Dear AGIR,

I really have no interest in whacking Christians. Some of them are quite decent people. I know it is hard for you to understand, but I really support free speech. I am against antivilification legislation even if Jews are vilified. Yes, loathsome sentiments may be acted on somewhere down the road, but if there is no immediate danger the speech must be allowed. 'Maybe somewhere down the road' is not a good reason to ban speech.

Horus wrote: "But let me update you: there are a lot of authority figures in our educational institutions who are very much *permitted* to peddling their prejudices under the guise of education –and many of them don’t belong to any of the recognised religions."

Dear Horus,

You haven't updated me to anything. Please name and give examples to substantiate your assertion.

Horus is correct,

My children attend a public school. I am agnostic and my ex-wife is atheist, and she is also a teacher at the school. We both agree in having religious education in school. That is, the children being taught about different relgions and beliefs, as well as the cultures and histories (good or bad) of those religions.

However, the reality is my children are being taught about Jesus, Jesus and Jesus. It is no different than the Catholic education I received as a child, except without the ceremonies.

So, it is up to me to help my children critically analyse the information they are being taught, without me undermining the authority of the school.

However, this does not mean secularism is failing, nor is it a poor system. Just like any system, there are loopholes which people will exploit for their own selfish reasons. Unfortunately, many who have religious beliefs believe that their god's 'way' is much more important than any man-made system or set of rules.

Unfortunately, there are also too many Christians in parliament who are not necessarily willing to practice secularism in it's true form. Once again, I think we will see the blurring of the lines between church and state should the Coalition return to power.

Dear TrashcanMan,

You wrote: “I think we will see the blurring of the lines between church and state should the Coalition return to power.”

The blurring of the lines is happening under Labor. Government assistance to church activities including education ended in South Australia in 1851, in Queensland in 1860, in New South Wales in 1862, in Tasmania in 1869, Victoria in 1870 and Western Australia in 1890. Since then it has been restored. Labor uses taxpayer money to subsidise religious schools.

In 1910 responding to pressure from Protestant clergy the Queensland government removed the word ‘secular’ from the Education Act which prescribed for secular education. No Labor government has been willing to restore the original act. The present Queensland Labor government has been approached about the abuses of Religious Instruction (RI) and has refused to take any action. It is unlikely that Gillard will terminate either NSCP or government subsidies to religious schools.

http://www.hsq.org.au/Campaigns/Get-Secular-Back-in-the-Act/ is the website for a campaign to get secular back in the Education Act.

http://www.hsq.org.au/Campaigns/Counsellors-not-Chaplains/ is the website for a campaign to get rid of the NSCP and replace the chaplain missionaries with trained counsellors.

Neither Labor nor Liberal is concerned with this issue.

http://greens.org.au/ is the website of the Greens who are concerned about this issue.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution reads: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I believe NSCP and RI violate the above.

Horus mentioned “authority figures in our educational institutions who are very much *permitted* to peddling their prejudices under the guise of education –and many of them don’t belong to any of the recognised religions.” You referred to religious figures so Horus referred to something other than what you referred to.

Dear davidf

clearly these schols are in breach of the basic tenets of a free and secular democracy and should be brought into line by whatever means.

socratease

"It's just shifting the deck-chairs. I s'pose, at least it isn't offering a fatuous escape route like religion does". Squeers.

As fanatical as Fundamentalists, you seem to be an Atheist of fanatical tendencies Squeers; not all religions or the religious require or use religion as escape routes from life or of life itself.

Many people use religion as a vehicle to meet other people for the primary reason to assist other Australians through charitable voluntary work [as you would know]? If your postings elsewhere are any indication, you seem to have some common sense.

Have you or your family ever received assistance apart from Government assistance? There would be someone somewhere in your family tree that a 'religious person' has assisted Squeers. Geez Louise, you people who generalise via sweeping statements regarding religion and the religious.

we are unique:
<As fanatical as Fundamentalists, you seem to be an Atheist of fanatical tendencies Squeers; not all religions or the religious require or use religion as escape routes from life or of life itself.>
Dear we are unique,
if you're on a crusade it might suit your purposes to line me up as "an Atheist of fanatical tendencies", but if you read my posts, or took the trouble to try to understand them, you'd realise that's nonsense.
Can you tell me please; if it isn't the promise of eternal life what does motivate religious people?
<Many people use religion as a vehicle to meet other people for the primary reason to assist other Australians through charitable voluntary work [as you would know]>
So their motive is pure existential altruism?
You're quite right, I "would know". I've known many very well intentioned Christians in my time who were eager to offer assistance, but in my view they were not disinterested--I wish I could say otherwise. The vilest motivation is to manipulate and recruit; the crudest is to win "browny points"; the naivest is in buying the soporific jargon about love; and the commonest is the promise of eternal life.
As it happens I'm more an agnostic, but my problem with religios is the same problem I have with most secularists; both are pillars of our current hegemony. Secularists congratulate themselves on their enlightened sensibilities, which they show-off by shooting sitting ducks (Christians); yet they fail to put their own ideology to the same sword, which in turn prevents them from embracing genuine, liberating apostasy--the kind the world needs!