GlenC,
You thrice referred to same-sex activities in an article about
teaching non-religious based ethics to school children.
It seems reasonable to infer from this that you advocate teaching
children about homosexuality cleansed of the religious viewpoint.
You say "religion is to ethics as pseudoscience is to science".
I say homosexual advocacy "is to ethics as pseudoscience is to science".
Homosexuality education blatantly and deliberately ignores the science.
It goes even further, by making up the science to further an agenda.

My son had his Scripture teacher tell him that Christians invented schools and hospitals, so lying apparently is within the boundaries of ethical behaviour for Christians.

The author says:

"Religion, especially Christianity, is not essential to the teaching and development of a sound ethical sense."

Why SPECially Christianity?
What is 'sound' ?

The only problem with separating ethics from religion is the outcome would be rather morally ubiquitous.

Not only would ethicist like sodomy taught without health risks but one of their 'champion' high priest Singer also thinks bestiality and paedophille is fine. No wonder suicide, drug taking and perversion is on the increase with the acceptance of secular values. We are reaping what we are sowing by giving these 'ethicist' the time of day. Keep them from my children and grandchildren. Its no wonder private schools are bursting at the seam while only Public schools taking on biblical values seems to be flourishing.

Runner, have you bothered to read anything about the advantages flowing from philosophical discussion of open ended questions by young students?

And, have you read anything by Peter Singer?. I cannot recall reading that he advocates bestiality or other destructive behaviour you suggest.

I have read some of his work and have his book "How are we to live." In it his conclusions are admirable. The final section states;

“Anyone can become part of the critical mass that offers us a chance to improve the world… and take up new causes and find your goals changing.” He completed his book by stating, “You will not be bored, or lack fulfilment in your life. Most of important of all, you will know that you have not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part of the great tradition of those who have responded to the amount of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world a better place.”

Some of us are trying to do our bit by supporting the elimination of the indoctrination of children and supporting the efforts to have children learn to think early.

Gordo Pollo- not really. Following Glens defining criteria of ethics, if a religious person proposed an ethic that corresponded to the criteria of to ensure maximum benefit, it would be ACCEPTED.
If he were to say, propose an ethic does not stand to any ethical criteria save for religious doctrines (abortion, euthanasia, anti-gay) then it would be rejected as naught but sectarian prejudice.

AGIR- to answer your question of why only Christianity- simple, as far as Australia is concerned, fundamentalist Christian and secular ethics (Christian and non) are the only two substantial viewpoints here. There are so few Shariah-advocates they aren't even worth including either which way (and good, I say).

The bottom line is, if a policy does not actually ensure the betterment of most people and establish a fair system of justice as agreed by the people subject to it, is it really an ethic?