You're reading stuff that isn't there, PNG.

>>Pericles is dangerous in his dreamed-up linkages of Mander & Qld Father of the Year awards. He is correct in saying Mander was Qld Father of the Year in 2005. But it wasn't until earlier this year - 4 years later - that Mander's SU Qld began hosting the awards.<<

I stated, quite specifically, that I had failed to identify the elapsed time between Mander's award and his accession to the stewardship of Queensland SU.

Here are the very words:

"Couldn't be more than a couple of months, I thought, and wondered for an uncharitable moment which of the two events had been decided first. Only I couldn't find the announcement, anywhere."

I certainly don't see that I made anything of the timing either in my summary:

"But I did have a quick ponder on the linkages between:
i) Queensland's Scripture Union,
ii) their involvement in - nay, vigorous promotion of - schools' chaplaincy programmes,
iii) the selection criteria for the Queensland Father of the Year award, and
iv) the self-serving banality of the article here on OLO."

>>So Pericles, please use this forum for more intelligent discussion and less imagination.<<

I would suggest that it is in fact your imagination, PNG, that is running away with you.

Why might that be?

Thanks, Tim, for your reasoned and balanced view. Although I fear that many here are not listening no matter what you might say. I agree with Sells (I think that is the first time I’ve ever said that) that your piece is fair and moderate.

When Bushbasher starts calling you dishonest for giving your opinion, you can know that you’ve probably hit some good notes.

Many have discussed the meaning of the word secular. I’ve always thought it meant that the government doesn’t favour one church or religion. The other side of the same coin is that it doesn’t exclude anyone either.

People of all faiths pay tax and have a right to full participation in the state system.

I understand from my teacher training (Victoria) that when the school system first termed the motto “free, compulsory, and secular” that secular was not meant to exclude religion. It was meant only to not favour one religion, neither protestant nor catholic, as were the majority of the population at the time.

But Bible readings were accepted as normal, as this was the majority consensus. Common sense prevailed, and the tail did not wag the dog.

Dan, I completely agree with your definition of "secular". As you know in Victoria the Education Act of 1872 made the state school system "secular" (under your definition) with 1/2 hour per week devoted to religious instruction with an opt-out option ( which some schools have changed to opt-in). As a non-Religo I can handle this compromise ok.

The problem is the the Queensland system is not like this at all and are allowing things to go on the schools that would be illegal here in Vic. "Bible readings" (indoctrination) is NOT permitted during normal class times in Vic and religious instruction cannot be delivered by normal state employed class room teachers. Kennett made the the "celebration of festivals" (i.e. Christmas and Easter etc.) legal during normal class hours (again with opt-in/out).

Dear Dan

Yes, secular was and is intended to mean that the state does not take sides in an institution such as a public school: it neither supports nor denies religion.

It seems most here take the view that some form of 'education' concerning religion would be OK, but not 'instruction' in specific sects and cults, as now.

Only Qld has legislated away 'secular' from its Education Act, and that was specifically to allow free entry for 'selected passages from the Bible', not 'reading from the Bible' as now happens with the so-called 'Good News' Bible. That was to prevent the warring cults from getting too upset with each-others take on the more disputed and unbelievable aspects in the readings.

In the 1860s, the Christian folk of Qld, in their first parliament, ended funding to faith schooling and by 1875 had created a genuine 'education revolution' with free, secular schools.

But now we have Christian chaplains paid with tax dollars, state and federal, openly evangelising, praying and recruiting for Jesus, as well as Christian mentors, sanctioned by Bligh and Wilson, no training required, allowed to wander the schools.

On top of which, Bligh-Wilson are now encouraging the low rent Christianity of Hillsong free acceess to run sad and pathetic classes such as Squeers has described, and giving students time off sport to 'study' make-up (and sing songs of praise to Jesus).

The long standing problem is that the Qld Government ignores state laws on RI, and allows Ed Qld to ignore its own policies on evangelising and proselytising, and Gillards too, while pretending to parents who do raise objections that the lies and deceit are not happening.

It seems that those who support their religion do so by the most dishonest and underhand means possible, which is a 'sort of' slap in the face to Jesus, so I would have thought anyway.

These evangelisers hear no other voices but the whispering ones in their head, believing no alternative approach to theirs exists and that we should not be allowed freedom from their noisy proselytising in a public space.

dan, don't be ridiculous. i know that's hard for you, but do please try.

i didn't call mander dishonest for giving his opinion. i called him dishonest for grossly misrepresenting wilson's article and the issues that it raises.

you and Captain Preachy trumpet the moderateness and reasonableness of mander's piece. what you refuse to do is to actually address the real substance of real occurrences: the god-awful indoctrination of the type wilson and squeers and blue cross document. you don't deny it, you don't challenge it, you don't debate it. you simply ignore it, content to fiddle with your straw men. it's pathetic.

The issue here with both sides of the argument is one of rights and freedoms. I agree that in our society that one should be free to practice any manner delusional behavior. UFO's, spirits, gods, Thebans and magic mushrooms. It's all ok by me.
The problem is the impact some people's whacko ideas are having upon those that don't hold the same superstitious mindset. If these arm wavers would be happy with the delivery of classes in schools on, say, Satanism, Wicca or magic crystals then I would at least admire their tolerance, alas like all people of "faith" they are only accepting of their own subset of magical thinking.
With wisdom gained from years of religious intolerance and division our forefathers decided that a secular form of government and schooling is the only way to go. Mind you most of these people had religious viewpoints of their own but overcame it for the common good. Even the Northern Irish are beginning to realise (eventually!) that secular education is the path to democracy, peaceful co-existence and tolerance.