Religious Instruction, Now With Less Religion!

So apparently the Humanist Society has developed a curriculum for a humanist alternative to religious instruction classes in Victorian primary schools. Now my first thought was that non-religious religious instruction struck me as a pretty strange idea, but after giving it a little bit of thought, I think it’s not that bad a proposal to teach basic secular ethics in schools – on an opt-in basis, of course.

The ministry in charge of the Christian religious instruction isn’t pleased, though. Their chief executive has said that “she did not think humanism fell under ‘the relevant legislation to be classified as a faith-based religion in religious instruction in the way that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism’”

Well, maybe not – but once you’re allowing monotheism, polytheism, and a religion that teaches that the gods are a false path to enlightenment, maybe religious instruction is broad enough now to let some secular ethics into the room as well. And if not – well, maybe it’s time to start reconsidering if religious instruction should have a place in public schools.

At the very least, surely Access Ministries can see that humanist philosophy class would make a more logical alternative to Christian religious instruction than my primary school’s idea of offering non-Christians an extra half hour of Phys. Ed. instead? Why, yes, I did end up picking RE when given that choice; I don’t think the poor teacher knew what to do with me. In my defence, I wasn’t trying to be offensive – I mean, I was nine years old, raised in a secular household. How was I supposed to know that people considered Christianity something more than a rather dull mythology? Besides, Aslan and Bacchus hang out together in Narnia; why wouldn’t Osiris and Jesus know each other too?

Quantum Quantum Quantum

The co-writer of the new Star Trek film has done an interview in which he explains how the new film fits into the existing continuity. I don’t advise you read it, unless you really want to see the author of the Transformers screenplay discussing quantum physics in a way that demonstrates that neither he nor the interviewer know what they’re talking about.

Anyway, the point is that he confirms what a lot of people had been speculating; that the reason things are different in the movie is because the villain has travelled back in time and changed things… or travelled to a parallel universe where things are different. Or something. Point is, it’s not a pure reboot – it’s acknowledged within the film’s storyline that things have changed.

It strikes me there’s more than a few problems with this approach. Number one, if this is supposed to be reaching out to a mainstream audience – well, ‘mainstream audience’ and ‘alternate quantum universe’ are not phrases that tend to go together. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and assume that the average movie-goer does not, in fact, want or need an explanation for why the Enterprise’s engines are slightly different. You will notice that, for example, the new James Bond films did not feel the need to come up with convoluted explanations as to why everyone except Judi Dench is different. The latest film hasn’t been getting good reviews, but I somehow doubt it would be improved if it were “A Quantum Universe of Solace”…

Alright, forget about the mainstream audience. This is clearly an idea for the hard-core fans, who want the new film to be in continuity with the old ones, even if everything’s now totally different. Except… Well, speaking as a hard-core Trek fan myself, I’d really prefer it if they just bit the bullet and made it officially a re-boot. This half way measure is just silly – it really doesn’t make me feel better about a reboot if you waste a few minutes of screen time explaining that Picard and Janeway and Shatner-Kirk’s adventures are still in continuity, they’re just in a parallel universe which no future film or series will ever focus on again. And if you really want a clean break with the unsuccessful Trek projects of recent years – well, coming up with an explanation where the successful Trek series now aren’t part of your movie’s universe, but the largely unpopular Enterprise still is…. Well, I think you’re doing something wrong.

And then there’s the third, and I think largest problem. See, all this timeline changing and universe swapping? It’s all being orchestrated by the film’s villain. Sure, he’s presumably going to be foiled in his ultimate goals, but he’ll still have succeeded in altering history at least somewhat to his desires. So the reason for the various changes is less “Because we thought they’d improve the quality of the franchise” and more “Because the heroes were incapable of preventing them.”