cont'd ...

I have made it clear though, that any school
whether public or private - should have the
right to expel a student or sack a teacher
for any inappropriate behaviour. However, there's
a big difference between behaviour and a person's
sexual orientation. We can't make unreasonable
generalisations or stereotype - ahead of time.

Dear Foxy,

«I am not aware of any school that does not get some form of government funding (state or federal).»

At present neither do I, but I once knew such an informal school where the children were formally registered for home-schooling, yet in practice the parents organised themselves as a school and used a caravan on one of the families' property as classroom. Most classes were run on a roster by parents, but external teachers were hired for a few specialised subjects (on a cash per lesson basis). They had no name, secretary, letterhead or a bank account, yet the school was attended daily for a few years.

Now let us move slightly away from reality and talk hypothetically: suppose the parents belonged to a sect that believed, according to their interpretation of scriptures, that homosexuality is contagious and anyone who touches a homosexual goes to hell for eternity. Let us also suppose that one of their reasons for creating this school was to shield their children from homosexuals and the resulting hell.

I agree with you that there's a big difference between behaviour and a person's sexual orientation, still these hypothetical parents disagree.
Stupid? OK, but that's what they believe with full sincerity!

Now suppose they discovered that one of the children or one of the teachers they hired was homosexual, and since no parent wants their child to spend eternity in hell and alienated from God, the homosexual person was told "don't come on Monday".

Would you support a law that criminalises this behaviour?

Do you realise that the parents in question would rather go to the gallows than expose their children to eternal hell (but more likely they would simply go underground and as last resort, lovingly slay their children and suicide)?

Have you a right to use secular law and the brute power of police to try to impose your "correct" understanding of scripture on others?

I wouldn't oppose, however, such balanced legislation which states that schools that behave this way cannot obtain public funds: that's fair enough.

Pointless trying to remind some that in all truth great harm has been done by Churches and religious schools, and that few of the same sex haters stood up to be counted on that issue.
With both sides now saying discrimination will not now be made legal we see a few in politics and out side wanting the view, minority that it is, imposed on us all

Hi Issy, its not a loaded question. When employed by the previous principle it was agreed that the Protestant teacher would not be required to attend the monthly mass with his year 6 class in the parish church next door. He could remain behind at school and mark homework etc. That arrangement worked fine until the new principle felt it wan't appropriate for a class teacher not to attend mass with his students etc etc. There was a blow up and he resigned.
BTW when I was at high school, even in those days, I recall a Geography lay teacher who was a practising member of the Church of Christ. I had a few lunch time religious debates with him. Gee the bloke was worse than the Brothers. Catholic schools do employ many non Catholics, and most have a minority of non Catholic students. At enrolment there is an order of entry, with Catholics given first priority, but they will make up the numbers with non Catholics. Most of the day to day operation of the school is down to the often non clergical principles. The Catholic Education Board, or what ever they call themselves, are fairly arms length on school operational matters.

cont

cont

You'll like this one; My favourite moko, now in his last year of primary school (yes grandparents do have favourites, one of the reasons we moved to Brisbane, grandchildren) is going to a very good Catholic collage in Brisbane next year, Catholic from his fathers Cook Island/Tahitihan side. He's been 'head huntered', not for his religious ability, but for his rugby ability. Mum and dad have been given a very good discount on the fees, so why not, should save them about $10k/year. Its a miracle, the boy is absolutely blessed with rugby ability. After all they say its the game played in heaven. I tell him we will need you on day for the 'Wallabies', he says "No way, I want to play for the 'All Blacks'". The kids an Australian citizen of Kiwi parents! My wife's family have a long history of top class rugby players, several relatives having played internationally over the years, both for the 'All Blacks', and Maori teams. Nephew, Quade Cooper has played for Australia, in recent times. One other played league in the 'Roosters' winning grand final team, and for the NZ league team that beat Australia the other day.

Yuyutsu,

I don't understand why you keep on about something
that has already been explained earlier. The facts
in this country have not changed - and they are
that :

All Australians are free to follow any religion they
choose, so long as its practices do not break any
Australian law. And that goes for the sect that you
mentioned.

Asking me all sorts of "what if" hypothetical questions
will not change these facts.

Of course they are free to follow their own rules -
but if they are caught breaking the law - they will
be held to account by the judicial system. Which
includes as you dramatically mentioned - the killing of their
children. That would constitute the crime of murder.

However, the government has not as yet made any decisions
concerning the recommendations of the Ruddock Review.
It has not gone before the Cabinet. So we don't as yet
really know what the Cabinet will decide regarding
religious schools being able to ban or expel
gay students or teachers.