Mr Hadad does not say in his brief biography that the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is a creature of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney or that he is Cardinal Pell’s special spokesperson with responsibility for opposing the introduction of ethics classes or any other educationally attractive alternative to Scripture classes in public schools. Nor does he say that this paper is an extract from his opening statement for the negative in last week’s IQ squared debate in Sydney on the topic, “Special Ethics Education should be allowed for children not attending scripture classes”, a debate that 85% of the audience awarded to the affirmative.
Lisa Forrest, leading for the affirmative, stressed that the churches bully most parents out of their rights by firstly insisting on being able to determine what happens to the children of religious parents during their one hour of Scripture per week and, secondly, insisting on the right to determine what happens to the non-scripture children as well— the huge majority of public school students, as it happens.
Mr Hadad and his colleagues tried desperately to imply that if non-scripture children do not have educationally worthwhile experiences while their scripture colleagues are being proselytised, it is the fault of the Department of Education for having a “no worthwhile experiences allowed” policy and/or the teachers for not being able to think up allowable experiences of worth for them to do. This overlooks entirely that the policy of the Department and the strictures preventing teachers from teaching the non-scripture students anything worthwhile reflect political decisions, not educational ones, and that it was the churchec which terrified the politicians into forcing the Department to develop exactly the anti-educational policies that Mr Hadad and his colleagues now have the gall to blame everyone for except themselves.

Apologies to Mr Haddad for misspelling his name and to ALGOREisRICH for assuming that he had failed to specify the relevant principle before I realised that he was having the Bully sent off for punishment, not enlightenment.

Thank you GlenC for clarifying the status of the author.

In my post I did mention the total lack of honesty that prevails from the so-called Christian supporters of this rubbish.

I rest my case.

AGIR... "TEACHER "Listen kid.. you are an idiot..goto the principle! ! ! ".

Errr... if 'the principle' is that shown by the church, that telling lies and being dishonest is the way ahead, that is one angle, but perhaps you were actually thinking of the school 'principal', which is quite different?

The ‘state education’ system is neither a state system nor a secular one. It has always been a PUBLIC system that has allowed time for volunteers to come in and support the faith education of those members of the public who desire such. If you want a secular system, petition the government to set one up at the expense of secularists.
..
Darwinism and its brutal secular ‘survival of the fitness’ philosophy has been the root cause of so much misery in communist, socialist and fascist regimes – therein lies the more serious problem.

@ Robert Haddad to Foyle [posted above Monday, 22 Nov 10:56:25 AM]

Robert, secular generally means worldy, 'of an age' or ages, yet has become use to be used to imply "outside of religion", particularly by the religious. It can be a positive term, meaning faiths have equal space to each other (hopefully not Scientology, tho), or it can mean exclusion.

It can mean inclusion of all by excluding special status to one faith e.g. at national governmental level.

Darwinism is just about changes in populations in biology. The term has been hijacked by various social and economic groups ever since. "Survival of the fittest" was not Charles Darwin's term originally, although he used it later editions of "On the Origin of Species" as a metaphor for natural selection. Both mean the way a group fits into ints environment, not some competition to the death.

"" This overlooks entirely that the policy of the Department and the strictures preventing teachers from teaching the non-scripture students anything worthwhile reflect political decisions, not educational ones, and that it was the churches which terrified the politicians into forcing the Department to develop exactly the anti-educational policies that Mr Hadad and his colleagues now have the gall to blame everyone for except themselves.""
Posted by GlenC, Monday, 22 November 2010 12:24:21 PM

Exactly.