Firstly, why shouldn’t children have the right to learn about Mohammed and, if they so want, become a follower or, ready for it, a Muslim? In your article, you refer to this program as “Christian Religious Education”, which it is not. The program provided by the Victorian state government is supposed to be open to all religious groups, not monopolised by one group.

Secondly, when a militant religious agenda is forced upon a society, people of other faiths can move into a ghetto-like mentality. The way to avoid this is to have open and robust conversation about religion – ALL religions. Equally.

Thirdly, the school system in Australia was specifically set up to be secular, not religious. The fear of religion comes not from the Christian heritage of education and support for the weak, but from the Christian heritage of persecuting non-believers, and trying to impose Christian rules on all people, regardless of whether they want it or not.

Fourth, there are many threats to children (and adults). These include child sexual abuse conducted by priests, and being taught faith as truth before they’re old enough to judge for themselves. Would you expect a child to be a philosopher at 8 years old? Why expect them to be religious?

Fifth, what about proselytising? Access Ministries receives hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money, and free access to impressionable children under the auspices of “education” (thereby giving it an air of respect and authority). If you truly believe your “product” is worthwhile, then spend your own money to promote it, and do it on your own time, not during the kids’ school hours.

Finally, if you truly want to “keep alive the stories of the Bible and the beauty of the language in which they speak”, why is it not still written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? Why Latin? Or English? However, parts of it are still great literature, and the King James Bible is one of the great literary works of the English language. Therefore, it should be taught in English class, alongside Shakespeare, Dickens, and Orwell.

Access Ministries DID intend to convert children via the CRE. It was recorded and published on their own web site. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.

There are thousands of churches around the country in which a child & parents can learn from. No child is having their rights removed.

Apparently, 'militancy' is defined by not giving, you and the religious groups you represent, everything you want. That is a poor definition.

Einstein once said 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.' There has been 1500 years to work it out since the last major addition to the Abramiac faiths and very little has been achieved. Why do you think the CRE will correct that? Running secular comparative religion classes would do far more.

There probably is a degree of fear about religion. We see how it has held back major advances in just about every aspect of society from medicine to individual rights. Look how religion is abused by enriching Mega Churches in the US, removal of females from photos for orthodox Jewish consumers. Of course, we don't need to spend much time on the contortions of Islam to support terrorism.

I concur that there are other issues to worry about. However, we live in a society where the public can voice their views on whatever topic we choose. Whether you agree or not, religious training in school is high on the agenda not because The Age is pushing it, but because the public is pushing it and The Age is responding.

The bible is a great work of literature. The King James gives us a wonderful view into the world of language for the time. So is the Koran. So is the Baghavad Gita. Lady Chatterley's Lover is also great literature but we don't expect anyone to believe it literally nor pray and live based on it do we?

Your arguments are work well comparative religion classes. Exactly what you don't want. Be honest. You want to indoctrinate kids exclusively through school.

If Christianity is so great it can stand on its own like other organisations. It does not need to indoctrinate the young. It does not need to be propped up by sub-sections like ACCESS ministries. It does not need to infiltrate schools - it has churches.

Finally it does not need to cast aspersions on others who hold different beliefs.

It DOES need to grow up and acquire some tolerance and wisdom. I won't hold my breath however.

In arguing your points you have attributed comments to me that are not mine but another person's and have again deliberately misrepresented what I have said.

I made the comment that the chaplain invites parents to talks run by 'child development experts' who turn out to be religious types. This is of course not to say that religious people have nothing to contribute rather that most people's idea of an 'expert' is naturally someone that has training or higher learning in a field. Not just someone with an opinion.

I also made the comment that the chaplain invites students to bible readings at lunchtime and said that while this is not technically against the rules it does unnecessarily blur the line between non-authoritarian support person (as a chaplain is supposed to be) and a religious person.

You also avoid the real question of the issue - section 116 of the Australian Constitution and why you don't think it applies in this case.

Brendan,

Thanks for commenting on my views about the role of government and it's treatment of religions.

[The state should not privilege the convictions of any particular religious tradition, even a majority tradition, over the convictions of those who dissent from it, including nonbelievers.]

Why not?

Should the state ever privilege one sporting code over and above others? Should the state ever privilege one set of moral concerns over another? For example, the government is allowed to decide (through the court system and other means) what it's citizens can and cannot do and what activities will be punishable offenses and which ones won't. The government supports all kind of organisations and all kinds of interest groups all the time. Yet you seem to be suggesting the government should never provide any level of support whatsoever for any religion under any circumstances (Correct me if my understanding of your position is wrong).

So, why are you singling out religion for discrimination here?

[Religion should not occupy a default privileged position in public institutions at the expense of taxpayers or the infringement of state neutrality on religion].

I am not suggesting that any religion hold a "default" position, I am suggesting that any position they hold (which does not involve holding AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY GOVERN) would come as a result of them lobbying for their interests in the same way that any other group would do.

[Taxes must fund public interests, not religious enterprise.]

Which portion of the public? The WHOLE public?

There is not ONE BIT of government SPENDING which every single citizen agrees with. And there is certainly no government spending that every citizen would agree is in the public interest (eg: some would argue that virtually no government spending whatsoever is the best approach). So, how do we decide? Simple- Each person and group lobbies for their interests and/or what they believe is best. This is how democracy works.

I'm simply arguing that religion be afforded the same rights as other interest groups. Yet it seems that secularists advocate discrimination under the guise of "seperation of church and state".

Trav: "Wow, Franc Hoggle, you sure do a good job of throwing around wild accusations without providing a shred of supporting evidence for your claims."

Thank you Trav for supporting pretty much all of them. It is polite to read what I said, including the link I gave due to space constraints here, before hurling a handful of mud and seeing if any sticks. But this is how Access and its apologists operate - ignore what is being said, and then distract with some irrelevant slur as you have. That or whine about "persecution" and some nebulous secular conspiracy. There is not much point anybody providing you with evidence if you refuse to see it or acknowledge it.

Access have been recorded lying. Their website, despite their frantic efforts to sanitise it, still oozes with evidence of the same lies. You too are participating in the lie, the sacred taqiyya, either consciously or because you choose to remain deliberately ignorant.

There is no way to really combat this kind of filth - I know I have no hope of changing your mind or theirs. But what I can do is counter the orchestrated propaganda of articles like these to remind people of the indisputable baseline facts -

Access Ministries are liars and they are frauds.

I do not have jesus on my side to make the blind see though. But I will continue to do what I can for others that Access are trying to deceive.

And yes, I can suggest a fairer system Trav -

Access and providers like them can start behaving with the same honesty and basic common decency that the rest of society expects from us all. If they can start doing that, this argument will solve itself. But that is too much to ask - without the glue of deception, their whole house of cards falls down. So if they refuse to participate in an open and honest society, the only option is to remove them from it. You can waffle and distract all you like, but its really that simple. No more lies.