Dear Prax.,

By all means give it a go.

However don't be surprised if you get a standard letter
in reply, if you're lucky. Or, alternatively they may
tell you that it's not their job that it's a Federal/State
issue and you should contact the appropriate MP. Or
you may not hear from them at all.

Ring-a-ring-a-rosie ...

The best way to get their attention is to attract the media
to your cause. Bash a policeman with your placard while
demonstrating and make it on the evening news. Peaceful
demostrations don't achieve anything. (Kidding).

Have fun.

david f, - Government aid to sectarian schools, religious instruction in the public schools, teaching of creationism or intelligent design as science, and the National School Chaplaincy program (NSCP) are current issues in education where the separation of religion and state is violated.

I'd expect intelligent design to be promoted in a christian, jewish, or islamic run school, after all the parents who pay the extortionate fees would almost certainly be adherents of whatever sect runs the educational institution in question. Obviously there is the question, at least for some, of whether or not a non-secular school should be gubmunt supported. Personally I'd sooner see the total end of **ALL** subsidies / handouts / support payments as exceptions inevitably get abused, although there would be civil war with blood in the streets unless something so drastic was phased in over a number of years.

On the same theme, if there are buddhist / hindu / sikh / whatever run schools, one would reasonably expect them to teach whatever grabs them. Whilst there hasn't been a hue & cry over gubmunt funding, the same arrangements as provided for christian / jewish / islamic institutions should apply.

As for secular schools, it would be reasonable to provide an overview of both Darwinian evolution & intelligent design, although some might argue that both subjects should be optional. From my perspective, it would be treading on dangerous ground to provide only one side of the story, nevertheless the parents should have the final say on what their little horrors are taught, or not taught.

Dear praxidice,

There are not two sides of the story with evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is science. Intelligent design and Creationism have no scientific basis and should not be taught as science. The Kitzmiller vs. the Dover Board of Education (US, 2005) judgment declared that neither creationism nor intelligent design should be taught as science.

Children are entitled to a proper education in science.

Interesting point. The WILL of the people and the GOOD of the people can sometimes be two different things, and our pollies certainly spend a lot of time telling us that what they are doing - whether we like it or not - is for our own good. If they are truly there to represent the will of the people, then they must set this agenda aside and, whether they agree or not, act according to our will and not according to what they believe to be our interest.

Obviously, if they believe that, say, a carbon tax is good for us, then it is their job to present us with sufficient information to demonstrate that clearly and unequivocally. Then, when introducing such a tax, they are acting according to our will and in accordance with what is good for us.

Hmm ... I think I've confused myself here - but hopefully you'll get my drift. Eloquence isn't my forte today.

david f, funding or charitable status of religious schools/organisations does not "establish" a religion, "impose" a religion, "prohibit" a religion or have anything to do with public office qualifications.

This is why no court case has ruled your preferred verdict.

Neither are rules or practices chosen by the *school* (prayer, creationism) created by the government.

You would achieve more by arguing against tax-exemption and public funding of private entities *in general*, instead of trying to crucify Jesus one more time.
Many people, myself included, would support such reforms, but not if presented as an anti-Christian crusade.

.

Dear praxidice,

.

As I live in Paris, whenever I feel the need to contact a member of parliament in my home state, Q'ld, I do so by e-mail. I usually have to send a couple of reminders before I receive a reply.

I can't recall ever having obtained satisfaction of any of my requests.

As regards e-mails to ministers, the state premier and Australian prime minister, I always receive a quick acknowledgement followed a few weeks later by a well documented, detailed response, with an indication of somebody to contact for further details.

The procedure and quality of the response is the same whatever the government.

The response is favourable or not depending on the policy of the government in office at the time of my request.

In the case of a favourable response, I became aware, through various sources, that I was not the only one making that particular request.

I learned it was being formulated by many others and also relayed by one or more parliamentary members of the ruling majority.

I have a favourable opinion, based on this experience, of the relationship ordinary citizen/political representatives in Australia.

In France, only once did I ever receive a reply from a member of parliament and it was "no". It took six months and three reminders by e-mail and by post.

What prompted the reply in the end was a PS in my last reminder in which I mentioned that I had recently seen the Member on a late-night TV political debate, followed by a detailed description of his activities which I found on his blog, adding that I understood why he had not had time to reply to me earlier.

I never received a reply from a government minister or prime minister.

I should add that as I am a foreign resident here I do not vote in France.

I only ever voted once in Australia, when I reached voting age. I lost and never tried again - same with the lottery - I only ever bought one ticket and lost.

.