The main problem that I have with this article is that it reifies the notion of 'race' as an immutable biological category into which one is born, rather than one that is ascribed on people by others, most often with the intent or effect of attributing innate inferior characteristics to those thus categorised.

However, the author correctly demonstrates that religion is a social category to which individuals ascribe themselves, either by conscious choice or by force of habit through socialisation. There is nothing innate about it, regardless of whether similar processes of vilification occur to those who practise particular religions as to those who are ascribed particular 'racial' categories.

This also appears to be one of those rare cases where I disagree with Pericles. While I agree that people should be free to choose to send their kids to religious schools if they wish to have them indoctrinated (or for any other reason), I think that choice should not be subsidised by the taxes of others who choose to avail themselves of the public education system that is available to all.

Hey people.

I'm not talking about about "crazy marginal cults", "suppressing independent thought" with "indoctrination".

The position I was trying to get across goes like this.

There is at present no prohibition of religion in Australia. I can choose to be an Anglican, a Catholic, a Muslim or whatever, without being thrown into jail. You may disagree with this policy, and wish that everyone were an Anglican, a Catholic, a Muslim or whatever (or even an atheist), but right now it is the way it is.

I for one am happy with this situation.

Alongside this, we have an education system that - again, whether you believe it is right or not - supports the independent school system with taxpayers' money. It is currently provided with no "cultural" strings attached. As a school. you don't have to follow government diktat on non-educational-related issues.

And as it happens, I'm comfortable with this policy too.

So let's accept as a given, that my religion - or lack of it - is entirely my business. Fair enough?

Now if Joe Public finds an independent school curriculum that is tailored to his value system, e.g.big on rugby, light on macrame, has a championship chess team, but is hopeless at drama, and happens also to have his personal religious values, why should he not be permitted the same privileges as a citizen who chooses not to have those values?

Put another way, why should the school be penalised only for the religious bit, and not the rugby part?

Although I am a confirmed atheist, with no religious axe to grind at all, I don't think it is reasonable to deny those who have religion, the opportunity to pursue it by legal means.

If the government decides to withhold all funding from independent schools, that's a policy decision for which they are accountable to the electorate. As they would be if they chose to make one or the other religion illegal. Or compulsory.

But until then, I still think it is unrealistic to tie funding to an absence of religious teaching.

Fair enough, Pericles - I certainly wouldn't object to all funding that currently goes to "independent" schools being redirected to the public education system where it belongs.

It'd be nice if we had a government that had the balls to do just that. If it was an election issue, I suspect that a small majority of the electorate would probably support such a proposal if it was put to them. Most of those who would oppose it probably vote for the Coalition or the fundies anyway.

You're undoubtedly correct though - it'll never come from Rudd.

pericles, i guess it comes down to a matter of degree. how religious does a religious school have to be, to be a serious cause for concern? you write "As a school. you don't have to follow government diktat on non-educational-related issues." fair enough. but when does religious instruction become (substantially) an educational-related issue? there is obviously such a point.

Correct. Laws should not do what you say, disparage religion. There should be just one law on religion. A complete ban.

It's simply horse manure, a mass delusion and should be treated as such as those in authority do know the truth. They just ignore it for votes. Rudd excepted of course. He has shiny knees on all his suits.

Ban the insanity. Please. In the meantime disparage away, rubbish it, laugh at it, sneer at it. But don't pass laws disparaging it.

While I don't agree with pegasus that religion can or should be banned, items like this make such a sentiment understandable:

<< The Catch the Fire Ministries has tried to blame the bushfires disaster on laws decriminalising abortion in Victoria.

The Pentecostal church's leader, Pastor Danny Nalliah, claimed he had a dream about raging fires on October 21 last year and that he woke with "a flash from the Spirit of God: that His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb". >>

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pastors-abortion-dream-inflames-bushfire-tragedy-20090210-832f.html

What a complete idiot!