meredith,

please don't give mil-observer any excuse to go off at a tangent to the topic( I know it's not easy) you should be used ad hominem arguments by now.

mil observer,

I agree with your opinion on the dubious notion of race and "anti-racism" legislation, however your argument that the material conditions of the population are more important than liberty has been the excuse of every Stalinist dictator of this and the previous century. The Communist societies were disfunctional and they didn't deliver improved living standards so they collapsed, remember? We shouldn't let the facts get in the way of an internally consistent theory, should we?

Pericles,

I understand, but I still don't support the concept of government funding for religious schools or tax exemptions for religious organisations, apart from their charitable activities.

pericles, indeed i'm against any government funding for any independent school. but, even given government funding for independent schools, i think one can argue against funding of some, and perhaps all, religious schools.

you have your own criteria for a "school". but to the extent that a government is supplying money, they also have a right to ask whether their money is genuinely and efficiently going to education.

of course they won't exercise that right. religion is of course, ahem, a sacred cow. there is no other explanation for churches continuing to get tax breaks. but political reality is only one aspect. we may still consider the contingent, or inherent, contradictions of a religiously based education.

and i don't think one needs to pick on crazy marginal cults to make the case. to take just one example, catholics have a roaring trade with their sin-mongering against homosexuals (while simultaneously inviting anti-semites back into the fold). and what does their argument amount to? god (not even jesus!) says homosexuality is evil. that's not an argument. that's not educational. it's just divisive nonsense from a nasty, albeit hugely successful, cult. they shouldn't be banned, but god knows why any non-catholic thinks they should be funded.

What a great thread! OH! just remember! everyone,s stupid except you.

All the best.

EVO

What's the difference between the taxpayer funding a Catholic School, a Lutheran School, a Jewish School or a Muslim Madrassa?

The principle is the same.

Despite the marketting and spin , the underlying motive is to suppress independent critical thought and indoctrinate future members.

Why not start Political Schools - Conservative or Communist Colleges for example - or others sponsored by Retail Department Stores?

Same thing.

I agree that there should be no government funding of religious schools. Perhaps that might encourage more secular private schools in Australia which there is precious few of.
* Teaching based on evidence and not superstition - better for society
* Separation of church and state - better for society

Now where are those dead set peanuts Peter the Believer and BOAZ_Dave trying to defend this bias protection of superstition and rage at the Atheist church of the state?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted in 1986 as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. Because Church and State were merged in 1970 in New South Wales after the Imperial Acts guaranteeing that concept, including the Australian Constitution, were declared by an atheist Parliament to no longer apply in Australia’s biggest State, it is denied. It guarantees the separation of church and State because it says all persons are equal before the law. Criminals who commit serious crimes get a jury trial as of right. Any lesser sinner must submit to a State Judge. The absolute equivalent of a Father Confessor.

It is not by chance that Robert McClelland appointed Father Frank Brennan to investigate. As a probable Roman Catholic, used to confession and absolution, the concept of a court as a church is anathema to continental Europeans, and many Irish. The contempt felt by many for Judges and Magistrates, is not based upon their infliction of pain and suffering on all who come before them, but for their denial of the basic human right to freely worship Jesus Christ.

The Magna Carta from 1297, guaranteed the separation of Church and State, by guaranteeing that a Judge would never be a total despot. Judges are State Father Confessors. They are a Roman Catholic institution, and whether we like it or not, give no choice at all to a poor civil litigant. I am god in my court, they say and they are.

The Australian Courts Act 1828 is supposed to maintain the status quo, but New South Wales did not declare it law in 1970, so it could de-facto establish itself as an atheist State. NSW has not had a single properly constituted court since 1970. By only declaring S 29 of the Magna Carta and leaving off S 14, it took punishment from a jury and gave it to the Father Confessor. Even S 29 is ignored by the State appointed Judges. The Magna Carta guarantees religious freedom, to worship Jesus Christ if we choose and seek His mercy