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.