An interesting foot-note to this topic. While browsing the other day I came across the fact that Ian Harper is a board member of Access Ministries. It was from this site:

http://westerncivilisation.ipa.org.au

As far as I can make out the IPA is either the key outfit behind OLO or certainly a principal supporter of OLO.

The plot thickens!

Lance, this topic is clearly important to you however you have fallen into the same bear trap that you are pointing out.
Face facts religious ministers want converts that the only reason they are doing it. If they didn't then they would support having trained councillors instead of religious people, that anyone could access. Do you have children? would you feel comfortable knowing the only councillor they had access to at school was a wiccan priestess?
you are right about One thing religious people do have their own jargon which can be miss understood. What you're wrong about is who it's misunderstood by.

Kenny,
Any Chaplin who is serving in the Public School system merely to make converts as you claim is not doing his duty to society. Society functions on social values and not on religious dogma.

If you want to see a criminal rehabilitated you do not give him religious dogma of a denomination, you demonstrate the values of living peacfully in society.

Lance,
The debate is about an unbalanced scenario, so the debate will reflect that.

The scenario is unbalanced in several ways -
* the virtual monopoly one provider has for two services into schools.
* the skewed pronouncements by that provider
* the distress felt by those who seek other services
* the distress felt by those who seek other providers.

To claim the language used negates the pronouncements by the service provider seeks to down-play the complaints. The language is valid in seeking a level playing field.

Throwing in some skewed bald assertions such as 'messianic atheists' or 'atheism is politically naked' only skews the debate that you very nearly channel and focus when you mention secularism they way you do.

Words are important, but even more so definitions of words.

It is said that he who controls the definitions controls the debate.

With a compliant media, atheists feel comfortable they are able to control the debate. However, slogans will only get them so far.

Thanks, Lance, for raising this important subject. There is not enough real debate going around. Although this website is doing its part to try and address this.

"...it serves none of us well to lift an evocative phrase from a very specific faith context, and broadcast it in the public domain, without the most careful of research."

It would be hard to find a more open admission from a theist that they are, in fact, talking dangerous nonsense among themselves. What does it remind me of? Oh, yes, the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"