Alan B,
As you say, the Victorian election result is in. And the Greens have lost most of their seats from last time. Their nutty type legislation has not been endorsed.

To the recent Senate committee hearing, one member of the Looney Left said, with a straight face, "People are free to hold certain religious beliefs, but should not be allowed to express them."

This is a direct attack on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and any other type of freedom we've come to expect in a civil society. If you are not free to express your beliefs, then you are not really free to hold these beliefs. There is no point having the freedom to hold a belief which you are not also free to speak and share.

What will be next? Will the Greens attack freedom of thought? What happens when they invent a machine which makes thoughts audible? The Greens will love it. They'll put their PC machines into hyper-drive.

Dan S de Merengue, welcome aboard.
Good to see another with some reason and common sense, and hopefully a common hatred for PC.
I am sure we will differ on some issues, but for now it's good to see you here.

Alan B
We come to the end of this debate. So what do the Greens want?

I went to school with kids who associated as "gay" .... so what?
Oh shock horror this was in the 60/70's and we - as kids - accepted these kids as our friends.

We were taught by "lay" teachers in Catholic Schools (some) could have been gay ..... so what?" We were there to be taught relevant subject/s. Oh shock horror this was in the 60/70's.

So we now are supposed to want to change laws effecting religious teaching in schools - which has always been there - in protection of any child who believed they may be gay.

Catholic schools have always accepted "any" pupil - completely regardless of said child's sexual orientation.

Catholic schools have accepted teachers (gay or not) on their academic achievements. Employed teachers have adhered to "said" school/religious ethos......so shock horror, what's new?

The Greens aspersions as to any other "view" ( as we kids who grew up in the 60's, 70' 80's can attest to) is completely false, and just "seeking for a cause" of reckless rebellion throughout society.

Hi Not_Now.Soon and/or Glenn

Gotta be careful who you tell you're a Christian.

Those rich Roman blokes who re-wrote the Books of the New Testament (word by word) fed poor Christians to some very hungry lions only a coupla centuries before.

And the offspring (all male of course) of those rich Roman blokes still own the Vatican (central Roman real estate - tax free) a self-appointed Holy Kingdom.

and even worse:

They appoint characters as Cardi-nals in the biggest, most powerful, richest (tax free again) Church in all Australia.

Poor Jesus, who represented the poor, would be cheesed off with what rich, pampered, jetsetting Church higherups are doing (and not doing) in his name.

Cheers

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Was Robin Hood a criminal?

«If a parent or an organization wants to teach their kids better (including religious organizations) then they can go into the process of starting their own school or setting up a homeschool environment.»

Yes, this is exactly what we discuss here, and seem to agree on, that according to this article, the Greens want to stop our freedom to do the above (though I must be careful here because I have not learnt about this from the Greens directly, only from the article).

As for official, state-funded "private" schools, I agree: they are a lost cause - of course they are expected to serve their patron, even at the expense of their souls.

«As long as the kids and staff are safe and are not turned into dangerous criminals»

What about being encouraged to sin? is it not dangerous?
Public schools are NOT a safe place: what do they know about safety anyway?
"And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell"