Try reading this:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/07/19/2958156.htm

The funding of the NSCP scheme was a political goal of Howard, kept up by Rudd and Gillard.

It is a waste of ATO monies.

If we are not going to try to organise schools, public and private, into something that welcomes students to be able to live a decent life while at school, then we need to fund properly qualified school councillors, not charlatan's whose primary function is to evangelise for Jesus.

These people are just the beginning of a whole stream of non-school staff entering public schools to evangelise, with the Baptists organising their Christian mentors, and all those Hillsong programmes that denigrate women, and men, being given pride of place by our whimpering-simpering state politicians, too scared to say Boo! to a small but very noisy cabal of evangelical fruitloops.

The fight over the St. James Ethics trial is small beer compared to this horrible fraud-for-Jesus.

Rusty,
I was wondering about the status of secularity in Australia. Could you throw some more light on its legal status and where this is found. Are you talking about the bit of the constitution mentioned above?

McReal,
What does it mean to have separation of state and church? Australia does not a have an official state church. I don’t think you mean that a church member can’t hold an official office, as that would be, of course, unconstitutional.

I don’t know anyone who would say that Australia should not have freedom of religion, which is what we have always enjoyed for the most part.

My understanding of secularity is that the government does not endorse one church or religion in preference to another.

In the following list from the Australian Secular Lobby: including all of the many secular parents, students, citizens, electors, teachers, nurses, doctors, truck drivers, politicians, mine workers, retail workers, trade unionists, retired people, journalists, executives, bankers, entrepreneurs’;

why does it not explicitly contain people of faith? Does that suggest opposition or antagonism from the lobby towards those of faith?

Yes, *why* does it not include people of faith.

Our own democracy and the yank one were developed by leaders who recognised the value of secularity and the dangers of state religion, and religious leaders understood the necessity.

Rusty

Dan... try this section:

"Beyond party politics, so necessary for the democratic running of our nation-state, the compass that sustains our supporters is the one that should strike a chord with all of us.

"Those of faith, and those of none, should understand what particular value “being secular” offers to us all in Australia, as we send our troops off to war to fight against the totalitarian and theocratic ambitions of others: the all-embracing security of a secular nation-state allows us to live together, peacefully, with those of different views, in our own neighbourhood."

They clearly do understand that 'people of faith' are part of the deal too.

As I read the letter, they have taken Gillard's first speech and reminded her of her own words, as she drew on her family upbringing, and her parents 'values', since Gillard's words are clearly stuck in there.

Of course, Gillard's values, and those of her parents, do not seem to align very well now she is in politics.

Gillard was happy to keep the scheme going, without any inspection or alteration of how it was run.

There is no doubt at all that Rudd loved everything the ACL did and said, and that his adoration of chaplains required Gillard to keep quiet about it, but her other actions as Education MInister also show us that she is quite happy to perform really badly just to appear to be a 'strong leader', the usual fallback desire of our dullest voters.

Remember those calls about Joh? No one liked him but they all happily parroted the line that he was 'a strong leader'. This was a theme used by Howard too, about himself.

It's a shame really, we went from Howard to Rudd, getting 'more of the same', and now we have a female version of the mixture 'Howard Rudd'.

Pathetic really, isn't it?

Rusty,
What is the legal status of secularity specifically? What am I or any Australian or Australian institution obliged to follow with regard to it?

Blue Cross,
You say that the secular lobby do understand that 'people of faith' are part of the deal too.

This would be nice. So this is why I asked, why are people of faith not mentioned in the list at the end of the secular lobby article.

This is what I am getting at. If secularism means anything of value, it means people of differing beliefs getting along with each other peaceably. Some in the comments above seem to think it is a battle between religionists and atheists. Should I sense this antagonism towards religion from within this open letter from the secular lobby?

I don’t think secular means separating all families of faith and those of non faith, sending those of religion to religious schools and the atheists to state schools. I don’t think that is the secular ideal.

"I don’t think secular means separating all families of faith and those of non faith, sending those of religion to religious schools and the atheists to state schools. I don’t think that is the secular ideal".. quite so... the idea of a secular public school is that it is open to all faiths and none, with no one group, either a faith or a non-faith mob having a special privilege.

I think I cutnpasted you a section that provides what you crave. Other than that, you would have to email the ASL yourself, since I can only go on what is written in that letter, like you.

The 'battle' you refer to, as I see it, is based on the imposition of Christianity into public schools, and the special deal afforded to the evangelical mobs who fill the schools with so many untrained and unqualified pretend 'religious' people.

There is no room for the special deal for Christianity, in what should be a secular space, any more than Islam or Judaism should get a special deal to impose beliefs on our students in public schools.

There are plenty of so-called 'faith' schools for those who do seek a divided society, all funded far too generously by the public purse, and open to those who elect to send their children to them.