Great hypothetical, Priscillian. I attended a scientology seminar many years ago, and read Hubbard's text book (never fell for it though). I might just add to your scenario that the scientologists, like Christians in schools, would of course assert that they were not out to and would not proselytise anyone.
Should they be trusted? And if not, why not?

Priscillian,
No, I wouldn’t be suddenly siding with you, because I’ve already been siding with you for quite a while. You just haven’t been reading my posts carefully enough to notice.

If you look through what I’ve posted, you’ll see that I have already shown support for the principles of secularism. I and many Christians support the idea of a truly secular public education system as we don’t believe it is the role of government to be prescribing doctrine.

What I’ve been contending with others here is the general antagonism shown towards all religion, and the desire displayed by some to keep all forms of religious education out of public schools.

That Queensland prescribes a certain amount of Christian teaching is a matter for the Queensland electorate. I’m guessing that they vote the way they do because they see value in some amount of religious education, and are concerned that if the extreme secularists have their way, all forms of religious education, whether comparative or otherwise, would be expelled.

To totally ignore all religion, or teach only, for example, 19th Century post enlightenment philosophy, is in effect teaching a form of atheism by default. This should not be the role of the government education system.

With regard to freedom of religion, I don’t think this is mentioned in the Australian constitution, which only speaks of religion being neither a requirement nor impediment for holding office. However, I agree with your sentiment. Freedom to follow or not follow a faith amounts to the same freedom.

Would I be happy with the teachings from the Church of Scientology in schools? Probably not, for I agree with you that it sounds a bit strange, and also doesn’t have nearly the same levels of acceptance in the wider community. However, it may be of value for the senior kids when studying the presence of alternative beliefs in a multi-faith society. If concerns arise over questions such as these, they are best dealt with by parent committees at the local level.

Dan,

Australian Constitution - Section 116 - Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Dan, the point of my codicil, re the hypothetical, is that scientologists could not be trusted as disinterested school Chaplains. Why should you object to them if they give assurances that they will not proselytise? And if they can't be trusted to keep their religion out of their counsel, how can Christians? Sure, you're right that no one can give impartial counsel, but when a person is an active member of a fundamentalist religion with strong missionary ideals and, frankly, irrational beliefs, like scientologists and Baptists (the vast majority), surely their counsel is bound to reflect those beliefs?
And the fact that Christianity has broad support makes no difference; Today Christianity is an umbrella title that comprehends untold sects as well as diverse mainstream denominations, many with little in common. I have no figures, but I would think that most so-called Christians are a sober set who follow a Christian "tradition" rather than a rabid ideology, who accept the tenets of science and reason alongside their faith. Indeed many Christians are probably damn near secularists!
But these are not the ones infiltrating our schools!
All we are asking is that kids are given as much clear water as possible; that they are educated in observable, accessible and evidential concepts, and that religion if it must be taught, be taught as cultural history.

Dan,
I do read your posts, it's just that you confuse me with your contradictions and logical contortions.

You say you support the principles of secular education, then, without hardly pausing for breath you complain that some of us want all forms of religious education out of our public schools.
Sorry Dan, you can't have it both ways.

To claim that not teaching religion is actually teaching "atheism by default" is just plain silly and non-sequitur. It's like saying that not teaching about the rise of 19th century Capitalism is like teaching about the rise of 19th Century Communism by default.

The main thrust of your argument consists of "begging the question" logic. You assume before you start that (your) religion is a desirable thing for all. I for one don't think it is desirable at all. I think all religion is mostly nonsense and the teaching of it to young children is tantamount to psychological abuse.

Let us assume Dan that you get your way and are charged with the task of constructing a course for young kids on the topic of religion.
Which religion? Which brand of your chosen religion? Which bits do you include? Which bits are "too hot to handle"? Which detached and disinterested party will teach this stuff and how do you stop a teacher from straying from the "true" path? Which ancient book will be your reference.? Which version/translation? Who will determine the interpretation of this god given work? The question could go on and on but these will be enough for now.

Squeers,
A discussion as to which beliefs are rational and which are irrational is perhaps for another thread (and a pretty long one I’d guess).

Yet you say that most Christians are a ‘sober set’ accepting of science and reason. Then you distinguish the good guys from the bad by the word ‘fundamentalist’, without really defining that word. All belief systems and systems of thought, religious or otherwise, hold to certain fundamentals. Do you know of any that do not?

A fundamental is just an axiom or premise, common or central to a system of belief.

Although words have a habit of changing their meaning. These days fundamentalist is often used on these pages just as a derogatory term to label someone you don’t like.

Your main concern with chaplains seems to be the issue of trust. I’d agree that that is important. Chaplains don’t come into their positions lightly. They must earn the respect of their organisation, the organisation holding a good name in the community, with the individual demonstrating their worth and personal qualities within their workplace.

Above this, chaplains don’t force their services onto people. So if you don’t trust them as individuals, or collectively for what they stand for, then you are not obliged to use their services.

You remark with some surprise that many Christians are near to being secularists. Such a comment comes from a misunderstanding of the word secularist. Many Christians or people of other faiths love secular principles, as with them they may find sanctuary from a dominant culture or doctrine. I might even go so far as to say that secular ideals are a Christian invention. I understand that the idea of separating church and state was initially a church initiative to keep the government from imposing unwanted doctrine on the church.

This thinking dates back to Reformation days, and in particular, the writings of one John Calvin, who was born exactly 500 years ago this year (for a bit more about him, see the OLO article about him last month on July 20, 2009).