Correct Proxy I am against bringing Islamic perspectives into schools completely- as any such perspectives that don't correspond to secular perspectives are either those that a student can simply adhere to personally without needing to bother anyone else- or something that simply has no right to be applied to secular schooling (or society).

As it is, they (anti-secular Muslims who would advocate Shariah) are a minuscule minority (easily counted in the hundreds, possibly a thousand), and simply no threat as far as lobbying and pandering could ever go (and vote wise, any politician knows that to agree to (Shariah) demands is to immediately lose your vote from probably at least 20 million voters. Such people have no government positions (unlike the UK- and their undemocratic House of Lords), and simply would stand no chance of successfully lobbying such demands.

I'm sorry to labour the point but both the article and the comments appear to be much too Manichean in their dualism of 'secular good' and 'religion bad'. Faith presupposes a lot of questioning. In practice those who take their faith seriously ask lots and lots of questions. Secular humanists may be just as serious in their questioning, or equally just as frivolous as a nominal believer. At any rate, 60% of Australians identify with the Christian religion and I suspect that many of the 30% who identify with secular humanism would actually hold environmental/spiritual beliefs of some transcendence. Even though I think that the article is too casually dismissive of "the Clerics'" arguments and religious traditions, Glen has certainly touched on an important point of contention regarding a 'this world' immanence to ethical considerations as opposed to an expectation of the 'other world' regarding a transcendent future for the human person. Perhaps we could argue about this point in futher depth?

PROXY, You said that I, “… 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 ….” If I had thrice referred to anti-semitism in an article about racism, would you infer from this that I advocated Jew hating?

I definitely do not advocate homosexuality; I just can't see any good evidence that what consenting homosexuals do in private diminishes anyone's well being, and so do not think I have a compelling justification for opposing it. Show me that evidence and I'll change my position.

ALGOREisRICH, I specifically mentioned Christianity because it is the religion orchestrating the vicious and dishonest attack on the trial ethics program in NSW public schools. I think that no religious beliefs — Christian or other — should be used as a basis for determining what constitutes ethical behavior among humans. This proscription should apply in particular to any religion that teaches that the way humans behave in this life will determine the existence they experience for eternity starting with their death.

I am in awe of your pro-forma CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT. In whose owner’s manual did you find it? Do you seriously think that “love they neighbor” was neither known about nor practised until well after the death of Christ when some authors tried to reconstruct an account of his life from the Chinese whispers that survived the intervening decades?

You questioned my statement that religion is about how people should behave so as to secure the greatest possible well being for themselves in the next life. Here are a couple of facts: on every single day of the twelve years I attended a religious school, it was drummed into me that how I behaved would determine how I spent eternity. And while the number of sermons I’ve had to sit through in the last fifty years is (thankfully) low, in every single one of them the preacher made the same point. Should you be so confident about who is misinforming whom here?

'Boazy: << we are evil, fallen, selfish and greedy >>

Speak for yourself.'

Oh sure CJ you are the model we all want to follow!

Foyle you ask

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

People who reject absolutes love sliming around in the pit of perversion and degradation whether it be in speech or action. I would prefer healthy discussions based on fact rather than whether bestiality is right or wrong as the likes of Singer love to dwell on in the name of 'philosophical discussion'. This kind of 'discussion' has led to enough young people committing suicide as they listen to god deniers sprout their dogmas of us coming from slime. No wonder so many of these ethicist are so slimy.

Runner <" This kind of 'discussion' has led to enough young people committing suicide as they listen to god deniers sprout their dogmas of us coming from slime."

Runner, where do you get these ideas from? Are you suggesting that young people commit suicide because of what atheists say to them?
How many ethicists do you actually know?

What we do know, is that many young people have committed suicide after being told by religious people that their feelings of homosexuality are an evil sin.
We also know of many who have committed suicide after a lifetime of mental anguish, after being sexually abused by Priests as children.

I believe that we can do without the religious 'teachings' in the education system and just teach children right from wrong.
Just like parents and teachers were doing long before Jesus apparently 'taught' his followers the same messages.