Religious educators in schools should not be misleading children Language Analysis

As the Australian society is becoming ever-so diverse in its religious culture, debate has surfaced regarding the current legislation which allows religious instruction to be conducted in government schools. In relation to the issue, in the opinion piece entitled Religious educators in schools should not be misleading children (The Age, 25/02/2014), Dee Broughton initially makes the point that Special Religious Instruction in her times in the 1970s was innocuous, but contends that considering todays situation, she definitively and forthrightly rejects any religious instructions in secular schools. From the casual and nonchalant manner of her personal anecdote to the pejorative and serious tone of her arguments against the issue, Broughton positions the audience of parents and teachers to agree that there is no need for religion in state schools.

The emboldened title Religious educators in schools should not be misleading children coupled with her personal anecdote straightaway enlightens readers to the contrast of the harmless Special Religious Instruction in the 1970s with the strongly biased instruction being imparted today. The italicized subheading of a rhetorical question cynically challenges anyone who believes that God put dinosaur fossils on the earth, chiding those with such religious beliefs. Broughton introduces her article with the word once, which gives off an essence that she is telling a fairy story to a child. With this casual and light-hearted tone, Broughton engages the audience by fostering interest in an issue that is very laborious and contentious. In saying that she had no issue in Special Religious Instruction and that it was no big deal, Broughton establishes that the religious curriculum back when she had school was acceptable compared to the standards now. Broughtons story-telling manner continues with use of the words one day and the retelling of her sons experience. With her cheery and lively opening, Broughton compels the audience to continue reading her article and she also sets up her biased and intolerable view on the agenda of religious education in state schools.

However, near the end of her anecdote Broughton changes her tone, employing a voice that is forthright and serious; to express the disapproval she has with her sons religious educator. Broughton firmly emphasises that it was unpalatable and unacceptable for her sons religious educator, Mrs Smith, to say that God put dinosaur fossils all over the world. In doing so, she is scathingly critical of the approach of religious educators, leading the audience to be very indignant and highly critical of these religious educators. The very image of the full skeleton of a dinosaur mounted in a walking position poignantly portrays the idea of these animals walking the earth. There is obviously one section in the museum dedicated for the education of students on the important place in the history of these creatures. This validates Broughtons disapproval of Mrs Smith and positions the audience to believe that the religious educators response is indeed absurd. Furthermore, by calling her sons experience a bombshell, Broughton puts further emphasis on the unexpected response from the religion teacher. The emotive word bombshell leaves the impression that her sons experiences were startling just like that bomb hitting an innocent town. In saying that the school had little control over what was taught in the religious instruction classes, Broughton elicits feelings of scepticism and disbelief at the fact there is no sense of direction and purpose and meaningfulness in the Special Religious Instruction curriculum. Broughtons contention is articulated in a candid and criticizing manner, resonating with the audience and leaves them feeling weary about the current religious curriculum in state schools.

Interspersed between the disparaging comments, Broughton emphasises her feelings of insult and apprehension. The rhetorical question asking why our state schools are allowing material that may contradict their curriculum, poses a question that engages response from the audience. The obvious answer to this question would be that public school should not allow this to happen. Moreover, Broughton sets up two opposing sides by using the inclusive word our positions the audience to side with the writer and go against the government and their syllabus. In stating that looking at other religions are not useless and that it will help children to understand and question the different theologies of these religions, Broughton establishes herself as an a rational and impartial person. However, she goes on to critically assert that the actions of Mrs Smith. In doing so, she shares her feelings of insult with the audience, compelling them to agree that teachers should not be pushing religion upon children. Furthermore, her status as a teacher, gives her credibility considering her own experience as a teacher. Moreover, Broughton has a reasoned approach in saying that it would be more beneficial for children to have half an hour to finish work or have free time, instead of a half of hour of Special Religious Instruction. Moreover, Broughton appeals to teachers by providing the idea that teachers could have extra time without these Special Religious Instruction classes. Broughton hopes that parents understand learning about other religions is not completely meaningless, but with the current system the Special Religious Instruction time should be put to good use with something else.

Broughtons underlying critical tone takes over as she definitively condemns the religious education in secular state schools. In saying that Access Ministries allowance of the distribution of offensive and inappropriate material was an oversight and putting the word in inverted commas, Broughton alleges that it was in fact not an oversight by Access Ministries. The audience is led to feel indignant towards the trustworthiness and credibility of Access Ministries. Broughton adds an adage that would be familiar to most parents, to put emphasis on the idea that the material distributed is making an already bad situation even worse, pointing out that the whole system is in the wrong. Similar outrage would be evoked in parents at the sort of unsuitable content that was distributed and parents would also feel quite alarmed at the possibility of their children receiving this type of material. Furthermore, Broughtons short and sharp sentence Religious instruction has no place in secular education, accentuates her final and forthright view on the issue; in this she firmly and determinedly expresses her own viewpoint as if it is a view that should be upheld general by all. She provides a solution for parents who want their children to learn about religion in saying that they can send their children to non-secular schools or to church on Sundays. In doing so, she is subtly criticising parents for putting their children in schools to learn about values, rather than taking responsibility for teaching their children themselves. With Broughton completely changing her view, she adamantly concludes that secular schools should not have any religious instruction whatsoever.

In the midst of this debate on whether state schools should have Special Religious Instruction or not, the many facets of Broughtons opinion piece contribute to persuade the audience that there should be no religious curriculum in secular government schools. Throughout the piece, the audience is initially engaged in the issue with her nonchalant anecdote, positioned to criticize the methodology of religious educators and side with Broughton to oppose the government, then is finally led to completely condemning the religious syllabus in state schools. Parents in particular may reconsider the credibility of religious education in state schools and opt out of these classes if their children go to secular schools. This would certainly be the underlying intention of Broughtons piece.