Dear Paul,

«At the core of this argument is to what extent should those that exercise power/authority over subservient's be able to use that power/authority to dictate to that person on matters which are not relevant to the circumstances which created their power/authority in the first place.»

Excellent, so this raises two questions:

1) Is "subservient" an attitude, or an objective condition?

While some in society might have a genuine attitude of subservience to those in power, many of us do not, yet still comply (at least most of the time) due to realistic and rational consideration of the consequences should we not. For the purpose of your statement, are those counted in the "subservient" camp?

2) Is anything in the world today still relevant to the circumstances which created the existing powers/authorities in the first place?

«The notion that religious beliefs should give one a special exemption from what would be generally unacceptable behaviour is a total nonsense.»

Historically there were dark times in Europe where presumably-religious authorities were on the controlling end of the stick, but times have changed and now religious people are more and more on the receiving end of the stick. Minority religions (such as Jews) were already used to being at the receiving end of the stick, but for most Christians this is a new experience. No wonder that there are sections of the population that wish to exact revenge on Christians, however this is a different generation and contemporary Christians are not the culprits.

Had this legendary and elusive "social contract" existed, and had it been fully disclosed so religious people understood its implications, then surely they wouldn't have joined it!

Funny that this "social contract" is alleged to have been created in another era, when Christians were still drunk with power.

[continued...]

[...continued]

I have already made my position known:

1) Religion and mundane power are incompatible.
2) Religious people live for seeking and serving God, rather than for creating or improving societies.
3) I believe in the Golden Rule: If you would hate your own purpose for living to be devastated by others, then you should not devastate other people's life purpose.
4) One needs to be at least a prophet to be able to distinguish which actions are religious and which are not.
5) Since we are not aware of any prophets enrolled in the public service or elected, we can reasonably assume that secular authorities do not possess the above ability.
6) Therefore attempting to provide religious exemptions from the law is not really helpful.
7) Instead, the best remedy is to exempt from the law anyone who so chooses (this would remove both obligations and privileges).
8) In order to protect the religious from devastation and oneself from trampling on the Golden Rule, short of exempting everyone who so chooses from the law, secular authorities must tread as lightly and carefully as possible, enforcing only the very minimal and absolutely necessary decrees that are truly necessary for saving lives, even if this gives the benefit of the doubt to those who do not seem to be religious.

I cannot see a connection between religion and the rejection of homosexuals, but hey, I do not claim to be a prophet (and I don't think that you have any such claims either).

With both my kids at private church run schools, involvement in the PTAs, and a network of collegues with kids at other private schools I have not heard of a single pupil or teacher being fired for their sexual preferences, neither have I seen anything in the newspapers, so I don't think that this a real issue.

Private schools generally perform far better than public schools not just because they have the best facilities, but also because they have the ability to fire incompetent teachers and to expel disruptive students, and maintaining the ability to remove teachers that are not competent or are disruptive or children that are disruptive is core to their ability to provide exceptional teaching.

At our factories it is obligatory to maintain facilities for disabled persons and wheelchairs even though the type of work could never be done by anyone that cannot walk. Making broad sweeping legislation that costs everyone just in case there is a one in a million case is simply stupid.

I will have to agree with Shadow on this. However private schools do have better facilities than the average state school. What sets them apart is their ability to get shot of particularly disruptive students. As for teachers, I can't say I have come across many particularly bad teachers at private schools that my own children attended, although they differed with me on that score about some, given to saying "Dad, the blokes a complete dick!" or some such thing. I did encounter some bad teachers in my own school days at Catholic school. In those days it was a fault of the Catholic system that unqualified, and unsuitable clergy were in teaching positions.

My older brother, now retired, 50 years a state high school teacher, would say; :On parent/teacher night the only parents you see are the ones you don't want to see." True.

"At our factories..." Sometimes its not just about money, good to see Bunnings employs handicapped people to put stock away, sometimes in the company of their carers. It may not be cost effective, but it sure does something for their self esteem, even if it does add two cent to the price of a packet of screws!

Shadow Minister may be right, yes without the public outrage some silly bill may have been introduced.
Yes and yes the report was if fully released, going to bring on a storm.
Its author is well known for religious zeal and a very right one too.
However it will not take place now, the very right within this government, will continue to feed on its own entrails, but nothing will come of it.
Other than more evidence some, within this government, are putting their personal biases before the party's health.

//maintaining the ability to remove teachers that are not competent or are disruptive or children that are disruptive is core to their ability to provide exceptional teaching.//

In my experience, the really exceptional teachers are the ones that are able to manage the most difficult and disruptive students. I used to know a bloke that worked in a school for kids so difficult that they couldn't even fit into a public high school.... basically the last stop before juvie hall. And somehow Dave managed to put up with the little terrors. Best damn teacher I ever met, RIP mate.