As far as the LGBTQ staff matter is concerned the answer is simple.
They should not be allowed to teach any subject to children.
If they are unable to accept simple science facts then they are not
mentally stable anyway. It really is that simple.
This should apply in government schools as well.

As far as gays are concerned I would not have liked my sons to be
exposed to "Gay Rights & ideas" by gay teachers.
Kids in the class would work him out pretty quick and as he realised
they knew he could start working on them bit by bit.
He would make it seem so normal, but of course it is not and the proof
is there for all to see as gays will never procreate children.

A private school, religious or not, should be able to decide who or
what teachers are employed and indeed what is taught.

* "Should religious school have the right to discriminate?"

No, but they should have the right to distinguish between those that adhere to its principles and those that don't ... and proceed from there.

* "Should they still get public government funding if they do?

Yes. Every kid that goes to a non-government school saves the government vast sums. That should be encouraged by partially subsidising the schooling.

On a completely different topic, should those who organise the Mardi Gras pounce, and who discriminate against hetros receive government funding?

* "Should gay kids be deprived of a religious education?"

No, they need it more than most, if they want it. They should daily be advised, if its a Christian school that, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.". If its a Mohammedan school, they should have it explained to them regularly that being pushed off 8 story buildings isn't good for your well-being.


* "Should gay teachers be allowed to teach?"

Yep. And so long as they agree to not teach principles contrary the the school's ethos, they should be allowed to teach at any school that'll have 'em. My wife, raised Baptist and a strident atheist taught at a Catholic School for many years without a hint of problems. They operated on the 'don't ask-don't tell' principle. No government interference required.

"No schools of any description should have the right to inflict their bigoted prejudices onto students, teachers or the broader community,..."

Uh-oh.. Paul comes out against government run schools.

Dear Critic,

You made lots of good questions, let's see:

«Is the 'right to religion' really a right or is it a privilege?»

There is no such right, but it is a privilege to serve God and walk in His ways.

«If it was a right, then it would not be hindered by laws, right?»

Well there isn't and religion is sometimes hindered by laws.

«Laws state 'equality for women and homosexuals'»

That is a civil issue, not a matter for religion.

«Laws also stand in between religious beliefs and acts of religious extremism.»

They may try, but God will always prevail - assuming the said acts are indeed religious, which I doubt.

«Are all religions the same?»

No, each person has their own religion. There are both similarities and differences between them.

«Is one religion the same as another?»

They all lead to the same, to God.

«Are some more ethical and less hostile than others?»

Following God is the highest ethic.
The question being, whether what we commonly consider "religions", indeed are following God.

«A 'turn the other cheek and forgiveness' approach?
Or an 'extreme, segregated, approach supporting vengeance and domination over others?»

Vengeance and domination do not lead to God, they are born of the ego.

«Are some religions more or less tolerant of others?»

All true religions are tolerant of others.

«Are religions themselves lawful, and SHOULD all laws apply equally to them?»

Presently the practice of religion is not always lawful, but it should be.

«None of the religions are really ethical, which is why we need laws.»

All religions are ethical. Some behaviours are mistakenly considered religious, but are not.

«Do the religious really support their own religions?»

The religious PRACTICE their own religion.

«Or only some parts of it, sometimes?»

Most people fail to follow their religion at all times.

«If the so-called religious don't even support their own religions all the time, then what's the point of any of it, including this discussion?»

To create a supportive environment where people are encouraged to follow their religion more.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«As for 'the Right To Discriminate?'»

Without discrimination we would not even be animals, let alone human:
even animals usually discriminate between nutritious and poisonous foods.

«Are we talking about the right of the religious to discriminate against others?»

The true religious sees God everywhere, hence where can discriminating against enter?

«Or are we talking about about the right of others to discriminate against the religious?»

They would do so anyway, due to jealousy and fear.

And who wins here, if anyone?

God always wins - Jaya Bhagavan!

«At what point does the need to comply to laws taint the religious message itself?»

When a person is weak-minded.

«And if the religious message is tainted, then is it really a religious school, or just another government run institution?»

The latter.

«At what point does the requirement to not offend gay students and teachers inhibit the religious school from giving the religious education?»

Never. Religion does not teach to offend.

«One might argue that religious schools should not get funding if the do not adhere to discrimination laws, yes?»

No school should receive tax-payer funding anyway.

«But should a student at a religious school be deprived of all funding that would otherwise be given to them if they were not attending a religious school?»

Nobody was suggesting that students be deprived of their parents' funds.

«And if religious schools did not get government funding, would that mean they would then BE permitted to discriminate,»

Discrimination is a virtue and should be encouraged in any case, especially discriminating between good and evil and between truth and untruth.

«and would Australians support this or consider it lawful, if Islamic kids were permitted to be taught to hate...»

That would depend on state laws alone, nothing to do with religion.

«Should we not have a serious look at the pro's and con's of religions themselves?»

But only after studying and understanding what religions are.