Ian,
The problem I have with philosophers in general is they tend not to be plugged in to the reality of humanity. They seem to believe in either the worst or the best but never allow for the variation or the extremes.
I am a little disappointed in the rationalist society if your reasoning is indicative or sanctioned policy.

A few practical but fundamental issues that are omitted from your piece rendering it one size fits nobody and unworkable.
• Whose version of specific religions is going to be taught? e.g. In Christianity Catholic, Brethren Adventist et al. the same goes for the rest.
• Who is going to teach it? Some slick spruiker that plays on the children’s emotions a Brother Love travelling show type or some fire and brimstone
• How is a teacher of committed perspective going to give fair representation?
• Who or how is the curriculum going to be decided?
Then the other aspect is what appropriate religious criticism is and what is plain ordinary vilification?

On this site we have extremes one who preaches Islam and all who follow it are terrorists the abomination etc. Then we have the opposite the atheists who don’t tolerate any religion even in context of an entire race i.e. primitive tribes.

I would argue that public schools
• Should get all the public funding, you want something different you pay for it. Like public transport you don’t like it then you pay for your alternatives.
• Schools should stay out of religious indoctrination altogether. It is a personal choice like choice of politician.
• Churches should lose their favoured tax status except in rebate for non religious charitable works.
In essence reason that people have the right to believe in what ever religious doctrine they want but do not have the right to impose it on others. Those that do are more concerned with power and money rather than the individual

Ian Robinson: "A person is born into a race and cannot change it". Which race, for example? Nubian or "Negro"? Assyrian or "Semite"? Slav or "Aryan"? The statement falls down upon its first examination, because the concept of "race" is so misguided and ultimately fictitious.

And what creepy program of "racial purity" has meredith been involved in? The "physically reality of race"? How so? But her post is explicit. Meredith stands "for people's right to not like a race" - in other words: meredith backs a right to race-based hatred!

People are actually mixed, regardless, and the whole concept of "race" is mythical, often inspired by vanity, and usually stemming from aristocratic or caste notions of ruling elites. Any genetic commonalities that such "racism" relies on have as much validity as the preservation of family traits via incest. The whole concept is silly, and the very foundation of "racism", just as its legislation enshrines the very concept itself and consolidates the discriminatory and snobbish garbage it purports to oppose.

The "rights" Robinson claims to champion are not really useful when compared against more basic and collective needs for civilizational building blocks like running water, basic health care, education, infrastructure, etc.

Oh, Robinson had all that from when he was a kid? Was that a legacy of his "racial" and/or class background?

Jeezus Mil, will you stop calling me *creepy*, name calling is pathetic, it's retarding the debate.... Now go back and re read.. there is nothing malicious there... and no I don't back racial hatred, grow up and stop being so desperate to find or create problems in posts of people you disagree with and just have a proper debate.

meredith: "No offense to religious people, but gods are just ideas, as opposed to physically reality of race...
While I stand for peoples right to (even for religious reasons) not like a race or sexuality, just because it is a human right to have an opinion. One cannot accept active harm to anyone else for no real reason."

OK, helmets and carabiners on, and let's follow the logic's flow chart downwards to check out this dark cavern...

A most problematic implication of meredith's conditions against "active harm" is that some notional "PASSIVE harm...for no real reason" could instead pass muster in meredith's moral and legal codes. Such "passive harm" could thereby cover easily those most loosely contrived "race" notions as a basis for embargoes and other denial of more basic "rights" e.g., to running water, basic health care, sanitation, nutrition - in short, systematic genocide, and all derived from even the most fictitious and "unreal" notions of "race", or other "unreal" reasons. The absence of any need for a "real reason" behind such "passive harm" would open the possibilities for varieties of bizarre discrimination beyond just "race" e.g., the passive harmer just felt like it, enjoyed it, perceived some advantage according to the harmer's personal or collective ambitions, fantasies, etc., or even because the harmer lost at a game of cards.

Of course, meredith's comments also imply a very problematic justification for ACTIVE harm for a "real reason" ("the physically [sic] reality of race"). So we have seen that she regards "race" as very "real", which would clearly manifest - by her words and rationale - as a "real reason" for "active harm"! Explosives, machine guns, incendiaries, gas, even nukes would all be justifiable when invoking that supposedly "real reason" opened up by that notion of race's "physical reality".

But from meredith's rights advocacy, we can infer the likely inspiration underlying all such harm, whether "active" or "passive" harm: dislike/hatred for some conceptualized "racial other", the nurturing and expression of which would be a right that meredith stands for. A liberalist right to an opinion, regardless of the logical implications.

Thanks for the feedback bushbasher and mac.

What I obviously failed to do was to successfully separate the concept of government funding for education, and government funding for religion.

My observations were in the context of government support of independent schools. If you disagree with that in principle, then you will by definition disagree with funding directed to independent schools with a particular religious leaning.

Or none, come to that.

But if you support the concept, then surely it is up to the open market to decide where the individual punter will put their hard-earned dollars.

I might base my choice of school on whether it meets my religious criteria, as well as my academic criteria, sports criteria, performing arts criteria, crafts and design criteria and so on. I certainly don't expect the government to be involved in those decisions, just because they are providing taxpayer dollars.

Interfering in my religion-based choice would seem to be the slippery slope to dictating those religious leanings in toto. I would find that offensive, whether they wanted me to be a Christian, Muslim, atheist or whatever.

I would equally ind it offensive if they wanted to prevent me from being a Christian, Muslim, atheist or whatever.

I am in favour of government non-interference in any of the choices I make as a private citizen. Including whether I choose or reject religion.

I suggest that sec 116 of the Constitution deals sensibly and constructively with the issue of freedom of religion and that the efforts of the AHRC to do more is unnecessary and dangerous. It will lead to plenty of work for the so-called human rights lawyers and an erosion of rights for many.
I would also suggest Michael Bachelard's book, "Behind the Exclusive Brethren" - it gives an excellent insight into why we should be very wary of giving any more 'religious freedom' to any extremist group.