ABORIGINAL Dreamtime stories, originally included in the Science Curriculum of Mr Rudd’s proposed National Curriculum, are to be removed.

Year 4 students were to hear “historical examples of different cultures, knowledge about the national environment and living things, for example, Aboriginal peoples’ Dreamtime Stories, that explain significant characteristics of the Earth’s surface and interactions between living things”.

Professor David McGaw, of the Curriculum Assessment Authority, says the Dreamtime stories must go — he hadn’t realised they were included in the science course until seeing media  reports last week:

“I’m a science graduate and a former science teacher. Dreamtime is a religious or spiritual interpretation of the beginnings of life. It shouldn’t be in the science curriculum, and we’re going to take it out. For the same reason, we wouldn’t let Intelligent Design or Creationism be included.”

* * *

Will Professor McGaw, in fairness, be deleting Evolution – another “religious or spiritual interpretation” – as well?

This blog has no beef with people wanting to believe in “evolution” . . . as explained on March 3.

In fact evolution is obvious – provided we stick to what the word “evolution” means in English — i.e. “a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex form”, or more literally, “an opening out of what was rolled up”.

It’s some of the atheistic, agnostic, anti-God tit-bits, that evo-fans sneak in as part of the supposed meaning of “evolution”, which make the term suspect as part of a science course.

Professor McGaw said schools will be free to teach Dreamtime stories, Intelligent Design etc., in other classes, such as religion. Does not most of what usually passes as “Evolution” merit similar relegating?

* * *

Meanwhile it’s going to be hard to stop people doing what they’ve always done — to look at the night sky and say, “Yes, I believe in a Creator who made all this – and who is a rewarder of good and a punisher of evil.”

As the Bible says, going back 2500 years at least, “The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the skies announce what his hands have made. Day after day they tell the story. Night after night they tell it again.” (Psalm 19)

I was reading about how Mother Mary MacKillop tried to help children find God in their lives – not only through school-teaching, but also in out-of school activities.

In the 1860s, she started a group for young people in Adelaide which she called “The Guild of the Holy Eucharist”.

Its rules included that the young people must “dress with simplicity, modesty and neatness. They must be known to be obedient at home and at school. They must not be out after dark unless with someone approved by parents or the Sisters. They must hear Mass every day, and suffer any inconvenience rather than miss it.”

* * *

Every day?

Wasn’t that a bit much to ask of young people?

Yet hasn’t God has always demanded of human beings that they give him generously of their time?

The Ten Commandments include the command to keep one day a week “holy”.

In today’s “busy” materialistic, individualistic, self-indulgent world we have plenty of spare time. Ordinary Australians spend up to 20 hours per week looking at television.

We must have time, literally, to kill.

* * *

Most people do, in fact, treat Sunday as in some way a different day.

You could say that everybody worships on Sunday.

*  you play sport on Sunday?  You’re a sport-worshipper.

*  you drink beer on Sunday?  You’re a beer-worshipper.

*  you spend  Sunday with family without devoting time exclusively to God?  You’re a family-worshipper.

Which is not good. 

Jesus said, “He who loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.  He that loves son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.”

* * *

You attend church on Sunday?  You MAY be a worshipper of God — only God knows your motives.

On Sundays, try put God first.  Go to Mass — at least every Sunday. Make it an unbreakable rule.

Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, said last Wednesday that he personally favours a 21-year old minimum legal drinking age, quoting links between Australia’s high P-plater road deaths and alcohol-swallowing.

But is it not probable that most teenage drunks will vote Labor (if still alive when next election happens)?

And likewise most people who sell alcohol?

It is hard, under Australia’s present form of “democracy”, to imagine any major party – especially Rudd’s so-called “Labor” — doing anything real to upset either of those two interest groups.

* * *

Federal Opposition leader, Mr Abbott, commented that 18-year olds drinking is OK with him, because he is not a “wowser”.

Deep stuff, eh?

* * *

The scientific evidence about drinking ages and alcohol-related mayhem is, of course, well and truly in.

Professor Ian Hickie, at Sydney University’s Brain and Mind Research Institute, really does want legal alcohol drinking ages raised to 21 — on the basis of research showing that young people’s brains are particularly susceptible to alcohol damage.

Also the US experience, which provides further evidence –- in those states which have raised their drinking age to 21, accidents and violence involving youths having fallen . . . .

* * *

Both sides of Australian politics are carefully testing the water. Could it be that winning the next election is almost as important to both of them as is doing the right thing — i.e. preventing teenage deaths?

* * *

Once again, the Church isn’t much help.

Two generations ago, when young Catholics celebrated their Confirmation, they were encouraged to sign an undertaking not to drink before turning 21. Many adhered to that promise.

Will that excellent practice ever be re-introduced?

Or would Church leaders need to “test the water” too – so as not to offend anybody – pretty much like a bunch of politicians?

.

Following our January 30 blog complaining about children not being banned from entering poker machine venues, a comment has been received from the Victorian Minister for Gambling Gaming.

In part, it reads:

Dear Mr Jago,

I share your concern that minors in Victoria not be allowed or encouraged to use electronic gaming machines . . . .

This Government recently made significant changes to the law relating to gambling by minors . . . .

We have increased the penalties that apply to offences relating to minors; a maximum penalty of 120 penalty units (over $13,500) will now apply . . . .

While it is important to uphold the laws that protect minors, it is also essential to recognise that clubs, hotels and the casino offer valuable non-gambling services . . . .

Prohibiting minors altogether from these venues would deny young people and families the opportunity to take advantage of the wealth of community services and facilities available.

HON TONY ROBINSON, MINISTER FOR GAMING (5/2/2010)

* * *

So his answer to our question — will something be done to keep children out of pokies venues to prevent their learning to link gambling with having a good time? — is No.

A skeptic might wonder whether his government needs gambling to continue at its present rate so they can keep cashing in, tax-wise, at the present rate.

And whether big-time promoters of gambling machines contribute to the political party to which Mr Robinson belongs. (If they don’t, somebody please tell me — and also tell how they can be sure.)

* * *

This blog has pointed out before, not only how shameful is the government’s position on gambling, but how the Church’s position is also unsatisfactory — Sydney’s Liverpool Catholic Club and the Campbelltown Catholic Club, for example, recently seeking approval to install more poker machines.

Local Catholic schools also all seem hooked on using Bingo and similar to help stay afloat.

.

The Australian government’s newly set up “My School” website will supposedly help parents and schools to assess and  improve education standards in Australian schools.

When you find the school you are interested in on the site, it shows you a 200-word statement describing the school in its own words.

An adjacent panel  displays basic details about the school — whether  government, Catholic or “independent”, its enrolment, staff numbers, attendance  rates etc.

Also information about the school’s “socio-economic profile”, based on 16 variables alleged to influence educational outcomes, e.g. parental educational, income and employment levels, the proportion not speaking English well etc.

Then come the pretty graphs and magic numbers which “rank” the school in comparison with others.

This stuff is all pretty subjective and will stir up discontent — radiating much heat, but minimal and untrustworthy, amounts of  light.

* * *

Despite threats of teacher strikes and boycotting of tests, the site was launched yesterday.

It all makes you wonder about democracy.

Is everything our rulers do geared to manipulating us into voting for them — using, in this case, our children and their education as mere pawns in their game?

 How can we change things?

This is a job for the Church, one might say.

But of course they have got the Church over a barrel, because the Church runs schools which are dependent on  government funding, and which also need favourable  reports on this website, in order to prosper.

* * *

This blog repeatedly says that our goal must be to get government out of education — as was practised by Mother Mary MacKillop.

We are so far from achieving that, that it is hard to know where to start.

Or is it?

Are you willing to home-school your children? Why not? Lots of others do. Many of them do a great job – and are only too willing to help out with advice etc.

* * *

There are many more questions to ask about education in Australia today than those mentioned above.

More about that tomorrow.

A former “Miss Universe” has allowed a naked photograph of herself to appear on a magazine cover.

She now tells reporters she did it to raise money for the Butterfly Foundation which helps people with eating disorders.

The idea being that even beautiful people have “flaws”, as in this photo, which makes the lady look a bit tubby.

She says the whole performance was done with “a good intention to promote healthy eating and lifestyle”.

OK. It is not for this blog or its readers to brood unduly on what her intentions were.

The point about saving people from obsessively striving for a “perfect” body is, however, a valid one.

* * *

When the young Mary MacKillop started teaching in the first school set up by Father Woods in 1866, she and the other recruits started wearing plain black dresses. They soon switched to brown alpaca cloth, mainly because that was cheaper.

When Father Woods wrote the “Rule” of the newly-formed Josephite Order, he gave instructions that the Sisters wear clothes “of poor material . . . for the poor must endure the consequences of poverty.”

Dressing like the poor people was an important principle.

So was modesty. Mary MacKillop remembered the words of Saint Paul in the Bible, “I wish women to be decently dressed, adorning themselves with modesty.”

When starting a youth group in Adelaide, Mary made it a requirement that those attending “must dress with simplicity, modesty and neatness.”  

* * *

There is a balance to be struck when deciding what to wear and what kind of a “body image” to seek. The key word to keep in mind is “decent”.

Try to keep yourself looking decent. Nothing more. Nothing less.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with being beautiful — there are no prizes for looking repulsive — but for a girl, beauty is a great responsibility.

She must decide what to do with her beauty. Her beauty is going to draw attention to her at the physical level — not easy to handle without falling into pride and taking pleasure in one’s ability to manipulate lust-prone males.

A beautiful female has a special need to keep close to God — to avoid temptations herself, and to avoid putting temptations into the minds of those around her.

God obliges you to use whatever beauty you have, the same way you must use everything else you have — you must use it for the glory of God and to show God that you love him.