I am not sure we can talk about this.
And that questions our views on all creeds.
I am also concerned is it wise to invite confrontation.
This subject has many Branch's, side issues.
But let us try.
I think Kevin Rudd, on record as holding views about this group I share, should not give our money to them.
The is it 70 million dollars reported in the Australian if true should not go to any church in my view.

I agree, Belly. I think that it's appalling that $70M of taxpayers' money is going to support the brainwashing activities of this cult. I recall that Kevin Rudd wasn't exactly kindly disposed to the Exclusive Brethren when he was in Opposition - why does such an obviously loopy cult have so much clout over governments of both persuasions?

It's bad enough that we fund mainstream religious schools, but this is ridiculous.

<< Documents show a Brethren-run school at Swan Hill in northern Victoria was granted $1.2m for a library and $800,000 for a hall when its most recent annual report shows it had just 16 pupils and already had a library. >>

http://tiny.cc/Q92G7

This is why my support for Rudd died off;

This is nothing but a contemptible scandal.

Nothing else for me to say the rest should be obvious- including the many schools NOT run by lunatic cults that could use the money.

Agree with all the comments so far.

Trouble is the Howard Government left a funding loophole (as per link below) which makes it difficult to actively discriminate against cults like the EB when it comes to dishing out monies for private schools.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/exclusive-brethren-enjoying-1m-taxpayer-windfall/story-e6frg6nf-1225818598020

The loophole needs to be plugged and the whole system of funding to private schools needs to be reviewed. This is not to say I disagree with funding of private schools but the distribution needs to be scrutinised so that the poorer private schools and public schools receive the greater share.

pelican: "Trouble is the Howard Government left a funding loophole ..."

Ah yes, that makes more sense. Thanks. I haven't seen the reports myself, but was having trouble squaring "it's appalling that $70M of taxpayers' money is going to ... this cult" with "I recall that Kevin Rudd wasn't exactly kindly disposed to the Exclusive Brethren".

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems the Libs made a right proper mess of education. Funding for Universities dropped to an all time low - 30% below the OECD average, funding for schools remained static at 2000 levels, the education for citizenship balls up, and now this.

Then we have the dropping of compulsory student union fees. While not being a problem on the scale of the others Uni's are still scratching around to find a replacement source of funding for student facilities and pastoral activities. The dropping of those fees in the face while both the students and Uni's where telling them they work very well does clearly highlight what drove the Libs to change education. It wasn't to make education better or more efficient. It was to make it ideologically pure.

Good discussion, thanks for raisng it, Belly. I too agree with all that's been said here.

Sadly, this outrage is just another example in an ever-growing list of Rudd saying one thing and doing another.

'the Howard Government left a loophole' What a convenient lot of claptrap. How many more excuses can a Government make for being to gutless to act on its promises (other than symbols). Was it a loophole that allows the whales to be killed still, was it a loophole that still keeps the indigenous people in poverty, was it a loophole that has allowed multitudes of illegals arrive here? What does this Government do other than rack up Frequent Flyer points? I for one am pleased they are to gutless to act on many of their promises.

The money given to this sect is more likely to be better spent than the billions wasted on the State system anyway. Children are far more likely to get a better education their than at our State zoos. Just look at the CopenHagen fiasco and see how many dollars were wasted on the earth worshsipers religion. Thankfully the public has woken up to that one.

Dear Belly,

According to a news program on TV last night
as well as articles in The Australian -
half the private schools in the country are
funded above their entitlement.

The "no-disadvantage" clause that was put in
by the Howard Government - means that despite
the wealth of any private school their funding
level is preserved at that awarded to the
original campus.

As Angelo Gavrielatos, Federal President of the
Australian Education Union pointed out - this
funding guarantee was costing taxpayers
$3.5 billion a year and must be urgently reviewed.

He added, "The over-funding of the Exclusive Brethren's
schools is a prime example of a corrupted funding
system."

The Australian quoted a spokeswoman for Education Minister
Julia Gillard who explained that 'Labor rolled over
the Howard-era SES model to give schools certainty."

I'm sure that now the matter will be investigated
and reviewed.

Belly,

I agree that this is a nonsense on a number of grounds. I think Labor's attitude to "government" is a kin to Arundhati Roy says about choosing a government "it's a bit like choosing a washing detergent". i.e. they're all the same except for the box.
Regardless of the Party in power it's the system that is the killer.

The really sad thing is we let them get away with it. It's all about perception and tactics.....policy, principals, integrity are all foreign words.

Surely the criticism should directed at those schools who do not take advantage of the government's grants? If the EBs are good at getting grants what is wrong with other school principals and P@Cs that the EBs have such light competition?

However I believe that what is happening is that the Greens are again reaching into PETA's toolbox to grab headlines through targeting for sensationalism.

I do not support the Exclusive Brethren but if anyone is concerned about this religious group seeking to limit the behaviour of its members there are a number of other religions, some recent to our shores who could also qualify as 'cults'. It all depends on the definition.

If the Greens are at all serious in their concern for education they would be advised to compare and contrast rather than just snipe to get the cheap headline. Why criticise one and not the others?

Then again, if the Greens could recommend practical actions 'to ensure that public schools are able to provide the highest quality educational experiences and high levels of enrolments in the public sector', parents would no longer see a need to send their children to private schools.

Kev bloke, if we can look back we can often pin point the very day the first wheel comes of our dinky.
Can you look over your shoulder?
Yep polls say we are home, Abbott split his team and tied a leg up so they can not more than wobble.
But notice the shine is fading just a bit?
Whales and Japan, well even I think trade and all we are more than weak on that.
70 million to that mob? the one you spoke so honestly about?
Kevin, its my part too let us both remember you can do better the need to do some things, right things, should come before wanting every one to love you.
Each of us knows this group is a cult often bad never a true church it funded none Labor candidates, and my Labor leader funds it?
Bill Shorten go you good thing.

Seems my taking the stick to Kevin's legs may have killed the thread, but lets look at it.
This mob have monstered people who live near land they wish to develop.
Well it may not be a crime, but gone out of their way to promote anti Labor people in elections.
Ex members constantly tell horror storys, Rudd rightly described them mas I think of them.
Yet we give them this cash? our money? it would be better spent on Aboriginal housing in the NT.
Or as relief for the current earth quake victims.
I am no Christian, but giving every cent to St Vinny's or salvos to help battlers would bring no complaint, never will I except this as a worthwhile receiver of my tax's.

Could I point out a few weaknesses in the argument?

1. Exclusive Brethren have children that need education and a library might broaden their mind to make them more acceptable to our social values.

2. The way Belly talks about tax money as "our money" he assumes EB are non tax payers. Certainly not true. EB are among the greatest earners and honest tax payers in the Nation. I have a close EB friend who's family formerly owned Greens Foods. EB are into the food and clothing manufacturing. Another friend into manufacturing school clothing, Another into farm machinery, another into hardware importing. Though they have exclusive habbits, like no TV no mixing socially with persons outside their circles they are high producers in Australian industry. They are honest hard working members of our society. I am from a large family and when we as a family were struggling financially they supplied us with breakfast food.

Belly: Whose Money? I'm afraid you have lost me and the argument. I once mixed in the fringes of their circles and still have contacs among former members. The argument is merely emotive "us and them" as it excludes EB and is a reaction merely perpetuating exclusivism.

Philo I don't think everyone is arguing that some monies should not be given to religious and private schools. More that it should be done on the basis of need and that wealthy schools don't take an inordinately large piece of the pie.

There are many Catholic schools in poor areas and alternative education choices in schools such as Steiner and Montessori.

However, when allocating government funds there is a duty to determine how that money is being used. If money for example is being used to further isolate sect members from mainstream society using threats, oppression and other tactics or withholding access of parents to their children then we should be re-evaluating what it is that we are paying for.

If we are perpetuating illegal activity via funding these sorts of organisations perhaps it needs to be reviewed. I am not saying EB falls into this category necessarily. What most of us know about the EB is gleened from the news and we know that is not always a reliable source.

Senator Bob Brown was wary about the activities of the EB and some of the committee reports and responses are recorded in Hansard.

http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/category/issues/family-community/faith-religion/exclusive-brethren?page=1

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/26/2347259.htm

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/priv_ctte/report_135/report.pdf

On the face of it, yes the EB have as much right to government funding as any other religious school under the current guidelines as long as they are not breaking the law.

Does denying access of EB children for example, to tertiary institutions constitute as abuse or loss of democratic freedom and if so should the taxpayer be contributing to that denial of a commonly held right.

When does secularism and with it the rights to practice your religion, conflict with other legislative rights and freedoms. Where do we draw the line? Should we draw a line at all in a secular society? (Excepting of course criminal activity)

Secularism is better than the alternative but it does give rise to important questions.

I am afraid my experiences with the EB have not been good ones philo.
And yes they are indeed high income earners, but then why the extra cash from us?
Remember it is not our education system these kids get.
And remember also, it is like it or not, a cult.
I know of a family, living on land their grand parents passed on.
EB bought up around them, then ran a war, courts threats everything, to get them to sell.
you say it is not our money?
Is it then Rudd's?
my complaint about EB funding anti Labor people is not because they do it, but how and why they do.
Rudd is streets ahead of anyone Else but in time he will regret this gift to EB.

Philo,

I *don't* single the EB out.

The tax payer $ is by definition is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia ( collective *us*).

Therefore, no individual or group has anymore right to the money than anyone else. As such Belly is absolutely correct in describing the money as "*ours*".
Your us/them comparison is bogus.

The notion that "EB" are *entitled* to the money is preposterous as would the Catholic church or Jedi knights etc.

a. as religions they pay NO TAX. they make tax free profits. they have no oversight as in corporate reporting. A point of contention for me.

b. They are *artificial*, non voting entities and as such they have no more right to public money than " Hardly Normal" or "MacToxic" etc.
There is no "public greater good test" as should be demonstrated with grants to keep say a car manufacture afloat.

c. The school in question's purpose isn't to educate ALL comers, it is there to aid indoctrinate of a minority into 'a religious, separatist' ideology.

The purpose of any private school is to benefit their minority both financially and enhance their ideological teachings.

NB I have no problem with that, providing it funded by themselves and it meets with a minimum education standard.

Education is a govt. responsibility.

This applies for any latter day Madrassa be it Adventist or C of E.

IMO
The money should have been spent on a local state school all children would benefit, not just EBs.

In a democracy religious groups are entitled to operate for their religious purposes but not by Commonwealth money. This should only be spent on people or organizations that "the greater public good", general access is ensured with appropriate public reporting.

i.e. nominally, anybody can join a scout/guide group it serves the public, all of it. Likewise, community groups etc enhance community tolerance, cohesion etc. Religion groups have different purpose teach exclusivity, separationist. I have no problems in assisting in welfare issues providing the money is spent on welfare not religious tracts etc.

For those of us who have been around a bit longer the EB of today is not the one we grew up with.
In any case I refuse to believe so much government money should be given ever, to such as they.
Once no radio even papers went into their homes, maybe it is still so, but the make money out of the technology they will not use.
They break family's apart and it is forever.
Yes , ok my view man is his own master, that we should stand alone without Gods, while maybe not just mine, should not stop such funding.
We should never spend it too freely,Kevin Rudd needs to convince me this money would not be better spent in the Haiti earth quakes.
My ALP fellow travelers know we are on the nose with our country on whaling and this miss use of tax's.

examinator,
The context in which Belly used the term "our money" is in contrast to a group he believes should not receive his taxes. However in the EB context it equally means "our money" their taxes. But Government revinue cannot be identified as "our money", when it excludes a section of society from the "our". The money identified by "our" is equally their money, they are part of the "our".

On Government funding of things we do not agree with we could write a book. We need to deal with the social injustices of the cult, rather than target their equal rights to have their children educated. They have to meet Government scrutiny on Curriculum and educational standards. I suggest you learn what are the standards that constitutes a Government approved school - the standards are quite high.

Philo,
It seems you missed my point it is our money in terms of the government is ours. But, no group as such is *entitled* to to the money. IMO much less o religion that can't show greater good. and even less so to exclusive isolationist groupings.

Appart from which it isn't cost effective for a handfull of children when the real aim is to facilitate indoctrination into an isolationist ideology.

Likewise, I would object if a group of religious white supremacists wanted to set up a school for just *their white* spoglets.

You can't Logically or meaningfully separate EBs or individuals from the commonwealth revenue pool by way of entitlement shares in the way you seem to argue argue. To do so would defeat the purpose of a government.

I see philo you too use the word cult.
Ok should we extend the right to funding of cults to fit in with freedom of religion.
Did those who first said say in the American constitution mean every religion?
If I follow you line we should also give to Scientology.
This mornings news, said private schools got a bigger share of government funds than public, is that ok?
At what point do we ask for accountability from cults.
I can not think as you do, public moneys are ours we should have a say in how it is spent.

Belly,
Teachers have to be educated to accredit the school for Government funding so I would suggest if they were it would mean they have been educated outside the group and exposed to another world view. Many former members have left the group, so it is possible the group may change internally also.

Deal with the issues that need to be changed rather than isolating them into an exclusive socially outcast cult. Such attitudes will not bring them into the 20th century but retain them in their socially oppresed state.

Philo sorry, but I do not think we can link the possible evolution of this cult to public funding.
While you offer promise, and it is true, for every one who leaves another may want to but not be able.
Others stay and grow stronger.
Some people will be unhappy with other funding, but do we tax payer think supporting groups that offend us is wise or needed.
Make no mistake I remain commited ALP , but Kevin Rudd MUST read this mornings polls and understand taking his side for granted is a dead end street.
I remind our leader of HIS WORDS in describing this group.

Our population is made up of all sorts of people.
A lot of us - an unhealthy number, alas - are happy
to believe in a lot of rubbish if it will see us
right when we croak. I was 'educated' by lunatics
in black dresses with orders from Nazi supporter
Pope Pius XII to make jelly of our brains. The
government of the day backed them to the hilt.
Jellied brains are easier to send off to war,
apparently.

This $M70 is chicken feed compared to what we give
to the ratbag purveyors of superstition in this
country. And when you factor in the amount given
to non-religious ratbaggery across the board -
parliament, bureaucracy, the tote, legal drugs,
sport and whatever you care to name - it makes me
ask what these poor buggers of the Brethren have
done to look so culpable of a crime.

I think we ought to spend another seventy million
on lifting the quality of debate in Australia. No,
bugger it: make that seventy billion. That's how
big the problem is. And it gets worse by the day.

That was a bit rude mate.
I had noticed you around and while you may have been here a while I have not seen you.
So welcome.
But let me be frank, I found this post uninformed.
See that old tote thing, are you aware tote returns much more to tax's than it gets?
Have you seen the sale price NSW got for its TAB? it was much more than the $888.888.000 I have quoted in two other uniformed threads.
Now I do not think ANY tax payer funds are free from questioning by us.
Do you understand NSW makes big money from its lottery's, one once ran only to fund the opera house construction?
I am a non Christian, dislike the Catholic church but you truly give it to them don't you?
Let me tell you their charity Vinnie's is the best help the poor could ever ask for.
Seen any hungry non EB lined up for shelter of food outside that cult?
If you wish to fund better debate start a thread with a subject we can all take part in and this forum can always do with donations.