You are on page 1of 3

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 nonsecular 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.

You might also like