There are two issues here. Chaplains and school time allocated for religious instruction.

The first is no doubt against Section 116 of the constitution and plenty has been said about that by previous commentors. I await the court case.

I really struggle with the second - especially in state primary schools.

Someone famous once said public education should be: "Compulsory, free and secular" (and can people *please* understand the difference between "secular" and "atheistic" - they are completely different).

I tutor mathematics at all levels and I am sometimes quite dismayed by lack of mathematical ability and scientific knowledge displayed by our kids and our grown-ups. Science teaching in primary schools is usually at the bottom of the pile - probably because it can be hard to teach. This 30 minutes a week of religious instruction in primary schools would be far better off to be replaced by 30 minutes of fun and engaging science.

Primary school time is valuable and needs to be allocated where it is needed.

R0bert: "I don't think it helps at all to continue to sidetrack the discussion into the validity of christain teaching/myths."

Nor I. The two main items, as have been pointed out, that no one should be distracted from are - 1) The practice of apparently divinely sanctioned deception, and 2) when all else fails, to play the persecution card and imply, without any supporting evidence, a "secular conspiracy" that is hell bent on destroying christianity. This is from the gutter end of wedge politicking.

R0bert: "- the fundamental dishonesty of much of the christain response to campaigns to change what's occuring."

No. This dishonesty commenced long before any response to the protests or The Age story ran. Access Ministries was lying well before the chaplain/CRE system even began. Their lies were premeditated, they were consciously aware they would be in breach of the CRE agreements and proceeded into CRE with the intent of breaking those agreements anyway. This was not "response", this was "proaction" - a coldly calculated, premeditated and conscious deceit.

Access Ministries are liars. Assurances to not lie in future are lies. The deceit and the fraud has divine approval. This will never change. As liars, they are in no position to claim they can offer a foundation of moral education to children. They need to be removed from the system entirely, all funding frozen and that which has been paid recovered for breach of contract, and any organisations such as their's in future need to scrutinised continuously. People that believe god is OK with deception have no place anywhere near children.

When you lie for Jesus it isn't a lie. Little things like laws and constitutions are minor hindrances when you can only accept a higher power. AM can't not lie about their motives and mission. To do so would be to deny Jesus (in their minds).
For that reason they have no business being involved in public secular education and counselling. They have an agenda driven mission that is directly at odds with providing a non sectarian education. Chaplains by definition provide spiritual solace. Most issues kids have need support from professional counsellors and not platitudes from predators only interested in saving souls.

Sandpiper,

Fascinating insights into the story of Lot. Why were they directed at me?

Franc,

Apologies- Your link came after I was already in the process of posting. I have made one comment at that link.

Brendan,

I am not advocating “competitive religious democracy”, I am advocating democracy. Full stop. Sometimes democratic ideals interfere with other principles we may hold, and in this instance I consider democracy to take priority over the idea that religion should be kept completely 100% away from state business.

The only fair way to administer a society is, to put it very bluntly, give the people what they want and that way the majority opinion rules. Otherwise we arbitrarily and unfairly validate one person’s opinion above another’s, which is ironically what you claim to be trying to avoid. As I have said, the government itself must remain neutral, and that is a principle that I would put ABOVE anything else. So my principles are 1. Government neutrality and 2. Democracy does the rest.

Yes, religion is fundamentally different to sport- of course- but I do not see how this is relevant to the practical application here. The fact remains that the government must act in a way that is fair to all who reside within its jurisdiction, and as it does this, it must pick and choose and it must fund some things and not others. The key here is how it goes about making those choices about funding. Who decides what the common good is? If the majority of our population were to believe in polygamy, or that heroin should be supplied by the government and that these things were for the “common good” (to use some extreme examples…) would those things therefore be for the common good? I venture a guess we would both answer with a resounding NO. But that’s my whole point- it is a matter of opinion. And as I’ve explained above, the only fair way to avoid arbitrarily validating some opinions above others is to use democracy as a complete and guiding principle combined with government neutrality.

(continued below)

Finally, To pad out my point with an example and to illustrate one area where your understanding is flawed: You claim that once a government funds any religious activity it loses it’s neutrality, but I strongly disagree. As long as no religion has the right to make decisions on behalf of the government, and as long as no religious body is automatically, by default, privileged over others then the government itself remains effectively neutral.

I am an AFL footy fan, but I would not argue that the government is biased towards athletics and therefore not neutral if it gave more money to an Olympic bid compared to say, a new AFL stadium. I would recognize that the government believed, on the basis of the arguments put forward that this was the best allocation of that money, and as long as the decision making process was fair and without undue influence from either sporting body then I would have little grounds for complaint.

Cheers