ybgirp: I believe in a separation of church and state also, but there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, I honestly don't believe Australia is becoming more religious. Australia, like almost all of the developed world, continues its slide into complete apathy towards religion. If we truly are suffering a decline in democracy, it's quite possibly for other reasons than religion.

Secondly, there are certainly politicians who are religious and who seek to implement policies driven by their world view, which happens to be Christian. However, everyone does that. Some people are driven to implement a "green" set of policies by the fact that they have a "green" world view. Likewise for socialists, those driven by free market liberalism, or even Aboriginals. That's politics -- to a large extent it is partisan. Now as much as I'm pretty opposed to Christianity, the last thing I want to do is run these guys out of town so to speak. If they get elected, then they get elected. Maybe they do have the support (though I don't think so), or maybe they're just better organised, are more clever at making preference deals, etc. In short, maybe they're just better at playing the game that everyone plays.

It is fallacious to equate "Green" philosophies with Religious dogma. The politics of conservation are based on the factual reality of an endangered planetary ecosystem, coupled with an honourable desire to preserve it. Religious dogma is based on the myth of supernatural gods, and contempt for this earth and life, seeing it as merely a 'testing ground' for the 'life' to come after death. Politics is not a 'game'. It has become a question of survival of not only the human species, but most of life as we know it. You may view the encroachment of religion into politics with equanimity, but I doubt if your children will thank you for it. No one wants to stop people's religious expression, but they must keep their unscientific, irrational supernatural mumbo jumbo out of political decision making.
Philip Tang's suggestion that religions put their money where their mouth is, is timely. A very public media degate about the claims of religion - especially in the realm of morality and supernatural promises, is long overdue.

ybgirp: You're missing the point entirely. Politics and political opinions are rarely black and white or scientific, especially in the realm of ethics or social policy. Various groups all believe they are correct and want to "do what is right". Frankly, while I lean towards the scientific over the religious, I'm still quite sceptical about much of what passes for scientific fact.

Given all this, and given political ideals born in the Age of Enlightenment, regardless of whether I agree with what someone says or believes, I still believe they have the right to say or believe that. In many cases, I do believe Christians who get into politics are a bunch of dangerous nutters (although they probably consider me and others to be the same!). However, to simply view their involvement in our nation's political process as some sort of back door invasion and enslavement is just as dangerous. To deal with this via some sort of green fascism is missing the point of how and why our society is so moderate to begin with.

People often complain about political apathy in this country, but I think it's not that at all. Most people are willing to let someone have a say, and if things get out of hand, they will generally haul them back in towards some middle ground. That's why I have faith in the Australian people not to let religion get too big for its boots.

Philip, the justification for giving public funds to religious schools is based on the idea that since education is compulsory, and government takes responsibility for the funding of public schools, it should also take at least partial responsibility for the funding of private schools.

Many will remember the vigorous “state aid” debates of the sixties, which were prompted by the catholic church threatening to shut down diocesan schools unless they got more public funding. With about 30% of Australia’s children attending private schools at that time, the education system would have collapsed. Government funding of private schools (“state aid”) was subsequently increased and formalised.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with some government funding of private schools, if only because it gives government a stick to wave at non-government schools when insisting on curriculum standards. However I believe that non-government schools should be allowed to promote their own values only after community values have been addressed.

By this I mean that it should be unlawful for non-government schools to teach values which conflict with community values, and they should not be able to avail themselves of exemptions to the important community standards represented in anti-discrimination laws. This, I believe, is what we as tax-payers should get for our contribution to the running of non-government schools. Unfortunately we don’t.

When you try to find out about the actual dollars flowing to non-government schools, the statistics vary widely. The NSW Teachers’ Federation believes that since the sixties, the pendulum has swung drastically in favour of non-government schools. Certainly there are very few complaints about private schools with leaky roofs and demountable classrooms, so perhaps they have a point. When lobbyists like Stephen start crying poor, you’ve got to remember that the people he represents are sufficiently cashed-up to pay his salary and run offices in most states.

In contrast, the case for public schools is being funded by public school teachers, through their union fees, rather than by the schools themselves.

It is unfair to describe public education as a "failed social experiment in egalitarianism".

In the first place, egalitarianism, if it ever was a social experiment, was a very successful one. It was an integral part of what made post war Australia a great country in which to live and why our lifestyle was once so admired by the rest of the world.

The fact that we no longer have an egalitarian education system is not the fault of public education. Egalitarianism has died as a direct result of the growth of private schooling.

Instead of a strong and proud universal system available to all, we now have a two-tiered system. The best of our students are creamed off into the private system, while the public system is becoming a residual dumping ground for those who cannot afford private schooling or whose children are excluded from private schools because of behavioural and disability issues.

Every parent who decides to send their child to a private school drives another nail into the coffin of both public education and egalitarianism.

Bronwyn: It is a failed social experiment perhaps for the reasons you list, but also because there are a great number of people within the system itself (students, parents, staff) who have degraded it. Those leaving the system are looking for some sanity.