Linus, you seem to be a prime example of Hofstadter's paranoid style in politics with your celestial insistence on forcing every idea, natural science or public policy into Manichean and theological terms.

As Patrick Stokes pointed out in an earlier reply to you, your unhealthy habit of building up an impressionistic amalgam of thinkers into an overall "ideology" - understood as a Satanic enemy for reactionary crusaders to battle against, usually in the fevered worlds of their own imagination - and then insisting on understanding this beast through the lens of a religious world-view renders you pretty much useless as either a scholar or a thinker.

It does however make you - and Corey Benardi - potentially very dangerous and poisonous players in the public arena.

(Hint: Windschuttle and his nutjob "Quadrant" magazine is not a serious journal of thought. It is an arch-reactionary Santamarian activist pamphlet. He openly admitted that he never bothers to fact check or peer review, albeit in his usual special pleading and persecution complex manner)

So, which thinkers would you prefer to be taught in schools?. Joseph de Maistre? ("unholy apostle of pope, king and hangman") Carl Schmitt; Julius Evola; Oswald Spengler; Giovanni Gentile ??

Two recent books on the phenomena of which Linus Bowden is representative are:

Corey Robin "The Reactionary Mind"

and Chris Hedges' book on the American Christian Dominionists.

Oh dear god. Dude I am an atheist, and have been since I was 6 years old. If you do not understand the links between this article, and all the others like it, to Kant, Lacan, Marx, and the Paulo Freire-inspired 'critical pedagogy' ideologues behind UNESCO (and their antipodean foot soldiers) and how they are driving Australian education policy, then you have not been keeping up, or even following the links these authors include for your edification. As for your pulling out of thin air Corey, Cory, and Keith, me thinks you need to look up what "Manichean" means. Try looking into a mirror

What precisely are the links between Kant and Lacan and what the great majority of people call "environmental science" and you and your ilk call in your above post "Deep Green proselytism"? And what is your phrasing if not quasi-religious.

And if environmental science is such a great - axiological or epistemological threat to young minds then what should replace it?

You do realize don't you that environmental science has with humankind in form or another for centuries now don't you?

Once again I and everybody else is forced to guess what you mean by "multiculti". Probably the secular liberal democratic pluralism that has been codified into the law and institutional structures, identities and arrangements of Australia and most other nations of "the West".

Which means you Linus have a hell of lot to overthrow if you want to be rid of it. Maybe start a correspondence with Anders Breivik?

I'll give you two historical examples which demonstrate that "multiculti" is not a new idea.

Gotthold Lessing wrote his play "Nathan the Wise" in 1779.

In 1685, Frederick William of Brandenburg issued the Edict of Potsdam in response to the Edict of Nantes.

Can you provide any reference to the largely discredited Lacan in any Education Dept. document or curriculum, national or global? Any subject in which "the mirror stage" or "objet petit a" is taught or informs the policy?

I must admit I was forced to ascribe to you certain far-right views which I am relieved to see that you disavow.

What else can I do if Linus Bowden damns virtually everything and offers nothing positive in its place?

Including it would seem replacing Education depts at University - at least for undergrads - and replacing them with ....??

So get rid of John Dewey, Jean Piaget and replace them with the collected policy statements of Christopher Pyne?

Well stated Timothy.

However I have noted that Linus (despite his claimed atheism) cannot see the science for the trees.

At its best science is non-political, objective and remains the most rational method to understand our world.

The deliberate obfuscation by those to whom the natural world is a anathema, is wonderfully demonstrated by Linus Bowden, with whom I rarely bother to engage, preferring rational discussion with people who are interested in discovery, rather than pre-occupied with their fear of appearing to lose an argument. Fear of losing is a common trait among many people whose comments are rarely positive, followed closely by fear of admitting a mistake or lie.

So too, with religion one of the most successful systems of doublethink and therefore, should not be permitted into our schools, being the antithesis of critical thinking.

"The deliberate obfuscation by those to whom the natural world is a anathema, is wonderfully demonstrated by Linus Bowden."

Oh, you are too funny, given how I wrote my Honours thesis arguing precisely for methodological naturalism in the social sciences, and whose most used bookmarked sites are "Human Biology", "Journal of Roman Archaeology", "Cliodynamics", "Human Ecology", "Nature", "Science", "Agricultural History", "Real Climate". Though perhaps you might find it find it distasteful that I equally access "Classical Philology", "Folklore", "Journal of Late Antiquity", "Historical Geography," "History of Science", "Representations", "Journal of Law and Economics".

Perhaps if I spent time on Sarah Hanson Young's blog we'd find more to chat about. And perhaps if I ever read Quadrant, Mr. Wong above would join in as well.

The distinction you are drawing is between two completely different subject areas, and so there is no either/or. The fact you see them as so similar, and that one should be privileged, is based on nothing more than long passe and inappropriate manglings of Kant, Lacan and third world Marxism, which is still being pumped like elevator music into the undernourished and uncritical minds of Australian Education students, overwhelmingly just copy and pasted from UNESCO documents written by hidden and unaccountable committees of ideologues with similarly mangled soups of Kant, Lacan, Marx, and Freire. I don't know how Australian students in the Education faculties have continued to swallow this guff long after everyone else woke up and moved on. These kids need to be taught how to think critically before they try to tackle religious education.

No. I am saying that what is passe is their mangling of concepts like "the Other". If only the kids did actually critically read Kant and Lacan, so they were well-armed against the Education faculty manglings.

Sorry, I'd rather they spent the time being taught Ethics.

Should they be "taught" about other crazy belief systems as well? Will they be taugh Monsterism? Tea pots?

Honestly, why introduce fairy stories.

It's about time we stopped excusing people for allowing their "religion" to "inform" their actions (as I'm guessing would be the point of "teaching" children about religion).

Patrick, I do not think universities should have 'Education' faculties at all, and if they must, they must not be able to teach undergrads. Potential teachers should spend their undergrad time as a normal Arts/Science student, and only once they have their BA/B.Sc/MA, THEN apply to go over to the Education people for a Masters in Pedagogy (or whatever you want to call it). Personally, I think this instruction should be treated like a trade apprenticeship, and taught away from the universities, either by individual schools, school associations/networks, or the Department of Education.

The problem at the moment is that Education faculties are pretty much the C-list of academics, with the lowest school/undergrad/grad academic performance, and in today's world, the undergraduates they teach are the C-list of university students. So, the contribution of Education academia to important public debates is woeful, rarely rising above "we want more taxpayer's money, and for the UN to be our government, and UNESCO our Department of Education, because you are all responsible for exams, John Howard, and for privileging the privileged. We think we are 1970s third world marxist revolutionaries, the vanguard in charge of 'the pedagogy of the oppressed'. We want more equity, social inclusion, diversity, and stuff. Oh yeah, and a pony. Oh, did we mention more 'funding'?"

Linus, Perhaps you are right that many students are getting far too much funding.

Think of the money that would be saved if every school was only allowed to spend the same amount of money that a public school spends.

If there is no need for the public schools to have extra funding then there must also be no need for other schools to spend more. Just think of how much money some parents are wasting on high private school fees - yet now we know that this is of no benefit.

And are some Australians really taking on the US Tea Party fear of UN led world government? Please tell me that either you are only joking or that you are from the USA.

Er, I haven't said a thing about public school funding. I am talking about the Education Academics. As for the UN. Are you kidding? You probably aren't. Where do you think they get all this crap from? It is all part of a UNESCO strategy that has been in place for a few years now. All their talking points, and even school curricular are just downloaded, cut and pasted from UNESCO. Most of these posts on this site are from the same places. Just follow some of the links in each of their posts, and it becomes crystal clear, they all come from the same source. Why do you think our kids are about to be taught "Indigenous Knowledges" as part of the Science curriculum, by taking out bits of Physics, which after all is only equally valid "western" science.

Until Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Vishnu, Greenman, etc as they do to Jesus, Moses, et al, then I think religious education is just another way of pretending that religion is still important.

Comparative religion is a most interesting area for study Patrick - but I'd be pretty sure that's not what's on offer here ... hard to find teachers who would be up to such a challenge I suspect. Pity. Given what happens in the world and the way that "belief" intrudes on behaviour it would be a most useful bit of understanding to have.

Must admit I have a bit of a soft spot for pastafarianism myself.... just a touch past al dente. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I have two colanders but do not wear either of them in public.

Comparative Religion should be taught by historians.

Athiest historians.

Not necessarily. Just GOOD historians.

Ah ... the only good historians would be atheists I'd reckon Linus ... we've seen enough of this or that god and their mysterious ways in the course of our studies.

But more significantly I think having religion taught by non-believers is absolutely essential. Stops the whole thing turning into a propaganda/recruitment exercise. It's about learning - not believing.

I won't cover the comparative religion teaching, Peter has already raised that well.

I will say that you are assuming that religion has something to tell us about the world that is more important than other topics. I would argue that learning rational thought, the scientific method, maths and language is far more important than any one area of accumulated knowledge. Why? Because with those 4 areas taught all other areas can be learnt. Einstein even made reference to this fact, you don't need to know something as much as you need to be able to be able to look it up. Throw in some music, art, etc, and you have a well rounded individual who is actually ready for life, not someone who is shocked to discover that they spent all that time learning the names of capital cities for no reason.

So what does religion actually inform? Well, nothing really. It is a previous attempt at explaining our world before we knew better. Therefore its importance is only in history and knowledge of past events and circumstances and how it contributed. Thus religion is not important to creating a young adult ready to help the world in their own way.

Now someone is bound to start in on spiritual fulfilment and other non-sequiters about life in response to this post. Please understand that teaching a kid about religion or religions will not do anything to ground spirits or give fulfilment or guide morals. If a comparative religion class was given you would quickly show that morals don't come from the religion and that spiritual fulfilment is about how you find purpose in life. I'm talking about giving that purpose by equipping students with the ability to see the world and learn from it.

i'd fork out for a comparative religion course taught by john shelby spong; but not one by rowan the druid.

on the opposite tack, i'd take a comparative religion course taught by daniel dennet any day, and run away from one taught by keith windschuttle. -a.v.

See https://theconversation.edu.au/big-history-why-we-need-to-teach-the-modern-origin-story-10405

I think religions have importance for culture reasons. And it is only when some of the ideas are taken out of the religious context that they can become useful as things to consider. There are lessons to be learned from sacred texts but these are no more meaningful than lessons leaned from Shakespeare or Lord or the Rings.

Well Patrick, your school kids are most fortunate, as I doubt many other public primary or high school, has a teacher on staff who has a doctorate in Philosophy.

Evening Alfred,

Yeah Spong is almost enough to give Christians a good name isn't he?

I was going to add philosophers to those suitably qualified for comparative religion BUT they will have to stop torturing the English language and creating (or is that fabricating) meaning from piling tangles of words in little heaps.

i don't think you're doing anything wrong; its laudable, and i'd take your course in a trice, if i were younger and/or possessed of a more nimble mind. i'd say you're a philosopher trained in, or who's trained himself in, comparative religion. and that's the point. a philosopher with no training would be no better than a historian with no training. -a.v.

It is impossible to be properly trained as an historian without comparative religion, as religion is humanity's most ubiquitous cultural artefact. From Greenland to Patagonia, Polynesia to Mongolia across to the Scottish Highlands and sub-Saharan Africa, all literature, architecture, art, politics, and law is soaked in religion. An historian can no more get through the day without comparative religion than a carpenter can get through the day without a hammer.

Well, it's an interesting question you've raised here but I'm a little skeptical about someone who thinks they'll experience a conscious posthumous punishment or reward.

On what grounds can such a belief rest, apart from blind faith, and why should it be seen as being anything to respect? Why can't I say it is the mumblings and ramblings of an idiot?

I ask you a question here that I hope you address and answer. I think our age and time affects us and our thinking more than we'd care to admit so that if I had to have a stab at your age from what you've said here: 'I could die at any moment', I would hazard a guess that you have some years to go before you retire, so that while that could happen, it's as if you know/believe/feel it won't.

Would you still say that in twenty years' time, for example?

When I used to smoke, thankfully many years' ago now, and as it became clear it was harmful to your health, I remember clearly talking with a doctor, who also smoked, that you could go out tomorrow and get run over by a bus, thus the dangers of smoking become trivialised because of how fate might rear its ugly head in the form of a bus.

But if you left your home each morning, really thinking that a bus might at any moment mount that kerb and kill you, you'd never buy another packet of fags, that's for sure.

daniel dennett, though, reads like a breeze. -a.v.

What about non-government schools?

Well, it's hardly a shock that a faith school would prefer someone of their faith in there, is it?

Perhaps it's time to take a hint and visit the state school principal and ask why the school is underperforming and what s/he intends to do about it?

Nothing probably, or maybe apply for some chaplaincy funds to run a 'brekkie club' to shovel dangerous non nutritious foods down your child's neck and to pray for your soul, and the contribution not to the P&C for a new mower but to the chaplaincy fund to pay for a prayer wheel for assembly.

When the very rich MLC sacked its principle, the ABC News reported that one of the schools big donors was having second thoughts.

So not only are we (I think) the only OECD country to have the government significantly fund the richest private schools, we all treat it as normal that the very rich ex-pupils donate to that school, and think this fair because the poorer parents who have children at public schools can donate to their school as well.

I also wonder whether there are tax implications of a school being 'religious' which makes it very difficult for a non-religious private school to compete.

Yes, it's an utter disgrace and to the ALP Whitlam's eternal shame that he caved in to the DLP to buy their votes and demolished the secular principles involved in the process.

The ALP has quite the worst record of all political parties in its continual undermining of public education with their constant promotion of religion in and around the school yard.

Religions pay no tax at all, nor rates or income taxes even for the local pastor/vicar or whatever else they get called.

Religions by default are tax free zones.

However, if you were to set up a school for educational purposes, a non-profit outfit, it too would be tax free.

Australia misses out on about $30b of income that goes untaxed straight into religious coffers.

Arguably Australia's most successful industry?

Andy if Whitlam hadn't caved in to the DLP, there would never have been a Whitlam government. So what you want about the Roman Catholics, but we can be grateful for their grit in killing off Communism in this country.

"So what you want about the Roman Catholics, but we can be grateful for their grit in killing off Communism in this country."

This sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Try again, in English.

Jeff, when I was at high school, those who opted out of Scripture (as it was called in those days) got to spend 50 minutes playing basketball. By Year 9, about 75% of the grade opted out (significant pressure on parents to sign the opt-out slip).

Playing basketball vs sitting in a corner - very different opt-out rates!

Hi Michael, don't worry, no-one who reads or writes for the Conversation wants Christianity to be taught in schools!

You see the topic, and think, 'Yep, it's going to say the court ruling didn't go far enough' - and what do you know ...

I happen to be an atheist, and a progressive, but I'm disappointed the Conversation's articles uniformly have a green leftish world view (anti-Church, pro-Government intervention, pro-welfare, pro-gay marriage, anti-development). A bit like the press releases on www.greens.org.au but with some links to research.

Don't we want to be shaken up a bit with some different ideas?

Hi James - When the different ideas have some rationality behind them, go for it. But it seems to me that these days the conservatives are moving so far from rationality that it would be difficult for an academic to support many of their views.

But my main point was that change comes not from writing articles or supporting policies in forums, but in how people vote.

For example, the majority of people who are against the way we are treating asylum seekers voted Liberal or Labor. The majority of people in favour of gay marriage voted Liberal or Labor. The majority of people who wanted a mining tax strong enough to actually raise some money voted Labor.

As you might guess, I'm a Green's supporter. I can understand a conservative voting Liberal. But I'm getting sick and tired of progressives thinking the government is to blame when these people voted for them and their policies were always clear.

MWH, hate to disapoint anyone, but if you voted Green at the federal level you also voted for the school chaplains.

In fact, if you voted at all, for anyone at all, then you voted for chaplains because every last one of those rather duplicitous politicians support chaplains, every last one of them, particularly Hanson-Young.

As for 'progressives' voting ALP, forget it chum.

Just heard Mar-in Furg-sn promoting Liberal policies for energy, then we have Macklin promoting Howard policies for Indigenous people, Gillard supporting the Salvos and the ACL and Pell and Jensen, the list of political crimes from the ALP is endless.

June, 2012: Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson for Youth Affairs, said “The government must not scrap the money allocated to chaplains but instead roll it over to fund properly-trained counsellors and student support officers."

You are making the assumption that Chaplains in schools is the only issue. What if you agree with the majority of a political party's policy positions, just not this particular one? Should you discount every policy you are in favour of, because there is one that you aren't.

Yes, votes are what counts in the end, but you are living in Imagination Land if you believe that the Greens will become a major force within the next 10 or even 20 years. In the last election I voted in there wasn't even a Green standing in my seat. I guess I could have cast an informal vote, but then I am throwing my chance to participate in my government in the bin.

I am getting sick and tired of people saying "Well, you voted for them. You have no right to ask for changes to policy." Well guess what, I do. That is what being progressive is about. That is what democracy is about.

"I think a school's principal, parents and citizens' groups and similar bodies that underpin our schools should themselves decide how they will use the federal funds to provide a qualified person to help that school's young people.

"It may well be a school decides they want to retain a chaplain. That's fine."

No, it's not 'fine' at all, it's an outrage but it is also an outrage that the Greens have no federal policy of support for secular public education.

Hanson-Young has consistently muddied the waters with a policy 'opposing' chaplains then supporting them if the school principal wants one.

Plus, when the chance to vote in support of the High Court decision finding chaplaincy fundimng was unconstitutional, and against Roxson's highly dodgy legislation, every Green in both Houses voted with the ALP and the LNP to keep funding them.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/gengreens/schools-deserve-their-say-on-chaplains-20110516-1epju.html#ixzz2BcWcrVM3

Earlier I wrote "I'm not suggesting that this should be the major issue determining how you decide to vote."

Democracy is getting what the majority voted for. Not lobbying Abbott to add a wealth tax because you think it is a good idea.

What seat are you in? I thought The Greens did have a candidate in every seat last election. And you certainly could have voted Green in the senate (where a Green has a much better chance of getting in).

Given that the ALP insisted that it be chaplains or nothing, the Greens decided that $222 million spent was better than not spending the money at all.

I think that the government should only fund trained councillors, but it becomes discriminatory if this rejects trained counsellors who also have religious training.

Seems to me that the Greens views are far better than Labor who insist that the money be spent on chaplains without any need for them to be trained in counselling.

Sorry mate once again I do not know what your point is. I was brought up in a state school in he UK where the only subject that must be taught by law is religion. True! would be a good Trivial Pursuit question, was put in law in the last days of the Second World War. I got Christian indoctrination every morning and every evening in Primary School compulsory hymn singing and church service every month. Made me absolutely immune to any prosetlysing (can't be bothered to spell check that) but the RI teachers owe me their salary.

'Earlier I wrote "I'm not suggesting that this should be the major issue determining how you decide to vote."'

Well that contradicts this comment.

"But I'm getting sick and tired of progressives thinking the government is to blame when these people voted for them and their policies were always clear."

Using blame in that sentence is heavily loaded. Most people don't blame the government, they just want them to change a particular policy. Saying that just because you voted for a party, means you are unable to criticise any of the their policies is a ludicrous position to take.

"Democracy is getting what the majority voted for. Not lobbying Abbott to add a wealth tax because you think it is a good idea. "
No. Democracy is about getting what the majority voted for and being able to lobby a party or politician if you wish.

I was in Solomon. Yes there was a Green candidate in the Federal election, but she had zero profile. I was referring to the recent state election in the NT.

I think you are very confused by all this. The High Court said the system of funding was unconstitutional.

Simple as that. Wrong. Illegal.

It made no comemnt on the good or bad of chaplains.

It made no mention of counselors instead of chaplains, or as well as chaplains.

It was very clear, funding chaplains, or counselors, or Jim's Mowing men in this manner, is not constitutional.

And what is a 'fully trained counselor'? Someone with a Cert 2, 3,4, Diploma, undergrad', postgrad'?

Really, you have bought the wrong argument, as did Hanson-Young and all the Greens outside NSW, the only ones to really oppose chaplaincy funding.

As for the Greens somehow coming out of that vote not smelling of ****, sorry, they chose to fall in line with Gillard and the ACL.

There is no purity in politics, as Milne demonstrated.

I was talking about the political actions after the High Court decision.

I think you are just out to get The Greens. I'm simply saying that The Greens policy on this is better than Labor's.

And why are you saying Milne is 'impure'? (But the idea of purity in politics is a nonsense anyway as politics almost always requires some compromises.)

MWH, you offered a justification from Hanson-Young, to which I offered you a quote showing exactly how Hanson-Young and the Greens viewed chaplains - 1) they oppose them 2) they are OK.

They held that view before the Williams 6-1 win that determined the funding was illegal.

And they held that view afterwards too, when every last one of them voted to bring in very dodgy legislation that even the LNP shadow AG George Brandis says will not stand up to a High Court challenge.

What will they do then? Scurry around Roxson and Gillard, again, and help to keep the funding stream going, again, in defiance of the High Court, again?

Sounds to me as if the Greens chaplaincy policy is lock-step in line with both the ALP and the LNP.

As to being 'out to get the Greens', what utter tripe.

It's just that if you are going to argue their superiority then you need to be able to demonstrate why-how they are, and quoting Hanson-Young supporting chaplains really is not the way to go.

Nor is misrepresenting their record, which on this is woeful.

The one, single, slim, point in their favour is that they did not introduce the scheme and notwithstanding their dishonesty in saying it's OK to have chaplains in state schools, they do every now and then insist they do not support it - but then vote in favour of it anyway.

That may be 'compromise' to you but to me it's sheer hypocricy not to mention bad political form.

So is your difference of opinion with the Greens that you think it would be better to vote against $220 million going to schools and to not to provide any counselling, whilst the Greens, whilst wanting but failing to get non-religious counselling included, decided that the community would be better off with the money spent?

I agree with you that the funding should only go to qualified counsellors, disagree with you that a qualified counsellor can also have a religious background, and disagree with you in that I think Labor funding is better than no funding.

Note that the carbon tax is a similar compromise by the Greens. Most of how Labor weakened the scheme is not what the Greens wanted, but given the choice of a weakened scheme or nothing, the Greens sensible accepted the compromise.

Yes, I understood it.

It is unfortunate that it is the norm to write for academics in such a style, but I'm sure other academics also understand it.

One of the reasons for The Conversation is so that academics can present their work in a way which is easier for the average person to understand.

Even Richard Dawkins even agrees that knowing about Christianity is an important part of our cultural history.

And these days I think people need to know a bit ABOUT other religions as well.