CJ Morgan... quite agree.... but there is a problem here.

The body that represents school councillors is a dormant doormat. Their members work with school chaplains and cannot see a problem, or at least, raise none publicly.

Their web page has a note from 2006 urging 'caution' only.

Since then, in school after school, right across the nation, school chaplains have usurped the role of professional counsellors, with the full support of Rudd, Gillard and each and every state premier and territory leader and education minister.

Our entire society is in denial.

It does not matter how many times chaplains boast of counselling students, no one that should hear, has ears for it.

And do you know what a 'qualification' is to provide this 'service'?

In Victoria at least some form of graduate degree is needed, but as far as DEEWR are concerned, a Cert 2 in youth work is good enough to provide counselling to suicidal students etc etc etc.

Not bad eh?

Part of Gillard's 'education revolution'.

So, why do we insist on graduate/post graduate qualifications for other educators?

I am sure it was Sam Harris, no doubt Dawkins too, who said that people are not prepared to challenge anyone who blurts out a justification that includes the boast, 'it's my faith'.

Well, it is about time we did.

They can have their 'faith', I'd not take that from anyone, but they have no right to impose it within public schools under false pretences... that is fraudulent, dishonest, lies, dangerous and unreasonable, to conjure up but a few bon mots.

There are 'faith' schools here aplenty, sadly, as bad as any Madrassah that we in the West regard as 'dangerous' for the religious content drummed in to kids, so if parents are so fearful that their children will shrivel and die from a lack of 'values' in public schools, let them all fill these Christian madrassahs with their charges and leave our children alone.

Otokonoko wrote:

Come on David, you're baiting now. Zeus assumed the forms of various animals and had sex with women. If the Holy Spirit had had sex with Mary, she wouldn't have been a virgin.

Dear Otokonoko,

I am not baiting nor do I agree that Mary was a virgin. A God getting a mortal pregnant and virgin birth are pagan myths absorbed into Christianity. To make the new religion acceptable to pagans it absorbed pagan myths.

Adonis or Tammuz, Syrian god of vegetation, was born of a Virgin (Nature). Attis was born of a Virgin, Nana. Krishna, the Indian god, was also born of a Virgin (Devaki).

In the original Hebrew the prophesy of Isaiah holds that an almah, a young woman, shall give birth. Young women frequently give birth - nothing unusual about that. However, the translators of Isaiah into Greek translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for virgin, bringing the pagan legend into scripture.

What entrance did the Holy Spirit use to impregnate Mary?

Part of the definition of virgin is to have hymeneal tissue partially blocking the vaginal canal. If Mary could somehow become pregnant while a virgin she would no longer be a virgin after giving birth. There are subsidiary Christian myths dealing with this. One is that Jesus miraculously appeared outside of Mary's body without going through the naughty bits.

Virgin birth makes sex dirty, as though it's holier to have birth without intercourse.

Runner carries on this filth when he writes, "We are all born of corruption." I was not born of corruption. I was born because my father's sperm united with my mother's egg hopefully while they were united in loving embrace. There was nothing corrupt about it. Apparently runner in his sick religion believes he was born in corruption.

It is obscene to think that a sweet baby is born in corruption. Babies are born with a clean slate. What they do from then on determines what they are.

Although runner may think he is corrupt his brains are clean. They have been well washed.

This is one of the most offensive and shameful traits of the godbotherers. I am not evil. I am not a sinner. I was not born corrupt. Say that sort of crap to my face and you're asking for a punch in the mouth. This hatred of humanity and slander of little children is indicative of how these ideologues really work and it aint no charity begins at home and love thy neighbor these scum are preaching. It is hate yourself, hate everyone around you, you're all evil and tainted and only we can save you. Am I the only one who sees how sick this is?

No mikk, you are not alone.

But unfortunately our entire body politic and anyone who wants to 'fit in' refuses to say anything other than 'yes sir, three bags full sir' to these horrible people.

Just listen to that Anglican Bishop in NSW, fibbing his way through Insight as he told us all how they teach 'morals' in SRE.... absolute twaddle.... they bash out Bible stories of fear and expect children to draw from them some mechanism for living!

School chaplains, not allowed to proselytise do nothing but that.

Priets and others rush around doing the complete opposite of what they are supposed to, and get promoted all the time....

We need a little boy with clear vision to tell the Emperor he has no clothes.... the search is on.

.

Dear David F

.

As regards the occasional outlandish statements of our camerade-in-writing, Runner, I suspect that the ideas and opinions he expresses on this forum are inspired by Paul of Tarsus, judging from their distinctive fundamentalist resonance.

Whilst we all use models and heros as guides and boosters as we proceed through life, prior to launching our own personalities into the great unknown, a break-down sometimes occurs, resulting in the final stage failing to detach itself and carrying on alone. Instead, it remains permanently hobbled.

I am sure Runner has some interesting things to share with us but unfortunately he does not appear to have managed to disconnect himself from his tutor, who, as I suggested earlier on, I suspect is Paul of Tarsus.

It seems that Runner's detachment mechanism was corrupted and failed to trigger as planned by the intelligent designer and manufacturer.

I think it is fair to say that if we were to put the question to him squarely, Runner would probably be the first to admit that, indeed, a most unfortunate error of conception has occurred in his particular case . To put it in his own words: "We are all born of corruption" (posted by runner, Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:33:17 AM)

Consequently, everything he tries to express becomes terribly distorted. It is up to us to decipher whatever it is he wishes to communicate and transpose that into cartesian form so that it may be deemed worthy of consideration.

Admittedly, deciphering the paulian mode of expresion is no easy task but, you never know, there could well be some valuable nuggets of gold to be found amongst all that rubble. It is certainly worth trying.

All we need is the energy and the patience to sift it through and research it with the same assiduity and intuition that you, David F, have so brilliantly employed in deciphering all those other obscure biblical texts, and produced such remarkable results.

It has to be a team effort. There is no way Runner can hobble on alone and be understood.

.

Max, take it fro m me that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST it appears you are a bit tunnel minded and not aware of what constitutional arrangements there are in place.
The Framers of the Constitution desired a federation where religious liberty was for all and only limited by criminal prohibitions. As such you can conduct your religious practices as much as you like provided it is not in breach of any criminal provisions. The Commonwealth being prohibited to legislate as to religion where as the States were permitted to do so as well as the Commonwealth in right of s.122 for a territory (a quasi state). As the Framers of the Constitution also made clear (and so embedded in the constitution as a legal principle) the State would have a separation of government and church. While States would retain their powers to legislate as to religion it can however not mix governance and religion. While a parliament may open with a prayer this cannot be enforced upon anyone! The funding of religious school is permitted by the Commonwealth but only for so far it does as with secular schools and the funding is not to be used for religious purposes. Personally I see no issue if a State School were to provide religious classes after normal school classes so that those students who like to attend can do so or those who don’t go home, however I do not accept that any public money (taxpayers money) should be spend on religious education being if on any public school for after hours religious classes or for any religious education at a private school. On 19 July 2006 I defeated the Commonwealth in a 5-year long legal battle that its cannot compel anyone to vote as s.245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was unconstitutional also to provide for religious exclusions and the Court upheld this in both cases.
Freedom of religion should be permitted but without the taxpayer paying for religious practices and education!