We are not moving towards an inclusive society. We are becoming more divided every day by the extreme Leftists, who are pulling the strings even though they are not in direct power. The faux-Right, which is supposed to be running things, is doing their bidding because they are cowards. People like Kuranda Seyit, who is a council member of the Sydney Peace Foundation, Director of the Forum on Australia's Islamic Relations (FAIR) and an independent documentary film maker, want you to believe their propaganda because they are the bad guys trying direct our attention away from what they are doing to Western society.

Don't believe a thing they say!

I honestly cannot understand why any gay person would chose to work in any workplace that didn’t like homosexuality. Certainly there is no shortage of teaching jobs so why chose an institution where you don’t feel welcome?
I have always said that you can legislate equality but you can never legislate acceptance and people need to understand that not everyone feels the same about issues so it’s best to just go with the flow and not try and force people to accept what they cannot believe in.

Overall private schools have far less bullying than the zoo's. That is why so many unbelievers send their kids to private schools. It is the sick ideology of the state schools that result in so much bullying that should be examined. One day we will get some people out of the swamp who can look at things honestly.

Excellent essay.

Not to worry.

That political trainwreck that is the caretaker Morrison Government will probably only last to May 2019 at most http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election .

Then the issue of a religeous freedom to sack or block homosexual teachers will pass to a Shorten Labor Government.

If a person chooses a different sexuality than that that they were born with then we have a right to say, you are not welcome here as a teacher, imparting your possibly hedonistic immoral values on impressionable kids.

Otherwise, if don't ask don't tell? Is what is necessary to get certain stone age ignorance from enacting its particular brand of Godless prejudice against folk who dare to be born different, (via preconception choice obviously) then go with that as the lesser of two evils.

Words in allegedly holy books, penned my mere men aren't flawless or infallible, however, or not, inspired. And may simply reflect the then cultural norms and ignorance of the illiterate, superstitious society, culture or age they sprang from?

Given none can say with absolute certainty that they were dictated by God alone!

Remember, not all that long ago we all of us believed we lived on a planet at the absolute centre of a universe that revolved around us! And that we all of us can trace our ancestry back to just two humans.

And given that were true? All of humanity the product of serial incest? Or possible interspecies bestiality? [Ah say there boy, a jungle gentleman, doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey?]

Acceptable levity aside, why not accept the peer-reviewed science? Or if unable, then a don't ask don't tell position? After all, It's teaching that needs to be on trial here, not God-given gender specificity!

Getting some folk to accept peer-reviewed science is sometimes more difficult than conception achieved while standing in a hammock!
Without bias. Alan B.

So what you are saying Alan is that the only acceptable way to be religious is to be secular? Let the state, or the majority, determine what is right and what is wrong? Isn't that really an anti-secular, and anti-liberal-democratic point of view?

I think it's time for you to step out of the rainforest. Your no longer a Baboon Al.
Queensland is an unhealthy environment for a certain type.

The article.

"Need to know basis, if you don't need to know then don't bother even asking."

But the ideal world has long gone, replaced with a FORCED tollerence of homosexuality.
It maybe that the teaching staff at Islamic schools are a mix of the broader community, but similarities end there. The student mix is very tightly drawn from the Muslim community.
As a whole, the Muslim communities are emphatically heterosexual.
My strong advice to the gay rights terrorists, is ready yourselves for war.
Homosexuality will not be tolerated even with forced displays of obedience.

For the State to force obedience to the immorality of homosexuality onto Muslims, will not end well for anyone, especially homosexuals.

where are the big Placard waving Demonstrations from the people that support the moslims who are Gay. Ha ha ha ha ha. I like to see that. ;-)

For a very interesting take on this topic and how toxic christian religionists in the USA are using their political power to demonize any and everyone who fits into the LGBTQ category why not check out the essay by Brynn Tannehill titled For LGBTQ People Under Trump, The Levers of Power Are Blocked.

One of the outfits involved in this project is the Alliance For Defending "Freedom" which some defenders of civil liberties classify as a hate group.
It is interesting to note that Tony Abbott gave one (or possibly two) speeches to this outfit when he was in the USA. And maybe Kevin Andrews and Cory Bernadi did too. This outfit was once defended in a essay featured in Quadrant magazine, the author of which also stated that the "laws" of HIS cultic "god" always TRUMP-ed those of the secular state.

Well, like him or not, Sheikh Hilali is correct in saying that schools are supposed to provide an environment of learning and culture and not be a club for those seeking to satisfy their desires¹.

This should apply equally to ALL sexual desires, regardless of orientation.

---
¹ Interestingly, the latter is one of the best descriptions for "university".

No Graham, as someone who spent most of his formative years in Catholic education!

I'm not saying that going the secular route is the only way. Any more than one can say our armed forces must be taken from a particular religious demographic or hold to a particular religious view. Refuse pork or beef or meat milk and eggs?

What I'm saying is, if marital status or your sexuality is nobody's business but yours and you are employed on merit and possibly from the same religious indoctrination? Then It should be merit-based excellence and little else.

And given that's so? In one or two generations, even Islamic scholars will be better educated!? Come from a much more knowledgeable cohort and able to look with objective eyes at the actual evidence as opposed to indoctrinated MAN-MADE ideology.

At which time they'll probably arrive at the same view as Alan Sauders and his team of highly credentialed Geneticists and see with their own eyes, through their electron microscopes that there is not just one gay gene but at least two peculiar to gay folk alone and three other probabilities.

Then and only then will these indoctrinated, religious bigots be able to see that God Made all of us, be we left or right handed, black, white or brindle, gay or straight!

And finally be able to let go of these purely belief derived prejudices and just focus on best education outcomes without loading up our kids with patently false, man-made philosophies/medieval belief systems, with no foundation in truth!

[In some countries, it's still off with his head and or you can rape a woman out of lesbianism? Or turn a straight guy into a queer, with similar barberry? And not doable without the required sexual bias being there in the first place? Regardless of the denials and or persecution of fellow gays out of the closet? Or butching it up by being more of a man than your alleged contemporaries?]

Until then a don't ask don't tell position, the lesser of two evils?
Alan B.

Yuyutsu..

You say....This should apply equally to ALL sexual desires, regardless of orientation.

In the same vein, no, not at all. So you contend by that statement, any misfit kid that wakes in the morning and wants to go through the day dressed as a transgender student, using the girls toilets is ok? Not in my world it isn't.

And the school should retain the right and autonomy according to its charter, to educate children in a protected environment, free from intimidation. This circumstance is intimidating towards normal children.

Dear Dan,

Using the toilet is not a sexual activity.

We seem to be mixing two completely different issues: legal and spiritual.

From the legal aspect, I believe that you are already familiar with my views: the word "school" should not even appear in legislation, there should be no state-run schools, parents should be able to send their children to any kind of school or school-like institution as they see fit, with any set of rules they agree on and even the issue of protection, whether and against what should the school protect, should be at the parents' absolute discretion.

But there is a big difference between a legal school and a good school, so the spiritual aspect is quite different:

The most important role of a religious school is to prepare children on their path to God. For this, a good school should develop the child's faculties: a sharp intellect, a loving heart, ingenious choice-making and a robust will-power. Indulging in sexual activities weakens the above.

If a teacher talks with the pupils about sex, then s/he betrays the school's aims and should be dismissed. If a pupil fusses about sex, then that's a bad influence which distracts the rest of the class: the principal should instruct the child to set aside such issues and concentrate on their studies instead. If the student persists, then s/he should be removed.

As for toilets, this can only create problems in a sexualised environment, but as sex should not be an issue or even mentioned in a religious school, any child should be able to use any toilet, it's no big deal!

I said this in the last topic about schools and homosexuality. But I'll say it again here.

If a school is doing it's job well by teaching the next generation at least a minimum standard of subjects. (Having them literate in math, reading and writing); and as long as the school is not some hotbed for producing terrorists, criminals, or gangs; nor are they a danger to the students or teachers themselves; then the government should leave it alone on how it conducts itself with hiring teachers and staff, as well as expelling students. The school is doing it's job.

There are probably exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule, I would say it's a good standard.

Regarding Muslim schools, the task after that shouldn't be about their not supporting homosexual rights or homosexual employment. The focus on them should be on if they are safe schools. And not teaching lessons to hate the culture and the country that they currently live in. Essentially to making sure a school isn't killing, raping, or otherwise harming it's students and staff. Nor letting schools last if a high number of students come out of it and are in gangs, or terrorist groups. These two issue should be the issues focused on for Muslim schools because these are the rising dangers reported in countries with a high Muslim immigration and refugee rescue demographics.

The government should have the authority and responsibility to shut down schools that are dangerous or not doing their jobs by teaching well.

Last thing to add. In my opinion, the only schools that should have a rule about banning homosexuality among it's staff, should be religous schools that show a devotion to most of their principles. So the ones that fire teachers who commit adultery are really the only ones who should say they can follow the standard to fire homosexuals. Personally I don't know of any schools that fire anyone based on how well they stayed true to their marriages. So I don't think they are justified to fire or not hire homosexual teachers just on their homosexuality alone. If they teach the students that homosexuality is ok, and the religion that school is suppose to teach from doesn't, then that might be the exception. Those rules wouldn't be legal mandates though, just privite a standard of my own.

To Yuyutsu.

In my opinion, the topic of sex should be discussed in schools. It's something that students are going to have to face into their lives. If for no other reason discussing it so they are safer and with less STDs is enough reason to keep the topic available to schools.

I would like them to also teach about healthy and unhealthy relationships at the same time though also. As part of the same class. Might help students from getting into horrible relationships that leave them with no other option except abortion, instead of just teaching kids how to have sex "safely."

Yuyutsu

Yours is a view for an idealised world. From sheer practical circumstances of day to day life, schools should be equiped with the basics of boys and girls toilets.

If a child is unable to conform inside those basic requirement of “norms”, then, (as you suggested), they need to be accommodated in special schools which are designed with the necessary infrastructure, and staffed with appropriate staff members, capable of dealing with foibles associated with queer children.

In short, disassociate queer children from the mainstream, firstly for their own good, but just as importantly, for the general welfare of mainstream children.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«It's something that students are going to have to face into their lives.»

If school and parents are good, then hopefully students will never have to face that. Otherwise, what do you think for example about schools that prepare children for life in jail or teach Braille (to children who are not blind or becoming blind)? The best schools should prepare for the top, not for the bottom.

«so they are safer and with less STDs»

No sex - no STDs! Religious schools should teach children to be celibate.

«teach about healthy and unhealthy relationships»

Sure, but why about sexual relationships?

All that the pupils need to be taught around sexuality is, in a biology class, that human bodies have reproductive organs that are a vestige from the times when procreation was appropriate. Nowadays when the world is overcrowded, those organs should not be used. Further, using those organs and obsessing about their functions wastes precious energy (physical, emotional and mental) that should instead be directed towards what is really important in life - God.

---

Dear Dan,

«Yours is a view for an idealised world.»

Yes, children should be taught the highest ideals.

«schools should be equiped with the basics of boys and girls toilets.»

That might convey the wrong message as if the difference between boys and girls is of any importance. It is best not to fuss about those minor physical differences.

Well if you live in an unfortunate society that already fusses about sex, then you need separate toilets, but ideally a religious school would shield its children from the negative influences of modern society.

«disassociate queer children from the mainstream»

You should of course be legally allowed to establish such rules in your school, but I wouldn't consider it wise to make special rules on the grounds of sexual/gender orientation. Anyone who makes an issue about sex or about being specifically a boy or a girl, has a problem that might be contagious. Religious schools should teach cildren not to identify with their bodies, how less so with their sexual organs and differences.

To Yuyutsu. Schools should teach so to prepare the students for the world. That world includes the giant obstacle of sex and relationships in general. Hormones alone make the topic worth approaching so that kids can avoid terrible situtions. Or at least help reduce the risk if and when they do ignore their parents and teachers and have sex.

Some might think that kids finding out about sex on their own is a right of passage. Something they did and turned out ok, so it's a fine approach for their kids. For anyone else who want a better life for their kids then finding out the hard way what the parent already learned the hard way, they see the benifit of teaching their kids. Whether taught by parents or teachers sex is a topic worth talking about.

For instance one thing I would like to be taught is the issue of being in a relationship trying to rescue or save the other person. That that is an unhealthy relationship and not something to build romance out of. Continuing that lesson, should be taught is what to do if they date someone who says they will kill themselves or threaten suicide if the other person breaks up with them. Teach what I later found out counted as signs of emotional abuse, so kids don't get in that unhealthy relationship and believe their commitment to the other person is love shared, and that love and commitment will be returned.

Several other lessons would include how bad drugs make a situation, from health issues to human sex trafficking. Dangers of predators who might drug a drink to an victim and rape her, and why it's important for girls to be careful, and go out with friends. As well as the big topic of diseases.

Even religious schools need to talk about these topics to prepare and warn the kids for the world they are in. Because that's the responsible and practical approach.

Jayb,

"where are the big Placard waving Demonstrations from the people that support the moslims who are Gay. Ha ha ha ha ha. I like to see that. ;-)"

You might be surprised, but I have it on tenuous authority that a mass protest is being planned for sometime in the next year or two, and that it will take place in public.
The site of the protest will be kept secret but is believed to be somewhere in the far corners of the Royal National Park, within a long walk of the nearest railway station.

Is Mise: You might be surprised, but I have it on tenuous authority that a mass protest is being planned for sometime in the next year or two, and that it will take place in public.

What? The Do Gooders/Lefties/Greenies.Maxist & Commos are going to demonstrate against the moslim stance on Gays. I'd like to see that.

Jayb,

They'll do it, the only problem is finding somewhere safe; somewhere where the Moslems can't see them.
I heard that TV rights are being discussed but a stumbling block is that the organizers want all faces blurred out, naturally, the TV mob are objecting to this as full coverage would ensure retaliation and a rise in ratings.

Is Mise,

Did you also hear the news about the massive gathering
in Parliament and the Great Hall of Parliament -
that happened recently where our Prime Minister
(and the Opposition Leader)
offered a National Apology to the victims of sexual
abuse. The PM spoke in Parliament as
did the Opposition Leader - and then the activities moved
to the Great Hall. Julia Gillard was there as well - and she
got a standing ovation.

Now that would have been something worth attending - and
later discussing.

Foxy,

Ye, except for some of the company.

Is Mise,

That is a problem for some in any gathering - just as
it is on public discussion forums.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Schools should teach so to prepare the students for the world.»

This is what secular (from the Latin ‘relating to an age or period’) schools are for. For a religious school which teaches the eternal, this would be a compromise and make it only second-best.

«That world includes the giant obstacle of sex and relationships in general.»

The best religious pupils would have nothing to do with it because they will follow the ideal of celibacy and monastic life.

«Hormones alone make the topic worth approaching so that kids can avoid terrible situtions. Or at least help reduce the risk if and when they do ignore their parents and teachers and have sex.»

A good religious school will keep them mentally and physically active, so their energy is directed and no time is left for nonsense. Children who do not listen to their teachers have no place in a good and serious religious school.

«Whether taught by parents or teachers sex is a topic worth talking about.»

It would only confuse dedicated and spiritual children. Once sexual thoughts come in, it is extremely difficult to get rid of them.

«I would like to be taught is the issue of being in a relationship trying to rescue or save the other person. That that is an unhealthy relationship and not something to build romance out of.»

Those who learn from a young age to have a close relationship with God, will not fall into such traps.

«if they date someone who says...»

Being celibate, they would never date anyone, nor even need to know what it means.

«how bad drugs make a situation, from health issues...»

Such good and well-educated children, including about healthy living, would not even come near coffee, so the issue of illicit drugs would never even occur to them.

To Yuyutsu.

You and I disagree on the roles of schools. I would think a school can do both prepare a student for the world, and teach them spiritual lessons. Or if you want a more spiritual oriented school, (like going to Sunday school in church for kids) then perhaps having more then one school for students to attend. One for spiritual needs, and one for the everyday needs.

I don't see why the everyday needs should to be neglected though, even in a religous school. Reading, writing, and math should be a bare minimum for students to learn from one or both schools they attend. If they only attend one school, then they need at least that much in the lessons. Other topics to help prepare them for the world
I would highly reccomend, but if at the vert least they can read, write, and do basic math, they can find their own way in the world.

You're position on sex education sounds nieve and unrealistic in my opinion, but like I said. It sounds like we disagree on the roles and responsibilities of schools. (As well as disagree on spiritual matters).

From what you've described for how religous schools should be, is that what Hindu religous schools look like? A strict regiment to engage the students and those that don't listen to teachers are expelled? This sound like a monastery for children, instead of a just a religous school for children.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Reading, Writing and Math are extremely important and nobody suggested that they be eliminated from the curriculum. In fact, the ancient Hindu schools taught 80 subjects: 14 techniques and 64 arts - http://shekharsk.wordpress.com/64-arts-14-techniques-of-ancient-india

Ancient Hindu schools used to be residential, of high quality and prepared their pupils for successful life in ancient India. I would be very privileged to be there.

This was good for those times, but the question is, should children be taught to live successfully in the corrupt modern society as it stands? should they learn to become cogs in its economic machinery, thus support it in perpetuity and the secular regimes that it serves?

I believe that there are places and times of which it is better to be ignorant!

Not necessarily illiterate, but perhaps study to read and write in a different language, preferably an ancient language, so that one can study scripture instead of being exposed to the garbage of contemporary society and yes, including its preoccupation with sex and pressure to "perform" and "prove oneself" in that area.

I was not fortunate in my early years to have a good school. I did attend an ordinary (though considered "prestigious") secular school and there I was exposed to all this toxic garbage, which I am still working my way out of.