avoids the implication that one should go out and “do good”, i.e. do for others what you think would be good for them.

This part below I agree with. There is a line between living your own life by the Golden Rule and trying to make others live by it.

There are too many do-gooders in the world who want to “make a difference” and reshape the world into an ideal form. The world has suffered greatly from their presumably good intentions.

Rabbi Hillel: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

Matthew 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Luke 31: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

I referred to Hillel's declaration as "negative" because he tells us to avoid acting towards others in ways that we would not like others to act towards us. I don't see this as "passive" - we are not just to put up with actions we find disagreeable. But it is "negative" in the sense that we don't go out and act towards people in ways we think would be good for us.

Rabbi Hillel would not turn his sound system up full blast because he thinks that, if he were his own neighbour, he'd find that invasive. His actual neighbour, however, hungering for several hours of heavy metal after a hard day at the coalface, may think he's doing the rabbi a good turn and fulfilling a religious commandment to boot by enabling him to enjoy a few hours of Black Sabbath at high volume.

Perhaps a better example is the kind-hearted fellow-passenger on the Korat-Bangkok bus who, on seeing you take out a book, concludes that you must be lonely and proceeds to chat with you about your personal life.

The Hillel strategy is "Think before you act. Will this action impact negatively on the other?" The Gospel strategy is "Reach out to the other. Do for him what you would like him to do for you." Trouble is, as Zzaa09 says, what you like and what he likes may not be the same thing, and your charitable intervention may not be welcomed.

These distinctions are somewhat hair-splitting. If you are following the Golden Rule (I haven't been able to find out who called it that), of course you won't do unto others things which are hateful to yourself. I don't think any of us can decide in all circumstances what will be hateful to someone else. In other words, following the Golden Rule is bound to lead one into mistaken action from time to time. But inaction can be as bad as misguided action.

Perhaps a better example is the kind-hearted fellow-passenger on the Korat-Bangkok bus who, on seeing you take out a book, concludes that you must be lonely and proceeds to chat with you about your personal life.

The Hillel strategy is "Think before you act. Will this action impact negatively on the other?" The Gospel strategy is "Reach out to the other. Do for him what you would like him to do for you." Trouble is, as Zzaa09 says, what you like and what he likes may not be the same thing, and your charitable intervention may not be welcomed.

Don't get carried away with the Golden Rule now. I don't believe the GR is about chasing people down to treat them a way you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes at that moment. Some common sense is required.

Koheesti and Isanbirder, I agree with both of you.

I think I probably am splitting hairs and getting a bit carried away.

There is something like commonsense, or discernment, or a middle path, and I guess most of us have enough of this to make the Golden Rule a meaningful guide.