I think the last few posters are becoming bogged down in a very very blurred set of issues.

The TOPIC as outlined by David F is this:

"Where would you draw the line?"

Very few people in Australia would like to see Australia either become a theocracy or give no consideration to religious belief. I would like to see the Australian government neither promote nor suppress religion.

That, I guess is David's line.

Sounds fair enough. But the dilemna here is also illustrated in the paragraph.

David does not want the state to 'promote' any religon. Good.. neither do I.

How does David feel about Mosques on State land?

For me..I'd draw the line at No State Land for ANY private (and definitely exclusive) religious structures.

I don't have a problem with the government providing a facility which is open to ALL people..including atheists, for reflection and meditation or prayer.

The issue of state financial assistance for private religous schools is one where the argument seems to be:

a)If the students were not in the private sector, the Government would still need to contribute/allow/budget for their educational cost.
b)Therefore.. it is not promoting a particular religion for them to make an equivalent contribution to the private schools, which they would be making anyway to the public educational budget.

IF....that is all that happens..I don't have a problem with that.. as it must be an even handed approach across all religious schools.

BUT..if the proportion of state funding for students in private religious schools is proportionately higher than that for a state education...then it is ethically wrong.

There will always be a dynamic cultural/electoral struggle (perhaps not even conscious) for a re-shaping of government policy toward a more secular or more religious position depending on the demographic/spiritual realities of the community.

But Poly, what's your position on Ipods? Secular technology or religious relic?

Dear Polycarp,

I oppose state land being used for a religious facility except for those in the armed forces or other government service where they cannot attend their ordinary religious services. I feel the same about mosques as I do about churches, synagogues or other religious edifices.

Polycarp wrote:

“a)If the students were not in the private sector, the Government would still need to contribute/allow/budget for their educational cost.
b)Therefore.. it is not promoting a particular religion for them to make an equivalent contribution to the private schools, which they would be making anyway to the public educational budget.”

David wrote:

I don’t see your logic. It’s not a matter of budget. In a private religious school the government is subsidizing religious indoctrination and is thereby promoting religion. Whether it is a particular religion or several is immaterial.

Polycarp wrote:

There will always be a dynamic cultural/electoral struggle (perhaps not even conscious) for a re-shaping of government policy toward a more secular or more religious position depending on the demographic/spiritual realities of the community.

David wrote:

The above is the reality and is well-expressed..

Private religious schools limit contact with students whose religious backgrounds are different. The hope is that students will not be exposed to other ideas and will be less likely to marry those who do not share their faith.

I see a virtue in students of different backgrounds mixing.

I think religious schools vary widely in quality of teaching and physical plant depending on whether a prosperous community such as the Anglican or a less prosperous community operates the school.

My wife went to St. Peters in Brisbane. She was upset when the headmaster advocated voting for John Howard since the school ‘urgently needs a new performance centre.”

When Howard introduced the GST he expected a bishop’s letter from the Catholic Church opposing it on the grounds that it is a regressive tax. He announced $400,000,000 additional for Catholic schools, and no letter was forthcoming.

The present system of funding allows the government to use school funding as an instrument of political influence.

Just out of interest, on whose land are existing churches built?

>>For me..I'd draw the line at No State Land for ANY private (and definitely exclusive) religious structures.<<

From my - admittedly limited - understanding of these matters, I thought that the land was granted to the Church by the Crown.

So if the idea is to ban all future grants of land for religious purposes, what should be done about those granted in the past?

Repossessed, perhaps?

Just tripped over a document that appears to bear out my theory.

>>WHEREAS by a deed of grant from the Crown numbered
12528 all that piece or parcel of land in the State, containing 1
ac, situated in the county of Stanley, parish of North Brisbane,
City of Brisbane, being allotment 1 of section 27A and more
particularly described in the said deed of grant, was granted to
John Douglas Richard Fitzgerald Phelan and the Reverend
Bowyer Edward Shaw and the survivors and survivor of them
and his heirs for ever upon trust for the appropriation thereof
for Church of England purposes and for no other purposes
whatsoever, which said land is now held under certificate of
title number 138235.<<

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/A/AllSaintsChA24.pdf

So, what's the story?

Presumably, given that the government needs to be seen to be scrupulously fair, we should encourage them to allow the erection of religious buildings to other faiths, until such time as there is an equal number of those as there are of of Church of England, Anglican, Roman Catholic etc...

Sound reasonable?

David..I can see your reasoning regarding the use of Tax dollars toward religious schools and 'indoctrination'..but I don't feel it holds weight because the policy is for ALL religious schools. The constitution only forbids the promotion of one over others from my reading.

The 400,000,000 for Catholic schools seems to me a bit of political convenience, and forms part of that dynamic struggle. When State and Church become co-dependant....that is a likely result.

Pericles:

Once land is given by the Crown.... it is given. It is no longer crown land no? If it remains crown land in the legal sense.. then I would oppose constructing church buildings on it.

However.. when land REMAINS crown land/State land and specific and exclusive religious buildings are erected on it.. that is where the line has been crossed in my view.

You probably have more exposure to the more organized and formal Anglican/Catholic traditions. They have been closely tied to the State over many years.
The Biblical idea of "Church" is a body of people..not a building.
Buildings for worship should always be built in privately owned land.. where that land is owned by a trust, not individuals.

In such a case there is never an issue of who's land it is..but obviously it is not 'state' land in the legal sense related to the point I raised.