"Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates"

[Deutoronomy 11:18-20]

So the Greens expect believers to deny God and teach their own ideology instead. Well, this shall not come to pass: people of God already sacrificed their life to follow [in the least what they believe to be] God's word and they will do so time and again if necessary, so if the Greens are successful then this will start a civil war in Australia, producing a trail of blood. Never mind, I suppose, so long as it's only human blood, not whales'.

I was going to preference the Greens above the two dinosaurs, but now I don't think that this is going to happen.

---

Dear Alan,

«Feel free to go elsewhere»

How generous! so given that nobody invited in the religious people of Australia (with the exception of Israel that keeps inviting the Jews at any time), it looks like you really are willing to cede some Australian territory for those who want to pursue a different lifestyle?

- or is this only the first step and a "final solution" is there to follow?

---

Dear Daffy,

Not only should tax-payer's money never be offered to church educational and/or vocational-training programs, but even if it is, churches must not accept such tainted stolen money. According to this article, however, the Greens' prohibition on teaching religion does not depend on the source of financing.

As for «tribalistic cultic "deity"», this is the Ishta-Devata of all Abrahamic religions, of about half the worlds' population: how can you ignore the the devotional benefits?

Hasn't this already been discussed? At least twice now from not too long ago?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20054&page=2

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20002

Look at the comments section of those articles. Not much will need to be added that wasn't addressed already.

In case it's lost in the comments, here's the point I gave in both of the other articles. If a school (religious or not) is doing it's job of teaching well, and is avoiding harassment or abuse to it's students or it's staff, then there is no reason for the government or the law to get involved. If it's not doing it's job well. Or it turns into a dangerous environment, then yes bring in the police or the politicians to fix the issues.

Not hiring, firing, or restricting what is taught based on the values of that school should have no legal issue for government involvement unless there's sexism, or racism involved. Or unless there's a dangerous ideology that helps make gangs and criminals.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Hasn't this already been discussed?»

I think not. If the article is correct, then this is a very serious escalation. It's no longer just about the selection of teachers and students, but about contents: what one may and may not teach, including over the pulpit.

«If it's not doing it's job well.»

Whose job?

Jobs are defined by the patrons who pay for it - and one cannot serve two masters.

If government pays for schools, then it naturally expects these schools to serve its secular purpose, to seduce children to admire and go after material things, thus turning them into cogs in its modern industrial machinery.

If you want your children to learn to serve God and not stray after the material, then you should pay yourself for their education. Then indeed government should have no say in what they learn. However, according to this article, the Greens want to change even that.

«Or it turns into a dangerous environment»

But who is to define "dangerous"? Isn't forsaking God and embracing sin dangerous? It's much more dangerous than losing life or limb!

Police? What do THEY know about it?!

«unless there's sexism, or racism involved. Or unless there's a dangerous ideology that helps make gangs and criminals.»

Suppose the parents want to teach their children sexism or racism - who are you to deny their freedom to do so? As for gangs and criminals - isn't it the state who calls them so? China for example defines the Falun-Gong as a criminal gang: as it's them who make the laws, it's them who define people as criminals!

For far too long, churches have been tamed by the state, which paid them to be mild and quiet. If the church and similar "religious" institutions are serving the state rather than God, then they better not exist at all.

To Yuyutsu.

Best case sitution this new legislature is only for schools, and will only be applied towards schools. In that scenario, giving them the benifit of doubt, do assumes the best case of application, I'll stick to my critisms.

Moving away from that benifit of doubt (and the justifiable reasons to reject the legislature based on the best case scenario), is the terroritory of secular society becoming more and more invasive towards religions and squeeze any freedoms out of religous people peacefully practicing their beliefs and their faith. At that point forget what legislature says and the governing of certian laws, and just continue to be Christian, Hindu, Muslium or anything else. If the law steps away from being good, then strive on to be good in spite of the law.

As a Christian I would say that between following God or following man's rules, that following God trumps following man. But that's not open for outright rebellion. That just means to stick to your foundations. Where the law of the land is infringing on the precepts of God's teachings, don't follow the law of the land. Where the law of the land doesn't do this then obey the laws of the land. For further study on this concept, I recommend reading the book of Daniel in the Old Testiment of the bible. Jesus also taught to obey those who rule over you so He taught to not rebel, even though following God outranks following the rules that try to distance us from God.

If the laws say a preacher can not teach according to the bible, or the church will be shut down, then I would suggest to just start going to home based bible studies and fellowships gathered in homes instead of church buildings. What are they going to do? Arrest everyone who peacefully ignores the law? If that became the case Australia would either in no time become a third world country dictatorship, or the laws will be repealed in no time at all.

Moving back to the best case scenario, my critisms are already made.

//Not hiring, firing, or restricting what is taught based on the values of that school should have no legal issue for government involvement unless there's sexism, or racism involved.//

Why shouldn't schools be able to hire and fire on sexist or racist grounds, if that is in keeping with the values of that school?

Why shouldn't schools be able to hire and fire on sexist or racist grounds, if that is in keeping with the values of that school?
Toni Lavis,
They do that in majority indigenous students colleges with no repercussions.