runner,
The present behaviour of the clergy bishops is not much better than in history. The leopard hasn't changed its spots. The child abuse disclosures and the opposition to ethics classes are two examples of unethical behaviour.

Why does the Anglican Archbishop and the Roman Catholic Cardinal of Sydney oppose the ethics classes? Is it because they do not want children to think clearly for themselves?

Another example of unethical behaviour is the advertising by the church schools to attract students , most of which is misleading, and which is probably only possible because the schools are flush with overpayments of government funds.

In NSW, public school students going on to University perform about 5% better than non government students with the same entry score.

You didn't answer my claim of two gross evils. Is that because your ethics allow you to support both?

Jon J you obviously didn't read my post properly.

I did not say there was a scientific explanation for the existence of God (although there are centuries of solid philosophy and rational thought which many people these days chose not to turn to).

I said that there is no scientific proof for the argument that God does not exist.

True athiesm would argue that God does not exist and it is humourous from a believer's perspective, to see ignorant people get excited when a scientist posits an argument against the existence of God, saying "So and so has just proven that God does not exist."

It's great to have a debate - one hopes we will come closer to the truth with more argument and discussion. And it is those who want to shut down discussion by arguing that a debate is over and one side has 'won' who are clearly the less confident with their stance.

And will we do anything to stop the fundamentalist state-worship that is compulsorily taught to all students for 10 years?

Ink Blot
Either I didn't make the point very well or you missed it. I'm not opposed to teaching children about religion in schools, public or private. On the contrary. What I'm opposed to is forcing children, or even encouraging them, to go beyond just knowing about and actually start believing in religious articles of faith for which there is no good evidence.

But my post was not even about whether religious articles of faith were credible. It was about the danger of allowing a religion — any religion — a material presence in a schooling system that is supposed to be secular. And if you think that secular means anti-religion, please check its meaning before responding. A secular education system is simply one that is independent of any religious influence. All I'm asking is how can a secular education system continue to be seen to be secular if it accepts resources from a religious organisation.

"The Diverse Dan Daily"

Christian terrorists assail secularist temples of education. God

forbid cried Christian supporters. God is dead cried secularists.

Then we win cried the Christians!

Kenny

It was the Christians that conquered the Aboriginals; we have every right to be here.

And further, If you don’t get onboard and fight for the Christian cause now, the consequences may be more uncomfortable than the inconvenience of scripture classes in a school room.

Have a little think about it!