Why 'shocked'? The Prime Minister does not believe in anything. He is interested only in votes, and there aren't too many of those in Christian beliefs and thinking.

And "straight language"! When was that last used by any politician?

I don't think that the government or anyone else will "seek to amend a "contentious section" of anything any time soon, following the charade that saw the Bill being viewed by even members of the Liberal Party as a weapon against religion, not not protection for it. Well, they are against Christianity. They are soft on other religions, except Judaism. They are too frightened to rubbish Islam, for example, which is sooo liberal when it comes to their pet minorities. Islamic schools don't have to tell their students and parents that they don't like homosexuality, transgenderism and all of that stuff.

Of course "moderate liberals" don't support the Christian scriptural stance on homosexuality: they don't have to, but they they also want actual Christians and Christian schools to deny their faith and stop supporting, or living by, the scriptures. You can't convince people who are that unreasonable.

ttbn,

<<Of course "moderate liberals" don't support the Christian scriptural stance on homosexuality: they don't have to, but they they also want actual Christians and Christian schools to deny their faith and stop supporting, or living by, the scriptures. You can't convince people who are that unreasonable.>>

That's an excellent summary statement of what my article promoted, i.e. the Religious Discrimination Bill (RDB) supports the values of the LGBTIQ+ community at the expense of Bible-believing Christians who support what the Scriptures state about homosexuality.

After the election in May 2022, political pundits will try to assess the impact of Scott Morrison's tactics in using the RDB as leverage for the "moderate Liberals" and the LGBTIQ+ community.

In Adelaide yesterday, Morrison announced his "devastation", and declared the Bill dead for this term, which could be why he left it so late, so close to an election. He was never the man for the job.

Now, he is left feeling "... like the woman before Solomon". Bit of a faux pas, given the part played by transgenderism involved in the rejection of the Bill. I hope he is not feeling too much like a woman.

The God of love seems to be wanting when it comes to dealing with Homosexuality and particularly transgenderism.
David

ttbn,

<<In Adelaide yesterday, Morrison announced his "devastation", and declared the Bill dead for this term, which could be why he left it so late, so close to an election.>>

This is what the polls are indicating for the next federal election:

January 20 2022
Finding No. 8879
Country:

ALP support is now at 56% (up 0.5% points since mid-December) cf. L-NP on 44% (down 0.5% points) on a two-party preferred basis according to the latest Roy Morgan Poll on Federal voting intention conducted during the first half of January (https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8879-federal-voting-intention-january-2022-202201200425)

If elected, I wonder if the ALP will resurrect the RDB.

VK3,

<<The God of love seems to be wanting when it comes to dealing with Homosexuality and particularly transgenderism.>>

It's too bad you only mention one of the attributes of God, love. He's also the God of omniscience, omnipotence, mercy, justice and all-wisdom. He's the God who never breaks his Word for his covenant people.

Neither Romans nor Corithians spoke for JC or God! Just their own views, superstitions and the social mores of the time.

Biblical Christianity seems to support the stoning to death of adulterous women based soley on the word of an accusing male. And seems also to endorse slavey?

Not everything supported by biblical Christianity has any place in enlightened society or JC's Christianity!

Simply put, a faith based belief in a flat earth never ever made it flat! And the willful refusal to look at the contary medical/scientific evidence. cannot make, natural born like that, homosexuality a sin! Or SSM a sin!

At one time the bible was used to support the slave trade and just as fervently as you support your highly (garbage in, garbage out) warped views. And made interracial marriage a sin.

Paul was a self confessed homosexual and JC seemed to prefer the almost exclusive company of men?

Spenser. Those that persecute others for being, God given different! Will stand before the almighty at the end of life and try as they might to justify themselves and their willful ignorance!

Judge ye not and ye will not be judged!
Alan B.

Hard line ' Bible-believing ' Christians , nowadays , are their own worst enemy.

I cannot support extremes of any persuasion left right or any other direction.

Supporting moderate Independents is nowadays the only viable option , since the Religious RWNJ's appear to think that they own the Liberals.

Neither can I ever support the ALP or Greens !

Alan B,

<<Biblical Christianity seems to support the stoning to death of adulterous women based soley (sic) on the word of an accusing male. And seems also to endorse slavey (sic)?>>

The adulterous woman theology was BEFORE Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. It was under the Old Covenant for the Israelites.

<<Paul was a self confessed homosexual and JC seemed to prefer the almost exclusive company of men?>>

Please provide the New Testament references to support your claim.

Spencer,

About an hour ago, Albanese said that a Labor government would "deal with" the situation, but merely said that nobody should be discriminated against which, to me, given Labor’s history, means Christian schools, say, will not be able to discriminate in accordance with Christian teaching and beliefs. Decent people, including non-Christians, discriminate all the time against people and things they don't believe in or find abhorrent. If you don't discriminate, you turn yourself over to any old fad that comes along. Now, two millennia of teaching, belief and faith is being treated as a fad. Some people are calling Christianity "old fashioned", "out of date".

OzSpen

AlanB is a transformer. He has reinvented himself from a twisted up young man, into a sick and twisted up old man.
Just like the north Vietnamese and the Vietcong, a master at laying booby traps.
Take note of the good guys, they laid booby traps likewise, along their own trails: that worked a treat. Do that…or Just ignore him.

Dan

Dan,

Ignoring Alan is probably your best suggestion. I couldn't make head nor tale of his above comment. When he was absent for so long, I thought that he had popped his clogs. But he's back with the same old same old. I hope he gets enjoyment out of his posts as long as he is able to; because the rest of us are not benefiting from them.

My goodness what a distasteful lot these hard right fundamentalist so called Christians are.

And what a bastardisation of the word ‘ethics’ they employ.

It is not ethical to discriminate on the basis of someone’s sexuality full stop. Either for the Christian or the non.

Ethical behaviour in this instance is about treating people with respect of their differences, particularly if they are involve things they cannot alter.

It is not ethical to deny a person the right to an education based of their sexuality, especially in an institution which receives significant amounts of public monies.

For someone to shove a 2,000 year old book under our noses and to nit pick from it to promote their personal toxic homophobic viewpoint is bad enough, but to claim it is ethical is just stupid.

It isn’t ethical at all.

The author in my opinion is one of those hardliners who give the faith such a bad name.

He can’t accept that a modern view on things like legalised homosexuality have any place in the world. Indeed this is his take on slavery:

“The biblical view of slavery might be wrong in the estimation of some contemporary Christians, but God did not have such a view when he breathed out the Scriptures”.

Sure sinning is about disobeying God’s edicts, but that is separate from our own ethics which may or may not always align with God's.

One thing is clear to me though is just how much the author is seemingly bereft of personal ethics, instead always awaiting direction from another.

What Spencer defines as “Bible-believing Christians” comprises a small minority of Christians who take literally a selection of texts that reinforce their own prejudices without regard for context or the intent of the author.

The selected quotations from Romans are a good example. At most, homosexual activity is only one of a very long list of the supposed sins of the gentiles listed in the closing verses of chapter 1. Their primary sin is unbelief; the others are presented as its consequence:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A16-28&version=NRSVA

These passages are followed immediately by an equally fierce diatribe again those who presume to judge others for their supposed sins. Christians might do well to give as much weight to these passages as the ones that precede it:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A1-10&version=NRSVA

So why is Paul using such fierce and perhaps contradictory language?

One common view among scholars is that he is using ancient rhetorical techniques to expose and perhaps parody the self-righteous legalism that led Jews, and specifically Jewish Christians, to look down on their Gentile neighbours. The basic message of Romans is that neither the natural theology of the gentiles nor the legalism of the Jews delivers salvation; that comes only through God’s grace.

https://www.bible-bridge.com/ancient-rhetoric-romans-1-3/

In Romans, Paul is using polemic to mimic Jewish prejudices against “dirty” gentiles that he later reverses, declaring that “nothing is unclean in itself” (14:14). The early chapters of Romans serve a rhetorical function to mimic the prejudices of Jewish Christians in order to subvert them and promote harmony in the Roman church (15:15).

The basic law of Australia is in the Constitution, and Morrison seems to observe that. As prime minister of Australia Morrison is obligated to observe that. Morrison would be derelict in his duties were he to follow the strictures of biblical Christianity instead of the Constitution of Australia. Morrison is prime minister of Australia.

Blood soaked "Christians" led by sword wielding Bishops killed around 6 million muslems with the sword for being disbelievers and burnt saints like St Joan of arc at the stake for being too accurate in future predictions! Have a history littered with peadophillia and the cherry picking of text from a 2,000 year old book to support clearly errant and non Christian views.

Nobody conferred any authority to, Judge others, on Spenser. Spenser is one of those holier than thou, self appointed critics, looking for the sty in the eye of others, while self evidently ignoring the plank in his.

Most of the New Testiment was written at least 350 years after the event. As passed down oral history! And much as been lost in the various translations, interpretation and reviews.

And while there might still exist a thread of truth, it cannot under any circumstance be taken as the literal word of God! Those that do, like the ever judgmental Spenser. Clearly a couple of sheep short in the top paddock!
Alan B.

" Morrison is prime minister of Australia."
He replaced a better one, but worse may be yet to come.
David

The Religious Discrimination Bill failed because it did not address the crucial conflict at the heart of all rights talk – what happens when two or more important sets of rights face a non-reconcilable contradiction.

I support free speech and freedom of religion to the point where they don’t harm people – and by that I mean real harm, not just hurt feelings or outraged disagreement. I disagree with Israel’s Folau’s interpretation of scripture on homosexuality, but he should be free to express it without losing his job. I think wearing a burka is oppressive sexist nonsense, but I don’t think burkas should be banned.

I also think that organisations should be free to promote and enforce their values when they are a core part of their identity, even if those values are at odds with mainstream society - as long as the values are made clear upfront and engagement with the organisation is voluntary. The Roman Catholic church can ban female priests, Southern Baptists can forbid remarriage, Moslem communities can outlaw alcohol. The Australian Greens party should not be forced to employ climate change denying coal enthusiasts.

If the Bill had secured only these rights, it would probably have passed.

But the right of LGBTIQ+ children not to be vilified, abused, discriminated against or told their core identity is inherently sinful trumps these rights. So does the right to be protected from so-called “conversion therapies” and other religious quackery. This is especially important for children, who are particularly vulnerable to the psychological harm such discrimination can cause, and who do not have the power to make decisions about many of the most important things in their lives (such as which school to attend).

Gear: I was shocked to read our Prime Minister's reported view that he does not support the Citipointe Christian College's promotion of the ethics of biblical Christianity.

He has to say that. Any Political Leader would. Just a wise move in the Political World. Ay.

Rhian

Children have a very practical right to be vulnerable and naive. It’s the job of parents to protect them from the consequences of those childish traits.

When Children are bombarded with messages in a school environment, with such totally unethical diatribe applicable to gay rights and their promotion of homosexuality, we as a society have a serious problem with “ethics”.

Religious schools on the other hand, have a duty to their belief that “morality” actually has a higher meaning to them than secular ethics.
You may not wish that to be true, but it is true.

If secular ethics is so important to the irreligious secularist, then let them take their children to line the streets of Kings Cross and observe the procession of homosexuality in all its anti social and debauched splendours.
Is that your idea of an alternative to normalcy and freely available to children as a choice?

You seem to me to be hinting at it?

Dan

Dan

Choosing your own affiliations is a good way of accommodating the diverse needs and views of different groups of people. “Irreligious secularists” are unlikely to send their children to conservative religious schools. But there are cases where that won’t work. Should a religious school tell a gay child that homosexuals are sinners destined for hell? And to use the example debated in parliament – should a school be allowed to expel a student because they are transsexual? In both cases the exercise of religious freedom could result in significant harm to a child. To me, that pushes religious freedom too far.

Rhian

Well, if you couch the debate in emotive language as you do with you last post, it looks supportive of a view that homosexuals are picked-off by society, when actually they are not and we’re not in the past either.

When their anti-social behaviour comes to the public fore, as with any unsocial behaviour, it will be resisted.

But the reality is really not as you assume. The evidence which reinforces the opposite view is the tolerance afforded the gays and their assorted supporters with public tolerance of the Gay Mardi Gras.
Every year bigger and better than ever, and in 2023 will return to Oxford Street as the first gay parade in Southern Hemisphere branded as “World Pride”. And you don’t see a problem here?

You are perfectly at ease with the concept of sexual perversion taking a front seat on the public stage apparently: Many people aren’t.

You also appear to be happy when this horror of moral looseness seeps into the schools and bedrooms of Children. Well again, many aren’t.

When those that aren’t happy with the running sore of public displays of homosexuality and infiltration into their personal lives, and lives of their families, are confronted by prevaricating Politicians who take it upon themselves to force the issue onto them through curriculum forced down the throats of their children at school.

Give us a break mate. If you have a homosexual child, send them to a Government School where tolerance of their mental deficiency is mandated.

Dan

Dan

I regard homosexuality as just one example of human diversity that is intrinsic to some people and has existed in every age and culture, like my left-handedness. My left-handed grandmother was beaten as a child when she tried to write with her left hand. Nowadays thankfully that no longer happens to us left-handers, just as most people no longer consider homosexuals to be “perverts” (I’m not the only one using emotive language!).

I’m glad that both changes have happened. But while you’re right that gay people face less prejudice than they used to, they still face it. And that can be particularly hard for children and adolescents coming to terms with their sexuality.

If I had a gay child, I would probably send them to a government school (actually I’d do that for a straight child too). But if I was a religious fundamentalist I might not, and they are the parents whose children might most need protection.

It comes down to the line between freedom of thought, speech and belief, and freedom of action. It’s a difficult area, but as I indicated above, I think the line is drawn when one person’s freedom of action genuinely harms another. You are perfectly entitled to believe that wife-beating is acceptable, and post articles online arguing that it is beneficial, and form a society of like-minded aspiring wife-beaters, and lobby your MP for a change in the law to permit wife-beating. But you can’t actually beat your wife (and no, I’m not suggesting you would).

Rhian

I consider your wrong on every level of your argument.
Most importantly, it’s actually gays that are picking off the vulnerable members of society isn’t it.
It’s gays who are bullying Christians.
What you seem unable to grasp, is the revolutionary process of gay rights.

Any group that subverts a society and causes it harm is a terrorist organisation.
But yet you fall over to it in your hollow supportive arguments.
You have been subverted psychologically by their brainwashing lies, the most fundamental of them being their fake persecution complex.

Gays are not persecuted mate, gays are the rulers! This fact is their big advantage over all below them, but actually it is also their weakest point of continuence.

It’s inevitable people will wake up to the subversive propaganda prefixed on fake persecution, and turn their new enlightenment into something actually positive; resistance to it!

Intelligent people think through their lies and resist their negative and socially destabilising efforts to dehumanise society.

Dan

Gays are not persecuted mate, gays are the rulers! This fact is their big advantage over all below them, but actually it is also their weakest point of continuence.
diver dan,
So spot-on !

.

Dear Spencer (the author),

.

You wrote :

« Instead of trying to save his political backside for the next election and satisfying the LGBTIQ+ people, he [the Prime minister] should be representing ALL people … »
.

There is no mention of a prime minister in the Australian Constitution, Spenser. It is as though he did not exist. It does not say that a Prime minister “should be representing ALL people” as you suggest.

In a Westminster-style parliamentary system of representative and responsible government, such as Australia, it is said that the prime minister is simply “the first among equals”.

Section 61 of our old colonial constitution stipulates that “the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.”

Section 62 says that there shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General.

Section 64 states that “the Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish”, and that “such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General”.

That’s it.

In practice, several conventions and practices have arisen over time :

• The Prime Minister’s position has evolved so that the Prime Minister is the Governor-General’s Chief Adviser. In practice, the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, except in rare instances (such as the dismissal of the Whitlam government).

• The Prime Minister is the leader of the party or parties that retain the support of the House of Representatives.

• The Prime Minister has responsibility for advising the Governor-General of ministerial appointments.

So, the Prime minister has no legal or political obligation to represent “ALL people” as you suggest.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

If he did, he would probably never have promoted the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 given the extremely small number of so-called “ Bible-believing Christians” (conservative and fundamentalist Christians) compared to the total Australian population :

In an optional question on the 2016 Census, 52.2% of the Australian population declared some variety of Christianity :

Protestant 23.1% (Anglican 13.3%, Uniting Church 3.7%, Presbyterian and Reformed 2.3%, Baptist 1.5%, Pentecostal 1.1%, Lutheran .7%, other Protestant .5%), Roman Catholic 22.6%, other Christian 4.2%, Muslim 2.6%, Buddhist 2.4%, Orthodox 2.3% (Eastern Orthodox 2.1%, Oriental Orthodox .2%), Hindu 1.9%, other 1.3%, none 30.1%, unspecified 9.6%.

In 2016, 30.1% of Australians stated: "no religion" and a further 9.6% chose not to answer the question. Other faiths include Sikhs (0.5%) and Jews (0.4%).

The palette of Christian doctrines on LGBTIQ+ is by no means homogenous – quite the contrary – it is a vast and complex mosaic !

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian denomination in Australia (22.6%), states that :

« The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition »

Many other Christian denominations do not view monogamous same-sex relationships as sinful or immoral. Even the positions of the evangelical churches are varied. They range from liberal to fundamentalist or moderate Conservative and neutral.

Some evangelical denominations have adopted neutral positions, leaving the choice to local churches to decide for same-sex marriage (Wikipedia).

The Religious Discrimination Bill is highly unethical. It would make it legal for religious schools to discriminate against LGBT students and teachers.

Here is the testimony of Trent Zimmerman, one of the Liberal senators :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ll5eMKajc&ab_channel=GuardianAustralia

.

Rhian,

<<What Spencer defines as “Bible-believing Christians” comprises a small minority of Christians who take literally a selection of texts that reinforce their own prejudices without regard for context or the intent of the author.>>

You've made 2 erroneous assumptions. The first is your use of the erroneous reasoning of the Appeal to Popularity, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Popularity.

In describing Bible-believing Christians as a small minority you have committed this logical fallacy because it 'uses the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.'

Secondly, you have underestimated the number of Bible-believing Christians. They include most Baptists, those in the Presbyterian Church of Australia, evangelical Anglicans in the Sydney Diocese, some in the Melbourne Anglican Diocese, some in the Churches of of Christ, and many Pentecostals. However, the issue is resolved with biblical interpretation and Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6 mentions severe penalties for many sins - including homosexuality.

The key to any argument is unlocking the exegesis of the text and not appealing to popularity.

Alan B,

<<Neither Romans nor Corithians (sic) spoke for JC or God! Just their own views, superstitions and the social mores of the time.>>

Those are your opinions. This is what the Romans 1:7 text states, "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." The "grace and peace" were from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. He did NOT state the "grace and peace" was from Paul, the apostle.

As for the Corinthians, there is similar language to Rom 1:7, "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:3).

Paul most certainly spoke for God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Instead of bringing your antagonism against Christianity, I suggest that you read the text accurately AND take a course in biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).

<<Simply put, a faith based belief in a flat earth never ever made it flat! And the willful refusal to look at the contary (sic) medical/scientific evidence. cannot make, natural born like that, homosexuality a sin! Or SSM a sin!>>

This is another of your extreme comments that erects a straw man logical fallacy - http://nizkor.com/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

VK3,

<<The God of love seems to be wanting when it comes to dealing with Homosexuality and particularly transgenderism.>>

The real issue is VK3's failure to be comprehensive in the knowledge of the attributes of God. You have missed emphasising God's omniscience (all-knowledge), omnipotence, justice, holiness, mercy, grace, and wisdom. Nobody will get off scott-free when they stand before God's judgment.

Dear Ozpen,

Really? You are just 3 posts in and already you are trotting out your logical fallacy guff.

I've done that dance with you before and on that occasion you exhibited a marked lack of understanding of the majority of the those fallacies. I see time hasn't improved your misuse of them now.

All you are signalling when you resort to this line is your cupboard is bare. If you don't have a reasonable retort to what is being put to you just thank people for their perspective and move on.

Otherwise you just come across as a twat.

Dan

I agree there have been occasions when LGBTQI+ activists have attempted to silence Christian leaders – the anti-discrimination case against the Tasmanian catholic church comes to mind.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/anti-discrimination-complaint-an-attempt-to-silence-the-church/6810276

That is why I support legal protections for freedom of speech and of religion. My main concern is to explore whether and where there should be limits on that freedom.

But I believe that LGBTQI+ people also deserve protection from discrimination and bullying - especially children and adolescents. And what evidence have you for your statement that “Gays are the rulers!”? They are under-represented in all positions of power I can think of.
__________

Spencer

I didn’t make an appeal to popularity – the point I was making is that you don’t speak for most Christians, not that you are wrong because most Christians disagree with you. That is not a logical fallacy. Moderate Christians find it irritating when fundamentalists present their views as representative of all Christians, or as the only authentic Christian perspective (because the rest of us aren’t “Bible believing”).

As Banjo’s post points out, the largest Christian denominations in Australia are Roman Catholic, Anglican and Uniting. Apart from the Sydney Anglicans none of these are predominantly what you would describe as “Bible believing”, though I agree there are evangelical minorities in all of them.

And where did I appeal to popularity in my analysis of Romans?

SteeleRedux,

<<Really? You are just 3 posts in and already you are trotting out your logical fallacy guff.>>

Now you dish up a red herring that is an impediment to further discussion of the issue: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#red-herring

I think it unwise, probably also unethical, to expel children from one's school based on their sexual inclinations.

Nevertheless, anyone should be able to freely select whom they associate with, and that includes whom they teach. No reason(s) need even be provided!

Forcing someone to perform a job they don't want to do, is called slavery, and teaching a child whom you do not want to teach is no exception.
I definitely oppose slavery, but of course, if one declines to perform a certain job then they need not be paid for it, thus public funding ought to be withdrawn for schools that expel students based on their sexual inclinations, in fact, previous payments should also be returned in such instances, dating back from the time that child entered that school.

Once an operation is truly private, you should be able to serve only those you wish to serve.

Dear Yuyutsu,

When a child is expelled from a school not only is the child expelled but also other children are deprived of contact with that child.

When I joined the army I was put in contact with people with different cultural and regional backgrounds who I never would have met otherwise. Although I didn't appreciate it at the time I realize it was a valuable learning experience as is my interaction with you. I am a richer human being due to my contact with you and others with whom I disagree.

Er.. Steelie: Otherwise you just come across as a twat.

That would be Twit, as A Twat is something else entirely. ;-)

Yuyutsu

*…public funding ought to be withdrawn for schools that expel students based on their sexual inclinations…*

Rubbish. Private schools are doing service for Government; education.
And since private schools contribute their own infrastructure, Government funding is at a higher level than Public funded schools.

The nature of private schools is unique to themselves. For example, religious schools are servicing the needs of those in their community with preference for religion.
Part of their choice is to follow the religious teachings of their unique religion.

If the Gay Rights sector of society are so enamoured towards homosexuality, why don’t the set up their own schools @nd service the particular needs of homosexuals.

I’d say no chance of that happening, which demonstrates their own lack of inclusiveness while criticising those who wish not to participate in what they consider immoral.

Rhian:

What power you ask!

The power to polarise US politics on their selfish issues, and divide a Nation.
You do your bit towards assisting them with your suspect views. You need to think a bit more broadly.

Dan.

Dear David,

«When a child is expelled from a school not only is the child expelled but also other children are deprived of contact with that child.»

Indeed, and I hope you noted that I am not in favour of such behaviour.

I am "pro-choice", whether it be in setting your [truly-]private school's policies or in selecting the people you interact with and setting your own limits to protect you from interactions with those you are unwilling (or unready) to interact with.

Dear Dan,

«Private schools are doing service for Government; education.»

Shouldn't a patron be able to withhold their payment and seek other providers when they are unhappy with a service that is not up to their conditions, frivolous as they might be?

Regardless whether or not the provider agrees with the patron's standards and values, "the customer is always right".

«The nature of private schools is unique to themselves. For example, religious schools are servicing the needs of those in their community with preference for religion.
Part of their choice is to follow the religious teachings of their unique religion.»

That is excellent, I am all for it.

But why should government pay for it?

In my view, government should not be involved with education to begin with, because they quickly turn it into indoctrination. It is in accordance with human-nature that they pay for the results THEY want to see rather than what is good for the children. In Australia, their main aim is to push the children onto the economic rat-race so they can increase their GDP and taxes. Religious education is, in the least, non-conducive to that end.

«If the Gay Rights sector of society are so enamoured towards homosexuality, why don’t the set up their own schools @nd service the particular needs of homosexuals.»

Perhaps, this is up to them, so long as the tax-payer does not have to foot the bill. Why should government bother when neither this nor religious education help them in producing economical cannon-fodder?

«I’d say no chance of that happening, which demonstrates their own lack of inclusiveness while criticising those who wish not to participate in what they consider immoral.»

But there is no reason for you to waste your time over what they do or don't do or whom they include or exclude - concentrate on God and be happy!

Yuyutsu

Plenty above to take you to task with but I must await the Saintly sweetheart in the dreams of this slumbering soldier…

Dan

Yuyutsu
"In my view, government should not be involved with education to begin with, because they quickly turn it into indoctrination."

That is exaactly what religious schools are doing already. Get your brain into gear,
David

Dear David,

"government should not be involved with education to begin with, because they quickly turn it into indoctrination."
«That is exaactly what religious schools are doing already.»

While avoiding for now the discussion whether "religious schools" are indeed religious, let us suppose the latter - does it justify the former?

Children need to be educated and from where I sit, that is the prerogative of the government. However, if parents wish their kids need to be indoctrinated by their own particular schools, whether they be religious or otherwise, that is their choice. My sister and I both received a very good education to the tertiary level at government institutions.
David